"My real fear is that everyone seems to be moving in the direction of [believing the Syrian opposition] has not been given enough weapons--that they are outgunned. There is money everywhere, guns everywhere. The thing that will tip the military balance is not more AK-47s, it's going to be anti-tank missiles, secure communications. That is the direction this is probably going to go.[...]". 1) Is it not delicious to see those who hide (on occasions and conveniently--in the case of the Palestinians) behind the cloak of academic objectivity become military experts when it suits US/Zionist foreign policies? 2) If Israel were to butcher 20,000 Palestinians in one day, do you think that Marc Lynch would dare to suggest that the US should be providing arms to the Palestinians? 3) Do you notice that the most daring suggestions about foreign policy are only channeled by academics when they don't diverge from Israeli policies? 4) What does one study in political science and Middle East studies, to know that what Syrian rebels needs are anti-tank missiles? 5) How does one explain the sudden sympathy that some people exhibit toward the Syrian people. I mean, if we only knew that you were hiding that much love and sympathy. 6) Those who supported NATO intervention in Libya are supporting military role or intervention in Syria: in both cases, Israel approved. (thanks Amer)
PS After I posted this, and I am reacting to the cited remarks in the link above, I read this by Marc, and he seems more cautious here for pragmatic reasons. Yet, do you think that there would be ever "academic" panels in the US in which "experts" weigh in about the various advantages and disadvantages for arming the Palestinian people?
PPS Here what Marc wrote against the storming of the Israeli embassy in Cairo. He clearly did not call for arming the Egyptian protesters.
PPS Here what Marc wrote against the storming of the Israeli embassy in Cairo. He clearly did not call for arming the Egyptian protesters.
