Israel’s relentless bombing leaves Syria defenceless against military aggression
Dec 18, 2024
This is just another example of the exceptionalism that we have come to expect with Israel. That exceptionalism is the Zionist belief that Arab peoples are inferior to themselves — as former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant has described them — “human animals”.
Readers may find it difficult to assess just what is happening in Syria. That sentence, along with the bulk of this article, was written before I had the opportunity to read Jeffrey Sachs’ piece How the US and Israel destroyed Syria and called it peace in Saturday’s P&I. Certainly, it is now a lot less difficult to assess.
I start on Israel relentlessly bombing all over Syria. Israel says that it is targeting military assets to prevent those assets from being used against Israel by any new Syrian Government. It is doing more than that. It is preventing the Syrian people from rebuilding their country free from foreign interference. It is leaving Syria defenceless against any Israeli or other military aggression.
Such action by Israel demonstrates that it is motivated by racism. It is an extension of its apartheid system. Apartheid is classic racism, and there can be no argument as to its existence in Israel and Israel-controlled territory. It has been so found by the ICJ as well as any number of human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Israel, can have as many military assets as it is capable of receiving from its backer, the US, which repeats Israel’s “right to defend itself”. But a sovereign state which happens to border Israel cannot have military assets at all. They might be used against Israel. They, apparently, do not have a right to defend themselves. It’s the same old formula. Israel occupies Arab lands, supposedly temporarily, but the occupation never ends. If they are called upon to hand the land back, someone will say “we cannot give away the land that God gave to us”!?! “Abraham’s Borders” are said to include most of Syria. Israel’s occupation of land beyond its ’67 borders is illegal, but when the true owners seek to resist they are labelled “terrorists”, and anti-Semites.
But what history is there of Syria attacking Israel? None, albeit that Syria has taken a principled stand against Israeli oppression of Palestinians. Indeed, it is the other way around. Israel has illegally taken and retained the Golan Heights. It illegally occupies that land. Syria notionally has a right in international law to resist that occupation – but it hasn’t, militarily.
The West Bank is another example. The ICJ and the General Assembly say Israel must cease occupation. Israel’s response, exceptionally, is that the ICJ and the General Assembly of the United Nations are awash with anti-Semitism. If it did cease occupation as ordered, there can be no doubt that a UN peacekeeping force would oversee the transition to peace, and there would be no need for weapons on either side.
Could it be that Israel has other ideas? Apart from the bombing, Israel and the Israel settler movement have also entered Syrian territory and apparently occupied a significant piece of land, said to be twice the size of the Gaza Strip. Perhaps a little bit more land here, a little bit more land there: all headed towards the Greater Israel. We shall see.
And what about the Syrian citizens who happen to be killed by this relentless bombing? What are they? How are they described? Something like, a casualty of war? But Israel and Syria are not at war.
This is just another example of the exceptionalism that we have come to expect with Israel. That exceptionalism is the Zionist belief that Arab peoples are inferior to themselves — as former Defence Minister Gallant has described them — “human animals”. As such Syrian Arabs are expendable – indeed as with Gaza, the more that can be erased (murdered), the better. As I commented, this is pure racism.
Such exceptionalism is also highlighted by the ‘anti-Semitism’ debate going on today in Australia. Our politicians, lobby groups, and media are beside themselves, hand-wringing over the apparent arson of a synagogue, now claimed to be a terrorist attack. Is this necessarily the result of anti-Semitism?
Think of a time before 7 October 2023. Anti-Semitism is hatred of Jews because they are Jews: short and sweet – itself racist and to be condemned where it truly exists. Australians are an open minded and tolerant people. I don’t believe that anti-Semitism existed at that time in Australia to any measurable degree.
Then we have the genocide that commenced shortly after 7 October and has continued to this day. This genocide has seen the rise of disapproval, if not animosity, on the part of Australians toward Israel and Israel’s supporters. Most Jews in Australia are perceived to be supporters of Israel, claimed to be 90% by Australian Jewish elder Mark Leibler, and so it is that there may have been a rise in animosity towards them. Australians are angry at what Israel and its supporters have done to the Palestinians in Gaza and what they’re doing to them both in Gaza and the West Bank, and they are now angry at what Israel is doing in Syria. Such animosity is not the equivalent of anti-Semitism. Such animosity may lead to anti-Israel sentiments, or anti-Zionism. I repeat – this is not the equivalent of anti-Semitism; this is not the product of racism. Those Australians who are anti-Russian, or anti-Ukrainian, or anti-American, are not being racist. It is yet to be determined whether the animosity that has been engendered by Israel has played any part in the apparent arson of the Melbourne Synagogue.
What is, however, more than apparent is that Israel and its supporters see real advantage in promoting anti-Semitism as the cause. And our politicians and media fall for it hook, line, and sinker.
Can I conclude this article by returning to where I started, and the piece by Jeffrey Sachs? Sachs would read what I have written and say “Fair enough, but you have missed half my point. You have made next to no reference to Israel’s partner in crime – the United States, good old Uncle Sam, whom we must bring to account!”