Russia, China join UN in backing Syria plan

[Pleepleus]

I don't believe the events occurring in Syria are on a par with the Shoah, nor with Pol Pot.

-------------------------------------------------

i didnt say they were on par, as only 9,000 syrians have been killed compared to 6,000,000 jews and about 2,000,000 cambodians during pol pots rule.

Im saying whats happening in syria is basically the same as pol pots regime, eliminating political opponenents because they dont agree with your regime, thats on par with cambodia and syria at the moment. one was called genocide because 2,000,000 people were tortured and killed, one is not because the west dosent wanna call it that because it would be a stain in the history books that the west again has failed to stop a genocide, and because only 9,000 syrians have been killed, x it by 10 and you have genocide, even though they are all arabs, just like cambodia was branded genocide even though the victims and perpetrators were both the same ethnically and racially etc...

respond to that point.

No it's not even basically the same. Pol Pot was eliminating people who wore glasses, anyone holding the rank of corporal or above in the previous government's military. He emptied out entire cities into the killing fields; just like the Nazis were eliminating Jews, Gays, Roma, and Jehovah's Witnesses not because they were causing any trouble at all, but because they disapproved of their existence. These situations are not even remotely the same as Syria.

This is a civil war going on. This will not be the Americans destroying the Nazis in 1939. If Israel invades, it will be Lebanon times 4. It will create more problems than it fixes. And I'll tell you another thing. You are not going to find any one in the Israeli government who would support such a mad scheme. Not a single one. Not even in the opposition parties.

[JerichoMissile]

so why does israel send in doctors to places hit by earthquakes like in haiti israel sent doctors? WHY? to waste israeli taxpayers $$$??

No, to make israel look good to the world media, and so help people who were in danger, and yet there are people 100km from israels northern border who are being butchered, and israel dosent even think of helping, HA

-----------------------------

Pol Pot was eliminating people who wore glasses

WTF?? have been been drinking israeli wine again?, pol pot killed his own people, who were against his socialist utopia, not because they were a different race, or religion or ethnicity, he killed his own kind, its like if netanyahu ordered the rounding up of all Labor members and taking care of them , would that be genocide? NO because they are his own kind, but a different political persuation.

[Pleepleus]

so why does israel send in doctors to places hit by earthquakes like in haiti israel sent doctors? WHY? to waste israeli taxpayers $$$??

No, to make israel look good to the world media, and so help people who were in danger, and yet there are people 100km from israels northern border who are being butchered, and israel dosent even think of helping, HA

-----------------------------

Pol Pot was eliminating people who wore glasses

WTF?? have been been drinking israeli wine again?, pol pot killed his own people, who were against his socialist utopia, not because they were a different race, or religion or ethnicity, he killed his own kind, its like if netanyahu ordered the rounding up of all Labor members and taking care of them , would that be genocide? NO because they are his own kind, but a different political persuation.

Israel sends doctors to places like Haiti because it is the right thing to do, not to look good in the media.

Don't accuse me of being drunk! I never said Pol Pot killed people for their race, religion, or ethnicity (though it wouldn't surprise me if they killed religious people). That was the Nazis. I was quite specific about what each group did. And I know what I am talking about. Go back and read about Cambodia. They did kill people for wearing glasses, holding the rank of corporal or above, being able to speak a foreign language, etc. These were innocent victims of the Khmer Rouge madmen run amuck.

[JerichoMissile]

has anyone ever heard of Judas Macabee? he was a TOUGH jew right? or was he an appeasing mommies boy? no, he was a great warrior, he kicked PHILLISTINE butt,
now imagine if a judas macabee lived today and he was in the IDF?

would he be honoured? or would he be Demoted like out idf soldior for striking a protester?

i think 100% if a judas macabee type guy were alive today and serving in the IDF he would be frownded upon for not being a moral mummies boy, that just happens to carry a gun, this is the impression i get from reading about the IDF and how they treat their soldiors.

Why does jewish history honour a judas macabee type character for being a tough jew who took care of the jews enemies with violence, and probably "disproportionate" violence , but yet
the modern IDF frowns upon those who show the are "too tough" for their own good,

What im getting at is us jews have reclaimed our land israel, and we still shouldnt be living with the same mentality of the jews in pre ww2 europe, which is to be good mommas boys and always be polite and never hurt anyone and always keep a low profile as to not offend any goys and give them a reason to hurt us, why does the IDF elite was their men to act like this?

why not teach them to be mighty jewish warriors like judas macabee and co.??

no wonder so many of us jews are confused about what is a jew or who is a jew, like on a thread we have here.

[JerichoMissile]

Israel sends doctors to places like Haiti because it is the right thing to do, not to look good in the media.

.

but they stand by and do nothing as syrians are being lined up and executed only miles from israels border, oh but we dont wanna get involved because iran and egypt would join in and it would end in a full blown middle east war, right?

Yet just like if america had invaded germany in 1939, and taken care of hitler early on, it would have made things worse and it might have started a ww2 right?

[Pleepleus]

but they stand by and do nothing as syrians are being lined up and executed only miles from israels border, oh but we dont wanna get involved because iran and egypt would join in and it would end in a full blown middle east war, right?

Yes, exactly right. Israel invaded Lebanon and how did that turn out? Your plan would most likely leave many more Syrians dead when all is said and done. Your cure is worse than the disease.

Yet just like if america had invaded germany in 1939, and taken care of hitler early on, it would have made things worse and it might have started a ww2 right?

As I stated above:

This will not be the Americans destroying the Nazis in 1939. If Israel invades, it will be Lebanon times 4. It will create more problems than it fixes.

How do you think the U.S. and the rest of the world would react to an Israeli invasion of Syria? Would there be a single country on Israel's side? I'll bet even the Canadians would condemn it.

And then when the U.N. Security Council, including the U.S., issues a binding resolution demanding an immediate Israeli withdrawal, what then? Take on the Muslim world alone without U.S. backing? There is a recipe for another Holocaust.

I really don't think you've thought this through, or you are hoping for a conflict in which Israel would be forced to use ALL the weapons in its arsenal. Is that your real end game here?

[dayag]

This thread has been derailed off topic. If you guys want to argue about Pol Pot or Israeli invasions of Syria feel free to start a new thread.

Back to the UN plan for Syria with some updates on the situation:

Syrian forces have opened fire on civilians fleeing to neighboring Jordan, killing at least one refugee and injuring dozens, activists and relief workers said on Sunday...

Opposition activists say the border attack is designed to prevent rebels and army defectors from fleeing to Jordan...

Jordan follows an open-border policy, granting refuge to all Syrians entering the country, which according to officials and the UNHCR has surpassed 110,000 since March 2011.

Meanwhile, the opposition group Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported Sunday that at least 13 people were killed in violence across Syria.

Six civilians were killed by security forces in the central province of Homs, the Britain-based observatory said.

Three others were killed in the village of Al Rami in the northern province of Idlib, it said.

Four army soldiers were killed in a bombing attack targeting a personnel carrier on the outskirts of the Syrian capital Damascus, the observatory added.

source: http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-e...ordan-1.425874

BEIRUT — The deployment of U.N. truce monitors brought a lull in shelling of the Syrian opposition stronghold of Homs for a second day Sunday while President Bashar Assad's troops kept up heavy attacks on other areas where observers were not present...

International envoy Kofi Annan expressed hope that despite continued violations of the cease-fire he brokered, an expanded team of up to 300 observers – up from eight now on the ground – can help end 13 months of violence and lead to talks between Assad and the opposition.

Assad has used heavy weapons to try to crush the uprising against him, prompting some of his opponents to switch from peaceful protests to attacks on soldiers. The violence has left more than 9,000 people dead, according to the U.N. At least 12 civilians and five soldiers were killed Sunday, activists and state media said.

The U.N. Security Council approved on Saturday a larger observer mission than the 250 initially envisioned. The mission was set for at least 90 days, but the Council left it up to U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon to decide when it will be safe enough to deploy it.

It will be the first time the U.N. has sent an unarmed mission into a conflict zone, and Western diplomats warned the team will likely fail unless the Assad regime complies with the cease-fire

The Syrian opposition and its Western supporters suspect the regime is largely paying lip service to Annan's truce plan, in part to appease allies Russia and China while trying to dodge truce provisions that could threaten its grip, such as pulling tanks and troops from towns and allowing peaceful protests. The Syrian government hasn't complied with those terms, prompting bitter complaints from the U.N. chief last week.

Some Syrian activists were skeptical about the U.N. mission, based on the performance of the advance team that arrived last week.

"This U.N. observers thing is a big joke," said activist Mohammed Saeed. "Shelling stops and tanks are hidden when they visit somewhere, and when they leave, shelling resumes."...

source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1443588.html

[wat0n]

This is likely going to fail.

I wonder, though, how will this end? Is Assad going to be toppled? To me it looks like things will deteriorate further before they improve.

And what does all of this mean for Israel and the region?

[dayag]

This is likely going to fail.

I wonder, though, how will this end? Is Assad going to be toppled? To me it looks like things will deteriorate further before they improve.

And what does all of this mean for Israel and the region?

I fear you are correct, Waton. If it wasn't for Russian and China's obstructionism in the UN and Security Council, the UN and NATO could do to Assad what was done to Khaddafi.

[wat0n]

I don't know if even a NATO intervention could stop this. Internal divisions in Syrian society run very, very deep, pretty much like Lebanon but with a clear Sunni Arab majority living under a regime controlled by an Alawite minority, a minority that has not forgotten how the Sunnis treated them when they controlled the country.

Another important question here is, is it good for Israel to see Assad fall? And how would this impact its relations with Iran? And more broadly, looking at what has happened in Egypt and Tunisia, would this be a sign of a Sunni Arab restoration in the western Levant and perhaps the Maghreb? If so is confronting Iran and its nuclear program a good idea? Is there a chance Israel could eventually have relations with Iran similar to those shortly after the Islamic Revolution there (during its war against Iraq), i.e. some sort of a covert alliance/cooperation between both countries, even if it went nuclear?

[sharonbn]

I don't know if even a NATO intervention could stop this. Internal divisions in Syrian society run very, very deep, pretty much like Lebanon but with a clear Sunni Arab majority living under a regime controlled by an Alawite minority, a minority that has not forgotten how the Sunnis treated them when they controlled the country.

I agree with you that there isn't any kind of military intervention that will succeed in Syria in the long run.
the US invasion of Iraq showed clearly that:
1) a foreign invasion and occupation will always be regarded with hostility, sometimes rightfully so (e.g. Abu Ghareib).
2) forceful imposition of democratic system will fail. for better or worse, the people must be left to choose their own fate.

Another important question here is, is it good for Israel to see Assad fall?

This is a bad question. This may sound against common sense, but I believe Israel's own interests should not affect its policy with regard to external internal conflicts (external - to Israel, internal - between factions inside one country)
For example, South Africa in the 80s was boycotted by most of the western world in support for the fight against Apartheid.
However, Israel, for short-term economic gain, ignored the boycott and supplied the South African army with weapons and ammunition for a premium price, giving de-fact support for the Apartheid gov't. This period and this policy are a black stain on Israel's moral position.
Israel is capable of making the "right" moral decisions by following the policy of offering help after natural disasters worldwide, even to countries like Iran.
Israel should offer humanitarian help to Syrian refugees, should they choose to seek it. but it must not get involved in the conflict in any way.

is confronting Iran and its nuclear program a good idea? Is there a chance Israel could eventually have relations with Iran similar to those shortly after the Islamic Revolution there (during its war against Iraq), i.e. some sort of a covert alliance/cooperation between both countries, even if it went nuclear?

The "covert alliance/cooperation" was another shiny example of Israel's shortsightedness in foreign affairs. The weapons Israel sold to Iran were later passed to Hizballah and used against our own soldiers...
It reminds me of "Catch 22" where Lieutenant Milo Minderbinder orders an attack on his own base b/c the Germans agree to buy his surplus cotton.
When one lets short term economic gain set the policy - there is always a price to pay in the long run.
In my eyes there is no doubt - Iran is our sworn enemy. One does not trade anything (let alone weapons) with one's enemy. Israel should strike as hard as it can using all means possible to destroy Iran's nuclear project.
What Israel is not allowed to do is indiscriminately bomb Iran civilian populations.

[wat0n]

This is a bad question. This may sound against common sense, but I believe Israel's own interests should not affect its policy with regard to external internal conflicts (external - to Israel, internal - between factions inside one country)
For example, South Africa in the 80s was boycotted by most of the western world in support for the fight against Apartheid.
However, Israel, for short-term economic gain, ignored the boycott and supplied the South African army with weapons and ammunition for a premium price, giving de-fact support for the Apartheid gov't. This period and this policy are a black stain on Israel's moral position.
Israel is capable of making the "right" moral decisions by following the policy of offering help after natural disasters worldwide, even to countries like Iran.
Israel should offer humanitarian help to Syrian refugees, should they choose to seek it. but it must not get involved in the conflict in any way.

I don't think Israel should intervene beyond helping refugees that may seek its help (unlikely, though), but I'm sure Israeli policy-makers are looking at what's going on there with a lot of interest.

The "covert alliance/cooperation" was another shiny example of Israel's shortsightedness in foreign affairs. The weapons Israel sold to Iran were later passed to Hizballah and used against our own soldiers...
It reminds me of "Catch 22" where Lieutenant Milo Minderbinder orders an attack on his own base b/c the Germans agree to buy his surplus cotton.
When one lets short term economic gain set the policy - there is always a price to pay in the long run.
In my eyes there is no doubt - Iran is our sworn enemy. One does not trade anything (let alone weapons) with one's enemy. Israel should strike as hard as it can using all means possible to destroy Iran's nuclear project.
What Israel is not allowed to do is indiscriminately bomb Iran civilian populations.

Israel's aim then was to make sure Iraq wouldn't defeat Iran, something that made sense then (even more so when comparing both regimes - the Hussein regime was way more brutal than the Iranian fundamentalists have been so far). I actually think it was a good thing, even in retrospective.

[sharonbn]

Israel's aim then was to make sure Iraq wouldn't defeat Iran, something that made sense then (even more so when comparing both regimes - the Hussein regime was way more brutal than the Iranian fundamentalists have been so far). I actually think it was a good thing, even in retrospective.

Israel's aim then was to make money. same aim it had when it made deals with Apartheid South Africa.
That is why we sold the Iranians defected and obsolete missiles and ammunition. This is all discussed at length by Ronen Bergman in his book "Point Of No Return" (highly recommended)
The Hussein regime may have been brutal towards the Iranians and its own internal opposition, but it never threatened Israel beyond its pathetic nuclear project, which we did away quite easily in 1981 (without any major repercussions from Iraq).
Nothing close to the Iranian founded and funded Hizballah.

[wat0n]

Israel's aim then was to make money. same aim it had when it made deals with Apartheid South Africa.
That is why we sold the Iranians defected and obsolete missiles and ammunition. This is all discussed at length by Ronen Bergman in his book "Point Of No Return" (highly recommended)

Interesting, though it doesn't explain why arms weren't sold to Iraq as well (like the US did). I find it hard to believe Israeli policymakers didn't consider geopolitical issues when authorizing these sales.

The Hussein regime may have been brutal towards the Iranians and its own internal opposition, but it never threatened Israel beyond its pathetic nuclear project, which we did away quite easily in 1981 (without any major repercussions from Iraq).
Nothing close to the Iranian founded and funded Hizballah.

Hussein actively supported the PLO and later Palestinian terrorism during the '90s by, for example, giving pensions to the families of suicide bombers.

[Pleepleus]

Interesting, though it doesn't explain why arms weren't sold to Iraq as well (like the US did). I find it hard to believe Israeli policymakers didn't consider geopolitical issues when authorizing these sales...

The fact that Israel and Iraq were still legally at war and Saddam's threats against Israel were reason enough for Israel not to sell weapons to Iraq.