Invasion: No Guns Required

Copying the Mexican tactics of sending masses of civilians across international borders, thousands of Islamists recently streamed across the borders of Israel. This is not the first time the tactic has been used in the middle east. In 1975, as Spain prepared to pull forces out of its colony of Western Sahara and turn control over to locals, Morocco launched its “Green March.” The plan constituted sending 350,000 unarmed Moroccans on a well-choreographed march into the territory. Spain, unwilling to put up a forceful resistance against such a large number of people, completely evacuated the territory. Once the territory had been nominally taken over by unarmed Moroccans, the Moroccan military moved in to secure the region, and the mineral-rich territory of Western Sahara remains under complete Moroccan control, and there is no indication of change in this status in the future.

Eugene Kontorovich, a professor at Northwestern University School of Law, described the international law precedents established during the Western Sahara incident, and compared the reaction to that incident to the reaction to the recent Arab border crossings in Israel:

In the past, such attempts have been denounced by the international community for what they are: a use of force against the territory of another state in violation of the U.N. Charter. International law is based on practical precedents, on the way given actions were legally judged by the world community in the past. It is a testament to the selective use of international law in the case of Israel that Morocco’s “Green March” into Western Sahara, by far the closest parallel to this week’s events, has not even been mentioned by world leaders.

In 1975, when Western Sahara was the victim, the world community was clear on this point (even though the Moroccans were unarmed, while the Syrians and Lebanese attacked Israeli soldiers with stones and other objects). Other Arab leaders called the Green March “a violation of the sovereignty of” Western Sahara and “an act contrary to international law.” Prominent international scholars described it as an illegal use of force, a “stealing of the Sahara,” in the words of one of the leading international lawyers of the time. The U.N. Security Council passed a measure that “deplored” Morocco’s invasion.
Moreover, despite the nominally civilian character of the marchers, several U.N. General Assembly resolutions recognized that the enterprise constituted a military occupation by Morocco. Observers noted that the march could not have gone off without the permission, and indeed encouragement, of King Hassan of Morocco, and thus he must take responsibility as if he had ordered army units across the border. It was a conquest despite the lack of arms: A large organized mob can be as forceful as an armed military unit. Indeed, as the Spanish capitulation proved, a march could be a more effective tool of conquest than a military strike against Western armies reluctant to fire on civilians.


One would note that all the appeals to international law and condemnation by world leaders did not result in Morocco leaving the Western Sahara. Obviously, 'international law' and 'world opinion' are meaningless in the world of reality. Morocco is not leaving Western Sahara anytime soon.


Although Kontorovich chastises the international community for not condemning the recent attempt of an unarmed invasion of Israel, Israel is not sitting around and waiting for speeches at the United Nations. They sent their military to defend their borders against the invasion, repelling the invaders who came in a joint action along Israel's borders with Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon.
Like Israel, we have our own problem with an unarmed invasion of our territory. Every year, hundreds of thousands illegally cross our border. Once here, they demand welfare, rights equal to those of American citizens, and organize into groups which designate parts of America as 'Aztlan' and demand that those whose families have been citizens of America since the nation was founded 'get out'. While Kontorovich did not mention this in his article in National Review, it should be self evident that to apply the same standard as used in Western Sahara and Israel would define the mass illegal border crossings from Mexico as an 'invasion'.

The government of Mexico appears to be encouraging and enabling this unarmed invasion to alleviate problems with poverty and corruption at home, similar to Syrian government's enabling of the recent Palestinian surge into Israel. Instead of looking to cooperate in law enforcement like a good neighbor, Mexican President Calderon attacks any efforts by Americans to defend our borders. The Mexican government publishes booklets teaching illegal aliens how cross the border and live illegally in the United States without being detected. Remittances to Mexico, often by illegal aliens and other immigrants who live on public services paid for by American taxpayers, make up a significant part of the Mexican economy.

Taking its lesson from Western Sahara, where the 'peaceful' migration resulted in essentially a permanent annexation, Israel has decided to defend its borders against all invaders, even if they are do not possess military weapons or uniforms. America should follow Israel's lead, and place our military on the border to defend it.

http://www.westernyouth.org/articles/invasion-no-guns-required/

 

Time to set up the machine gun batteries to protect the border. Not just for us but for Israel and other countries suffering from illegal invasions.

 

Because you can't fend off unarmed women and children with anything other than machine gun batteries!