ISIL falls into a trap in Kobane

Recently, pictures taken on the border between Turkey and Syria showed a curious sight: A line on Turkish tanks pointed toward a town where ISIL forces were attacking Kurdish defenders. The tanks were sitting there, watching in a row, while in the valley below, people were being killed.

The Turkish tanks were respecting a traditional convention that is rapidly becoming obsolete. They were stopping at an international border. I say it is becoming obsolete because so many wars are being fought without traditional borders. ISIL, the military force that the Turks were watching on that border, has been attacking places in Syria, Iraq, and Iran. Part of their success comes from their ability to attack across borders, then retreat to their strongholds in Syria.

The terrible situation in Syria is another reason why borders are obsolete. The UN protocols for war crimes and human rights crimes are predicated on a country's borders being inviolate. The UN Charter and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court both condemn wars of aggression, which are wars where one country attacks another without itself being threatened. This opposition to wars of aggression implies that sovereign nations should never be attacked by other nations without provocation.

The sole exception to this rule would seem to be whenever an attack receives the approval of the UN Security Council. The Security Council is a political body, however. It is likely that any decision to sanction an action taken by the Security Council will have opposition, regardless of how justified the action may be.

In this case, when Turkey lines its tanks up on the Syrian border, Turkey is presumably defending itself from attack while at the same time observing the UN prohibitions on aggressive war. Neither of these presumptions are likely to be true. The Turkish tanks, while motionless are actually preventing ISIL forces from retreating into Turkey along a long, somewhat porous border. The Turks are supporting the efforts of American and Arab jets, who have been relentlessly pounding ISIL positions with high explosives. So there is a battle going on here that violates the UN Charter, but one could argue it does not violate the natural laws that require the strong to protect the weak.

The residents of Kobane are not, strictly speaking, Syrians. They belong to a Kurdish minority and practice a form of Islam known as Shi'a. The people attacking them right now are Sunni Moslems, but so are the Turks who are protecting them. More than 100,000 refugees, many of them Kurds, have crossed the border into Turkey. So the tanks are protecting those refugees.

The tanks are on the high ground, solemn and still. The fighters of ISIL do not dare to attack them. Although the fighters in Iraq's army may be badly trained and poorly motivated, this is not true of the Turkish army. Young Turkish men must serve in the army for 6 to 12 months, which receives weapons from the US and other NATO countries. This service is seen as a patriotic duty by the Turks.

ISIL has a fighting force of approximately 35,000 men. Their propaganda claims they are an unbeatable force of highly motivated muslim fighters. Recent American tv shows have bolstered the claims of ISIL by attacking all Muslims as sympathizers with ISIL and its tactics. ISIL has seized several cities and gained control of western Iraq, but their force is still small and they have few allies in the region. Saudi Arabia has admitted giving aid to ISIL at one time, but official spokesmen have asserted that that the aid has been stopped.

It has been estimated that 500 ISIL fighters have been killed by these multi-national air attacks. An additional 1500 have likely been seriously wounded. Therefore, ISIL has lost 5% of its entire army in the attack on Kobane. This fact supports the idea that the anti-ISIL forces have been using Kobane as a killing ground, a place where ISIL fighters have been lured in with the prospect of an easy victory.

The dedication of ISIL fighters, who are advertised (by ISIL) as fierce jihadis, has also been brought into question by testimony from a captured ISIL member.  He has admitted fighting with ISIL, but says he was forced by threat of beheading to join the battle. He also says that ISIL drugs young men before sending them out as suicide bombers.

There may be some doubt as to the veracity of this young man's story, but there is no doubt that ISIL would use those tactics--and worse--to recruit new fighters.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-2792334/Anger-wounded-Syria-Kurds-die-stranded-Turkish-border.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2802899/join-die-isis-fighter-15-says-jihadis-threatened-behead-didn-t-join-ranks-describes-young-men-drugged-forced-suicide-attacks.html

Israel's actions against Palestine are illegal, immoral, and inexcusable

Earlier today I encountered a discussion of Israeli actions against Palestinians on the Mondoweiss.net site. One commenter made several statements about the legality of Israel's actions; another, an Israeli apologist, attempted to counter those statements. I have indicated why the second commenter was wrong on all counts.

Charge: Israel has acquired territory by war.

Response:  Acquisition of territory by war is by no means automatically “illegal” nor it is “immoral” – for example, the acquisition of territory by Israel isn't in itself illegal – you can't argue this, you may argue that holding it is illegal, but this is another issue]

My opinion: In fact, acquisition of territory by war was outlawed by the UN Charter, article 2, paragraph 4, which forbids signatories from using force or the threat of force against the territorial integrity of another state. So acquisition of territory by war is absolutely illegal. Whether it is immoral depends on your moral compass.

Charge: Israel engaged in ethnic cleansing 

Response: how can you make this claim in straight face, LOL! How can you claim “ethnic cleansing” when the article itself claims that the Arab population is rising?!!? This must be the most inept and incompetent “ethnic cleansing” ever!

My opinion: The charge of ethnic cleansing is not one that should be laughed at. The writer seems to equate ethnic cleansing with murder, whereas the phrase also describes the expulsion of a people from its homeland. Israel expelled 700,000 Palestinians from their homes in 1948. In addition, members of Netanyahu's party have recently called for the expulsion of all Palestinians from Gaza.

Charge: Israel set up a system of apartheid.

Response: this smear is wearing tired, you all know it – and it even isn't logically supported – apartheid is about race, since Arabs are of the same race as Jews, the definition doesn’t hold. You may claim discrimination on basis of citizenship (justified due to real security concerns) but not apartheid – but you chose propaganda attempts over serious debate.

My opinion: The UN  International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) defines apartheid as a system of racial discrimination that includes discrimination on the basis of

race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin.

The convention does not recognize an exemption due to "real security concerns" as the writer supposes. Whether Arabs and Jews belong to the same "race" or "ethnic origin" is a matter of dispute among anthropologists because the concept of race itself is controversial.

Charge: Israel has transferred population into occupied territory.

Response: this is a non sequitur, because you are trying to insinuate Geneva convention but the territories are not occupied from a qualifying side, and so, don’t fall under this definition.

My opinion:  The writer argues that settlements in the West Bank do not violate Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prevents moving people into occupied territory, because the West Bank is not an occupied territory. This theory has been put forth by a few Israeli politicians, but has been rejected by the International Court of Justice. The idea that Israel does not occupy the West Bank forcibly flies in the face of logic.

Charge: Israel is stealing natural and other resources from occupied territory. 

Response: You conveniently forget that whatever water Israel takes is in accordance with an agreement with the P.A.

My opinion: The Israeli government has been diverting water from the Jordan River to the Negev desert since 1967. It has been diverting water from the Wadi Gaza since 1973. The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) was created in 1994. Israel therefore could not have agreed with the P.A. to use this water until long after the usage was already established. 

Charge: Nothing is ever going to transform a bible into a property deed. 

Response: There is no need for that, the UN (or the League of Nations) have reconfirmed the ownership of Jewish nation over the biblical land of Israel.

My opinion: The writer does not specify which resolutions confirm the ownership of Israel over the biblical land of Israel. The Balfour Declaration (1917) granted the right to form a Jewish homeland in Palestine on condition that

nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. 

That seems a far cry from granting Israel any right to a "biblical Israel".