FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Coalitions in the middle east are complicated. Syria is led by a Shia dictator, but has a Sunni majority. The Shia dictator (technically an Alawite, which is different enough that you could consider it it's own sect, but they sprang from Shia's, and align with Shia's politically) and Israel have extremely poor relations, and has affiliations with Hezbollah, the group in Lebanon that has caused Israel so much grief. Now the people are rebelling and toppling the Sunni dictator, and I suppose that, if these reports are true, Israel has simply decided that the a success on the part of the rebels would be in their best interests. Neither side, of course, would be ideal partners, but the Sunni lead of the middle east (Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc...) have generally calmed down over time and come to an accord with Israel, while the Shiite lead parts (Iran and Syria; Iraq is majority Shi'a, but Shi'a Islamist parties don't have a majority, so I'm not counting it; Lebanon has only a Shi'a minority, but is such a heavily self-segregated society that Hezbollah can operate with impunity in the Shi'a regions, so you could kind of count them) are still very hostile. I suppose, then, that it would make sense on some level for the Israelis to decide that Sunni lead neighbors are the lesser affliction and side with them.
But Al-Qaeda, for its part, is a Sunni Islamist organization, and would support the Sunni side, as they despise Shias and are heavily involved in Muslim sectarian conflict. So, it very well could be that you'd have the very odd situation that Israel and Al-Qaeda would be supporting the same side in such a conflict. This wouldn't represent any sort of lull in their blood feud, certainly not some kind of de facto alliance this article seems to paint. And the source does not seem very reliable. If it's not just making shit up about Israel helping the rebels at all, then they are likely using a very creative definition of the term "Al-Qaeda terrorist", that more or less means "Someone fighting against a tyrannical government as part of a loose coalition of resistance forces, which has received some unreciprocated statements of support from Al-Qaeda, and which some individuals who have indirect links to the said organization may self-identify with", which is not quite the same as the "crazed Islamist with a bomb strapped to their chest targeting innocent civilians" that such a description would normally bring to mind. I imagine they were taught in one of those schools where kids are allowed to use their own spellings so as not discourage them or hurt their self-esteem, and were quite proud of that gold star everyone got.
Last edited:
