Shadee Elmasry – On the Israeli Involvement in Syria
AI: Summary ©
The speakers discuss the upcoming conflict between the rebels and the Syrian regime in Syria, focusing on protecting electronics and protecting electronics in the region. They stress the importance of protecting American citizens and the need for justice and reconciliation. The speakers emphasize the need for progress in Syria and for justice to liberate the region from chaos, as well as the importance of protecting American citizens and their country from attacks. They also mention the need for justice and reconciliation for better public health and emphasize the importance of addressing past authoritative policies causing chaos.
AI: Summary ©
Mossad involvement, everyone is a lot of people
are talking about this being a Mossad in
Israeli play for an endgame that involves dividing
up Syria completely into three parts.
How can we ever be have any certain
knowledge on on these claims?
What do you know about that?
I think that if you look at where
Israel stands, Israel does not want a strong
Syria, it doesn't want Assad to be entirely
in control, but doesn't want the rebels to
take over Syria either.
So I think that it is legitimate to
say that Israel would want to see Assad
in trouble.
But it is also legitimate to say that
that has no bearing on the Syrians desire
for freedom.
Because what Israel wants is that there is
a stalemate between the rebels and Bashar al
-Assad.
And given that it was too in favor
of Assad, it is true that there may
be a case to be made that the
Israelis would like to see the rebels push
Assad back to a 50 50.
So if someone wants to argue that Mossad
is watching the rebel advance on Aleppo and
on Hama, and doesn't mind that advance, there
is an argument to be made for that.
But I don't think that that affects the
Syrian legitimacy in terms of demanding the liberation
of Damascus.
Because I think that what the UAE are
pitching to the Americans and the Israelis, is
that yes, Assad is being pushed back, but
you don't want Assad to fall.
And I think where Israel is concerned is
okay, they're marching but a bit too rapidly
for my liking.
They're marching a bit too fast, and Assad
is falling a bit too easily for my
liking.
So right now, I'm happy to watch Assad
lose.
But if they march on Damascus, I might
intervene to rescue Assad.
Israel's interest is not in the rebels or
in Bashar al-Assad, it's in the stalemate
itself.
And that's why I think that when people
say that Assad was the bastion against the
Israelis, and Israel wants to see Assad fall,
I don't think the Israelis want to see
Assad fall at all.
They want to see him weak, they don't
want to see him fall.
I don't think the Saudi Arabia or UAE,
Israel's allies in the region, at least UAE,
which has normalized ties, and the views expressed
on my own don't reflect anybody else.
But in any case, the idea that they
don't want to see Assad fall as well
is because they're aware if Assad falls, it
will cause a domino effect that will hurt
the regimes and hurt Israel too.
And that's why I don't think necessarily Mossad
is working with the Syrian rebels.
I think more that Israel has an immediate
interest in seeing Assad weakened, but no interest
in seeing him defeated.
And I think that's where people sometimes get
confused.
They assume that support for the Syrian rebels
means you're supporting the Israelis.
No, that's not true.
Supporting the liberation of Syria is what the
Israelis are terrified of.
And I do think that when you look
at the ceasefire agreement to Lebanon, and again,
this is speculation, but I think the timing
of the ceasefire and the humiliating terms that
Hezbollah accepted, which is the idea of allowing
the Israelis to enter Lebanon whenever they wish,
terms that they weren't willing to accept beforehand,
I think it does have a lot to
do with the idea that Hezbollah realized Syria
is in trouble, and Syria is the greater
priority than Gaza.
The idea of establishing that Shiite crescent that
goes from Iran to Lebanon is the greater
priority.
So make a deal with the Israelis and
go and save Syria.
And I do think that Erdogan, he didn't
act on Gaza, but he's acting on Syria.
I think because from Erdogan's perspective, and indeed
Saudi, and indeed many in the region, Iran
is currently perceived as the greater threat because
of what it did in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon,
and Yemen.
And ignore what that might mean when you
put Iran and Israel in the same bracket.
The reason people say that is, and this
is the point, people often say that Syria
is in a mess because Israel and the
Americans and the Western powers conspired against Syria.
This is a half-truth.
It's a half-truth because after the 1967
war and 1973, the Americans and the Israelis
believed that there needed to be a dismantling
of the Iraqi army, the Syria army, and
the Egyptian army.
Americans began to donate heavily to the Egyptian
army and to train them in order to
keep them focused more on their people than
on outside, and they succeeded in that.
Iraqi army, they went in, they brought down
Saddam Hussein, and they destroyed the Iraqi army,
and now you've seen it's all militias that
are roaming around in Iraq itself.
And in Syria, indeed, I do think that
the Israelis and the Americans want to see
the Syrian army destroyed.
That's a half-truth.
The other side of the truth is that
none of the Israeli or U.S. machinations
are possible in Syria without the oppression of
the Assad family.
Ibn Khaldun says justice is the foundation of
all dominion.
Oppression is what destroys the civilization.
We have famous stories in Islamic history.
Omar bin Abdulaziz was sent a letter by
his governor who said to him, I've got
unruly tribes in my area.
I need you to send more forces for
me to fortify it and keep it under
control.
Omar Abdulaziz responded and said you don't need
more forces.
Fortify it with justice.
Fortify it by giving people their legitimate desires.
And that's why it's a half-truth that
Israel and America are conspiring against Syria.
It's a half-truth that Israel doesn't like
Assad.
It's a half-truth that Israel perhaps is
happy to see Israel, Assad reeling, even if
it doesn't want him defeated.
But the other side of the truth is
that it's the in Syria itself that allowed
the window for the international powers to come
out.
And I give an example in not so
recent time.
In a recent time, 2016, when the army
tried to coup on Erdogan, why were the
army unable to do a coup on Erdogan?
Because the people took to the streets.
They took to the bridges.
They took to the streets.
And they said we will not allow you
to topple Erdogan because he built the southern
cities.
He renovated them.
He built the roads.
He built the hospitals.
There was a famous poll after the earthquakes
in eastern Turkey.
Who do you blame for the destruction of
the buildings?
They said Erdogan.
Who do you trust to rebuild it?
Erdogan.
Erdogan built a record whereby the people genuinely
saw him as somebody who builds.
Ignore whatever grievances we have over his foreign
policy.
Assad's dhulm is what led Syria and ripped
Syria apart because of dhulm mu'adham bi
kharab al-Oman.
And that's why when people say we need
Assad to stay in power to facilitate Palestinians
liberation, I argue differently.
We need justice in Syria to liberate Palestine.
Assad has failed in delivering that justice.
That oppression needs to go quickly so that
we can create an environment of some justice
or reconciliation so we can focus on liberation
of Palestine, which is why Salah al-Din
Ayyubi goes to Syria and Egypt first before
he's able to go and liberate al-Aqsa
afterwards.
I mean, we can also ask the question,
we just had war in Gaza and Assad
had Syria.
Where was the help, right?
We literally had a live demonstration over two
years, almost two years now, and the impact
was negligible, right?
So that argument is going to be weak
that we need him to help with Israel.
Not entirely.
It's very true.
And also, when you look at Assad's position,
the reality is that, you know, there are
reports coming out suggesting that the deal that
the Americans want to offer Assad is, abandon
the Iranians and we'll come in and rescue
your regime as well.
Assad is able to be useful to all
of the international powers.
He's able to shift and align.
If Iranians are angry with him, he goes
to the Russians.
Russians are angry with him, he's able to
recognize with bin Salman.
Bin Salman is angry with him, he's able
to talk to the Americans and say, I
need you to fight against terrorism.
And this is why people who are saying
that we need Bashar al-Assad, the reality
is they are accepting for themselves what they
would not, they're accepting for others what they
would not accept for themselves.
And here is the tragic irony.
And here I talk about those from the
Shia who support Bashar al-Assad.
The Shia tell the story of Sayyidina Hussain,
going against Yazid, who they say is a
dictator and a tyrant.
And they say this story about somebody who
valued the freedom and justice of the Muslims
so much that he sacrificed himself against the
brutal dictator, Yazid.
How is it that in Syria, they flipped
it the opposite way?
With those who are much more similar to
Sayyidina Hussain, going out and marching for the
sake of justice, for freedom, for righteousness.
How have they mistook Bashar for Hussain and
Yazid and made him the rebels, when reality,
the story logically should be implemented in the
opposite way.
And that's why I'm not a sectarian in
terms of calling, you know, this is against
anti-Shia.
I'm saying to those who believe in the
Shia thought, if you look carefully at your
books, if you look carefully at your story,
you will find that Ali ibn Abi Talib,
and Hussain, and al-Hassan, all of those
from Ahl al-Bayt, in my opinion, their
stories resemble much more closely the Syrians fighting
against Assad, than Assad fighting against the Syrians
themselves.
And that's why I think even as we
talk to, you know, the Shia groups and
the like, it's important that we talk about
it from the door of dawah, that guys,
you know, Assad is not as good as
you think it is.
And I think a lot of it, and
I finish on this point, I think a
lot of the support for Bashar al-Assad
that comes from the Shia is out of
fear of what Sunnis will do to them
afterwards, out of fear of some sort of
vengeance.
It's almost Zionist in the sense of, we're
not going to leave Israel because these Palestinians
come in, they will do this to us,
they will do that.
It's like when you talk to a Jew,
I sympathize with the Palestinians, but imagine what
they will do to us because of what
we did to them.
And that's why I think that a lot
of the hysteria in support for Bashar al
-Assad can be rectified, can be pushed back
against with a bit of dawah, using even
some of their own books to highlight that
what they celebrate is in the Syrian rebels
and what they hate, what they preach, what
they hate is in Bashar al-Assad.
That's a great point.
And also Assad is not even managing his
own country, let alone helping and facing a
huge enemy like Israel.
He's an incompetent dictator.
Hafez al-Assad was a competent evil dictator.
No one messed around in Syria except him.
Only no one oppressed in Syria except him.
Today, everyone's meddling in Syria.
There are so many hands in Syria, just
indicating his pure incompetence as an evil dictator.
He's a sloppy, evil dictator that can't even
manage his own home and his own country.