In a broad-reaching interview with Haaretz that included considerable insight into internal political faction fighting in the coalition government, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon sought to push forward an extremely simple narrative of the situation on the Golan Heights frontier.
Ya’alon tried to present the situation as unstable but mostly under control from the Israeli perspective, claiming Israel was openly backing the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and other “moderate” factions to keep al-Qaeda off the border.
Yet Ya’alon presented this as a working model for keeping al-Qaeda from having a common border with Israeli occupied Golan, which hasn’t been the case for over a month, with al-Qaeda’s Jabhat al-Nusra controlling much of the territory.
The indications are that Israel has been backing all comers for awhile now on the Golan frontier, as part of their decision to favor anyone over Assad. The narrative now is that they’re trying to prop up the FSA, but Israel’s Syria problem is actually looking a lot like everyone else’s in the region: they backed rebellion in general, and are now facing the consequences of the instability they’ve backed.
Sounds like the israelis will finally feel some blowback for meddling in everyone else's affairs.
This author is misleading the public… He never said FSA or alqeida, he just said Syria people.. Don’t known why author point to them
At least the baby killers and the war criminals in Tel Aviv admitting that they are training the terrorists to kill the civilians, bomb the infrastructure to ashes, in order to topple an elected president which is against International law and world peace and is considered as CRIMES AGAINST HUMNITY with more than 220000 casultities so far. Whey ICC, a whore house, will move against the war criminals in Washington, Tel Aviv, Britain, Turkey and France as the first move? If they don't then ICC must be destroyed on their heads and their managers be arrested.
The ICC's jurisdiction extends to:
1) States which are party to the Rome statute; or
2) States which have filed a declaration placing themselves under the ICC's jurisdiction; or
3) States which have been referred to the ICC by the UN Security Council.
Israel and Syria have both signed, but neither has ratified, the Rome Statute. Israel and the US have both formally notified the UN that they will not be placing themselves under ICC jurisdiction. So unless the UNSC refers Syria and/or Israel to the ICC, the ICC has no more authority to act than the Greene County, Missouri Circuit Court has to dispose of cases in Nepal.
Sudan is not part of ICC when Al Bashir was referred to ICC using a CIA asset, Payam Akhavan pose as lawyer, and working with a Jewish organization “Save Darfur” to weaken Al Bashir to force him for partition of the country. We know Payam Akhavan lied when using spurious charges that Al Bashir has committed ‘genocide’ in Sudan, but we know it was LIES. http://halifaxtheforum.org/speakers?forum_year=20…
Then ICC issued a warrant to arrest Al Bashir. Payam Akhavan , empire lawyer, t has not utter a word against US – Britain – Israel – Canada – France, for their crimes against humanity, but goes after VICTIMS of Zionism and imperialism. What kind of world is this? Why do you bother to remind us of international law when Washington ignores in order to implement their plot against other. ICC is nothing but a tool for regime change to serve US/Israel’s interest.
"Sudan is not part of ICC when Al Bashir was referred to ICC"
Which is why the only way to refer him to ICC was for the UN Security Council to do so. Which it did in 2005 in UNSC Resolution 1593.
Why Israel and US have not been referred to UNSC? Why Payam Akhavan a CIA asset helps the criminal states go after Victims, but ignores the crimes against humanity of Israel, US, Britain, and Canada? What should be done to punish these criminal states and imprisoned their criminal 'leaders'?
"Why Israel and US have not been referred to UNSC?"
Because they can't be. They haven't voluntarily signed on to its jurisdiction, so the only way they can be involuntarily placed under its jurisdiction is by UN Security Council Resolution — and the US has a veto on the Security Council.
From your reply only "the US has a veto on the Security Council"
is valid because Sudan, US and Israel in relation to ICC are in the SAME situation, yet Sudan has been reffered to ICC. Power has corrupted the whole world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_parties_to_th…
Yes, it's corrupt. I don't disagree at all. But the corruption in this particular instance isn't with the ICC, it's with the ability of the US to prevent a UNSC referral of itself or Israel to the ICC.
The end run around that that the Palestinian Arabs are using as a negotiating tool is that if Israel doesn't set an end date to the occupation of West Bank/Gaza, the emergent Palestinian state will sign and ratify the Rome Statute and place itself under ICC jurisdiction, which in turn would bring Israel under that jurisdiction with respect to its actions in the new state's territory.
Of course, I suppose that's a bit corrupt as well, isn't it? "I say you've committed war crimes, and I'll turn you in … unless you give me something else I want."
Why isn't Israel out there fighting?
Why should they? Maybe the Israelis are students of history. Why not let the poorly led Arab entities fight each other first? Then go after the weakened winner. William the conquerer was a French carpet-bagger, a vagabond and second-rate power with his Normans in 1066AD England. But he let his two rivals fight it out then pounced on the exhausted winner to take over all of England. Too bad the US doesn't have the brains to use strategy!
I know! Plenty of women and kids they can kill.
Maybe too many casualties from people that can shoot back.
Unite all the disparate groups against one common enemy – JSIL.
The best analogy I can come up with such a ridiculously implausible security claim is this: The US Border Patrol announces with great pride and fanfare that it is providing aid and assistance to the Juarez Drug Cartel to prevent "narco-terrorists" from crossing the border.
If so concerned with terrorists they should have left Assad alone in the first place.
Now you destabilize and cry about the outcome?
What an ally!