Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: A. Geiche who wrote (475304)	10/13/2003 2:24:37 AM
From: A. Geiche	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Another Iraq in Syria? Musa Keilani Jordan Times, Sunday, October 12, 2003 THE EXPECTED endorsement last week by the US House of Representatives of a motion to impose sanctions against Syria is the next step in the Israeli-inspired and well-orchestrated campaign towards pressuring Damascus into bowing to Israeli conditions for peace, and — if the Syrians refuse to do so — then towards eventual “regime change” in the country. Charges that Syria extended military support to the Saddam regime in Iraq, hid Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, sheltered remnants of the ousted regime and allowed Arab volunteers to enter Iraq across its border are coupled with the allegation that Damascus is supporting “terrorist” groups. On all Iraq-related counts, the US has not been able to produce hard evidence to back the charges. On the “terror” charges, it is a simple matter of defining “terrorism”. The American charge that Syria is building chemical weapons and has a stockpile of such arms is dormant and could be hyped at any point. It is one thing to question Syria's possession of any such weapons and something else to discuss whether Syria is violating the relevant international convention on chemical weapons. But the US is not going to acknowledge that Syria is not a signatory to any such convention and as such, it could not be held accountable under international law. We are all too familiar with the blatant deception that the US and the UK adopted in order to justify their war against Iraq in the name of weapons of mass destruction. It should not be forgotten here that for decades, Syria, which is on the American list of countries supporting “terrorism”, has been calling for an international definition of “terrorism” and the US has been pointedly ignoring the call, since a logical definition of the word backed by international conventions would mean that the Palestinian groups, based in the occupied territories or outside, are exercising their legitimate right to resist occupation as long as such actions remain within the occupied territories. There might be a distinction there that last week's suicide bombing in Haifa fell outside occupied territory and the target was non-military. But then, the Israeli army has been blatantly violating every norm of the same conventions by targeting civilians for its brutal crackdown, imposing collective punishment and dramatically changing the demography of the occupied territories. Either way, Israel does not have the moral authority to assert that the Palestinians are waging illegal resistance, if only because the Israeli occupation and actions in the occupied territory are themselves illegal. In any event, Israel has refused to accept the applicability of the relevant Geneva Conventions in the occupied West Bank and Gaza. Coming back to Syria, the Israeli air strike against what the Israelis described as a Palestinian militant training camp and what the Syrians described as an abandoned refugee camp was indeed a display of Israeli military power. It was aimed at showing Syria, and indeed the rest of the Arab world and supporters of Arab causes, that Israel is capable of striking at will against any of its foes. That was declared 48 hours later by none other than Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon himself. For us, here in Jordan, the Israeli action does not need any further explanation. Israel might not actually be itching to go to war with Syria, but it would not baulk at doing so without much hesitation if the circumstances were right. With the increasing number of American casualties in Iraq, American strategists might even be tempted to give tacit endorsement to Israeli action against Syria, if only because it might be a diversion to growing American public opinion against the occupation of Iraq. It might also give some relief to US President George W. Bush and his hardline camp. However, such Israeli action might have unseen consequences. Syria has refrained from retaliating for the Israeli attack, since it knows well that such action would trigger military action against itself. Syria might be able to give a good accounting for itself in an open military conflict with Israel, but it cannot hope to win a war with the Jewish state. At the same time, the US might not be willing to endorse a war against Syria if only because it might add to its own woes in Iraq. As such, it might indeed be restraining Israel against any further adventure. However, that is not the end of the scenario or the script. The US and Israel want to “bend” Syria to their will and they are determined to do so. The impending American sanctions will be followed up by other measures to “tighten the noose” against Syria and push the country into a corner where it might not have an option other than succumbing to the combined Israeli-American pressure or to go to war. That much is clear, and it is only a matter of time before the script moves to that scenario. What are we in the Arab world and the broader Islamic world doing about it? Do we want another Iraq in Syria? >>> aljazeerah.info