The Syrian bombing mystery

Tiberius

The episode also tells us that Israel has the capability to carry out air raids against hostile installations without being detected. Perhaps Mr Dinnerjacket will think on that next time he spouts off about wiping Israel off the face of the map.

Frank Pulley

Unfortunately, Tiberius, said Tuxedo also knows that Israel's Western 'allies' are now increasingly wet pussy pacifists who are leaving Israel badly exposed with little or no support in its hour of need on the front line of the War on the West. He may not have the cojones to try a biggie before Bush bites the dust, but if either of the Democratic contenders win in November over the Pond, his aspirations may increase exponentially. Until then we should pray that McCain finishes up with the C-in-C job and that if critical mass occurs before November in Iran, that Israel will look to its own interests, ignore its duplicitous 'allies' and blast the obnoxious little runt off the face of the earth together with the Mullahs and all their apparatus belli. It is sad that as an English born goy, I feel better protected by Israel than the government of my own country and I am fast losing faith in our Transatlantic allies who seem to be suffering as much from the scourge of Quislings and imported subversives as our own benighted muck-heap.

Jeremy Wilkinson

Before everyone gets too excited perhap they should read this:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis107.html

bob

and when will Israel own up about its nuclear deterrent?

Ann

When it chooses to, bob - not when some blogger shoots his mouth off.

Ann

Jeremy, that article is nothing but propaganda, and full of lies. How about this: "the Golan Heights ... which Israel conquered in the 1967 war and refuses to relinquish in violation of UN resolutions". This is ignorant rubbish, or a deliberate lie. Quite apart from the lack of any legal right on the UN's part to force any country to do anything, let alone where it's prejudicial to its security, there is no UN resolution whatsoever that requires Israel to relinquish even one square inch before there is a comprehensive peace treaty with the relevant country (or indeed, if you read 242, even necessarily afterwards with regard to any particular piece of land). The blatant lie propagated by the article's writer is a standard propaganda tool of the loony left.

Frank Pulley

Jeremy Wilkinson

You say: "Before everyone gets too excited perhaps they should read this: [Margolis piece]"

And before anyone gets excited about the Margolis article, perhaps they should remember that he is a political lawyer and one of America's foremost spin doctors who uses the DOJ to further his political aims. And it's also worth remembering that there is an election campaign in full swing. Guess which side he's on!

bob

ah, when it chooses to. pot kettle black

Jeremy Wilkinson

Frank
Any chance of an actual refutation of anything Margolis says. It would be more useful than a nakedly ad hominem attack.

Jeremy Wilkinson

Ann - here's an expert:
One of the persistent myths in connection with the 1967 war is that the capture of the Golan Heights was crucial for Israel's security. The official Israeli line has been that the bombardment of northern settlements from the Golan Heights was an intolerable security issue. But the contemporary record demonstrates that the situation was exactly the reverse. Israel, the stronger side, contrary to international agreements monitored by the United Nations, forced out scores of Syrian farmers from the demilitarized zone between the two countries. The feeble Syrian response amounted to desultory and largely symbolic shelling from the nearby Golan Heights. In most cases, the shelling was of Israeli military personnel on tractors, disguised as farmers, who were evicting Syrians from their villages. The Israelis often responded with provocative and disproportionate air raids, sometimes deep into Syrian territory. In one case, in December 1955, an Israeli air attack killed 56 Syrian civilians. In the six months prior to the June 1967 war, the Israelis did not suffer one casualty from Syrian shelling from the Golan Heights.
In the wake of Israel's remarkable victory in the 1967 war it was expected that, in accordance with provisions of United Nations resolution 242 calling for the return of captured territories, Israel would trade land for peace. In the event, however, Israel stubbornly refused to accede to the international consensus that Egypt also had joined by 1971. At the height of their obduracy, the Israelis publicly declared that they would annex the Egyptian territory they captured during the war. In 1971, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meier officially delineated new boundaries encompassing captured territory, and likewise in August 1972, the Israeli Cabinet approved an ‘openly annexationist' blueprint. The Israeli refusal to negotiate left Egyptian President Sadat with only two options: unconditional surrender or war.
The course of the successful Camp David negotiations of 1979, in which Israel returned all the Egyptian territory it conquered, helps to expose the emptiness behind many of Israel's avowed security concerns. For example, Israel had maintained that it would never abandon Sharm-el-Shaykh. This area, which had long been referred to as a ‘vital' ‘lifeline' that Israel ‘definitely and categorically' would not evacuate," did not figure in the negotiations. Instead Israel bargained to keep the settlements in the northern Sinai.

Ann

Jeremy, your 'expert opinion' is naked propaganda. Syrian shelling killed many peaceful civilians in Ein Gev and other Israeli villages, and likewise fishermen on Lake Galilee. This has nought to do with the fabrication about 'soldiers disguised as farmers', for which you offer not one shred of evidence (and of course, there is no way you can). To call Israel's response to this constant shelling 'provocative and disproportionate' is the usual last resort of rabid Israel-haters.
The number of casualties in the first half of 1967 is likewise a red herring. The issue is the shelling, not the number of casualties. Kindly explain also how come Syrian planes were shot down in April 1967 - were they over Israel to drop Happy Passover cards? The fact, rather than the fantasy, is that Syrian aggression from the Golan was unremitting and unacceptable.
Read of on Khartoum. Israel was and is under no obligation to return one inch to Syria before a full peace treaty, whether under 242 or otherwise. To claim any different is simply a lie.

phil

Jeremy -I was there ,and I know what happened with the shelling ,so I don't need any experts to say whether it took place or not- IT DID incessantly-on kibbutzim and buses etc now here is UN 242 and you will see it asks both sides to accede to its recommendations -neither have !!!so why do you think Israel should do so unilaterally-I look forward to your response

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
2. Affirms further the necessity
(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;
4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

phil

Well jeremy you seem to have gone very quiet .you got your response if not from Frank ,will I not do?-you surely will want to comment