Love of the Land: Golan Brigade commander: Infiltration of Syrians did not surprise us [Problematic narrative]

Golan Brigade commander: Infiltration of Syrians did not surprise us [Problematic narrative]

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
17 May '11





[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA: One hopes that this and other remarks by various officials are more a reflection of an approach to treat the Israeli public like children while they themselves realize that they screwed up and are acting to rectify the situation.


The size of the Golan did not change yesterday ( "you have to remember that this [the Golan Heights] is a very large area") - so that's hardly an explanation that can justify failure.


Also the line that "At a certain point, the Syrian crowd started throwing stones" is deceptive as it leaves the impression that the forces were deployed and then this transpired when in truth the invasion was apparently underway before Israeli forces were even in a position to respond.


And, of course, this remarkable narrative: "after this (shooting at legs) they withdrew".


They didn't "withdraw". Those inside the Druze village interviewing with an Israel Radio reporter remained there for hours.


This, in fact, was perhaps the most distressing element of the story: those listening to the live broadcast of Israel Radio Reshet Bet heard the correspondent talking live with invaders from Syria at the very same moment that Israeli defense spokespeople were giving the impression that the invaders had been repulsed. All this while for over an hour IDF Radio ignored the event altogether.]

Golan Brigade commander: Infiltration of Syrians did not surprise us
16 May 2011 , 17:36 IDF Website
http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/today/2011/05/1605.htm

"We prepared for such situations, in which people climbed the border fences, but you have to remember that this [the Golan Heights] is a very large area," commander of the Golan Brigade, Colonel Eshkol Shukrun, said on Sunday evening (May 15) following violent clashes on the Israel-Syria border when Syrian demonstrators breached the border fence. "Their infiltration was not a complete surprise."

Col. Shukrun himself was slightly injured in the clashes but continued to command the forces on the ground.

"At a certain point, the Syrian crowd started throwing stones, some of them large stones that endangered the soldiers," Col. Shukrun said. "When I understood that the event had gotten out of control, I realized that it was time to begin to shoot at the legs of protesters, mainly those who appeared to be the main inciters of the event. After this, they withdrew."

Col. Shukrun explained: "Because it was a crowd that included women and children, the orders to soldiers were to cause as little harm as possible. We tried to exercise restraint and cause little damage. "

Col. Shukrun said that the IDF cooperated with United Nations forces during the event.

"International forces assisted in handling the event, and were in touch with us particularly in the final stages. They took charge of the incident at the 'Shouting Hill' in terms of moving the demonstrators back to the east. The cooperation was good," Col. Shukrun said.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.

Love of the Land: Golan Brigade commander: Infiltration of Syrians did not surprise us [Problematic narrative]

Israel Matzav: Breaking: 10 Syrians killed, Bibi reacts

Breaking: 10 Syrians killed, Bibi reacts

Israel Radio reports at 6:00 pm that Israel has returned 10 bodies to Syria.

Some Syrian wounded may be treated in Israel.

The IDF is searching for those who did not return to Syria from Majdal Shams.

In Lebanon, 6 dead and 71 wounded in Maroun Aras.

After the 6:00 pm news we got reactions from Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has ordered the IDF to calm things down as quickly as possible.

Prime Minister Netanyahu says we are determined to defend our borders and our ownership. Important to note that this day is meant to mark the establishment of the State of Israel. The fight isn't over the 1967 borders, but over the very existence of Israel, which they call a catastrophe. It's important to know with whom and what we are contending.

Hopefully, Netanyahu will remember that when he speaks in Washington next week, and tell the Congress and President Obama that this is not about the 1967 borders, but about Israel's very existence.

Finally, Israel Radio is reporting that all the Syrian infiltrators left and the Syrian buses returned them home.

The border fence will be repaired - it was broken open in two places. The IDF is fixing it now.


Israel Matzav: Breaking: 10 Syrians killed, Bibi reacts

Love of the Land: Special-majority referendum on territorial concessions advancing democracy & peace

Special-majority referendum on territorial concessions advancing democracy & peace

Yoram Ettinger
The Ettinger Report
11 December 09

A special-majority referendum constitutes an acceptable procedure in Western democracies, when faced with exceptional – and sometimes irreversible – decisions, such as territorial concessions in the Golan Heights and in Judea and Samaria.

Contrary to opponents of a special-majority referendum - as a prerequisite for territorial concessions – such a procedure protects individual rights, national security and democracy, which are threatened by hasty decisions made under the influence of domestic and international pressure, impacted by exceptionally emotional developments and supported by a slim, tenuous majority, which could be transformed summarily into a minority. Special-majority referendums check an imperial executive branch of government, which wishes to dominate the legislature and to ignore public opinion.

For example, the "Evian Accords" which led to France's withdrawal from Algeria, were approved by two referendums in April and June 1962. President de Gaulle, who initiated the withdrawal, insisted that such an exceptional decision required a special majority, in order to prevent an internal rupture. De Gaulle insisted that a regular-majority could represent a minority of eligible voters, forge a sizeable disgruntled opposition and cause a collapse of democracy.

Charles de Gaulle understood the threat to democracy – under exceptional circumstances – if the special-majority referendum was dismissed. In 1946, the 53% majority which approved the constitution of the Fourth French Republic amounted to a mere 36% minority of eligible voters. Under such results, France deteriorated to the verge of a civil war in 1958.

(Continue article)

Related: The 3A Booby Trap Must Be removed From Referendum Law, Background: Referendum law would apply to "border adjustments" - but referendum avoidable via elections

Love of the Land: Special-majority referendum on territorial concessions advancing democracy & peace

Love of the Land: The 3A Booby Trap Must Be removed From Referendum Law

The 3A Booby Trap Must Be removed From Referendum Law

Weekly Commentary
Dr. Aaron Lerner
www.imra.org.il
10 December 09

Media coverage of the proposed law requiring a national referendum in the instance that less than 80 MKs support transferring sovereign Israeli territory has for the most part ignored the potentially critical Subparagraph 3A.

Here is a rough translation:

"Despite what is written in Paragraph 3(A), if the Knesset approved the Government decision as per Paragraph 2, and within 180 days from the day that the Knesset approved [AL: with less than 80 MKs] there are Knesset elections, a national referendum will not be held; The said Government decision will be considered as if it was approved by a national referendum on the thirtieth day after the formation of the Government that was formed after the election, or at an earlier date that the Government decided on it, unless it decided to cancel said Government decision as per Paragraph 2."

The explanatory commentary accompanying the proposed law takes the position that the Knesset elections would in effect be a national referendum since it would no doubt be a major issue of the election campaign.

But - and this could be a very big but - nothing would stop a ruling coalition that came to power by promising voters that "a vote for party X is a vote against deal Y" from defying its mandate and declining to cancel the previous Government's decision within the 30 days.

In fact, since the prime minister has absolute control over the agenda of cabinet meetings, he can simply refuse to bring up cancellation of the previous Government's decision to a vote for 30 days.

And this when, no doubt, the prime minister would be facing tremendous world pressure not to cancel the decision.

Far fetched?

Hardly. And the media would no doubt praise the prime minister for "acting
responsibly".

OK.

So let's assume for a moment that a newly elected Government brought to power because it opposed the agreement the previous Government reached would actually honor and respect its mandate and vote to cancel the deal.

What does the country gain by requiring a cabinet vote?

Let's think this through:

By definition we would have a new prime minister heading a ruling coalition that defeated the previous coalition that supported the deal.

So which scenario would better serve Israel's interests?

That the new prime minister can tell the world that his "hands are tied" by the outcome of the referendum and the deal is off?

Or

That the new prime minister has to raise his own hand to cancel an agreement that, no doubt, enjoyed the backing of the United States and other important countries?

That's a no brainer.

Here's an idea.

Instead of dropping the referendum in the instance that there are elections, why not have citizens cast their ballots in the referendum at the same as they vote in the Knesset elections?

Related: Referendum law would apply to "border adjustments" - but referendum avoidable via elections

Love of the Land: The 3A Booby Trap Must Be removed From Referendum Law

Love of the Land: Background: Referendum law would apply to "border adjustments" - but referendum avoidable via elections

Background: Referendum law would apply to "border adjustments" - but referendum avoidable via elections

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
09 December 09

While most discussions of the proposed referendum law relate to its being applied to the case of a deal involving the Golan or Jerusalem, the law also would apply to border adjustments - no matter how small - as long as they entail transferring sovereign Israeli territory.

While the proposed law requires a national referendum in the instance that less than 80 MKs support transferring sovereign Israeli territory, the referendum would not be required if elections are held.

"Despite what is written in Paragraph 3(A), the Knesset approved the Government decision as per Paragraph 2, and within 180 days from the day that the Knesset approved [AL: with less than 80 MKs] there are Knesset elections, a national referendum will not be held; The said Government decision will be considered as if it was approved by a national referendum on the thirtieth day after the formation of the Government that was formed after the election, or at an earlier date that the Government decided on it, unless it decided to cancel said Government decision as per Paragraph 2."

The explanatory commentary accompanying the proposed law takes the position that the Knesset elections would in effect be a national referendum since it would no doubt be a major issue of the election campaign.

But - and this could be a very big but - nothing would stop a ruling coalition that came to power by promising voters that "a vote for party X is a vote against deal Y" from defying its mandate and declining to cancel the previous Government's decision within the 30 days.

In fact, since the prime minister has absolute control over the agenda of cabinet meetings, he can simply refuse to bring up cancellation of the previous Government's decision to a vote for 30 days.

And this when, no doubt, the prime minister would be facing tremendous world pressure not to cancel the decision.

Far fetched?

Hardly. And the media would no doubt praise the prime minister for acting responsibly".

Love of the Land: Background: Referendum law would apply to "border adjustments" - but referendum avoidable via elections

Love of the Land: Israeli Demonstrations (1999)

Israeli Demonstrations (1999)

Today's Golden Oldie is from December 1999. Ten years ago this month.

Question: What should the citizens of a democracy do when their government ignores the will of the people?

Answer 1: When the government willingly defies the will of the people, the citizens should demonstrate against the government and its policies.

Answer 2: When, the government ignores the will of the peoplebecause of outside pressures, the citizens should demonstrate against the government and its policies in order to support it.

As it was in 1999 with the Golan Heights issue, so it is now in 2009, with the Obama Settlement Freeze. It's the dilemma of democracy in a small and beleaguered country.

Love of the Land: Israeli Demonstrations (1999)

Peres tells Ban: Israel will never accept UN Gaza probe - Haaretz - Israel News

Peres tells Ban: Israel will never accept UN Gaza probe

By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent and News Agencies
Tags: Syria, Golan Heights

President Shimon Peres said on Wednesday that Israel would never apologize for its military offensive on the Gaza Strip earlier this year, calling a damning United Nations report on its conduct there "unfair and one-sided."

The UN-commissioned investigation found the Israel Defense Forces were responsible for civilian deaths and damage to UN compounds in Gaza Strip.

"We will never accept it," Peres, after meeting with UN Secretary Genera Ban Ki-Moon in New York. "It's outrageous."

Read All at :

Peres tells Ban: Israel will never accept UN Gaza probe - Haaretz - Israel News: