Quote:
|
Israel plays by the international laws, they COULD have taken over their enemies lands and everything that comes with it.
|
Just between you and me, I'll share a small secret with you.
In 1964 Israel began diverting *massive* amounts of water from the Jordan river into the Negev Desert. This action threatened the very survival of half of the Syrian countryside (water being a somewhat valuable asset in a arid region).
Syria, realising that it faced a potential catastrophe on an epic scale appealed to Israel to stop the work. Israel refused.
Syria responded by quickly beginning its own work on the river to prevent the loss of water that would have been caused by the Israeli work. Israel responded to this with military strikes at the Syrian waterproject site. A small border conflict ensued which lasted until:
1967 - Eygypt realising that the small states of Syria was about to be destroyed decided to impose sanctions and to forbid any ships bound to or leaving Israel from entering its territorial waters (its sovereign right).
In response, Israeli Prime Minister Dayan publicly stated to Egypt, Syria and Jordan (who was also losing water as a result of Israel's water project), that a diplomatic solution could be found and that war, far from being inevitable was unlikely and that he would *not* launch a first strike.
Eygyt, Syria and Jordan reacted by scaling down their troop activity on the borders of Israel when suddenly (and without warning), Israel launched a massive and simultaneous airstrike on all three countries destryong more than 300 Eyptian, 50 Syrian and 20 Jordanian aircraft while they were still on the ground.
Israel then launched a ground offensive on to the territories of those countries and routed their troops who were now without air support. At the end of the conflict, Israel refused to hand back the territory that it had seized from them.
Now, you are right in thinking that Israel was not breaking international law by building the water project - although it was a provocation that would inevitably lead to war. Without water, not only do people die, but so does their agriculture - Syria and Jordan *had* to react or die of thirst.
On the other hand, the attacks on its neighbours was unquestionably both illegal and without any justification. There was *no* need for Israel to 'Pearl harbour' its neighbours - it was a murderous act outside international law.
Since 1967, Israel has repeated violated international law in the way that it suppresses the Palestinian people. It has seized their land, evicted them from their homes, used the military against civilians, engaged in collective punishment, instigated racist laws... the list is endless and puts it almost on a par with the way that Saddam Hussein treated the Shi'ite population.
It is not for nothing that the UN made 65 resolutions calling for Israel to return to international law. Had it not been for the US's vetos of further resolutions, that list would number more than a hundred! (Which makes Saddam Hussein's Iraq look like a really nice and innocent little country).
[ 08-22-2003, 03:41 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]