Not sure why this is a big surprise. When the US was taking out Saddam Hussien, we had our hands on former Iraqi Generals that defected and said Hussein's chemical weapons were smuggled out to Syria while Hussein was giving the UN inspectors the run-around. Of course, the press ignored this...even though Hussein had used chemical weapons against his own people. So....here we are...chemical weapons inthe Middle East...and all the talking heads are gasping in feigned shock and indignation .... and Obama, having clearly drawn a "line in the sand" a couple months ago....is adding up his golf score...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/08/21/syria-gas-attack-accusation-damascus.html

And if you want to know how it looks like -
Here is a link to an israeli news site
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4420775,00.html

http://blog.usni.org/2012/07/20/iraq-chemical-weapons-moved-to-syria-before-2003-invasion

well, the laughable element of this is that the UN had an emergency meeting which has ended without an agreement to an official UN investigation but only a general call to see to the details of the matter.

The UN are normally completely useless at doing anything involving direct action.

So Fuzzy Fuzz where's Israel on this thing? Do you guys really hate the rebels less than you hate Assad?

Both are equally bad for business on my personal point of view, but I don't hate anyone. Assad's regime was very bad for Israel but as long as he realized that it's impossible for him to win a war and that an open attack on Israel could mean the end of his regime he limited himself in helping Hizballah in Lebanon. Today most of the Syrian rebels aren't keen of Israel and it's very hard to see a bright side anywhere beyond the Syrian border, so any change in goverment isn't likely to make any significant changes.
But my biggest concern is that if Assad will be driven into a corner he will try to get a lot of people down with him. And that means he could send some flying crap to Israel. Just a few hours ago 3 grad missiles were shot from the Lebanese border. No casualties. It could mean something in the long terms or it could not. We'll wait and see.

In general, during the last few months there were several attempts to drag Israel into Syria. It begun as an indirect HMG fire towards IDF border posts and continued to mortar strikes. I recall at least a dozen such events. All those came from the Syrian army's positions.

Dutch press hasn't mentioned it. Similar incidents on the Turkish boarder were extensively reported.

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

:-) yeah.

Here are some of the events
http://www.timesofisrael.com/syrian-tanks-cross-into-golan-demilitarized-zone/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/21/syria-israel-exchange-fire-golan-heights

TY

So Fuzz, since ppl seem to want to talk about US intervention (even if everyone knows it will never happen), what's your take on US supporting "rebels" whoever they may be?

Most Israelis that I know are okay with the United States intervening because it typically leads to a pro-Israel puppet state of sorts. Of course they'd say it differently, but it's the same idea.

My guess is that Syria, no matter who ends up leading it, will turn into a situation similar to Egypt. It'll deteriorate quickly between avid supporters of the old government (assuming they aren't persecuted), supporters of the new government, and supporters of more reforms. It may not lead to a military coup, but it'll end up badly I imagine no matter how it turns out.

yes bo. for once, I can't think of how to disagree with you.

Give it time, read it over again and again, I'm sure you can find something.

@bo: you think it will end up badly? You mean the current civil war is bad enough?

Of course the current state is bad. There are chemical weapons, for goodness sake. No kidding it's bad. But just because the pawn shop in the Lower Ninth got flooded up to the second floor stairs during Katrina doesn't mean it didn't catch fire later on in the week and burn to the ground. (In sensible and common terms, there's always room for things to get worse.)

The new government, specifically whomever may be at its head, will have enormous power. Those people will have to use it extremely cautiously, even if that means sacrificing during the next couple of years for better quality of life in the years following. The people won't like that, and I'm not sure there's anyone over there that's got the guts to do something like that. Such a move is nevertheless quite necessary.

There are several major differences between Syria and Egypt. Egypt is by far more united nationally, it has a long history of leadership in the area and also has good ties with both the west and Russia. Egypt's army is somewhat of a self dependant power which is in general well supported and respected by the people. During the last decades the majority of the political leaders in Egypt are ex-generals. especially those who are part of the government. This was one of the reasons that Egypt's political stability depended a lot on the coalition of Mubarak and his generals. I'd say that the moment the army decided to take a "neutral" side in the 2011 protests Mubarak's future was doomed. That also means however, that the likeliest possibility of a new stable government in Egypt should be based on using the army once again as a major component.

In Syria however the situation is completely different. After the British and the French divided the area according to their whims the results were countries filled with various ethnic groups who had often had bad relations with one another and no personal obligation to form any kind of democratic\social oriented country. That resulted in many coups and military take overs, while the army units themselves aren't united and loyal to different general according mainly by tribe responsibility.
That being said, currently the Alawi ethnic goup is in power as they were for decades. That despite being the fact that they are a minority in Syria. Those units who dpend on the Alawi's in some way are still on assad's side. Those who aren't joined the rebels or are playing renegade.
In no way I can say I prefer this or another rebel group over another or even over Assad's regime. As I can't see the civil war there as revolutionary in the means of liberalism, or openness to interaction with Israel. What I do see is groups of various fundamentalists which again aren't run by ideology. People there don't take arms to fight for abstract thoughts like freedom of speech, democracy or religion but rather for a far more mundane reasons like: "Assad is the enemy of my tribe\family", food sources and eventually revenge and sometimes pure thirst for blood. The group leaders are the ones who take this motivation and direct it towards a political goal, be it Hizbollah and Assad's personal army or pro-western power supporters.

And unlike Bo_Sox's friends, I can hardly beleive that any USA puppet made state will be able to hold in Syria for a long period of time, let alone seek good and open relations with Israel.

As do I, Fuzz. I'm glad you think so too. The United States government is known to have quite the ego though.

There seems to be some half hearted pressure on the US to intervene but I don't see where it would benefit anyone, least of all the US.

To respond to the OP: All of you idiots said there were no WMD's. And yet they, after being rolled into Syria, are now being used to kill the Syrians. Go figure

give it up sybvl