38 thoughts on “Israeli Naksa Day War Crimes at Majdal Shams – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. Seems to be an increase in racial slurs — Palestinians are always “pals”, even in Haaretz. Dont these people — the editors — have any morals?

        1. “Palestinians are always “pals”,”

          a search on the string “pals” in the haaretz article you link to results in zero finds.

          1. “Haaretz has one of the worst search features of any newspaper I’ve ever seen. Don’t go by what you can or can’t find using its search feature.”

            I didn’t use haaretz’s search. the search was done on the aforementioned article using the browser search. no “pals” string was found.

  2. Yesterday on the late news, the national French television had 3-4 minutes on the incidents, which is enormous. Everything was there: the Nakba, the Naksa, the Occupied Golan, the ethnic cleansing of the Golan with some expelled farmers claiming the right to return, the live pictures of the wounded/killed that Richard has posted in this article. Even Avital Leibowicz was there, maybe more photogenic than Mark Regev, but spewing the same Hasbara.
    I would like to know whether others have noticed more MSM coverage elsewhere, in the States particularly, or if it’s still a black-out.
    “Sanarjiou yawman” We will return one day. This slogan of the Palestinian diaspora is also the title of one of the most famous songs by Fairouz.
    The sound is not the best, but there are English subtitles (approximative) in the CC red spot underneath:
    Prelude till min 1:00 where the real song starts.

    1. @ Deïr Yassin
      I watched the youtube clip and WOW,what can I say,simply beautiful….. and such powerful beauty!.

      How much more beautiful Sunday could have been if 600 demonstrators and two IDF battalions could have sat down under a tent and watched the clip…..wishful thinking but true nevertheless.

      Thank you
      Daniel F.

      1. I hoped that at least some Israelis would take the time to listen to the song, and combined with the pictures, it describes more than any book on the ROR why the Palestinians want to return to their land: nothing is comparable to the beauty of the Galilee and the Northern Coast.
        I thank you for trying to understand.

        On your comment further down: Assad and his murderous regime did not organize the protests on Naksa Day. They might have facilitated it (and could surely have prevented it if they wanted to) in order to draw attention away from their killings elsewhere in the country, but the protests just as the ones on Nakba Day were organized mostly by Palestinians in Syria.
        Hassan Hijazi, the young Syrian-Palestinian, who made it all the way to Jaffa, told the Israeli television that it was organized through Facebook, and that the regime only allowed it under pressure from the organizers and Hizbullah.

  3. I extend my condolences to the families of protesters who lost their lives at the border near Majdal Shams.Such condolences are pale in the face of their suffering.

    I accuse Syrian President Bashar Assad of causing the loss of life near Majdal Shams yesterday by encouraging and allowing protesters to participate. Assad has an interest in diverting troubles from his own domestic troubles. Over the weekend, more than 70 Syrian civilians were killed across the country in confrontations with Syrian security forces.

    I accuse the Israeli government of not protecting the present and future interests of Israel by playing into President Bashar Assad hands. This loss of life can only lead to further incitement and is unlikely to deter. I understand and accept that the Israeli government did, in it’s view, everything possible to minimize loss of life while protecting the border but that is simply not enough. The bar has been raised, effective and non lethal means to disperse hostile civilians must be found.

    I accuse those who portray this loss of life as being a massacre. By so doing they are encouraging similar acts in the future. They do not serve the interest of peace in the region.

    1. Nonsense & I find this deeply offensive. It’s like claiming the rape victim deserved to be raped & brought the crime upon herself. This was a massacre, a potential war crime. Israel is the one that encouraged future such tragedies. Do you think murdering people will be a deterrent to those who protested? It’s gone way beyond that. If you cared, you’d blame the forces in Israel which have refused to respond favorably to Assad’s repeated efforts to solve the dispute. You’d say you’re in favor of returning Golan in return for peace & mutual recognition. That’s the only thing that will stop these demonstrations.

      So spare us yr sophistries on behalf of a murderous military & gov’t which certainly did NOTHING to minimize loss of life. How can you dare to say they did “everything” or anything to minimize loss of life. Are you blind? Did you not see the sharpshooters killing innocent unarmed civilians?

      And don’t you dare blame me for future massacres. Look in the mirror for the one to blame for that.

      1. Richard,
        Please do not be offended by my comments ( a certain poetic license is in order ) but I do think that your comments regarding the IDF are unwarranted.The IDF is probably the most moral army in the world.
        For an army to be evaluated for it’s morality it must be tested, which most armies rarely are. When you train young men in the use of coordinated violence it is very difficult, in an altercation with civilians, to prevent them from behaving in an instinctively violent fashion.
        The vast majority of IDF soldiers exercise considerable and commendable self restraint.
        Regarding the role of the media and the public worldwide in the Israeli Palestinian conflict I wish to say the following.

        I contend that the public interest around the world in the Israeli Palestinian conflict, which is grossly disproportionate to it’s relevance in world affairs, has created a market for newsworthy “incidents” that portray Israel in a negative light.

        People try to satisfy that market for various reasons ; money, fame, desire to harm Israel or a desire to use Israel as a distraction.

        I believe that the grossly disproportionate public interest is due to a need to see Israel as the “bad guy” so as to absolve guilt caused by latent anti Semitic sentiment. This is especially true in Europe.
        As an example, in the Mohammed al-Durrah incident I quote the French journalist Catherine Nay,
        “La mort de Mohammed annule, efface celle de l’enfant juif, les mains en l’air devant les SS, dans le ghetto de Varsovie.”
        “Muhammad’s death cancels, erases that of the Jewish child, his hands in the air before the SS in the Warsaw Ghetto,”

        I am alarmed by this phenomenon as I fear what will happen when these anti Semites consciences are absolved……..more virulent anti Semitism.

        Strange as this may seem, I think that the State of Israel does not fully understand the dangers inherent in this process of delegitimization.

        1. “The IDF is probably the most moral army in the world.”

          Surely your must be joking because no one could be this naive or delusional

        2. The IDF is probably the most moral army in the world.

          “Probably?” Why only probably? Is there any doubt in yr mind? If so, what is it? Is there another country with a greater claim to high standards of military morality (isn’t that an oxymoron)? Perhaps Stalin’s armies or the WWII Wehrmacht? Or should we look for competition from the U.S. armed forces record at places like Abu Graibh. I know, the competition is fierce.

          it is very difficult, in an altercation with civilians, to prevent them from behaving in an instinctively violent fashion.

          That’s why you have a military command that controls the actions of its subordinates. When there is no such overall command or the command actually wants those soldiers to kill, then I guess you get the results you deserve. Though surely not the results the dead deserved, wouldn’t you agree?

          grossly disproportionate to it’s relevance in world affairs

          I’m reporting tonight once again on Bibi-Barak’s goal of war against Iran & you have the cheek to claim Israel’s relevance to world affairs is “grossly disproportionate” to the amount of ink spilled on the subject in the world media???

          I will say one thing though: when war is over & peace is at hand then Israel should become the sleepiest nation in the world. I’d be happy if nothing newsworthy ever again happened there (except all those stories brought to us by the hasbarniks about Nobel Prizes and inventions and the like–those would then be fine).

          money, fame, desire to harm Israel or a desire to use Israel as a distraction.

          Ya got me pegged. I’m rolling in the dough from all Amazon store purchases & my Paypal button.

          I swear, if another person brings up Mohammed Durrah in any way that employs his death for purposes of hasbara I’ll scream. I promise you’ll hear it wherever you live.

          the State of Israel does not fully understand the dangers inherent in this process of delegitimization.

          There is one partial truth in what you say: the State of Israel doesn’t fully understand the role it plays in its own delegitimization. What better way for Israel’s enemies to make hay than by sitting back & watching Israel destroy itself and its own reputation (don’t laugh now, I hear that snicker) through lame-brained actions like the Naksa Day murders or the Mavi Marmara massaacre.

          1. I just finished Charles Enderlin’s book “Un enfant est mort” [A child is dead]. Enderlin is the French-Israeli journalist working for France2 who aired the killing of Muhammad al-Durra during his 20 o’clock direct, filmed by his collegue and France2 employed Talal Abu Rahmeh.
            The book covers the period from the killing Sep 30th 2000 till the end of 2010, and I swear: Kafka’s ‘The Process’ is perfectly describing what Enderlin has been through.

            Daniel quotes Catherine Nay completely out of context. His statements are ridiculous: if the Muhammed al-Durra has taken a dispropotionate importance, this is primarily due to the Zionist community in France who has been trying to destroy Enderlin for a long time because of his 30 years-coverage of the Israeli-Arab conflict and his books on particularly the Camp David and the ‘generous-offer’ blahblah. Enderlin is a pride to his profession, and to his community.

            A final word: Jamal al-Durra, the father, won another case in April at the Parisian High Court against the doctor Yehuda David who claimed that Al-Durra’s wounds were prior to the killing of his son. Enderlin, the photographer Talal Abu-Rahmeh and the al-Durra family have won ALL High Court trials.

            I really hope this book will be translated into English and Hebrew. It’s a must on what is costs to be a decent journalist.

  4. ” How many times have we seen the IDF repeat virtually the same bloody scenario”

    One more thing: you seem to imply that the IDF does this for no reason. Don’t you recognize the provocation involved? What was your view on the tree-trimming incident, or on Israel’s training in the Golan? Are you consistent?

    1. you seem to imply that the IDF does this for no reason.

      That’s not what I imply or mean at all. Of course, the IDF does this for a reason. It’s maintaining the Occupation. It’s defending Israel’s past sins of Nakba. It’s been entrusted with maintaining the injustice Israel has perpetrated against its Palestinian victims for decades. What provocation can there be when Syrians are attempting to cross into territory which the UN & the rest of the world recognizes as Syrian?

      Please stay on topic in your comments. Do not bring up events not related to the subject of the post.

  5. The current Border between Israel and Syria is recognized as such by the international community, which even created UNDOF to monitor the compliance of both sides with the Agreement on Disengagement signed May 31 1974.

    despite the fact that the Golan may be considered as a disputed territory, no one has the authority to cross a border not within a crossing point, and those who do:
    1. trespass and enter Israel without local authority authorization ( which is a violation of the international law)
    2. show their hostile intent.

    Israel as a sovereign country, has every right to defend itself.

    as was reported by Syrian opposition, Assad paid $1000 for every demonstrator, and $10,000 to the families of those who died, small price to hide the massacre of its own people, with an avg salary of $200 / month is syria it’s a lot of money. (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4078698,00.html)

    “srael has the right to defend itself, just as every sovereign nation, the United States said following Naksa Day clashes by Syrian protesters along the Israel-Syrian border, AFP reported.”

    it is surprising to me to read this post of yours, seems like there is a huge gap between your believes and the believes of the rest of the world.

    1. This is the 2nd time a hasbarist has published the same rubbishy argument here. Where do you get this from? Hasbara Central? Put this in your pipe and smoke it, fella. It came from a reader who sent it to me earlier this morning:

      With respect to your article concerning the weekend massacre and Israel’s “borders” there, please be reminded about UNSC Res. 497:

      “United Nations Security Council Resolution 497, adopted unanimously on December 17, 1981, calls on the State of Israel to rescind its de facto annexation of the Golan Heights. The most important provision is “the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect” (section 1).

      So would you care to tell us once again where you found yr spurious argument? You’re propagating lies here. I don’t know whether you know they’re lies or whether the source form which yr lies derived knows they are. But they are. I don’t like lies. So the next time you publish here you better be damn sure you’re not spouting any more lies or similar nonsense.

      Majdal Shams is NOT a border. It is a ceasefire line. Do you understand the diff. Israel has no claim to the territory it conquered. So it killed Syrians on Syrian territory & its shooters were shooting at them from Syrian territory.

      I have no problem with Israel defending its sovereign borders, that would be the 1967 borders, which do NOT include Golan. Let Israel defend these internationally recognized borders.

      1. Lies ?
        are you trying to claim that UN resolution 338 (1973) and UN resolution 350 (1974) were never formed ? are you trying to claim that UNDOF was never created ? UNDOF monitor the cease fire implementation to date, despite what you say a cease fire agreement has a legal validity, and parts of the aspect such agreement covers is the present border, crossing arrangements etc. your logic is skewed, hence the wall to wall support from the international community Israel got after the events in Majdal-Shams.

        The current situation and authority at the Golan, has nothing to do with what may or may not happen to the territory at the end of a successful peace negotiations with the Syria.

        1. A ceasefire agreement is NOT a border. A border is a permanent line denoting sovereignty. A ceasefire line is a marker where opposing forces fought ea. other to a standstill. There is not even a hint of sovereignty implied by a ceasefire line. And the UNSC resolution I quoted confirms that by rejecting the notion that Israel has any sovereignty over Golan. Israeli annexation is rejected universally outside of Israel.

          “Wall to wall” support? From whom? Vanuatu? Alan Dershowitz? Daniel Pipes?

          1. Richard,
            you may want to read paragraph 2 of the agreement of disengagement signed may 31 1974 which explicitly defines on which part of the territory the Syrian law prevails:
            ” All territory east of Line A will be under Syrian administration, and the Syrian civilians will return to this territory”

            that’s what both parties agreed on, the meaning of that paragraph is the territory west of line A is not under Syrian administration (it is disputed to date), therefore Syrian citizens have no right to be there. Since Syria is an enemy state, anyone crosses the cease fire line / temporary border / border (call it what ever you want) not on the designated crossing point using the agreed upon procedures, is committing an act of war.
            between, there is nothing nonviolent in destroying a fence built by the other party.

            1. Agreement Verbiage:

            2. Agreement Map: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/Israel+in+Maps/May+1974+Israel-Syria+Disengagement+Agreement.htm

  6. How can you say that the Golan was stolen by Israel from Syria? Can YOU support it with evidence? Who was the attacker/s in 1967?!!! If you attack and lose – then you lose!!!! There’s no oops….

  7. “calls on the State of Israel to rescind its de facto annexation of the Golan Heights.”

    Richard, this resolution has meaning regarding the UN not recognizing the annexation of the Golan – but it does NOT reprisent a change in the legal authority of the 1974 ceasefire line.

    crossing that border without israeli authorization is an act of war.

    1. False. If you reject the annexation & Occupation of the Golan you also reject the notion that Israel has sovereignty over the territory. A border denotes sovereignty & control. The UN rejects both as far as Israel & the Golan are concerned. So no, sorry, no border, no violation of Israeli sovereignty. That’s rich, unarmed non violent civilians constitute an “act of war.” I hope anyone reading this understands the pathology at work here.

      But yes, a war crime.

  8. Don’t you mean Syria? Or are you implying that all Arab countries are connected, part of the same overall nation?

  9. If unarmed Palestinian protestors started marching through the Israeli pre-1967 borders, would it be considered moral for the army to shoot those trying to cross?

    This scenario happened in the Nakba day in the Lebanon front; And Nasrallah did warn that in the next war with Lebanon his forces will try and conquer the Galilee with force.

    Apart from assuming that these protestors could be stopped with non lethal weapons (not sure if indeed non lethal weapons can stop a large scale march), would you consider shooting to be a moral way?

    1. You’re confused. I’ve never heard of an unarmed group of non-violent protesters “conquering” anything. So how would they conquer the Galilee? With their hands? Their voices?

      Protesters were stopped at Qalandia with non lethal means. No one was killed there. Didn’t you bother to read my post & the Haaretz article I linked to? Or perhaps I should say you should read them first.

      1. ‘I’ve never heard of an unarmed group of non-violent protesters “conquering” anything’
        If my memory is not mistaking me, in 2000 the South Lebanon area was reclaimed by marches of unarmed Lebanese with Hezbollah backing them from afar (this at least sped up the Israeli withdrawal from the region).
        So, yes, thousands of Civilians ‘marching on’ Israeli borders with no resistance could indeed conquer the Galilee (or at least could serve as a pretext for entering of Hezbollah guerrilla who could kidnap soldiers or civilians).

        Regarding non lethal stoppage of demonstration – in Qalandia blockade, Israel controls both side of the blockade so it has ‘more flexibility’ (as opposed to entering the Syrian or Lebanese border). And perhaps the cases of Qunteria and MajdalShams aren’t the same due to difference in topography?

        My question still remains – when would you consider it to be moral to shoot a mass of unarmed people trying to demonstrate through what you consider your borders?

        1. South Lebanon is inside LEBANON, not Israel and the protestors were taking back sovereign Lebanese territory. They did not march to the border to seek to pass it at that time. And even if they did, it would be amazing if unarmed demonstrators could take over the Galil. That would only show how weak Israel is as a nation that it would succuumb to non-violent resistance so easily. But don’t worry, it won’t happen. Just part of yr perfervid imagination seeking catastrophic scenarios to justify Golan murder.

          They weren’t demonstrating on Israel’s borders. They were demonstrating on Syria territory. And the easiest way to stop the demonstrations is to agree to a settlement & return to 67 borders. Otherwise, it’s NEVER moral to shoot to kill unarmed civilians. Never. There are other ways to deal with civil unrest than murder. The fact that you don’t understand or acknowledge this confirms the moral & tactical impoverishment of Israel’s police & military authorities.

    1. One of my comment rules says there will be no discussions about al Durrah ESPECIALLY those of a hasbara nature, which is what yours is. Don’t toy with my rules. I’ve mentioned this before several times.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *