E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Baz Ratner / Reuters
A United Nations peacekeeper stands on an observation tower at the Kuneitra border crossing between Israel and Syria in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights on March 8.
In the second part of our "On the Brink" series previewing President Barack Obama’s trip to the Middle East, NBC News correspondent Martin Fletcher -- who has reported from the region for three decades -- examines the threat of renewed conflict on the Syria-Israel border.
News analysis
United Nations peacekeepers have monitored a buffer zone between Israel and Syria for nearly four decades, following Israeli forces’ capture of the Golan Heights in the Yom Kippur War of 1973.
But Israeli officials now fear the 1,000-strong force could disintegrate after mounting threats against them and the kidnapping of 21 Filipino observers by a Syrian Islamist militia, though they were later released. Croatia has already pulled out its 100 soldiers.
Israel’s concern, shared by the United States, is that al Qaeda elements will establish themselves in the buffer zone and threaten Israel with chemical weapons and long-range rockets captured from the Syrian army.
The world has been focusing on the idea that Israel will attack Iran, but military action is perhaps more likely in the Golan – a strategically important area roughly the size of Queens in New York, whose heights dominate northern Israel and the Sea of Galilee.
President Obama makes his first trip to Israel where he will meet with Israeli President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as well as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. NBC's Peter Alexander reports.
When President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meet Wednesday, the idea of military cooperation between Washington and Jerusalem in that eventuality -- especially in intelligence and air support -- will doubtless be discussed.
Other issues include future control of the Syrian government’s large supplies of non-conventional weapons and its modern military, and how to further weaken Syria’s puppet in Lebanon: Hezbollah.
Regional conflict?
It is in everyone’s interest to maintain the quiet that has reigned along the Syria-Israel border almost undisturbed since a 1974 armistice agreement, which ended the months-long attritional conflict that followed the Yom Kippur War.
But as the Syrian army and the Syrian Free Army, backed by numerous militias, batter each other, the struggle threatens to spill over into Syria’s neighbors, further destabilizing an already roiling region.
A million refugees have fled Syria and there are conservative estimates that another million people have been forced to flee their homes and seek shelter inside the country.
And the rate is shooting up. The U.N. says 400,000 have fled Syria since Jan. 1. Projections say that by 2014 there could be 3 million refugees outside the country -- 15 percent of the population.
Also in this series: Israel to grill Obama over possible military strike on Iran
Most at risk are Jordan and Turkey, two stable countries that have been beacons of calm in the turbulent Middle East.
Jordan has taken in close to half a million Syrians and Turkey, with more than 200,000, refuses to take any more.
The challenge facing the United States and Israel, as well as the rest of the concerned world, is how to end a conflict when neither combatant shows the slightest inclination to stop fighting.
A look back at the conflict that has overtaken the country.
The Free Syrian Army says there is only one way: Give it the weapons it needs to finish off President Bashar Assad's regime. Israel is strongly against a new French and British move to arm the rebels with serious offensive weapons. Israel’s fear is that they will fall into the hands of Islamist groups that will then turn them against Israel.
Backed by Russia, Iran and an increasingly unenthusiastic China, Assad warns he will fight till the end.
The end result could well be the breakup of Syria into Sunni, Shiite, Druze, Alawite and Christian fiefdoms, or combinations thereof, turning the country into a Levantine Somalia.
The fallout from such chaos on the doorstep of Israel, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq doesn’t bear thinking about.
So how to prevent this nightmare scenario? It would seem that one way or another, a clear winner would be the preferred solution, or a compromise between the warring parties.
This is a pressing issue, but there is another that is even closer to home for Israel: the decades-long conflict with the Palestinians.
On Tuesday, Martin Fletcher examines the prospects for a lasting peace deal and Palestinian state in the final installment of his series of articles ahead of Obama's visit to the Mideast.
Martin Fletcher is the author of “Walking Israel.”
Machine guns operated by motorcycle brakes? Get a glimpse at the rebels fighting against Assad's forces in Syria's mountainous Jabal al-Zawiya area.
Related:
Tale of a kidnapping: NBC News journalist reveals Syria ordeal
Leave a Comment:
If it wasn't for oil & Israel, this region would have the significance of a pimple on my left buttock. Frankly, I don't want American soldiers to die fighting any more wars in the sand kingdoms. Ruled by dictators and oligarchs and war mongers who would never send their own ivy league educated kids to fight, we need to disengage now, and let Russia or Saudi Arabia get involved if they want.
Oh, ooops. Russia learned their lesson and pulled out years ago. And billionaire Saudi Arabians won't get their hands dirty, they'll let Americans die instead.
Seems Russia didn't learn.
Backed by Russia, Iran and an increasingly unenthusiastic China, Assad warns he will fight till the end.
No they'll send the pimples here to keep our tuition rates down.
"Frankly, I don't want American soldiers to die fighting any more wars in the sand kingdoms." Do you want them to die fighting in a Korean war? Probably not, but that is increasingly a possibility because we've done little or nothing to prevent this outcome. And many of those "pimples" you speak of put us to shame in physics and mathematics.
The reason Russia is involved is much more complex. Going back to the 1700's there has been a European effort to either deny Russia access to the Black Sea or through the Bosphorus and Dardenelles to the Mediterranean Sea and thence to the rest of the world's oceans. If you want to know more about that, read up on the Crimean War and WWI in the region.
When the old Soviet Union broke up, the Ukraine was left with the Black Sea and the Black Sea Fleet, Russia's most powerful power extender. The Ukraine claimed the fleet and its base, but so did Russia. Eventually there was a joint Russo-Ukrainian Black Sea Fleet commanded by Russians and then a partitioned Russian and Ukrainian separate Black Sea Fleets. But there has still been constant friction between Russia, the Ukraine, and Georgia over the ownership of the ships and naval bases.
But, while the United States has over 200 military bases overseas and over 2000 military stations, Russia has exactly one --- Targus in Syria. When Putin came to power one of his selling points to Russians was that he had a warm personal relationship with Assad (this came at a time when Bush Jr. was praising Putin as well) and that this relationshup guaranteed Russia's only, but critical, overseas military base.
The base is critical because Turkey is on both sides of the Bosphorus and Dardenelles and has always said that in the event of war, they would blockade the Black Sea Fleet in the Black Sea, which they can easily do. The threat is taken very seriously by the Russians since Turkey is a nuclear-armed NATO member.
The only hope for the Black Sea Fleet is for it to move to an alternate base in the event of escalating tensions. That base is Targus. It would allow the BSF to repair, rearm, and refit its ships in the event of heightened tensions. The importance of the base also figured into the Russian conflict with Georgia when it wanted to disperse some assets so they would not be good targets.
Targus is a "cadre" base. That means that it is manned by a skeleton crew who would merge into reinforcements to give them local language, political, and institutional knowledge support. The base can go from 200 Russian troops to 20,000 in just a few hours.
So if you wonder why Russia is sticking with Assad when China is getting antsy to let him go, the reason is that Russia has a lot to lose, while Syria has so little oil that it poses no real future value to China.
Iran is sticking by Assad because while Assad is Alawite, it is a branch of Shiia. And outside of Iran, Syria is the only Shiite-ruled country in the world outside of Iraq which is moving daily towards being a puppet of Iran. Syria is Iran's access to the Mediterranean for its military vessels as well.
Chris - I enjoyed reading your post. Just like to add to your last sentense another reason Iran is in Syria - that is Lebanon (Syria's long held belief as being part of the "Greater Syria") which gives Iranian proxy (Hezbolah) a border with Israel.
Maybe the Israelis will offer Barry a trip to see Palestine.... up close & personal............
Another photo-op to tell Israel not to attack Iran and to give back land to Palestine.
There will be ABSOLUTELY nothing coming from this meeting.
However, after FOUR YEARS it is about time Mr. Obama made some foreign visits and not just visit golf courses or take Hawaiian/Cheeeecago vacations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris-749391...great post.
Chris, you made me feel so bad for poor landlocked Russia, I suggest we should give them the opportunity to outbid China for Puerto Rico. The Puerto Ricans are citizens but do not pay any income taxes, they always vote against statehood, and whoever buys them might fix it up for our tourism business. The money we make on the sale could go to pay off our debt and give bonuses to the "job creators," who deserve it so much. (Conservatives, I am joking on that last one so don't give me the shaft, er arrow, on that account).
Many are unaware - that the murders of Syrians is in fact an ethnic cleansing of Christians from the population.
The focus of the deaths of these Christians has not been publicized the way it would be - if the killings were Muslim. Christians have been killed holding prayer meetings in their homes.
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Jay Carney all condemned "The Youtube Video" that made Muslims mad (supposedly) enough to attack and kill our citizens and Ambassador.
No one from the Administration is complaining as Syria continues in the killings of Christians by Muslims - which is Sad and Pathetic - for a President who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize
What up Obama?
Are you not forgetting that Israel and AIPAC always get what THEY want. After all the own capitol hill.
So better get ready for the next war that the US will get involved in.
Another war that you can not afford and like the previous ones you fought, Iraq and Afghanistan) did not change anything other than the poor US soldier in used as cannon fodder by their elected official and military complex and Dick Cheney (war criminal) and friends.
Israel will drag your sorry asses into the this one whether you like it or not.
Exactly, screw the Syrian rebels we shouldn't support anyone in the Mideast we were better off with dictators at least they controlled the crazy islamists. The only people who don't really care for the dictators are the crazy islamists because they suppress them and lord know they need to be suppressed. The dictators at least left the people of other religions or beliefs alone but once they crazy islamists get control like in Egypt and other countries people of other religions suffer. Screw any rebels in the Mideast.
Thank you Jim. My thoughts exactly.
With the United States developing their own sources of shale oil they are finding Middle East oil of less importance. France and the UK on the other hand with their economies in the tank and having recently had their credit ratings downgraded are more desperate to capture control of Middle Eastern oil. The real problem in this area is becoming increasingly apparent, it is France and the UK.
Middle Eastern oil has never been important to the United States. Between the United States, Mexico and Canada, the region has always been self-sufficient in oil. The only odd ball is Venezuela that owns Citgo and Citgo's refineries in the United States. This means that we have to import some Venezuelan oil.
If the three countries joined to gether into a North American Oil Producing Countries cartel, and the price of gasoline was pegged at eight times the cost of production, the price of gasoline at the pump would drop to about $.42 a gallon plus federal, state and local taxes. That is because the cost of production is so low in the US and Mexico.
The big oil companies get around this fact by selling huge amounts of American, Mexican, and Canadian oil on the international market where prices are much higher. They they have to import oil to make up for it and suddenly the price is being set by Saudi Arabian sheiks instead of American taxpayers. It's nothing more than a shell game with no pea.
Thus there is no importance to American oil cconsumers for Middle Eastern oil. We don't actually need to import a drop of their oil. Even the Keystone XL Pipeline, which will take prime land from thousands of farmers under eminent domain will only pipe the crude to Gulf refineries so the gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, etc can be shipped to China more easily. This is just one more reason why China will never really bother us militarily.
Iran has announced that it is building a gas pipeline from Iran through Iraq and Syria to the coast of the Mediterranean. This would be in direct competition to UK partners Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Qatar and allow Iran to reach European markets without interference from the US or Arabic countries. It would also be in direct competition to a gas pipeline from Azerbaijan through Turkey. Next to Russia, Iran has the second largest deposits of gas in the World. Could this be why Willie Hague and the US is backing Turkey and the Arabic coalition and threatening to block an independent Syria that would be under the control of Assad?
These people are always fighting, always angry, always miserable and perpetually stuck in the Stone Age.
Eventually they MAY get tired of fighting and killing each other, but I doubt it. But let the events over there take their course. Only a fool interferes with enemies in the process of killing themselves. If they ALL kill each other off, so be it. Bonus for the planet.
They are NOT worth one single American life.
Hotticket: Unfortunately, the geopolitical reality is such that we, yes WE the good ole USA, must rely on the rest of the world to maintain our standard of living that you and undoubtedly others with similar opinions enjoy. Like it or not, we cannot espouse a policy of isolationism. Do you actually believe that if we did not intervene anywhere that a large minority of Muslims would not seek to detroy as anyway? Unfortunately, this IS our fight as well, whether we like it or not.
@Basil
WRONG! This is NOT our fight. First nobody is talking about isolationism, except you, as a possible scare tatic? We do need to protect our embassy's that are in different countries, maintain political relationships, and even trading realtionships.
BUT we DON'T have to be the WORLD COPS! Let the European country band together to do that. We have our problems here at home to fix, lets do that first and foremost. We don't need the rest of the world to maintain our standard of living. We export oil products, food products, IT ideas and products.
If we secure our borders, we would not have to worry about a outside attack, as we do have a strong defensive military. We do need to think about an attack from the inside, the low informed people who think everyone is out to take their guns away, etc etc. Those are the ones who need watching, not the ordinary people who owns weapons.
Consider the January 29, 2012 "Israel vs. Iran" article in the New York Times were it was noted that, "The Iranian regime will be several times more dangerous if it has a nuclear device in its hands...one that it could bring to the United States. It is not for nothing that it (i.e., Iran) is establishing bases for itself in Latin America and creating links with drug dealers on the US-Mexican border. This is happening in order to smuggle ordnance into the United States for the carrying out of terror attacks. Imagine this regime getting nuclear weapons to the US-Mexican border..."
Easy to ignore potential threats such as this when you're sitting in the comfort of your home in the US watching and listening to mainstream media.
Agree with Basil Romeo....it is "easy to ignore potential threats such as this when you're sitting in the comfort of your home in the US watching and listening to mainstream media."
How soon they forget 9/11?
Basil:
I certainly don't espouse a policy of isolationism. But neither can I support never ending military engagements that fail to produce promised results. Iraq is a perfect example. It would be hard to argue that Iraq today is more pro US than it was under Hussein. It would be easier to argue that it is less so as they align themselves with Iran.
I have a friend who emigrated from Syria to this country many years ago. When we invaded Iraq the second time to "instill" the people with democracy he told me it would never happen because of their culture. Being a naive and idealistic American, I didn't believe him then. I do now.
Hi Timothy:
I agree with you in that I never believed Iraq was much of a threat. Hussein was actually a stabilizing force in the region despite his use of chemical weapons against his own people. Our focus should have always been Iran and North Korea. We still have enough time with the former; hopefully we're not too late with the latter.
I do wonder if the world didn't see a chance to bring America down and are working together to see us fall. I think we have over stepped in many ways. But as the Internet connects the world. We all come closer to being one world. The push to lead that world is real. Every country would like to be the top country when it all comes together. It will, already the UN is the major force in the world. When America backs off then one world government will form through the UN. I feel the Islamic countries are pushing to be more Islamic because they know it is coming. Where we stand with the world is important maybe more so than ever before.
If I'm right and the world goes under one world government. Who will lead most of the countries in the world? Who will have the most votes? Where do we stand in all this? Will we all wake up in an Islamic world one day?
Free
They don't have to do a thing, obama is doing it all for them.
True enough.
The question we need to ask ourselves is, "Is it better to let them fight it out or do we help on the edge, with weapons, intelligence and drone power?" Would it be better to support Israel with the necessary equipment and let them do the fighting or do we just watch them fall and then pay the consequences? As much as we want to stay out of it, we can't. Why? Because we have a global economy. We don't need and unstable Middle East. As much as we have promise in Shale Oil and our own energy independence, other countries do not, then what? When countries that supply us with natural resources we don't have are pressured with oil to stop trading with the US, what happens then? We've already seen a little bit of it with Venezuela using it's oil to turn countries in the South America against the US, like Peru and Ecuador. Now imagine that on a global scale. It could get a lot worse.
I'm not for sending American troops over there as it's a no win situation, but keeping Israel supplied and armed, keeps the US more relevant.
So in a way is Israel the bird in the mine for us? That lets us know when the environment is to dangerous for us to be in.
Before America had a lot to offer. That's why we are giving everyone aid. Now that the world is closer to a balance. I believe we will see a fight to see who takes the top spot. If countries don't matter, then religions, beliefs and corporate powers will be the next sources to use to gather strength. Who ever can pull the most people together will have the most power. We have the Christians who are mostly peaceful. We have the Jews who don't amount to much alone. We have the Islamic people who have had a war torn past and show little hope of excepting what ever comes out of it. Then corporations who have the most wealth but don't hold a great deal of open voting power.
Am I the only person who thinks this is what we will be looking at for the future of the world?
Not me, I'm too old to look down the road and this makes me HAPPY.
Well, to me other people matter. I hate to think down that road the world will be forced to go Islamic. Which could mean women killed for showing their face or talking out of turn. Your either Arabic or a second rate citizen. Then the rights you have would be set by the local religious leader. If there is something we could do now. That might make for a better out come in say 50 or 100 years. I would like to make that change as soon as we can. To avoid the hardship on the people alive then. So maybe they won't have to do it last minute.
@JustMe,
My thoughts exactly. Sometimes when I read about global warming and the Middle East and such, I am glad that I am 69 and will not have to deal with it very much. I am sorry for my children and their children, but I will not be around to share their grief in a declining country in a declining world.
I am all for a buffer zone. In fat, it provides a good way for Western forces to "supply" the weapons the militias say they want. It would seem to be a simpler matter to place the armaments, such as artillery and rockets, within the buffer zone, and then permit militia advisers to assist with target acquisition. Once the need for militia arms, and subsequently the buffer zone, all can be withdrawn and no major weapons are supplied by the West.
