Friday, June 24, 2011

Golan Heights: Just another iron in the fire

You may recall, or not, a post I put up June 10/11?
If you don't, let me refresh your memory.

Back to the other action at the UN. Israel has complained to the UN

"Israel calls on the international community to convey a clear message to Syria that such provocations carry serious potential for escalation and must cease completely. We expect the Government of Syria to take all measures to prevent such dangerous incidents from reoccurring in the future," it said. "

Border protests put Israel on the defensive
Note the language, "provocations" and "defensive"? Spin.

This complaint stems from the gunning down of protestors, by Israeli soldiers, in the occupied Golan Heights.

"At the Syrian border, "Israeli" soldiers fired live-rounds at protesters marking Naksa when they reached the border fence near Majdal Shams."
That's right.
Israel guns down protesters with live ammunition and then complains to the UN about "provocations" and being put on the "defensive"

At the time I mentioned this could be a possible alternative option.
To shall we say-Get the war on !

Well, the US and it's UN Ambassador Susan Rice have made some highly interesting and potentially war invoking moves.

Rice told reporters Thursday it's past time for a credible political reform process to get underway in Syria.

She said the U.S. is drafting a resolution to extend the U.N. peacekeeping force monitoring the disengagement of Israeli and Syrian forces in the Golan Heights which will take account of recent incidents when protesters crossed the border from Syria.

A resolution to extend UN "peacekeeping", which will take into account recent incidents when protesters crossed the border from Syria.
Bullshit Alert!!! -Protestors never crossed the border

A little more information here
Reporter: On that subject, or a similar subject, Ambassador, do you think it is appropriate to have the Security Council make an expression of concern about the political situation in Syria in the resolution and the (INAUDIBLE) mandate?

Ambassador: We think the Security Council should speak clearly and unequivocally about what is transpiring internally in Syria and that’s why we have supported a resolution to that effect. We also think that there needs to be a credible renewal of the mandate on UNDOF and that that mandate renewal needs to account of recent developments on the Golan Heights and on the area between Israel and Syria.

Reporter: (INAUDIBLE)

Ambassador: No, we think that the resolution on the Golan Heights ought to focus principally on what is happening in the Golan Heights, and I think that it will. But at the same time, as I’ve said now three times this morning, or this afternoon, I think it’s vitally important that the Council speak clearly and unequivocally about the atrocities and abuses that are occurring inside of Syria.

Susan Rice thinks the resolution on the Golan Heights ought to focus PRINCIPALLY on what is happening in the Golan Heights (illegal occupation)

BUT. But, she is hinting that the resolution could have an alternative, or additional non -principal focus. The "atrocities and abuses" that are occuring.
Reality being, well.... reality.

The US/NATO world army would have a few irons in the fire, to attain their goal.
Attacking Syria.

Will this resolution give NATO the excuse their looking for.
Will Israel claim they were "provoked" and begin the attack?
Will NATO will have to come to their assistance??


  1. Are former Secretary of State Condi Rice and this Rice related?

    Or just professional liars?

    This whole thing might blow up when Israel attacks the 'Audacity of Hope' aid convoy that's headed towards Gaza.

    You can tell when the feces is about to hit the rotary oscillator when the Zionist MSM does non-stop reporting on some tragic incident, like the Casey trial.

    Something wicked this way comes.

  2. Penny, you do a really terrific job analyzing this stuff. I'm kind of wondering myself how the Russian naval base at Tartus will end up factoring in all this. If NATO attacks Syria (for "humanitarian" reasons, naturally) will it not essentially be provoking a war with Russia? Russia, though, seems to tolerate a fair amount of U.S. interference on its doorstep, so maybe it will tolerate this as well, and perhaps that's what they're counting on. Although as Greg says, it could get wicked.

    Also, thanks for the link to my site.

  3. Hey Greg:

    They are professional liars, clearly.
    How else would they be in politics?

  4. Hello Richard!

    And thanks.

    I am very familiar with the Port at Tartus, having blogged on it more then a few times.

    It would seem an attack on Syria could indeed be likened to attack on Russia.

    "Russia, though, seems to tolerate a fair amount of U.S. interference on its doorstep"

    They tolerate, but, I think it only goes so far.

    When Georgia attacked Russia came out kicking and they kicked Georgia back home, swiftly and decisively.

    I am wondering if it is going to be an out and out attack or strategic attacking, via Turkey and Iraq?
    Which would not provoke Russia immediately.

    One the other hand, it is quite clear NATO is gunning for Russia, so why not have the fighting take place in another nation?

    Think of Afghanistan?

    You are most welcome for the link over :)