******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
"[U]nspecified militias ... to keep Nusra away from the border [sic]"? What kind of a shitty deal would that be? I don't know who holds the Quneitra Crossing right now, but Nusra certainly hasn't strayed far from it since they took it last August. It's pretty much an iron law of Mideast affairs that the Israelis don't find themselves on the shitty end of deals. And if they do, they won't stay there for long! On that basis alone, Ya'alon's position is more likely to have been reported accurately by ToI. To be clear, I don't assume either their deals or support are limited to Nusra. Any agreement in the Golan worth the non-paper it's probably not written on would have to be multilateral, encompassing a range of actors. What's the possible use of any other kind? But I'm a little unclear on the takeaway you propose. Do you suggest that Israel deputized the Southern Front as its Syrian "border guards"? That seems useless to me for the reasons above, but also like a conclusion you'd avoid for political reasons. On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Michael Karadjis <mkarad...@gmail.com> wrote: As for “Israel backs Nusra,” both articles make clear that the purpose of > any of this aid to unspecified militias is to keep Nusra away from the > border. The newer article merely adds the condition that they don’t attack > the Druze > -- "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað." _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