After a bloody confrontation, Israel took the Golan Heights in 1973 and have chosen not to relinquish the area since. Why?
Because in the years leading up to Yom Kippur, Syrian artillery deployed on the heights indiscriminately shelled Jewish communities at random in the valley below. Not military targets mind you, just peaceful folk going about their daily affairs. Such heroes these Syrians.
And the risk that al Qaeda might concentrate in the area and thereby threaten Israel? That would be a blessing we can only hope for because the elimination of that threat would surely be swift and complete.
@Aussie
I agree, Israel can, by itself, take out almost all of the countries in the Mid East. Israel has nukes, and when they were running out of ammo, and we had a planes full of ammo sitting at Rota Air Base in Spain, and Nixon wouldn't send it, Israel told Nixon, either send the ammo or the nukes get launched.
That has been the closest Israel has came to using their nukes. So yes, Israel can stand alone, they can take out Iran if they wanted to. But they don't want to be blamed for mass murder like the Nazi's were. They want the USA to be blamed.
Think about it, do we want that shame from the rest of the world? Germany still hasn't gotten over the full stigma of Hitler's horrible things. And the only way to destroy those bunkers the factories are in are with nukes. Bunker busting bombs won't do the job. So what's left to do, boots on the ground?
Where are you going to get the manpower for that? Or the money to train the manpower? Try starting the draft, see what happens. The options are limited, and we don't need a GOP war monger in office.
@SallyAnn,
Don't overestimate the Israeli military. Get out a map and see where Iran and Israel are. The IDF simply does not have the air power, especially the massive air refueling capability that would be necessary, to strike Iran with more than token conventional strikes. It would take two air refuelings on the way in and two coming out just to make the trip, even with tip tanks. They would have to fly all the way over hostile territory and every country along the way, including Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the Gulf States, and Iraq would notify Iran as soon as they were detected. Most of Iran's key nuclear sites are extremely hardened --- to the point that bunker buster bombs would be ineffective. And all the sites are heavily defended by missiles and AAA. If you go to Google Earth and look at the site north of Qom (the coordinates are online) you will see that the site is in a cavern carved into solid basalt in the "bottom" of a U-shaped mountain. There is only one line of attack. And that one line is extremely well-defneded by missile and AAA sites that you can easily pick out. Even a stealth bomber would have extreme difficulty striking the site. Remember that we lost an F-117 in the Serbian War because it was unwisely tasked to crater a runway. Runways, like the Qom site require a single axis of attack --- along the orientation of the runway. Thje Serbians just placed men with shoulder-launched AA missiles all along the path. When they heard a jet, they fired at the sound. When the F-117 opened its bomb bay doors, it lost all its stealthiness and was immediately shot down. Iran has prepared its sites for similar attacks.
This leaves only Israel's nukes. You are then talking about Israel having to launch its 200+ nukes, using missiles, against every major population center (city) and military base in the Arab world. The response would be horrendous and considering that the people being shot at are about 85 times as big as Israel, it is very likely that Israel would be destroyed in retaliation. I had a secondary assignment of nuclear strike evaluation in the military and I can tell you first hand that nukes do not do nearly as much damage as people have in their minds. If you look at the damage from nukes to Japan in WWII, you will see that the fire bombings were many many times more lethal.
For Israel, options are very limited without US involvement. And US involvement is like the proverbial Tar Baby, that once touched can never be relinquished.
Chris - While I agree with you on the complexity of the attack, consider the fact that the Saudis have already assigned an air corridor for the Israeli jets, and in-flight refueling. Iran's neighbors are most concerned about nuclear Iran than most other countries.
Martin Fletcher needs to stop writing "analysis" - HIS opinion - and pass them on as news articles.
Well taxpayers, dig in and get ready to start shelling out more bucks to fund Israel's war efforts- expect a blank check to be handed over any time now
is this the official BO sell out Israel trip ?
We should at all cost stay out of this one. If we get drawn into this mess, we will never leave.
How come we don't have a fence like that along our southern border? it looks pretty effective, yet cost efficient
The ill-advised US foreign policy has often been onn the wrong side of the fence. After supporting "rebels" in arab countries, we had to face the "arab spring" with radical right governments. Syria is next, we are supporting anti Assad forces who will be destablizing the region, as they did Egypt. This time we are talking about Syria AND Lebanon becoming a stronghold for the radical right islamists and a new war front for Israel to deal with.
The US should stop supporting these terrorists, stop interferring with their internal affairs, and we would not have to worry about these concerns anymore. If Israel has to defend themselves against an attck, support them with what they need, and let them do the job themselves.
We must stop dictating to other countries - (and Martin Fletcher must stop writing garbage).
Sad but true, some people are born to be angery all of the time. The Middle East has it's idiots and we have our TEA GARBAGE. Constant anger only destroys, It never has built anything lasting.
People got angry over being taxed with out representation. They started a country. It was called the United States of America. If it lasts will depend on if we live through what the democrats are doing to us.
Israel should be more worried about Iran's aim to acquire nuclear weapons, especially after Iran's president publicly announce that Israel should be taken off the map of the world, syria conflict is internal, brother fighting brother, their aim is freedom and rights instead of a dictator restricting such rights.
I agree that the syria people should have the right to elect the leader of "their" choosing, instead of a dictator electing himself while using stalin's logic "kill andor imprison and torture all dissent, no matter how young." It is known that Assad the Butcher has torture to death hundreds of children and that syrians should hang him for it.
I just read the article. The US is worried that the quiet that has been observed along the syrian-israeli border since 1974 (during the Asaad reign) might be in jeopardy if the rebels win. And we are supporting the rebels???? rebels that have ties to Al Queda in a country that has WMD that Asaad has kept a tight lid on and we have no idea who is going to get those WMD if the rebels win. I am sure that if the rebels win another "Islamic Democracy" is going to be born......ha ha! Just like all the others
Lets hear it for Obama's foreign policy expertese. An absolute joke.
Israel does NOT need the Golan Heights, i.e. the Highlands, for strategic reasons - they have hundreds of AMERICAN satellites at their disposal for spying and surveillance purposes.
The ONLY reason Israel stole the Golan Heights after starting the 1973 war was for the water rights. It is time for Israel to rightfully return the illegally occupied Golan Heights to Syria and the Shebaa Farms to Lebanon.
Until Israel rightfully makes peace with it's neighbors, NO more U.S. Taxpayer's dollars to the Zionists and their Apartheid/Nazi ways.
And FORGET the Two-State solution, One-State for all Israeli's and Palestinians, with the Right of Return for ALL Palestinians, including ALL of their Descendants.
Yes, Israel DOES need the Golan.
And, since they've annexed the Golan, it's over and done with.
Israel enjoys peace with both Egypt and Jordan. Don't you feel like an idiot?
Sorry, but the Nazis are passe.
Israel is here to stay, with Jerusalem as the Eternal Capital of Israel.
And so are your opinions, it seems.
Start learning to love it!
.
Uh oh, somebody at NBC is gonna get a real spanking, or maybe a droning from the white house for this one. There is no "chaos" in Syria or anywhere else in the world. The president has sent over tons of cash to ensure that "all is well!!". You are in trouble now NBC writer and editor...
Is anyone expecting anything to come of this "tour"? I think this will only kick a beehive.
Most liberals don't want to hear factual information - they perfer the more entertaining conspiracy dumbed down versions of news (Maddow & Matthews / Colbert & Stewart - Comedy Channels)
Wow!
Considering that it was obama's and Hillary's State department that kicked off this chaos why would obama be concerned. obama knows he will never be held accountable for anything. Despite the mountain of facts about his failed Administration he is certain his control of the media wil leave him with a positive, if not completely false, legacy.
Hey MSM.. why do w not hear about the success of obama's other liberated countries such as Tunisia, Libya and Egypt. Coverage seems to have gone to zero about obama's Arab Spring.
True to its motto, MSNBC has been leaning forward. To the point that its opinionated programming far outweighs its “factual reporting,” according to a new Pew study. While Fox News, too, had more opinionated programming, the network had a much smaller discrepancy between opinion and straight reporting. The study — which came as part of Pew Research Center’s annual “State of the Media” report — states that opinionated programming comprised 85 percent of MSNBC’s airtime (versus 15 percent of “factual reporting”). Meanwhile, Fox News had opinion 55 percent of the time, with 45 percent straight news.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/03/18/pew-study-finds-msnbc-the-most-opinionated-cable-news-channel-by-far/
A superior and a proud race like Jews shouldn't worry about these Arabs and Iranian garbage. How they could destroy Israel? Their 23rd Airborne Camel Division is no threat to Israel. Let Israel's neighbors burn to ashes. A ruined Middle-East would be a blessing for Israel.
Any ally counting on Obama to back them up would be well advised to be ready to stand on their own...Obama won't even back up his own countrymen...look at Benghazi...why would he back up an Ally...now a Muslum or socialist country is another story