Air raid sirens sounded in the Golan Heights - Israeli military statement

[Kiwiken]

Israel has launched multiple attacks into Syria during the course of the Syrian Civil war. Unsuprisingly now that Trump has cancelled US participation in the Nuclear deal. Iran feels no need restrain itself from retaliating against Israel. Trump the US Hawks , israel and Saudi Arabia want conflict with Iran. I pray for the Mothers who's children will be lost to satisfy Old Men's ego's .

[JAG]

38 minutes ago, IAMHERE said:

It is their land now. Israel fights war the old fashion way, take what you win. None of this war for bragging rights like America. All the war in the last century and the victors hardly have any land to show for it. 

The pre 1967 borders of Israel were/are to all intents and purposes indefensible. Now of course that possibly would not matter, if the four bordering countries, Egypt, Jordan (enthusiastically backed up by/prodded by Iraq), Syria and Lebanon had not threatened, harboured terrorist groups or indeed constantly attacked Israel. But they did all this, constantly, for the first 20 years of Israel's existence. 1967 allowed Israel to seize land to make itself defensible. That's why they took that land, that's why they hang onto it.

[billd766]

1 hour ago, Kiwiken said:

Israel has launched multiple attacks into Syria during the course of the Syrian Civil war. Unsuprisingly now that Trump has cancelled US participation in the Nuclear deal. Iran feels no need restrain itself from retaliating against Israel. Trump the US Hawks , israel and Saudi Arabia want conflict with Iran. I pray for the Mothers who's children will be lost to satisfy Old Men's ego's .

 

Wouldn't it be good if the children of ALL countries politicians world wide were to be in the front lines of every battle, attack and war. Then they may consider true reality that the families of most service men and women face.

[lannarebirth]

2 hours ago, JAG said:

The pre 1967 borders of Israel were/are to all intents and purposes indefensible. Now of course that possibly would not matter, if the four bordering countries, Egypt, Jordan (enthusiastically backed up by/prodded by Iraq), Syria and Lebanon had not threatened, harboured terrorist groups or indeed constantly attacked Israel. But they did all this, constantly, for the first 20 years of Israel's existence. 1967 allowed Israel to seize land to make itself defensible. That's why they took that land, that's why they hang onto it.

 

Understood, but why have they settled it?

[Stargeezr]

Yes Syria, do not worry about those missiles,, they were only cleaning up a small Iranian mess that strayed into Syria somehow.. Too bad Assad was not under where the missiles landed, that's my opinion anyhow.

Geezer

[JAG]

7 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Understood, but why have they settled it?

I don't know. They should not.

I suppose they see it as providing an element of permanancy to the occupation. They shouldn't have. Militarily having to guard and secure the settlements must be a nightmare. But we cannot escape the fact that if they pull out of The West Bank and The Golan, the attacks will start again. Gaza showed that.

Edited May 10, 2018 by JAG

[ezzra]

21 hours ago, dexterm said:

As is the racist state of Israel. Making war is only MO they know. Isn't it time they tried making peace with their neighbors by giving back land they have stolen... the Golan Heights.

 

I have no doubt that Israel with their sophisticated weaponry will ultimately prevail in the latest war they are intent on starting, but Netanyahu and draft dodging Trump will have much Israeli and possibly US blood on their hands when the missiles start flying. Many civilians on both sides will be killed.

 

Readers note who started this.

Let me put it in a way that even the most daft person in the world will understand,

when you have a country that is sworn to destroy you time and time again, moving it's army, rockets and missiles into a country they have no business being there, that Israel the zionist country and the occupier or arab's lands, has every right to preempt and attack at any cost, when Israel detected that rockets and missiles are being moved out from their silos and bunkers, they knew that an attack is coming and strikes first, no other country in the world will sit and wait for it's people to be killed, now i'm sure that none of the above will sway you from holding hatred and loathing views of Israel which you have shown to have time and time again...

[simple1]

2 hours ago, ezzra said:

Let me put it in a way that even the most daft person in the world will understand,

when you have a country that is sworn to destroy you time and time again, moving it's army, rockets and missiles into a country they have no business being there, that Israel the zionist country and the occupier or arab's lands, has every right to preempt and attack at any cost, when Israel detected that rockets and missiles are being moved out from their silos and bunkers, they knew that an attack is coming and strikes first, no other country in the world will sit and wait for it's people to be killed, now i'm sure that none of the above will sway you from holding hatred and loathing views of Israel which you have shown to have time and time again...

Acknowledge Iran is a threat, but no idea where you get your info from. Problem with your comment is Iran was invited by Syria to assist the Assad regime fight against Islamists. Syrian government has invited Iran to attend peace conferences and so on.

A few days back an Israeli cabinet member threatened to assassinate Assad if Iranian forces did not withdraw from Syria, do you in your wisdom believe such threats are constructive?

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-07/israeli-minister-threatens-assad-over-any-iranian-attacks/9736216

[Grouse]

May I recommend the latest Hard Talk on BBC Radio and World News? Stephen Sakur talks to the Israeli foreign minister. Demolition job frankly 

[simple1]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

May I recommend the latest Hard Talk on BBC Radio and World News? Stephen Sakur talks to the Israeli foreign minister. Demolition job frankly 

Yes I watched the interview. She tried very hard not to lose her temper under pressure - intense duck & weave efforts by the Israeli. IMO Sakur is outstanding

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

May I recommend the latest Hard Talk on BBC Radio and World News? Stephen Sakur talks to the Israeli foreign minister. Demolition job frankly 

I haven't seen/ heard it, but defending the indefensible must be hard if the interviewer isn't playing softball.

It's impossible to justify building settlements on occupied land, against all international law.

[ezzra]

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

Acknowledge Iran is a threat, but no idea where you get your info from. Problem with your comment is Iran was invited by Syria to assist the Assad regime fight against Islamists. Syrian government has invited Iran to attend peace conferences and so on.

A few days back an Israeli cabinet member threatened to assassinate Assad if Iranian forces did not withdraw from Syria, do you in your wisdom believe such threats are constructive?

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-07/israeli-minister-threatens-assad-over-any-iranian-attacks/9736216

Just because Iran was "invited" to occupy Syria by a tyrant and a genocider Assad it doesn't mean they have the rights to establish forward positions to attack Israel, and what pray tell, Is Iran doing in in Syria in the first place? have they rebuilt Syria, helped the people and it's economy in any way? NO! they're there for one purpose only, to expand their control on the middle east and to attack Israel...

[simple1]

29 minutes ago, ezzra said:

Just because Iran was "invited" to occupy Syria by a tyrant and a genocider Assad it doesn't mean they have the rights to establish forward positions to attack Israel, and what pray tell, Is Iran doing in in Syria in the first place? have they rebuilt Syria, helped the people and it's economy in any way? NO! they're there for one purpose only, to expand their control on the middle east and to attack Israel...

Yep Assad is a cruel and terrible dictator and from time to time supporter of  Islamist terrorism. All this does not change the fact Syria is a sovereign nation. Assad government does have the right to invite Iranian forces as it does Russian. As to why Iran is legally in Syria perhaps you should do some basic research.

 

Israel obviously has the right to respond to confirmed military attacks on its territory by Iranian forces or indeed anyone else. I do sometimes wonder, whether the original decision makers to create the State of Israel at its current location, if they were still alive, would today conclude it was a good decision. 

Edited May 11, 2018 by simple1

[dexterm]

29 minutes ago, ezzra said:

Just because Iran was "invited" to occupy Syria by a tyrant and a genocider Assad it doesn't mean they have the rights to establish forward positions to attack Israel, and what pray tell, Is Iran doing in in Syria in the first place? have they rebuilt Syria, helped the people and it's economy in any way? NO! they're there for one purpose only, to expand their control on the middle east and to attack Israel...

>>what pray tell, Is Iran doing in in Syria in the first place?
...same as US forces that are in Syria...fighting ISIS. But the Iranians were actually invited by the Syrian government to defend their fellow Shia against terrorists, unlike US forces who invited themselves.

 

I am no great fan of Assad either. Syria seems to be one giant battlefield for proxy wars.

[geriatrickid]

23 hours ago, sukhumvitneon said:

This whole mess could've been avoided if it weren't for the Balfour Declaration where the British promised the same piece of land to two different ethnic groups simultaneously. 

The Balfour Declaration isn't the principal reason.  I remind you that many of the current arab countries did not exist during the Ottoman era. The Turks ruled the middle east for centuries. The British and French promised the arabs that they would have independence if they revolted against the Turks in 1916, or at the very least helped the British and French defeat the Turks. The arabs held up their end of the agreement. Then there was the Balfour Agreement. In practice, that agreement was a carryover from Napoleon's promise in 1799 and and the support of the  Egyptian Ottoman ruler(s) agreements in the 1800's that they would support the re-establishment of Israel following successive massacres of jews in Baghdad, Tunis, Libya and other cities. It wasn't anything new or innovative, since it had been promised by multiple rulers over the previous century. It was just another promise in a long list of promises by colonial rulers.

I offer that the key circumstance was when the British and French did not respect their agreement from 1916 and said that circumstances had changed once the Ottoman Empire collapsed.  It's easy to  say it was the Balfour declaration, but that lets too many people  avoid their responsibilities, particularly the Europeans. In plain language the French and British lied and betrayed the arabs and kept much of the arab territory as foreign possessions. That's a far worse event than the Balfour declaration. The betrayal of the arabs is one of the reasons why the arabs didn't take the Balfour declaration too seriously at first, as they  assumed the Europeans would renege on it too.

 

22 hours ago, billd766 said:

I agree that it is time to reset the clock. Isreal shold leave ALL the territories it has invaded since 1967 and stop attacking other countries, leave East Jerusalem and publically destroy ALL its nuclear weapons. Then they can start peace talks from that reset point.

Israel did just that and was nearly wiped out in 1948-49 and again in 1967. Israel  wasn't the invader and didn't start those wars. The arab countries attacked and lost. Israel occupies a sliver of space and some countries want them removed totally and will not accept peace. Other arab countries have accepted Israel's existence and made peace. It may not be perfect but the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan have held.   If you believe that Israel has nothing better to do than to engage in wars and to spend billions on defense, you are mistaken. That's money that could be better spent on improving social standards.

 

21 hours ago, Dogmatix said:

Wasn't Israel ordered to hand back the Golan Heights to Syria under a UN resolution several decades ago?

Not really. The same UN didn't do much when Iraq used poison gas, or when the muslim world  laughed off the  genocide of black african Christians in the Darfur, or that appointed Iran to the human rights council, the same Iran that hangs children from cranes in public areas because they are gay? The UN didn't do much during the  height of the Assad atrocities against his own people and the creation of millions of refugees.  Assad uses poison gas on non combatants and the UN does nothing.  And yet you expect some countries to accept whatever the biased and corrupt UN says?      Ok, then. You tell 'em tiger.

 

16 hours ago, Asiantravel said:

Israel have you believe they can attack anywhere in Syria whenever they like.But as soon as Syria and their allies fight back it's aggression.

Syria wasn't attacking. It's the Iranian Republican Guard units who have been using Syria as a base to attack Israel. As bad as Assad is, and as bad as the relations are between Syria and  Israel, Assad is still alive. Israel could kill him any day with a nice missile to his hideout in Damascus. Israel doesn't want a failed state collapse on its border and can see the results of that with Libya and Iraq. That's the only reason Assad is still alive . Also, because Putin told the Israelis, no.

Meanwhile, the nice Russians are sharing some  missile codes. It's amazing what some Saudi money can get.  The  Arab sunnis may dislike Israel, but boy, oh boy do they dislike the Shiites more. The jews can be dealt with, but apostate shiites  merit a different fate. 

[simple1]

58 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

Meanwhile, the nice Russians are sharing some  missile codes.

https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Report-Iran-accuses-Russia-of-giving-Israel-codes-for-Syrian-air-defenses-484777

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, geriatrickid said:

The Balfour Declaration isn't the principal reason.  I remind you that many of the current arab countries did not exist during the Ottoman era. The Turks ruled the middle east for centuries. The British and French promised the arabs that they would have independence if they revolted against the Turks in 1916, or at the very least helped the British and French defeat the Turks. The arabs held up their end of the agreement. Then there was the Balfour Agreement. In practice, that agreement was a carryover from Napoleon's promise in 1799 and and the support of the  Egyptian Ottoman ruler(s) agreements in the 1800's that they would support the re-establishment of Israel following successive massacres of jews in Baghdad, Tunis, Libya and other cities. It wasn't anything new or innovative, since it had been promised by multiple rulers over the previous century. It was just another promise in a long list of promises by colonial rulers.

I offer that the key circumstance was when the British and French did not respect their agreement from 1916 and said that circumstances had changed once the Ottoman Empire collapsed.  It's easy to  say it was the Balfour declaration, but that lets too many people  avoid their responsibilities, particularly the Europeans. In plain language the French and British lied and betrayed the arabs and kept much of the arab territory as foreign possessions. That's a far worse event than the Balfour declaration. The betrayal of the arabs is one of the reasons why the arabs didn't take the Balfour declaration too seriously at first, as they  assumed the Europeans would renege on it too.

 

Israel did just that and was nearly wiped out in 1948-49 and again in 1967. Israel  wasn't the invader and didn't start those wars. The arab countries attacked and lost. Israel occupies a sliver of space and some countries want them removed totally and will not accept peace. Other arab countries have accepted Israel's existence and made peace. It may not be perfect but the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan have held.   If you believe that Israel has nothing better to do than to engage in wars and to spend billions on defense, you are mistaken. That's money that could be better spent on improving social standards.

 

Not really. The same UN didn't do much when Iraq used poison gas, or when the muslim world  laughed off the  genocide of black african Christians in the Darfur, or that appointed Iran to the human rights council, the same Iran that hangs children from cranes in public areas because they are gay? The UN didn't do much during the  height of the Assad atrocities against his own people and the creation of millions of refugees.  Assad uses poison gas on non combatants and the UN does nothing.  And yet you expect some countries to accept whatever the biased and corrupt UN says?      Ok, then. You tell 'em tiger.

 

Syria wasn't attacking. It's the Iranian Republican Guard units who have been using Syria as a base to attack Israel. As bad as Assad is, and as bad as the relations are between Syria and  Israel, Assad is still alive. Israel could kill him any day with a nice missile to his hideout in Damascus. Israel doesn't want a failed state collapse on its border and can see the results of that with Libya and Iraq. That's the only reason Assad is still alive . Also, because Putin told the Israelis, no.

Meanwhile, the nice Russians are sharing some  missile codes. It's amazing what some Saudi money can get.  The  Arab sunnis may dislike Israel, but boy, oh boy do they dislike the Shiites more. The jews can be dealt with, but apostate shiites  merit a different fate. 

The usual pseudo history mythology to make the Zionist narrative seem perfect.Been debunked many times on this forum.

 

Bottom line is modern Israel was established over the last 100 years by mainly European colonizers by dispossessing the indigenous Palestinian population. Explain how 36 of the 37 signatories to Israel's Declaration of Independence were born overseas. And the minority Jews can only maintain their control over the majority Palestinians through apartheid, and friends in high places in foreign governments.

 

Iran wants the destruction of the elitist racist Zionist ideology, not the Israeli people...and so do I.

 

Until Israel makes its enemies its friends, it will forever be looking over its shoulder fighting wars...no way to live ... young Israelis are voting with their feet and leaving. Israel will probably win this round of hostilities. They are allowed to develop the most sophisticated weaponry and nuclear bombs, while Trump is determined to hamstring Iran. 

[thaibeachlovers]

22 hours ago, simple1 said:

Israel obviously has the right to respond to confirmed military attacks on its territory by Iranian forces or indeed anyone else. I do sometimes wonder, whether the original decision makers to create the State of Israel at its current location, if they were still alive, would today conclude it was a good decision. 

if they were still alive,

Highly unlikely, as it originated in the 19th century.

[sanemax]

On 5/10/2018 at 11:34 AM, sukhumvitneon said:

This whole mess could've been avoided if it weren't for the Balfour Declaration where the British promised the same piece of land to two different ethnic groups simultaneously. 

You must understand, Britain was in the middle of a World War, fighting against the Nazi regime , the U.K was fighting for its life , if the U.K would have been defeated , the Nazis or Communists would now rule supreme .

   

[simple1]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

if they were still alive,

Highly unlikely, as it originated in the 19th century.

Excellent comprehension - not

[Morch]

A whole lot of the usual waffle which comes up on each and every topic remotely to do with Israel. This topic ain't about the historical circumstances relating to the creation of the state of Israel, it's also not about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not even about Israel's "right" to occupy/annex the Golan Heights, and certainly not about the Zionist this or Zionist that drivel.

 

It's about the latest chapter in a regional proxy war.

 

Iran was invited by Assad's regime to assist winning the civil war. Fair enough, regardless if one likes Assad/Iran or not. Iran, however, was not invited to Syria with the aim of engaging Israel from Syrian soil. I don't think Assad was looking to open yet another front, while dealing with the situation in country.

 

Iran does not have any claim to the Golan Heights, and its military presence in Syria is not (regardless of this or that motivational statement) about winning the Golan Heights back on Assad's behalf. Iran is in Syria to advance its own regional interests, and these do not always fully correspond to Assad's agenda.

 

With regard to Israeli air strikes in Syria - in recent years these were mostly targeting arms transfers, from Iran and/or Syria, to Hezbollah (an Iranian proxy based in neighboring Lebanon). Such weapons transfers, and especially more advanced variations, are considered a threat by Israel, and rightly so. And before going on about such airstrikes being "illegal" (which could be debated), it may be worthwhile to consider that them arms transfers are in contradiction of specific UNSC resolutions (among other things).

 

As pointed out above, Iran's aid to Syria is not a simple matter of goodwill and brotherly love, but represents an Iranian investment in regional interests. These include preserving the previous order of things in Syria (Alwaite control), increasing Iran's influence in country, and securing a base of operations vs. Israel.

 

The Iranian way of doing things relies on organizing (or aiding) local Shia militias, which while nominally national, bear strong ties to, or are even controlled by Iran. Outside of main bases in Syria, most of the Iranian ground troops are actually such militias - some Syrian, some Iraqi and other from further afield. For the last year or so, Iran stepped up its efforts to form such militias in Southern Syria (nearer to Israel), or divert existing units there. This came with bases, Iranian intelligence units and so on.

 

As Israel's airstrikes went on, Iran sought to curb them by deploying advanced systems to Syria (drones, air-defenses, SRBMs). Most of the recent airstrikes were more to do with targeting such Iranian systems, even prior to them being made operational.

 

I doubt Assad is thrilled with Iran's actions, but his room for maneuvering may be restricted. Putin is probably not too keen about it as well, Russia's interest being stabilizing things in Syria (and limiting Iran's clout), rather than getting involved in a regional war.

[Morch]

On 5/11/2018 at 9:32 AM, Grouse said:

May I recommend the latest Hard Talk on BBC Radio and World News? Stephen Sakur talks to the Israeli foreign minister. Demolition job frankly 

 

Yeah, well...not the sharpest pencil. She's actually the Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister - Netanyahu neutered the Foreign Affairs Ministry by holding on to that portfolio, and appointing several lightweight political underlings to run errands. If it reminds you of Trump...yep. Anyway, she's quite out there even in the context of the current Israeli coalition government.

 

On 5/11/2018 at 9:21 AM, simple1 said:

Acknowledge Iran is a threat, but no idea where you get your info from. Problem with your comment is Iran was invited by Syria to assist the Assad regime fight against Islamists. Syrian government has invited Iran to attend peace conferences and so on.

A few days back an Israeli cabinet member threatened to assassinate Assad if Iranian forces did not withdraw from Syria, do you in your wisdom believe such threats are constructive?

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-07/israeli-minister-threatens-assad-over-any-iranian-attacks/9736216

 

And that would yet another Israeli minister, National Infrastructure or something, issuing hot air statements which got nothing to do with his post. A plague when it comes to Israeli politics. As an aside, Netanyahu actually asked his ministers not to run their mouths regarding the current tensions - which many promptly ignored.

 

There were quite a bit of similar statements made from Iranian and Syrian politicians, guess it shows there's no monopoly on idiocy.

[sanemax]

On 5/11/2018 at 9:21 AM, simple1 said:

A few days back an Israeli cabinet member threatened to assassinate Assad if Iranian forces did not withdraw from Syria, 

No he did not .

It was stated that it would be the end of Assad and his regime, if he allowed Iran to attack Israel .

 

[simple1]

43 minutes ago, sanemax said:

No he did not .

It was stated that it would be the end of Assad and his regime, if he allowed Iran to attack Israel .

 

Guess we interpret words differently...

 

Asked if that meant Israel might assassinate Assad, Steinitz said: “His blood would be forfeit.”

[simple1]

49 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Welcome back

[sanemax]

Just now, simple1 said:

Guess we interpret words differently...

 

Asked if that meant Israel might assassinate Assad, Steinitz said: “His blood would be forfeit.”

That still isnt an assassination threat .