[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
World News See other World News Articles Title: Lavrov: Russia Will Judge Israel by Its 'Actions, Not Words' in Syria RI... In a suggestive but somewhat cryptic statement, Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stressed that Moscow would take note of Israel's actions — not words — in Syria, and respond accordingly. Lavrov said on Wednesday that: Russia "will judge how accurately this arrangement is carried out by our Israeli partners not on the basis of what they say but how they act," Lavrov stressed. "During Israel’s prime minister [Benjamin Netanyahu's] second to latest visit to Moscow he and President [of Russia Vladimir] Putin achieved a clear agreement about the way Russian and Israeli militaries could cooperate in relation to the situation in Syria," Lavrov said, commenting on last week's Israeli strikes on the Syrian Armed Forces posts near Damascus. We reported earlier this week that Syria's U.N. envoy Bashar Jaafari said that Syria's use of anti-aircraft missiles against Israeli fighter jets was a "message" from Putin. Israel's ambassador was summoned by Moscow after Friday's airstrikes, and reports have emerged that Russian military advisors were operating just a few kilometers from the area that was targeted by Israeli strikes; so there's certainly circumstantial evidence to back up Jaafari's claim. But Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insists the exact opposite — that Putin understands that "if there is a feasibility from an intelligence and military standpoint - [Israel will] attack [targets in Syria]". Lavrov's statement suggests that the Russia and Israel have some kind of agreement concerning Syria — and that Moscow is unpleased with how it's being carried out. The question now is: What does this agreement entail? Poster Comment: tom • This would be a good time to determine - in public - what the rules are. International law and the UN Charter are absolutely inflexible on the topic of aggression. It's not allowed, period. The Nuremberg Principles declared that unprovoked aggressive war was the supreme international crime - which I understand to mean "You mustn't do it. Ever. Not at all, not even a little bit. Not even if you really, really want to do it. Or you'll be hanged". The only exception allowed is if the country attacked has already started to wage war against the attacker. If Syria was waging war against Israel - presumably with or without a declaration of war, which has gone right out of fashion since Washington stopped doing it - Israel could fight back. There are no other exceptions. None. Not "we think someone over there might be getting ready to attack us". Not "hot pursuit". Not "they are really bad people and the world wouldn't miss them". Certainly not "they don't realize it but their government needs to be changed for them". The only question, then, is whether the UN, the US government, the British government and the rest of the so-called "international community" believe that the right of Israel to do whatever it wants should always override international law and the UN Charter. For the past 69 years, their actions have shown that they do believe that. If they ever wish to be taken seriously they should mend their ways and reverse their policies. To treat Israelis as exampt from international law is, of course, racist. And we can't have that, can we? 17 Mike John Elissen /tom • To complete the Orwellian circle, any criticism of Israel`s illegal acts of terror at home and abroad is labelled `anti-semitic` by Tel Aviv and its countless propaganda-outlets and offices. If any rational standard (and International Laws and agreements) would be followed, the ICC in The Hague would have to build an entire new flat-sized jail to harbour all Israeli war criminals. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||