Syria Update: Former Israeli Security Adviser: Qaeda better than Assad, Hizbullah Dangerous * MUST READ * 09/02/2014 *

Former “Israeli” Security Adviser, Yaakov Amidror, claimed Thursday
that “some of the Russian systems did make their way into Lebanon, but
most of them did not reach Lebanon.”
“And that wasn’t an accident. This is our policy. And the Russians
don’t agree with us, but at least they know all the details of our
policy,”Amidror stated.

In the interview, published Wednesday, Amidror added: “I think it’s
important that in this dialogue with the Russians, we are telling them
the truth: They are providing one of the most dangerous enemies of
“Israel”, namely Hizbullah, with capabilities that might endanger
“Israel’s” ability to defend itself, and we will not let it happen,” he
“And we keep our promises, and the Russians know it. At the end of
the day, Russia is a sovereign state, and they are making their own
decisions. But at the same time,…we are making our own decisions.”
Amidror said that he believes an al-Qaeda-controlled Syria would be
“better” for “Israel” than if Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, who is
backed by Iran and Hizbullah, would remain in power.
“We don’t cooperate with the al-Assad regime. At the end of the day,
on one side you have the combination of Iran, Hizbullah and al-Assad.
And on the other side you have al-Qaeda-like organizations. I think that
from the Israeli point of view, both sides are bad-very bad. So then
you ask yourself a very interesting question: If you have to make a
decision between the two, which one is worse? It’s a very, very
interesting question, and you can hear many voices in “Israel” offering
opinions,” he said.

“My personal view, and it’s entirely personal, is that, at the end of
the day, Hizbullah, with the backing of Iran, which is a huge and very
strong state, is more dangerous than al-Qaeda, which, as extremist as
they are, lacks the backing of any state. But both are very, very bad,”
said Amidror.
The interview also referred to the American efforts to secure a deal between “Israel” and the Palestinian Authority.

Asked whether he believes those efforts will be successful, Amidror
told Tablet, “That depends on the details of the final proposal. If the
Americans succeed in bringing to the agreement all of the elements that
are needed – namely, to make sure that there is a secure buffer between
the Palestinian state and the Arab world, that there is not going to be a
new Gaza in Ramallah, and that “Israel” will have satisfactory
arrangements to deal with emerging “terrorist” capabilities within the
West Bank – if all of these elements will be in the agreement, and will
be part of a clear understanding between us and the Palestinians, and
are guaranteed by America, and if we will have the opportunity to keep
those security arrangements until it will be understood by us, not by
anyone else, when it is time to change them, then I think the agreement
will be something that “Israel” can live with.”
He clarified that “there is no way to get there without Israeli
forces along the Jordan River. There is no question about that. This is
the minimum, without which there is no way to have the necessary
capabilities in our hands.”

Abbas’s insistence that “Israeli” military presence in the Palestinian
state be limited to a period of three to five years is indicative of the
fact that “he does not understand the professional needs in this area
of security,” said Amidror.