No sooner had Assad been overthrown than Israel moved its troops into the other side of Mount Hermon, breaking the 1974 Disengagement Agreement between Israel and Syria.
This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
“There should be no military forces or activities in the area of separation. And Israel and Syria must continue to uphold the terms of that 1974 agreement, and preserve stability in the Golan,” said Stéphane Dujarric, spokesperson for the UN secretary general, António Guterres
.
Of course Israel’s pretext is that it is acting in self-defence, a lie that David Lammy, who must qualify as the diplomatic equivalent of Netanyahu’s back scratcher, was eager to echo Netanyahu’s lies.
Israel’s unprovoked attack on Syria’s military assets - its navy and airforce - is based on the proposition that no victim of Israeli aggression is entitled to exercise the right to self defence. Only Israel has that right or more accurately Israel reserves to itself the right to attack any country, any time and anywhere. All of course with the blessing of the United States
.
The US has never paid much attention to international law. In the wake of the defeat of Nazi Germany wars of aggression were considered the supreme war crime.
Recalling that all members of the United Nations shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations as per Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, Mindful of the fact that aggression constitutes the most serious violation of the prohibition of the use of force
No-one should be taken in by Netanyahu’s lies about Israel having to act to protect its own security. There is a past history of Israeli leaders wishing to invade and change the political geography of their neighbours
Livia Rokach first published in 1980 a book ‘Israel’s Sacred Terrorism’ based on the Diaries of Moshe Sharrett, the only ‘dove’ to become Prime Minister of Israel. At this time of all times they repay a careful visit. Sharret wrote:
On February 25, 1954, Syrian troops stationed in Aleppo revolted against Adib Shishakly's regime.
After lunch Lavon took me aside and started trying to persuade me: This is the right moment to act this is the time to move forward and occupy the Syrian border positions beyond the Demilitarized Zone. Syria is disintegrating. A State with whom we signed an armistice agreement exists no more. Its government is about to fall and there is no other power in view. Moreover, Iraq has practically moved into Syria. This is an historical opportunity, we shouldn't miss it.
I was reluctant to approve such a blitz-plan and saw ourselves on the verge of an abyss of disastrous adventure. I asked if he suggests to act immediately and I was shocked when I realized that he does. I said that if indeed Iraq will move into Syria with its army it will be a revolutionary turn which will ... justify far reaching conclusions, but for the time being this is only a danger, not a fact. It is not even clear if Shishakly will fall: he may survive. We ought to wait before making any decision. He repeated that time was precious and we must act so as not to miss an opportunity which otherwise might be lost forever. Again I answered that under the circumstances right now I cannot approve any such action. Finally I said that next Saturday we would be meeting with Ben Gurion ... and we could consult him then on the matter. I saw that he was extremely displeased by the delay. However, he had no choice but to agree. (25 February 1954, 374)
The next day the Shishakly regime actually fell. The following day, February 27, Sharett was present at a meeting where Lavon and Dayan reported to Ben Gurion that what happened in Syria was - "a typical Iraqi action." The two proposed again that the Israeli army be put on the march. Ben Gurion, "electrified," agreed. Sharett reiterated his opposition, pointing to the certainty of a Security Council condemnation, the possibility of the use against Israel of the Tripartite Declaration of 1950, hence the probability of a "shameful failure" The three objected that "our entrance [into Syria] is justified in view of the situation in Syria. This is an act of defense of our border area." Sharett closed the discussion by insisting on the need for further discussion in the cabinet meeting, scheduled for the next morning:
Lavon's face wore a depressed expression. He understood this to be the end of the matter. (27 February 1954, 377)
On Sunday, February 28, the press reported that no Iraqi troops had entered Syria. The situation in Damascus was under the complete control of President Hashem Al Atassi. The cabinet approved Sharett's position and rejected Lavon's vehement appeal not to miss a historical opportunity. Lavon said "The U.S. is about to betray us and ally itself with the Arab world." We should "demonstrate our strength and indicate to the U.S. that our life depends on this so that they will not dare do anything against us." The premier's victory, however, was to be short-lived.
Until that time the Syrian-Israeli border presented no particular problems to the Israelis. When tensions developed, it was almost invariably due to Israeli provocations, such as the irrigation work on lands belonging to Arab farmers, which was condemned by the UN; or the use of military patrol boats against Syrian fishermen fishing in the Lake of Tiberias. No Syrian regime could afford to refrain from offering some minimum protection to its border citizens against Israeli attacks or the taking away of their livelihoods, but neither did the rulers of Damascus feel stable enough to wish to be dragged into a major conflict with their southern neighbor. Clashes were therefore minor, and essentially seasonal. No security arguments could be credibly invoked to justify an expansionist program, or any other aggression against Syria.
On December 12, 1954, however, a Syrian civilian plane was hijacked by Israeli war planes shortly after its takeoff, and forced to land at Lydda airport. Passengers and crew were detained and interrogated for two days, until stormy international protests
It must be clear to you that we had no justification whatsoever to seize the plane, and that once forced down we should have immediately released it and not held the passengers under interrogation for 48 hours. I have no reason to doubt the truth of the factual affirmation of the U.S. State Department that our action was without precedent in the history of international practice. ..... What shocks and worries me is the narrow-mindedness and the shortsightedness of our military leaders. They seem to presume that the State of Israel may or even must-behave in the realm of international relations according to the laws of the jungle. (22 December 1954, 607)
In the 1950s Israel didn’t posses the military power it does not nor did the United States give it a carte blanche to do what it wanted. At that time the Arab regimes were fearful of Israel and inclined to put pressure on Britain and the US to keep it in check. Today that is not the case but what this shows is that from its very beginnings Israeli leaders have been looking to expand their territory and interfere in the governance of their neighbours.
What happens in Syria today is no business of Israel. If Jihadists have come to power in Syria it is in no small way thanks to the support they have received from the United States and Israel.
No one should defend the crimes of Bashar Assad against his own people. When they rose up against him in 2011 he mowed down thousands without a thought. His prisons have indeed been grim torture chambers operating entirely outside the law.
Maher Arar
We should not forget that in September 2002, as he was on his way home to Canada, Maher Arar was sent by the US officials to be detained and interrogated under torture in Syria under a program known as “extraordinary rendition.” The horrifying account of what happened to him is documented by the Centre for Constitutional Rights.
Syria is on the way to becoming another failed state along Libyan and Iraqi lines. Turkish-backed rebels have launched an offensive against Kurdish-led forces on the northern border with Turkey and the US has carried out dozens of airstrikes against Islamic State targets.
Israel has launched massive bombing raids on Damascus and other areas without any justification at all other than its long proclaimed ‘right to self defence’. Of course Starmer and Lammy have gone along with anything that Israel deems necessary.
Meanwhile Hayat Tahrir al-Sham [HTS], was formerly known as Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of Al Qaeda. It is led by Muhammad al-Julani who in the early 2000s joined Al Qaida in Iraq, the forerunner of ISIS, only to break away from them by creating his own group, Jabhat al-Nusra.
HTS is on Britain’s list of proscribed terrorist organisations but the British and US governments have made it plain that as long as they don’t oppose western interests then the label ‘terrorist’ can be removed.
It is clear that the deposing of Assad, coupled with the immense weakening of Hezbollah, which was forced to accept a humiliating ‘ceasefire’ and the loss of Syrian territory as a means of resupplying it with new weaponry, is a defeat for both Arab nationalists and the Palestinians.
The Axis of Resistance, which was always a cover for the interests of the Iranian regime, is no more. The Iranian regime itself is now directly in the cross-hairs of the Israel regime and its US/British sponsors.
What are the lessons that we have to draw? The first is that it is an illusion to believe that the Palestinians can rely on the support of regimes which are fundamentally undemocratic such as Assad or Khameini’s Iran. The problem in the Arab East is precisely the fact that the wealth of the region is commandeered by repressive and corrupt regimes that fear their own people and enter into alliances with both the United States and Israel.
Zionism will not disappear until the Arab masses take matters into their own hands. Above all that means both a social and national revolution in the Arab states if imperialism is to be defeated. The Iranian regime is both corrupt and repressive and is unpopular with its own people. To believe that it is capable of withstanding the enmity of the United States and Israel is wishful thinking. In practice the Iranian regime has, for years, tried to reach a deal with the US only to be spurned.
Likewise Iranian attempts to become a regional hegemon today lie in ruins. Israel has asserted its power with the full backing of Western imperialism.
However as Israel extends its forces and seeks to grab a portion of Southern Syria, which has always been a long-term goal it will find new enemies on its borders and we can hope to see a new Hezbollah arise in Syria if Israel doesn’t withdraw. That is why in the long-term Zionism is doomed. Its attempts to recreate the biblical land of Israel [Eretz Yisrael] are a pipedream but no less real for that.
