Israel’s massive air strikes against Syria are, beyond argument, illegal. There is no provision in international law that enables you to bomb another country because that country is in internal chaos. Yet the reporting on the BBC, and indeed throughout the mainstream media, makes no mention of their illegality, and makes no mention of the people killed. Contrast this to the condemnatory tone of BBC reporting of North Korean ballistic missile tests, or of Iran’s civil uranium enrichment programme, both of which I view as neither wise nor desirable, but both of which are undoubtedly quite legal.
I have previously noted that Israel does not want the Syrian regime to fall. Tel Aviv has looked long and hard at the likely result, and decided that the risks are too great; an Israel-friendly Sunni strongman could yet be engineered, but a jihadist influenced government is a very real danger for them. This Israeli coolness is the major reason that the Obama government have stepped back from stoking directly the flames of war, although they continue to do so through their Saudi, Qatar and other allies.
But a Syria tearing itself to pieces is, so long as it lasts, pretty acceptable to Netanyahu. He can step in when he wants and destroy Syria’s military infrastructure, such as the defensive installations just wiped out in massive strikes around Damascus. This is very helpful to Israel’s long term military domination. Normally the scale of this devastating Israeli attack on Syria’s ability to defend itself against Israel air strikes would have brought the most profound world condemnation, but suddenly it is “humanitarian intervention” – and nobody in the western media has even felt the need to justify the narrative that Damascus’ air defences were a humanitarian threat to rebel populations.
In the meantime, a clear statement from the United Nations that the evidence points to rebels, not the government, using the chemical weapon Sarin in Syria, does appear on the BBC website but I have not heard it broadcast, and it does not figure in western media with a hundredth of the prominence given to the unsubstantiated claims of Assad forces using Sarin.
I am in no sense a supporter of Assad. I should dearly love to see his regime overthrown and a democratic government representing the Syrian people installed instead. But the attempt to subvert Syria and influence the country towards the installation of a US and House of Saud backed puppet regime, backed by an extraordinary barrage of distorted propaganda to fool western populations over the course and meaning of events, is sickening.
Assad’s Syria: Perhaps better the devil we know to the ones we don’t who will fill his shoes.
Carla Del Ponte – ex-ICC, now of UN – reports her high suspicion of sarin gas being used by the rebels in Syria.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/06/world/middleeast/syrian-rebels-may-have-used-sarin.html?_r=0
@Syhayl
She didn’t work at the ICC – she worked at the ICTY (and ICTR). I should know I used to work for her!
Israel and Syria are still officially at war, so Israelis probably legally entitled to attack any Syrian military establishment it chooses.
Israel has no automatic right to attack.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml
Escobar: Israel gets US’s blessing to bomb Syria http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s64Z1X_6ito&feature=player_embedded#!
~~~
I have stopped listening to Radio 4 Today. Cannot take any more of the state broadcaster. The new director of news Harding is supposed to have left his baggage (pro Israel) at the door according to Patten.
Thank goodness I missed this exchange this morning recorded on Medialens.
TODAY : �First, Jeremy Bowen, then to an Israeli for the last word”
Posted by George Brennan on May 6, 2013, 10:30 am
Today Programme today the sixth at ABOUT 8.36 am. Above is not a exact verbatim quote but it captures the spirit. I think the Editors have somewhere shown that Today has form in this regard.
The legality of the action was not discussed. A spokesman from the violated nation was not heard from. A Hezbollah spokesman was not heard from. An international lawyer was not heard from. The legitimacy of any �pre-emptive� strategic assault by Israel was taken as given; all that was questioned was the true target of the strategy. The interviewer suspected that the real target was not Hezbollah but the Syrian regime. Probing stuff! That would of course be an added reason for hearing the Syrian side of things.
To be fair. I did not hear the full three hours. Perhaps there was redemption elsewhere. The Today programme will not go i-player until tomorrow the seventh of May.
Posted by Richard on May 6, 2013, 10:51 am, in reply to “TODAY : �First, Jeremy Bowen, then to an Israeli for the last word””
I listened to it and it was disgraceful, totally one-sided and benevolent towards Israel No questioning of the legality of Israels raids, it seems such actions are deemed acceptable by the BBC but any reprisals by Hezbollah, Syria or Iran are not. Iran is tainted as a pariah state and the cause of the troubles in the Middle East whereas Israel, which acts illegally and in contravention to all norms of international law is portrayed as the victims and saviours of “western democracy”.
The reporter said Israel attacked an arms site in order to stop “sophisticated Iranian weapons reaching Hezbolla”, thus justifying the attack using propaganda from the Israeli side.
Although Jeremy Bowen did say that it was hard to fathom why Iran would send weapons to Hezbollah via Syria when they could just fly them straight into Lebanon’s airport.
The BBC also insinuated that Iran is sending surface to surface missile into Lebanon. Another unsubstantiated statement.
The BBC is not only the progandist for the Tory government and the USA but also Israel. They really do need pulling up.
“The BBC is not only the progandist for the Tory government and the USA but also Israel. They really do need pulling up.”
Not pulling up – abolishing!
Yes agree there Craig.
A journalist friend who knows the region wrote this morning:
Remember in the run up to the attack on Iraq (2003) the constant drip was that “Saddam was a threat to his neighbours” and thus must be invaded. All the “neighbours” without exception, even Iran kept saying he was not a threat, but out came the same line from US-UK Inc. Now that Israel has proved yet again that it is a paramount threat to its “neighbours” and the entire region, there is not a word.
And by the way, how long is it that Syria has kept the peace over the Golan which is not recognised as Israel’s and most definitely IS Syria’s?
If Israel triggers all-out war in the region, there will be nothing left – including Israel. Truly terrifying times.
Craig: “….I am in no sense a supporter of Assad. I should dearly love to see his regime overthrown and a democratic government representing the Syrian people installed instead… ”
Syria has a new constitution since 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Syria
Assad was re-elected with a clear majority http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_parliamentary_election,_2012
I think it fairly obvious that the main purpose in attacking Syria is to start a war with Iran. The US/NATO/Israel axis are presumably hoping that Iran will get sucked in to the conflict as they have a defence pact with Syria. If there is any retaliation against Israel then the US will have the pretext it needs for military action against Syria and eventually against Iran.
Even if ethical considerations are left aside this is very dangerous stuff. The BRICS countries and the Chinese in particular simply cannot allow the western plutocracies to seize control of Iran and its oil. We may well be headed for Thermonuclear war.
The BBC really is beyond parody when it comes to Israel; Israel is beyond parody when it comes to its perennial whining victimhood – and both continue to get away with it! Like the man who, having murdered his parents, demands sympathy for his status as an orphan, ‘Chutzpah’ no longer does justice to the phemomena. I despair at the purblind stupidity of western populations, I really do.
Any other country doing what Israel has done would have sparked an immediate UNSC debate. Not only did they attack a sovereign state that has kept the peace with them for over 40 years (in spite of having part of its sovereign territory occupied throughout that time), but they violated the airspace of another sovereign state to do so.
Israel simply does not give a shit about international law, or any of the norms of civilised behaviour when it sees advantage to itself. It is a racist apartheid state that was spawned by terrorists and has been ruled by terrorists ever since – and, with its routine Ingsoc-like doublethink, our sanctimonious foreign policy establishment affects not to notice any of it.
Sorry OT(ish)
They’re at it again with the memory of Walter Scott too, who rapidly turned against the union, and wrote of its consequences scathingly and with bitter regret till the end of his days, romanticising the rebels and rebellion, lamenting greatly the great damage done to highland and lowland culture, the course events had taken and the political betrayal of the nation. A slew of programs from Great Lives to Frostrup’s Open Book were all turned into one-sided screeds against independence, vain and crude re-writes of history and his works.
Your blog-post says it so well. When I saw footage of the alarming explosions on the outskirts of Damascus I thought in terms of violation of international law, but then when you think of the state of Israel you know they have no regard for international law and wonder if they have ever observed it, except by accident. Violations include the development of nuclear weapons, abduction by MOSSAD of Mordechai Vanunu, theft of land and other resources from Palestinians. International Organisations, even if they had the will to enforce the law, are powerless against a nation state like Israel (Banker to the world).
Roger
6 May, 2013 – 11:42 am
“Israel and Syria are still officially at war, so Israelis probably legally entitled to attack any Syrian military establishment it chooses.”
And vice versa would you not agree?
Thanks, exexpat. You’re quite right, I stand corrected. Carla Del Ponte worked for the ICTR (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda) and ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia), not for the ICC (International Criminal Court).
And good on you, if you worked with her!
A close protection officer working out of Dubai has explained how Israel moved to a Plan B after the December 2012 and March 19 2013 sarin gas false-flag attempts in which British and French governments had written to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon of the United Nations confirming the transfer and then use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government, failed to gain US and international leverage.
Israel’s Brigadier General Itai Brun, speaking at a security conference in Israel, unfolded a modification of the S-plan with the announcement:
“To the best of our professional understanding, the regime used lethal chemical weapons against the militants in a series of incidents over the past months,” Brun said, according to an Associated Press report from Tel Aviv. “Shrunken pupils, foaming at the mouth and other signs indicate, in our view, that lethal chemical weapons were used.”
The CP officer has confirmed the original S-Plan was required to prove chemical weapons were being moved to Lebanon and Hezbollah from Syrian storage sites. The S-Plan made use of small aluminium vials containing binary precursors to sarin that required mixing.
Fragmenting expectations of Syria falling after Assad agreeing to safe passage by the West and these recent stalemates has lead to the current in your face aerial attacks by a frustrated Israel, intended to destroy Assad’s military capability, again with a pretense, a masquerade that high tech weaponry was being transferred to Lebanon.
From an ex-US Army Officer. Interesting site:
“UK special forces are being pulled out of Afghanistan ahead of a planned mission to help Syrian rebels. SAS and SBS commanders are drawing up top secret plans to give the fighters much-needed weapons. A Whitehall source revealed SAS and SBS veterans are being “quietly” withdrawn from Afghanistan to prepare for their new mission. They will be working with guidance from MI6 and their French counterparts, the Directorate-General for External Security, to get a £20million Brit-funded arsenal stockpiled in neighbouring countries into rebel hands.”
http://www.phantomreport.com/british-sas-on-syria-alert
“At least 42 soldiers killed, 100 missing after Israeli raid on Syria – NGO”
“Israeli air raids on three military sites near Damascus killed at least 42 soldiers at the weekend, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said in an updated toll on Monday. “At least 42 soldiers were killed in the strikes, and another 100 who would usually be at the targeted sites remain unaccounted for,”
Observatory director Rami Abdel Rahman told AFP. The Britain-based watchdog group earlier said at least 15 soldiers had been killed.”
Link for the above:
http://rt.com/news/line/2013-05-06/#47672
OT, there again, maybe not ?.
“Why Donald Ogden Stewart was Blacklisted.”
http://spartacus-educational.blogspot.de/2013/04/why-donald-ogden-stewart-was-blacklisted.html
Another interesting conjunction. The uncle of the alleged Boston bombers married a CIA Officer and it is alleged that he worked for the CIA, funding Chechen Jihadist paramilitaries. So, this man, who was interviewed so often in the immediate aftermath of the bombings, was meant to be simply, ‘an uncle’ but in fact may have been more like ‘The Man’ From Uncle’.
http://beforeitsnews.com/scandals/2013/05/boston-bombers-uncle-aided-chechanterrorists-for-cia-2431240.html
Back to the BBC. John Hilley writes.
Israel bombs Syria – an act of war and another ‘red line’ crossed
Monday, 6 May 2013
Israel has just committed at least two significant acts of war in bombing Syria. Many people are, most likely, dead and injured as a result. Yet, the BBC has nothing to report about the true status of the aggression and little about the human cost.
Consider if this had been a violation of Israeli airspace, an actual bombing of Israel or any such attack on a Western country. Imagine the ‘international crisis’. The context would have been immediate and specific: ‘an act of war’, the coverage of victims massive and detailed.
Nor are Israeli ‘strikes’, rather than bombings, reported by the BBC as specifically inhuman or illegal. They’re described, rather, with a basic insouciance, as though ‘terror states’ and their people should routinely expect such treatment.
/..
http://johnhilley.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/israel-bombs-syria-act-of-war-and.html
~~~
The Australian state broadcaster’s output is very similar to the BBC’s – Israel is described as ‘a regional stabilizer’ by the presenter.
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1367845043.html
Syria
“If the EU and US say nothing about these [Israeli] attacks, approval is granted”
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/robert-fisk-the-truth-is-that-after-israels-air-strikes-we-are-involved-8604593.html
Perhaps while we are on the question of what is and what isn’t legal under international law perhaps Craig and others might wish to express their views on the legality of the long running interference of both Syria and Iran in the sovereign affairs of Lebanon and their support for Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel. Not that one illegality can be used as the basis for another – but perhaps it is not just the BBC that is unable to see both sides of the story.
BTW where has anyone described the Israeli attacks as an “humanitarian intervention”?
@Doug Scourgie
Syria
“If the EU and US say nothing about these [Israeli] attacks, approval is granted”
Good to see that the old witch dunking test lives on. Now what do you say nothing about Mr Scourgie? Do you believe that the human rights record of the Assad regime amounts to a breach of human rights law? Do you believe that any of the attacks on Israel amount to a breach of international law?
Re: ‘Hezbollahs attacks on Israel’
A typical start the clock whenever its convenient for your case sort of comment.
Naturally the fact that Hezbollah didn’t even exist until Israel invaded Lebanon can be completely ignored right? Israel has twice invaded Lebanon and are the creators of the enmity between the shias of Lebanon and the state of Israel. Also Israel is still occupying the Shebaa farms area which is claimed by Lebanon, a claim accepted incidentally by Syria.
Two weeks ago SecDef Hagel announced the Syrian govt may have used chems; two days later the cautious Obama said the same but said we need some corroboration. The noveau Neo-cons (McCain et al) immediately began hammering on the ‘red line’ and it’s crossing. They sure want to ‘help’ the Rebels, maybe because they are so concerned with establishing FEMAcracy in the ME.
As to who used chems, I think this has not been related. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505
The long list of lies produced by enemies of the Syrian government in the last few years have been quite staggering. The bloke in Coventry has employed every ounce of his imagination in trying to shape opinion against Assad. Anyone can Google Rami Abdulrahman to uncover the truth about this obnoxious little man who is causing havoc in Syria whilst remaining safe in his semi-detached Coventry home. What kind of serious news organisation would use the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights claims to headline its news stories?
Sorry, I forgot to make it clear that my last comment was a response to ‘resident dissident’
@April Showers/Mary
And given that the BBC/Amnesty/HRW is out of bounds – could you please let us know where we should go for up to date information about the human rights situation in Iran, Syria, Russia, North Korea etc. etc and the interference of countries other than the UK, US and Israel in the affairs of others. The sources you suggest appear to be a little short of information in those areas.