Matt Giwer wrote:
Jordan wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Dean A. Markley wrote:
Israel need not hit Damascus. All they need do is hit Assad's house
near Latakia with a 2000 lb bomb.

How does that act of war improve matters?

By demonstrating to the Syrians that when they commit acts of war
against Israel through third party clients, Syria will suffer _direct_
retaliation.

Resistance to occupation is lawful and not an act of war EVEN IF there were
evidence of the implicit assertion that Syria were sponsoring it.

Actually, whether or not it is "lawful" (the deliberate murder of
civilians is generally NOT "lawful" under any version of the Laws of
War), it is most definitely an "act of war." By attempting armed
"resistance" in a lost territory, a national government backing this
resistance is committing an act of war against the occupier. The war
may then resume, and let the dice fall where they may. Given the
relative strength of Israel and Syria, I suspect that rather soon Syria
will have some _more_ lost territory to complain about.

Capturing a
prisoner of war from the occupying power is lawful in international law.

Yes, _under conditions of WAR_. Of course, if Syria is actively at war
with Israel, Syria is violating the truce that ended Peace For Galilee,
and Israel would now be within her rights to also carry out warlike
operations against Syria.

Their
only obligation is to allow Red Cross visits along with proper treatment in
accordance with his rank.

Have such Red Cross visits been allowed?

Even if Syria or Iran were sponsoring it it would be no different from French
support of American colonies

Um, Matt, that support _was_ an act of war, and it led to the
escalation of the American Revolutionary War into a world war involving
America, England, France, Holland and Spain. I direct you to Tuchman,
Barbara, _The First Salute_ for some of the details; there are many
other diplomatic and military histories of the 1770's-1780's.

or Czech support of Zionists by sending arms to let
Stalin pretend innocense.

Yes, that too was an act of war (against Britain as the occupying
Power).

What you're not getting about an "act of war" is that the victim
doesn't have to choose to treat the situation as a war. And often
doesn't.

Israel seems to be finally losing all patience with the Palestinians
and with Syria, which if true I am very heartily glad to see. The
radical Arabs need another good bitch-slapping to remind them of their
place in the balance-of-power food chain, IMHO.

Resistance to occupation is always lawful by any means available. And that is
specifically because it was approved against the Nazis in WWII.

Yes, in time of WAR. What are you not getting about the fact that,
when Britain and Russia supported armed resistance against the Nazis,
it was in the context of a WAR?

Let the *******s _bleed_ like they made Lebanon bleed.

The Druze SLA army that Israel financed to start the civil war in Lebanon (with
the hope of establishing a friendly Christian government) was the one which
asked Syria to intervene to save their butts. As the SLA was an Israeli puppet
we rationally assume that request was made with the approval of Israel. Israel
tried to abandon their puppets but public opinion forced the government not only
to give them residence but citizenship if they requested it.

I think you're forgetting a _lot_ of history here, specifically
involving the PLO and the later Syrian occupation of Lebanon.

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan