We have sonfirmation that Syria has been prompt people to join protests on Syrian border with Israel--and Syria is paying Syrians to join the protest:
Washington DC, June 5, 2011. The Reform Party of Syria has learned today, from intelligence sources close to the Assad regime in Lebanon, that Syrians storming through the Golan Height next to the Quneitra crossing are Syrian farmers who have migrated in recent years from the drought-stricken northeast Syria to the south. Estimates put the number at 250,000 impoverished migrants.How many governments do you know that pay their citizens to put their lives in danger by joining a mob, many of whom are intent of breaking barriers and invading Israel.
Information received cite the regime has paid hundreds of these farmers $1,000 each to show-up and $10,000 to their families should any of them succumb to Israeli fire. In Syria, an average salary is about $200 a month and to these impoverished farmers, such a one-time sum can keep them economically afloat for six months.
Such tactic was used in the past by another defunct Ba'ath Party in Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, to pay Intifada-driven Palestinians the sum of $25,000 to their next-of-kin should they die throwing stones. That measure had a worldwide impact and it seems the Assad regime is using the same play from a twin playbook.
...On this day of Naksa, RPS strongly believes in ownership and title of its Golan Heights. But unlike a regime bred on the use of violence, the Syrian people, demonstrating how peaceful they are as they endure one massacre after another, believe in peaceful negotiations to repatriate our lands. If Assad really wanted the Golan Heights, he would walk the same peaceful path Anwar Sadat walked long before him. But then, if he does, how can he justify his own existence as the "Commandant de laRésistance". For Assad, winning through peace means also losing the war against his own people.
And of course, let's not forget the ever popular "peaceful protesters" who throw stones:
Here is a video of a warning issued by an IDF soldier to rioters approaching the Syrian-Israeli border near Majdal Shams:
Translation to English
"Stop! You are breaching an international border. We warn you not to damage security infrastructure. Whosoever attempts to violate Israel's sovereignty or security infrastructure puts himself in jeopardy. Please return to Syria."Technorati Tag: Israel and Naksa and Syria.
I find it amusing that the Israeli soldier talked about breaching a international border.
ReplyDeleteWhat a hypocrite.
Actually, what he said was accurate.
ReplyDeleteAs for you, who knows--besides not examples or sources, you don't even make clear what you are talking about.
Then again, your interest is in venting anyway.
Feel better?
Isn't that soldier, according to international law and UN resolution, breaching Syrias international border by illegally occupying the Golan Heights?
ReplyDeleteNo.
ReplyDeleteIf Syria attacks first in 1967 and as a result loses the land--that is their problem.
Israel captured the land in a war of self-defense.
True, the Syrians would love to get it back so they can again shoot at Israelis...
More Jewish mythology . Israel attacked in the 1968 war of aggression. The 1968 war was about conquering the rest of Palestine not defending it's borders.
ReplyDeleteReally it doesn't matter who attacked who because international law in quite clear thats its illegal to claim land aquired by war. Thats why the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and the Syrian Golan Heights are referred to as the 'illegally' occupied territories.
It also prove ,with the countless UN resolutions demanding Israel to withdraw , that Israel has become the delinquent child of the UN and a rogue state.
More Jewish mythology . Israel attacked in the 1968 war of aggression.
ReplyDeleteYour argument would be much more impressive if you knew that the war was in 1967 and not 1968.
Media at the time was very clear that the Arab countries started the war
Obviously you are ignorant of international law--as for instance in the 1975 Helsinki treaty recognized vast annexations in Europe that occurred at the end of WWII
There is also the classic recent example is the Ethiopian-Eritrean war of 1998. According to the arbitrator's rulings, the chief disputed territory (Badme) was sovereign territory of Eritrea, but it was possessed by Ethiopia both before and after the war. Eritrea initiated hostilities to recover Badme. The arbitrator ruled that Eritrea had violated international law by using force against the Ethiopia in the territory because Ethiopia was in peaceful possession of the territory before the war, even though Ethiopia never had sovereignty.
In any case, there is a cease-fire agreement between Syria and Israel from 1974 and it establishes the lines where Israel and Syria have control.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and substitute accusations for your obvious ignorance of the topic.
From reading your comments, it is clearly a poor substitute.
Well Dale. The World Court[arbitrator's rulings] ruled in 2004 Israels claim 'unlawful'
ReplyDeleteWhen Israel annexed the Golan Heights and Jerusalum the UN [arbitrator's ruling]passed resolutions making Israels claim "null and viod".
Using your logic Saddam Hussein had a 'legal' right to annex Kuwait.
You are not paying attention.
ReplyDelete1. The World Court did not give a ruling on the land, but on the security fence.
2. There is no legal ruling that makes Israel's claim null and void.
3. Actually, according to my logic, obviously Hussein's annexation was illegal because unlike Israel, Iraq was neither threatened or attacked by Kuwait.
The World Court ruled on the security fence and clearly stated the settlements were illegal.
ReplyDelete"The Court determines the rules and principles of international law which are relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly. The Court begins by citing, with reference to Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and to General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), the principles of the prohibition of the threat or use of force and the illegality of any territorial acquisition by such means, as reflected in customary international law. It further cites the principle of self‑determination of peoples, as enshrined in the Charter and reaffirmed by resolution 2625 (XXV). As regards international humanitarian law, the Court refers to the provisions of the Hague Regulation of 1907, which have become part of customary law, as well as the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 1949, applicable in those Palestinian territories which before the armed conflict of 1967 lay to the east of the 1949 Armistice demarcation line (or “Green Line”) and were occupied by Israel during that conflict. The Court further notes that certain human rights instruments (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) are applicable in the Occupied Palestinian Territory."
2.in June and August 1980, the UNSC declared Israels annexation of Jerusalum (UN resolution 478]"null and void" under international law. In December 1981 , UNSC [UN General Assembly Resolutions 36/226 ]declared Isrels annexation of Syrian Golan Heigths "null and viod".
Mechachem Begin-"The Egyptian army concentrations... did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."
Mordecai Bentov[a member of the wartime national government] in 1971 said it all when he stated- "The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in very detail and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory."
Also Rabin, Weizman, Herog have all stated the truth behind Israels six day war of aggression.
The fact remains, the court did not rule on the occupation, it ruled on the fence--to say that the court ruled on a topic in one sentence is ludicrous. It cited the General Assembly, but in no way did the court make an actual ruling.
ReplyDeleteHaving failed to prove a legal ruling, you go the UNSC--but this is not a legal body, besides which the GA Res is non-binding.
As far as your quotes go, what is the source--you offer unsubstantiated quotes, without source or context, contradicted by a news article at the time there indicates the exact opposite.
So let me get this right. Your saying Israels occupation of the 'illegally' Occupied Territories is legal.
ReplyDeleteIt must be really hard being a unquestioning supporter of Israel these days
So let me get this right. Your saying Israels occupation of the 'illegally' Occupied Territories is legal.
ReplyDeleteSo let me get this straight: after I proved you got the ICJ ruling completely wrong and cannot give the source for your quotes--this is what you resort to?
You haven't proved a thing.
ReplyDeleteLet me cut and paste it again from ICJ website.
"The Court determines the rules and principles of international law which are relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly. The Court begins by citing, with reference to Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and to General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), the principles of the prohibition of the threat or use of force and the illegality of any territorial acquisition by such means, as reflected in customary international law. It further cites the principle of self‑determination of peoples, as enshrined in the Charter and reaffirmed by resolution 2625 (XXV). As regards international humanitarian law, the Court refers to the provisions of the Hague Regulation of 1907, which have become part of customary law, as well as the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 1949, applicable in those Palestinian territories which before the armed conflict of 1967 lay to the east of the 1949 Armistice demarcation line (or “Green Line”) and were occupied by Israel during that conflict. The Court further notes that certain human rights instruments (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) are applicable in the Occupied Palestinian Territory."
UN resolution 476."“…all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying
Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no
legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention”
For a guy who spends a good part of every waking moment defending the rouge Jewish State[right or wrong] you should start but getting the facts, instead of just repeating the myths.
Mordecai Bentov statements was reported on 14 April 1971 in the Israeli newspaper Al-Hamishmar.
ReplyDeleteM.Begins comments were made at the National Defense College, 8 August 1982.
General Chaim Herzog, Commanding General and first Military Govemor, Israeli Occupied West Bank: "There was no danger of annihilation. Israeli headquarters never believed in this danger." (Ma' ariv, April 4, 1972)
It doesn't matter what is proved because you ,and the rest of the purblind orthodoxy ,will never accept it. Because what you believe about that war is not true, then everything crumbles.
You haven't proved a thing.
ReplyDeleteApparently, you feel that repetition somehow enhances your point.
It doesn't.
First of all, one of the judges says explicitly that the issue of the occupation was not ruled on.
Secondly, the issue the court was addressing was the security fence, not the 'occupation'--or maybe you are suggesting that the court had nothing better to do than delve into both issues.
Thirdly, if the issue was addressed, as you claim, then all you need to do is show where the court delves into all of the issues and questions pertinent to the 'occupation'.
Fourth, the fact is that all the court is doing is adopting the language used by the General Assembly which asked the court to look into the issue of the fence. Since the Assembly is a political and certainly not a legal body, the terminology used carried no weight.
You are suggesting that by quoting the political terminology of the General Assembly, the court magically gave a ruling in one mere sentence--all without having to address and evaluate any of the various issues and arguments.
If that were actually true, it would prove the sloppiness and incompetence of the court.
Bottom line, a 'ruling' requires investigation and evaluation. Obviously a sentence or do in no way is a ruling.
Mechachem Begin-"The Egyptian army concentrations... did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."
ReplyDeleteNot surprisingly, the actual full quote says exactly the opposite of what you claim Menachem Begin said
In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.
This was a war of self-defence in the noblest sense of the term. The government of national unity then established decided unanimously: We will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation.
We did not do this for lack of an alternative. We could have gone on waiting. We could have sent the army home. Who knows if there would have been an attack against us? There is no proof of it. There are several arguments to the contrary. While it is indeed true that the closing of the Straits of Tiran was an act of aggression, a causus belli, there is always room for a great deal of consideration as to whether it is necessary to make a causus into a bellum.
---
Bottom line, you claim that Begin says that Israel attacked Egypt and it was not a case of self defense--the truth is the exact opposite.
You can argue with his argument--the key point is that the quote you present leaves out the key part that disproves your argument.
I guess that is the kind of inferior material you get when you quote from radical anti-Israel sources.
"Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace and to economic and social development [... and] have been established in breach of international law."
ReplyDeleteInternational Court of Justice Ruling, July 9, 2004.
All of Israel Wars are classed as self defence[cough cough].
The point is that the court is not saying that it established; it is saying that the GA did--and the GA is not a legal body, but a political one: it did not make a legal finding.
ReplyDeleteAnd you have yet to address the fact that a member of that court explicitly says you are wrong.
You remind me of a holocost denier.
ReplyDeleteReally you expect someone to believe that crap you speak of
Your comment would at least make sense if you had been capable of saying anything worth denying.
ReplyDeleteYou claim that the 1967 War was a war of aggression--and your proof is the 2004 ruling of the International court, which was actually ruling on the security fence, and 3 quotes by Israeli leaders.
In response I present:
1. A news article from the time clearly outlining the aggression of Egypt and Jordan.
2 A quote from one of the judges from that court, clearly stating that the ruling in no way was addressing the issue of the legality of Israeli control of Gaza and the West Bank
3. The complete quote from Begin, instead of the truncated quote you give, clearly showing that Begin says the exact opposite of what you claim.
4. Another quote, saying Israel did not see a threat of annihilation, only says that Israel did not feel threatened with annihilation--it does not address whether Israel felt that the Arabs were threatening to attack. (For quotes on Arab intent, see here)
5. As for the 3rd quote--in light of the distortions of the first 2, we have the right to see the complete context before accepting the quote as presented.
You fail to address the statement by the judge, you do not refute the article, and the quotes you offer to prove your point are distorted.
I respond to your claims, but you fail to respond to mine.
And you say that I am the one in denial?
That's rich.
In its ruling of the apartheid wall the ICJ clearly states "the Court finds" not the GA and clearly state that the UNSC also describes the settlements as a flagrant violation of international law.
ReplyDelete"Recalling that the Security Council described Israel's policy of establishing settlements in that territory as a “flagrant violation” of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Court finds that those settlements have been established in breach of international law.'
Its clear as day. The ICJ finds the settlements illegal.
That's absurd.
ReplyDeleteAccording to you, the Court is basing a legal ruling specifically on the political judgement of a non-legal body.
And you have yet to address the glaring fact that one of the judges says explicitly that you're wrong.
Its there in black and white. The Court finds.......
ReplyDeleteIsraels settlements are illegal according to the ICJ, the UNSC and UNGA. Israel is the delinquent child of the UN and must be considered a rouge state.
I emailed a professor of International Law, and he wrote back the following--emphasis mine:
ReplyDelete1- Yes, the court is rendering an opinion on the legality of “establishing settlements”
2- No, this is not a ruling on the status of the territory. Elsewhere in the opinion (para. 101), the Court states that it’s going to apply the rules of belligerent occupation without any rendering any opinion on the status of the territories.
3- The court’s opinion that Israel has no claim to the land is stated far more directly in para. 114-122.
4- In any event, while the Court is rendering its opinion, it is not making a ruling on anything. Israel was not a party to the proceedings, which were, in any event, advisory, as the title to the case states. The Court gave its advice to the General Assembly on its opinion. It is entitled to its opinion, and Israel is entitled to its own opinion.
That makes one judge and one law professor, who agree that whatever else this might be--it is not a ruling on the legality of the settlements.
But please: feel free to keep repeating yourself that they are.
In the absence of your having anything new to add: this discussion is over.
I thought I had wrote about the judges opinion, but apparently I had posted it elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteJudge Pieter Kooijmans of The Netherlands, in a separate opinion, wrote, "The Court has refrained from taking a position with regard to territorial rights and the question of permanent status." (see here)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete