They crossed no borders

The Syrians penetrated an area held by the State of Israel, but they did not cross the Israeli border. Nor did Palestinians from the Gaza Strip attempt to cross the Israeli border in the south.

By Gideon Biger; The writer teaches in the geography department of Tel Aviv University.

On Sunday, May 15, which the Arabs call Nakba Day, the media reported that Syrian civilians had crossed over the Israeli border on the Golan Heights. The prime minister even issued a dramatic announcement of the fact and promising that Israel will protect its borders.

The incident raises the question of whether Israel has a border with Syria on the Golan Heights. The answer seems obvious, but in fact it is not. An international border is one reached by agreement between the two political entities on either side. Sometimes the line is the result of direct negotiations, but not always. Europe's post-World War II borders were drawn by the victors, while in the 19th century Africa was divided up by and among the great powers of Europe. Some of the states whose borders were drawn in that manner protested their location, but in the end they accepted the demarcation and it became an international border.

There are still some localized conflicts over the precise delimitation of borders still occur. Recent examples include those in Central America, between Nicaragua and Costa Rica; and in Southeast Asia, between Cambodia and Thailand. In both cases the argument is over the precise location of the border, not its very existence.

Israel is an atypical state in that it does not have agreed international borders with all of its neighbors. That is especially true in the case of Lebanon and Syria. Israel and Lebanon are currently separated by the so-called Line of Withdrawal of Israeli Forces from Lebanon, agreed in 2000 between Israel and the United Nations and also known as the Blue Line. It corresponds in part with the international border demarcated by the English and French governments in 1923. In practice, there is currently no border between Israel and Lebanon.

remainder: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/they-crossed-no-borders-1.362215

Also, there's this...

Syrian 'Nakba' protester arrested in Tel Aviv
http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=220850

How'd he get there if no one crossed the border? How about his friends in Majdal Shams?

Your video doesn't address the author, not at all.

...messing around unrecognized borders is alot more dangerous, there tend to be more people with grudges and guns around those.

http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=220850

An additional two Syrians were arrested in Majdal Shams during house-to-house searches throughout the day on Monday, Rosenfeld said.

Earlier, a Syrian-Palestinian infiltrator who was a passenger in a taxi driven by a Palestinian man from east Jerusalem was arrested along with the driver.

:eyes:

All they have is a tenuous "Cease fire."

Masses of unidentified people storming a militarized border will be shot. No mater how people feel about the Golan... the IDF controls that particular high ground and attempts to cross over into will be deemed a threat.

You might think this is a peaceful way to protest, but its not. Israel has no idea who these people are or if they are armed.

I fully support Israel's reaction in this case. Tensions are high and this was a foolish move.
You do not storm a military zone and act surprised when you get shot.

Or for that matter, should the United States shoot Mexicans who attempt to cross the border with the US?

After all, the United States has no idea who those Mexicans are or if they are armed.

"I fully support Israel's reaction in this case."

My congratulations to you.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

*cough* - gosh, what a rash generalisation that was. A good thing that non-Arab ethnicities are spared such blatant stereotypes as that on this supposedly liberal web site.

Frankly I would mine the borders...

Again, another lovely sentiment.

Have a nice day.

You don't belong on a progressive talkboard if you post right-wing extremist ideas like that.

let it stand, I say.

i distinctly remember reading an article about palestinians who live in israel & work, and also about palestinians who cross the border daily to work.

palestinians provide cheap labor in israel was my impression.

Israel is just one of many places in the world where people are filling unwanted, manual-labor jobs and are criminalized because of their lack of proper documentation.

Since the influx of Russian and East African immigrants into Israel, the need for Palestinian labor has decreased. Nonetheless, every Palestinian man I have ever met, has worked in Israel at one point of another. The poorer and more desperate are likely to continue returning to Israel for work regardless of the cost. Several people I know have served around one year in prison for entering Israel to work without a permit.

http://samuelnichols.blogspot.com/2011/05/you-would-do-same-if-you-had-to-bread.html

In fact, most of the laborers doing construction in the West Bank settlements are Palestinians.

The people who were shot were coming from Lebanon and Syria.

Do you think that if large numbers of Israelis attempted to enter those two countries that Lebanese and Syrian forces would be entitled to shoot at them?

Neither Syria nor Lebanon allows Israelis to enter their countries legally.

Is this the case for the US and Mexico? Are they "enemy countries" who are in a state of war?

Bizarre comparison from someone who has enough knowledge to know better.

And to answer your initial question, apparently Palestinian forces do believe they are entitled to shoot Israelis who cross into the West Bank:

Israeli shot by police in West Bank, army says

(Reuters) - A Palestinian policeman shot dead an Israeli and wounded four others after they entered a holy site in a West Bank city without permission on Sunday, the Israeli military said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/24/us-palestinians-israel-violence-idUSTRE73N09320110424

Neither Syria nor Lebanon allows Israelis to enter their countries legally.

Nor are Palestinians entitled to enter Israel (other than East Jerusalem residents). Israelis of course enter Palestine, but that is only because the Palestinians are largely unable to stop them.

During the 1950s, many refugees from pre-1948 Israel attempted to return to their homes. The Israeli army shot them whenever it found them. As many as several hundred people a year died during this time.

Of course, the boundary between the Palestinian territories and Israel proper is at least as militarised as the Syrian border, which has been quiet for sixty years.

You obviously thought that the Palestinians were unjustified in killing Israelis, who attempted to break through a checkpoint, in the West Bank, in a car, at night. What's your excuse for the IDF?

I don't see how anyone could excuse any of the killings in either case.

Whether by the Palestinian police officers, the IDF, or the Lebanese military.

Given that they did cross or attempt to cross a recognized militarized frontier between two states at war with each other, the fact that they did not cross an internationally recognized border is irrelevant.

I like that, border recognition is trivial.

Why is it relevant in this context?

exacerbated by declaring they are not relevant..when convenient.

Want to try again, or can we conclude that you have no reason? I asked you a very simple question about this incident; this context. In a case where there is a well known frontier between warring states, and people try to cross it, why does it matter that it isn't a "border"?

it's not me. I'm not the one who needs to try, YOU made a response to this OP with a decisive answer this border issue is trivial, and
it appears to me, you are certain there is no relevance. It is obvious, with borders undefined as stated in the OP, one
can very well defend aggressive measures and claim it's a trivial matter??


*Therefore, on Sunday the Syrians penetrated an area held by the State of Israel, but they did not cross the Israeli border. Nor did Palestinians from the Gaza Strip attempt to cross the Israeli border in the south. They crossed the cease-fire line that was ratified in the Oslo Accords but never demarcated as a border between Israel and any neighbor in the south of the country.

I'm not kidding anyone. I asked a simple question, and you can't answer it. I'll give it one more try. You say, "It is obvious, with borders undefined as stated in the OP, one can very well defend aggressive measures and claim it's a trivial matter??" And that makes no sense. I am certainly not saying that the Arab agression against Israel was at all trivial, nor was Israel's response. People died, and that is never trivial. What I have said, and what you seem to ignore, is that whether the Arabs crossed a border or "penetrated an area held by the State of Israel," makes no difference. Israel was still justified in defending itself. Or do you disagree that Israel has a right to self defense? If the Israelis used excessive force, that doesn't depend on whether the invasion was across a border or a frontier, does it? It's a very simple question. I'll put it this way. Assume that the Arabs crossed a border instead of a military frontier. Does your thinking about the Israeli response change any?

IT makes no difference to ISRAEL, that is the point. I'm not interested in what is relevant to
you personally on this issue, that you do not recognize the relevance of legitimate borders, is amusing at this point.




"I am certainly not saying that the Arab aggression against Israel was at all trivial, nor was Israel's response. People died, and that is never trivial. What I have said, and what you seem to ignore, is that whether the Arabs crossed a border or "penetrated an area held by the State of Israel," makes no difference. Israel was still justified in defending itself."


To you they are, that is clear, Israel can make this determination unilaterally.

...in which angry Syrians, Lebanese, or Gazans cross into Israeli territory, but without crossing over any recognized border?

Merely repeating that it is relevant in all instances doesn't explain why or how it's relevant, so it's not an answer to the question. And I don't know what you're talking about what is relevant to me personally. I'm asking why you think that it's relevant. How does your thinkiing about what happened change if the Arabs crossed a border as opposed to just a military frontier?

again. The issue is not trivial as you stated earlier, if it were there would be no legal questions involved regarding the lack of agreed
upon international borders with all of its neighbors.

and or read about why borders are not trivial issues in general, most especially concerning conflicts.

Ingelligent debate!

:eyes:

The reason is that the difference between a border and a cease fire line actually makes no difference to Jefferson in this case. That's why he didn't answer my simple question about how his thinking would change if it were a border instead of a cease fire line. Because it wouldn't. He'd castigate Israel for this incident either way. The sad fact is that there is precious little real debate going on about the I/P dispute.

at night, in a car, and a Palestinian guard fires on the vehicle, then apparently the Palestinians are guilty of a terror attack, or at least "an unjustified attack on unarmed civilians":-

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israelis-shot-in-west-bank-tried-to-break-through-palestinian-roadblock-probe-shows-1.357885

Truly, I do love these double standards. They soothe my heart and warm my soul.

Not that that should be surprising to anyone.

Palestinians storm the Israeli border and are killed - they are viewed as martyrs in the Palestinian press (and by other regional sources).

The Lebanese Daily Star refer to them as "the Nakba martyrs" and say that they were the victims of an "Israeli massacre" (no mention of the IDF claim that some may have been killed by Lebanese forces).

The Israeli killed under the circumstances mentioned in your post here did not quite get the same treatment. The victim in that case was accused of "suspicious behavior" and his shooting was justified because the Israelis "entered the city without coordination".

for a change.

"no mention of the IDF claim that some may have been killed by Lebanese forces"

Mainly because its complete bullshit. The IDF claims to have only fired at the legs at a crowd of at least hundreds of people. Exactly how one fires only at the collective legs of a large crowd is beyond me. Maybe they got them to line up first.

"Palestinians storm the Israeli border"

Its not the Israeli border. The Golan Heights is not disputed territory. The United States, the EU and the Security Council view it as Syrian territory. The Syrians were attempting to enter Syrian territory.

Presumably you weren't there, yet you have such confidence with respect to the events that took place.

And, yes, they did cross the Israeli border.

Palestinians Breach Israel-Syria Border into Golan Heights

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20110516/wl_time/08599207167300

12 said dead on Syrian, Lebanese borders by Israeli fire

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=387823

Israel-Palestinian violence erupts on three borders

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/15/us-palestinians-palestinians-idUSTRE74E1NT20110515

As has been widely reported, several of those who crossed into the Golan, continued into Israel proper (unless you don't consider Tel Aviv to part of Israel).

But, again, the news agencies are wrong - and you know better.

includes any reference to the Israeli allegation that some of the casualties were victims of Lebanese fire. I can only assume that, like myself, those news agencies considered that allegation, but did not find it credible. There is no responsibility on any news agency to give credit to an allegation just because it comes from a government, whether it be from Iran's Press TV or from Israel. Unless of course you know better than them?

"As has been widely reported, several of those who crossed into the Golan, continued into Israel proper (unless you don't consider Tel Aviv to part of Israel)."

Only one that I know of, who hitched a ride with some peace activists. He surrendered to police. Funnily enough you get shot if you try to enter Syrian territory from Syria. Make it as far as Tel Aviv and you get due process:-

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4069686,00.html

"And, yes, they did cross the Israeli border"

Interesting. Are you claiming that the Golan Heights is Israeli territory?

Each of the articles linked were selected because of their reference to the border.

Not sure how you believe someone could have gotten from Syria to Tel Aviv without crossing the Israeli border.

Do you want to explain how you think that would be possible?

and yes, its quite obvious that that one person crossed the Syrian-Israel border, albeit with the help of Israeli peace activists.

Do you regard the Golan Heights as Israeli territory?

