The Arab Spring

I wouldn't trust anything about Israel coming out of an Arab country, any other sources?

Not active enough in my opinion.

ISIS has very little capacity to attack Israel, compared to, say Hamas or Hezbollah. Ironically, the Hez is fighting against ISIS on behalf of Assad.

Hm... what are the chances of them attacking Lebanon and then striking Israel through former Lebanese/Hezbollah bases?

ISIS? Well, if they make it all the way through Syria maybe, but that's not very likely in my mind.

I think they already tried that once, and Hezbollah repulsed their attack, earning major brownie points within the country. I think IS could be behind those recent border attacks, maybe trying to establish a base to attack Israel?

edited 29th Aug '14 7:55:23 AM by JackOLantern1337

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that the turmoil in the Middle East these days is analogous to the conflict arising from the Protestant Reformation.

I mean, we've seen this all before. Inter-religious warfare with a political tinge? The Thirty Years War was bloodier than anything we've seen in the Middle East so far. Slaughter of a vulnerable religious population? The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre was just the same. Expelling a religious minority and then burning down their 'heretical' shrines? It all happened in England. Culturally repressive, intolerant governments that stifled reform? Neither Inquisition-led Spain nor Calvin's Geneva were terribly great on that score. Women ending up as scapegoats? I'll just mention witch burnings, and leave it at that. Even some of the doctrinal issues are the same (i.e. is only the sacred text seen as acceptable, or is tradition that has built up over the centuries valid as well). And yet, it was only after the century or so of religious warfare that the Reformation unleashed that the conditions became right for the toleration, pluralism, and the Enlightenment that characterize Europe today.

In sum, as awful as some groups such as ISIS are, I wonder whether the best strategy for outside forces is to just let the different parties involved fight it out, so that eventually opinion in the region might turn away from a winner-takes-all mentality. I know that might sound rather cynical, but I'm not convinced greater involvement in the region will lead to anything more than perpetuating existing conflicts while generating more anger at the west.

Again, even if they never attack Israel, Israel can't afford to be surrounded by civil war and strife. It will only add to the already massive pile of shit they have in front of them.

The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre was actually a political ploy - Catherine de' Medici did it mostly because the Protestant factions had become too powerful in France and she was fearing for her political power. Previously, when they were the underdogs, Catherine de' Medici had assisted them against the Catholic league.

The Islamic state is gaining traction amongst radical Islamists in Jordan

An intresting point is this Abu Mohammad al Maqdisi,appears to be preaching against IS. As much as I dislike radical Islamists in any form, hopefully he can keep the peace.

Does anyone know how popular the Hashemite Monarchy is?

Jordanians love their king. They don't want him gone, just more like a Constitutional Monarchy. It would take a lot for them to not support their existing government, especially against something like ISIS.

Popular enough to have no major problems — indeed, after the initial events of the Arab Spring, the plan is to slowly move towards a Westminster-style democracy. The Jordanians are also close to both the US and Britain^note  They operate ex-British Army Challenger 1 tanks and F-16s. More then that, the King trained at Sandhurst.

edited 29th Aug '14 8:23:58 AM by Greenmantle

Speaking of ISIS spreading into other islamic countries, i'm surprised they aren't active in Yemen yet. Though they act so Stupid Evil, they have managed to alienate even Al-Qaeda. Which is the law down there.

edited 29th Aug '14 8:29:03 AM by LogoP

@Septimus: The religious violence in the Middle East can be just as politically based. Witness all the former Saddam Hussein-era Baathists (who probably don't care two cents about religion) lining up to work with ISIS, because that gives them a route back into power.

edited 29th Aug '14 8:35:01 AM by BokhuraBurnes

You specifically compared the massacre in France to the persecution of the Yazidis. The latter, in ISIS's case, is far more religious than the French one.

If the initial incentive for the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre was political, it wouldn't have been able to gain the scope that it did (with thousands of people dying) without playing into religious tensions as well — this wasn't just a purge of a small political elite. And there are political motives as well as religious ones for the attacks on minority populations in Iraq — gaining territory, eliminating competitors for power, and so on.

I'm not going to say that every event in the Reformation and the current Middle East line up exactly evenly. At the same time, I will argue that the mix of political and religious tensions, in a region without a previous history of pluralist government, can lead to extreme violence which nevertheless needs to be resolved internally.

Regarding ISIS attacking Israel, I read this excerpt on their entry in Wikipedia (with references to Al-Monitor and the US Dept of State):

That said, they're likely to ally with anyone in the short term like they did with the FSA, then take over later. Hamas is unlikely to fall for that though, unless desperation draws them to.

edited 29th Aug '14 9:42:43 AM by betaalpha

Israle will hopefully play it smart and stay out of this entire conflict, or if they wanted to go for maximums troll value they could 'leak' documents showing support for ISIS from the Israeli government, nothing would do more damage to ISI Ss PR than bring associated with Israeli and nothing would do it more good than bring an out and out enemy of Israel.

About ISIS and Israel, ISIS hasn't tried attacking Israel yet because they aren't physically in range yet. They haven't even taken Deir-Ez-Zor from the regime, let alone the Druze province of Suwaida, which stands between the Syrian desert to the east and Daraa province to the west.

The Islamists who took the position in Golan are not ISIS, but al-Nusra Front. Arsal was the same deal. The NF aren't great people, but they have different capabilities than ISIS.

Maybe Al Nusra wants to attack Israel in order to steal ISIS's thunder.

Wouldn't surprise me. The Nusra Front is looking at their complete annihilation as an organization. Til now, they've been able to bank on being the less crazy islamists vis a vis the rebels. But now the rebels are faltering badly and some are even giving up.

Once Aleppo falls, things are gonna move quickly.

To what end, though? Peace outside of the ISIS-controlled hinterland? Assad turning on ISIS? Or genocide?

Which is why they desperately need relevance in the Islamic world and the surfier way for a Jihadist organization to get noticed is to launch a successful attack on Israel. It would also appeal to those Jihadists who are tired of ISIS's brutality by saying, "look were fighting the real enemy not terrorizing other Muslims."

edited 29th Aug '14 12:58:46 PM by JackOLantern1337

Which is why I didn't disagree with you...

Assad is already turning against ISIS. He wants to be proven right after all, that this whole civil war is between him and crazy Islamist people instead of a public with legitimate grievances.

That said, I don't see him making any real gains beyond the Euphrates.

edited 29th Aug '14 1:01:06 PM by FFShinra

If Assad actually defeats IS in western Syria it will be a big relief. I'm not so sure the Syrian government is capable of that anymore.