Israel confirms it fired on Syria.

[tekisui]

Today, Israel finally admitted to firing on a target in Syria on Sept. 6.

But says no more.

link: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1191257212152&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[Zywiec]

1. Luckily they only hit "an unused military building" according to Syria

I always thought the Israeli intelligence was better than to make a very deep strike to hit a completely useless target.

[Fredda Weinberg]

3. Do you understand Arab culture? They've sacrified whole armies

to maintain face.

[Zywiec]

5. I guess I should have added the "sarcasm" tag n/t

[The Stranger]

7. I'm trying to understand how attacking another sovereign nation isn't an act of war,

and how there seems to be no condemnation (not even reproach) and no acknowledgement anywhere.

[Fredda Weinberg]

11. The only rational explanation is that Jordan and Egypt had the same

intelligence as the Israelis ... that Syria was receiving nuclear material from North Korea. Israel apparently responded and the region is more stable.

[stranger81]

20. Exactly what you said . . . . . wtf? [n/t]

[Fredda Weinberg]

2. Apparently, they notified Egypt & Jordan 1 hr before

Just heard Sy Hersh on Democracy Now. So I guess it was a good thing after all.

[The Stranger]

8. No, Fredda, bombing another nation is not "a good thing after all."

[Fredda Weinberg]

9. Depends, Stranger. If the US had bombed the Nazi railroads, my family

might be alive today. So please don't lecture me on morality when survival is at stake. If Egypt and Jordan haven't complained, who are you?

[The Stranger]

13. The Syrians are not the Nazis, and they were not the ones attacking anyone.

No one's "survival" is at stake, nor have those doing the bombing even claimed that, and, that having been said, bombing another nation is a violation of international law. In other words, it is not "a good thing." Abiding by the law, though, is a "good thing." If Egypt or Jordan have not complained, then ask them about it.

[Fredda Weinberg]

14. Why ask Egypt or Jordan when they're not running to the UN?

Don't put words in my posts either. I'm not the victim here ... my father way and sorry, they don't forget or forgive and Israel is full of living survivors. If you want to ignore reality, that's fine, but Egypt and Jordan have apparently accept Israel's actions - and in that 'hood, that's cred.

[stranger81]

21. and the survival of Syrian citizens means nothing?

Sorry, but I don't value Israeli lives above all others.

[Fredda Weinberg]

33. Live and let live ... I wish the sentiment prevailed universally n/t

[RethugAssKicker]

4. What gives Israel the right to attack Syria?

Could you imagine if it was the other way around???

[tekisui]

6. They had the *US blessing*.

What more do they need?

[Fredda Weinberg]

12. And apparently Egypt & Jordan's as well. That should count for sumpthin' n/t

[Fredda Weinberg]

10. Syria has attacked Israel several times

and was repulsed each time. So imagination is not required. Your point is?

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

16. When? nt

[Kelly Rupert]

17. For one,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War .
For another, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War .
For another, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War .

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

18. Decades ago? You have GOT to be kidding. Somehow, Israel is 'justified',...

,...because of events that took place decades ago. Is that the reasoning?

Gimme' a break!

[Kelly Rupert]

19. Did anyone attempt to use those as justifications?

Poster asked, "Could you imagine if Syria attacked Israel?" The answer is pretty clearly, "yeah, they did three times. They lost. As a result of those wars, Israel expanded its territories and took a paranoid stance towards its neighbors."

For a more-recent event in which Syria attacked Israel--and one that would in some way justify these actions--I would refer to the 2006 Lebanon war.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

26. Fredda appeared to justify Israel's attack based on Syria's past attacks. eom

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

31. Question: Do you believe Israel's attack on Syria was a violation of int'l law?

Second, do you believe the attack could be interpreted as an act of war?

[Kelly Rupert]

32. Yes and yes. n/t

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

35. That clears up the confusion.

I was figuring you were stepping in for Fredda, that's all, who appears to imply Israel had some legal justification for its actions.

:hi:

I apologize for the misunderstanding. :toast:

[RethugAssKicker]

22. When - 50 years ago???

My point is that Israel has become the bully in the ME.

[Kelly Rupert]

23. Like it or not,

the Yom Kippur war had an indelible effect on the Israeli mindset. After taking a somewhat-relaxed posture towards their neighbors (yet still aggressively paranoid by any other nation's standards), they found themselves the target of a surprise attack from all directions, as their neighbors all launched simultaneous invasions with intent of complete eradication--for the third time.

[stranger81]

24. given that, is it really that hard for you to wrap your head around the fact

that much of the hostility directed towards Israel from its mid-east neighbors stems from the same kind of mindset -- the result of being targets, over and over again, of Israeli bombs?

[Kelly Rupert]

25. I'm not sure what led you to believe

that I do not already know that.

[stranger81]

27. I guess it would be all the posts from you on this thread

implying that Israel's attack on Syria was justified and explicitly stating that its attack this summer on Lebanon was justified.

Just my opinion, but I don't break out my itty bitty violin for the crying bully on the playground who's outraged that someone finally hit him back.

[Kelly Rupert]

28. Nobody's asking you to break out any violins.

There are no "crying bullies" in geopolitics. Sandlot analogies are always misguided. One can point to Israel and say, "Look at the big bully, always being mean to its neighbors." One can point to its neighbors, and say "History has repeatedly shown that the instant Israel stops being 'a bully,' its neighbors all invade with the explicit intention of eradicating it." Both are equally wrong, because both weave a narrative with a good guy and a bad guy. Israel acts rationally, given its population's beliefs. So do its neighbors. Peace is very difficult to come by in the mideast for this reason; if war were simply the result of one administration being insane, the next elections would lead to peace.

I do not recall stating that Israel's attack on Lebanon was justified. Rather, I implied that the offensive stance Hezbollah was able to take during that war, and the fact that Hezbollah is to some extent a Syrian proxy group, would provide some degree of justification for Israel to have an interest in a targeted strike on Syria.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

29. Strange response. Question: why did you answer posts TO Fredda? eom

[Kelly Rupert]

30. Since you were asking for easily-obtainable facts,

I figured, "why not?" I wouldn't presume to answer a question regarding opinion, but you were asking for instances of Syria attacking Israel.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

34. Fredda was implying Israel was justified because Syria attacked Israel..

Of course, that justification would only fly if Syria recently attacked Israel and Israel was respondiing in a defensive manner.

On the other hand, both Israel and the U.S. have adopted PRE-emptive policies which violate international law. Illegal policies as such is the point of this matter, in my opinion.

What is your opinion?

[Kelly Rupert]

36. Unfortunately, I'd say international law has become a joke,

with the Arab-Israeli conflict as the punchline. The entire conflict is rooted in the fantastically ironic foundation of Israel, in which the fundamental rights to homeland for both the Israelis and Palestinians became opposite and, to an extent, non-mutually-achievable ends.

Both sides have shown a willingness to cast aside all precepts of international law. The Arab states have done so rather seldom, but that's largely due to their military inferiority; each time they believed themselves superior, they attempted to literally eradicate Israel. In addition, their material support for deliberate attacks on civilians, whether from suicide bombs or rockets, is illegal. And the violations are ongoing and often unprovoked: the Lebanon war began with a Hezbollah violation of Israeli territorial rights intended as a PR coup, after all--not to claim that all of Israel's actions in that conflict were justified, of course.

The Israelis, for their part, have shown an absolute disregard for international law at every turn. Their abuses are simply too numerous to lay down here (I'd probably get castigated for forgetting a few completely-obvious atrocities). Certainly I'd say their settlement programs are absolutely indefensible, and their military retaliations on civilian populations are both illegal and incredibly counterproductive.

As for this attack? Jesus, by this point, how do you even begin to apply international law? When a nation establishes, funds, supplies, and to some degree controls the actions of a third party, to what extent is that nation responsible for that party's actions? To what extent does a state sponsor deserve protection from retaliation for actions that party engages in? When Hezbollah attacks Israel, which retaliations are legal and which are not? To what extent do we blame Syria/Iran, and to what extent do we blame Israel? How much blame to we place on the instigators of a conflict, and how much on those who continue it, and how much on a given retaliation? Is it useful to simply declare all parties in violation of international law and be done with it? I don't have an answer to those questions.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

37. I do believe enforcement of those laws against ALL actors (U.S. included),...

,...for EACH illegal activity would certainly be appropriate. A sense of equal justice under the law would be helpful to the situation in the M.E. and in/around every nation, including our own. I do believe that.

I think it's become blatantly clear the 'unilateral' approach has proven a complete and utter failure. 'Unilateral' activity merely incites increased frustration and tension and violence. Unilateral actions by any superior force has historically proven to ultimately fail. It's just human nature to resist oppression of any form: physical, financial or spiritual. Laws were created to address both sides of human nature: the oppressed and the oppressors.

[Fredda Weinberg]

38. I'm afraid int'l law ain't as advertised

It's a body of treaties and agreements, most of which are designed to protect nation/states perogatives. There's nothing to enforce ... even UN resolutions call for negotiated settlements.

I'm afraid this whole oppression language thing is obscuring practical issues and vendettas can go on forever. Israel's limited action didn't upset the region and with the generational change in Syria, prospects are still better than I've seen in my lifetime.

[Kelly Rupert]

15. Why would we need to imagine it?

Syria has several times declared war on Israel. They lost each time.