Sunday's protest wasn't ended by Israel's force but by that of the Lebanese army. After hours at the fence, Lebanese soldiers moved in and began firing their M16s in the air non-stop, creating a stampede of frightened protesters who sprinted back up the incline. People fell on top of each other, some hurled themselves to the ground to seek cover. As the crowd continued rushing up the mountain, the army fired teargas until all were gone.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/16/palestinian-refugees-lebanon-right-to-return

IDF withholds video of Lebanese firing on protesters
http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=220904

And see #8 above about infiltrators caught over the border in Israel.

It makes the correct assertion that the Lebanese Army fired into the air to disperse the protesters, which is what they did - quite a long time after several protesters were killed by the IDF.

"IDF withholds video of Lebanese firing on protesters"

Yes. And I am withholding video of Eva Longoria giving me a dirty sanchez. Because if I release the tape she might be more reticent about performing sexual favours for me in future.

Another IDF claim made solely for the benefit of the gullible and suggestible. Luckily we have ample measures of both here.

Please.

And video showing the LAF firing on these "protesters" is a boost to Hezbollah's hardliners who can boast about the LAF doing the bidding of the hated Jews. I'm not sure it's a great idea to throw the comparatively moderate LAF under the bus in order to boost Hezbollah.

your own source concedes that the LAF fired into the air. You have no evidence other than a bare assertion from the IDF that the LAF fired their weapons at anyone.

Do you honestly think that if the LAF committed a shooting spree against civilians that they would be able to keep it a secret?

Do you honestly think that if the LAF committed a shooting spree against civilians that they would be able to keep it a secret?

You mean like keeping Hezbollah's intentional use of Lebanese human shields a secret during and after the 2006 war? That's still denied to this day.

By your logic if I kick you out of your house, I'm justified in killing you if you try to get back in.

...you'd know Israel can't easily give up this strategic area without striking a peace deal first with Syria.

The same holds true WRT some of the settlement areas on the 1949 border with the W.Bank. Giving those up without a peace deal just invites terror attacks from up high on civilians down low.

It's also been condemned as illegal by the UN General Assembly

http://www.eaford.org/en_statements/Human%20Rights%20in%20the%20Occupied%20Syrian%20Golan%20Heights.pdf

As you would know if you ever bothered to do research before immediately taking an indefensible Israeli hardline position

Also, the "strategic" argument is a bunk. Syria has artillery that's technologically advanced enough to strike anywhere in Israel, with or without the Golan Heights. This was true in 1967 as well. Furthermore the Syrian shellings from the heights pre-1967 were overwhelmingly in response to Israeli provocations. former Israeli general Moshe Dayan says that in his opinion, at least 80% of the confrontations started this way: http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/11/world/general-s-words-shed-a-new-light-on-the-golan.html

The other argument that the Golan Heights serves as a "buffer zone" is also a bunk. Because the Israelis have been settling their citizens in the Heights. You cannot, by definition, use a zone as a "military buffer" if it's inhabited by civilians. So in this light we can see that the occupation has nothing to do with security and is really more about water and land.

civilians into what it claims as a 'military buffer zone' could it not be said that Israel is using these civilians as 'human shields', albeit voluntary ones?

It's not based on land given up first for some hope of peace.

You're wrong about that and the rest of your post is nonsense as well.

Therefore the people shot dead were killed by troops operating on foreign soil.

The whole quotation of 242 from the part you may be referring is:

"The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security"

Quoting the whole sentence puts things in perspective.

....to be exchanged for the hope of peace and security, but after peace and security is successfully negotiated and agreed upon.

Otherwise, UNSCR 242 would be a call for "Land for nothing".

It also cannot lawfully kill people for trespassing onto land israel doesn't own.

You're wrong.

And Israel absolutely has the right to protect their citizens who happen to live on or near the border from Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran's, and Syria's supporters and useful idiots.

It's not Israel's fault the PLO/Hamas/Syria reject any and all credible offers for peace.

One day you might realize those groups won't accept a Jewish state and it's in their best interests (Arab regimes) to remain hostile vs. Israel rather than live amicably among a liberal democratic nation.

Is israel above the lesson taught to preschoolers about taking stuff?

Negotiate for the return of land in exchange for a secure peace. It does not call for the unitlaral return of land. So why should Israel return the Golan unilaterally without a peace agreement? Why would the Syrians even engage in paeace talks if they got the Golan back?