The Education Forum > War Crimes in the Lebanon

John Simkin

Jul 22 2006, 06:06 PM

It is 50 years since the Suez Crisis. It seems that once again Israel seems to be in a conspiracy with two other nations, in order to create havoc on a neighbouring state. Whereas the rest of the world has rightly condemned the bombing of the Lebanese people and called for a cease-fire, Blair and Bush have only expressed regret. Evidence has emerged that Bush and his lap dog, Blair, have given Israel a week to destroy the infrastructure of the Lebanon.

As a journalist said on the BBC last night, the idea of bombing civilian areas (so far an estimated 345 people have been killed) in exchange for the capture of three Israeli soldiers, is an example of punishing people because they are considered to be “collectively responsible” for the actions of a group of terrorists. He added, this is just the kind of thing that the Nazis did in occupied Europe. It did not work then and it will not work now. The people of Europe refused to be suppressed into submission. There is no reason to believe that the people living in the Lebanon will react any differently from Europeans. The end result is that the Lebanon will become a breeding ground for terrorism.

I wonder if Blair would have ordered the bombing of Dublin after the IRA bombings in the 1970s? If he did, he would have been rightly condemned as a war criminal. It is only acceptable if you are bombing Arabs.

Of course Blair does not make these decisions himself. We are now a client state. We do not have an independent foreign policy. We just follow the one carried out by the US.

Adam Wilkinson

Jul 24 2006, 04:33 AM

Well said John. I have a feeling this war will go on for much longer than expected...

Max Hastings

Jul 24 2006, 03:26 PM

Morality in foreign policy is often subjective. The US administration is confident that it represents the forces of democracy and freedom, and thus feels free to do whatever it judges best to promote these fine things. Israel perceives Palestinians and Arabs as committed to its destruction, justifying any action taken against them. Some in the Muslim world see no prospect of frustrating western cultural, economic and military dominance on western terms of engagement, and so choose other methods - such as suicide-bombing - that better suit their weakness.

Many Americans and Israelis believe that virtue is anyway unimportant, that the Arab world - and indeed the world at large - chiefly respects the successful use of power. Yet the weakness of this argument is laid bare in Lebanon, Iraq and elsewhere. The US, Israel and their backers - prominently including Tony Blair, if not the British people - are perceived both as behaving immorally, and using force ineffectually.

In a recent article for the International Institute for Strategic Studies journal, Kishore Mahbubani, dean of the School of Public Policy at Singapore University, analysed the precipitous decline of perceived western legitimacy. His principal argument was that it is essential for the US and its allies to be seen to abide by the same rules that they seek to impose on others. He proposed a recasting of the post-1945 Truman consensus, within which most nations acknowledged that the US sought to exercise its might for the welfare of all. Urging the US to renew its commitment to making the UN a real force, Mahbubani acknowledged the justice of giving large powers large voices through the security council. He argued, however, that its members' special influence must be matched by a special sense of responsibility, which is today perceived as lacking.

The world is unimpressed, he said, by US attempts to limit the rising power of China. Osama bin Laden has "successfully delegitimised American power in the eyes of hundreds of millions of Muslims ... One of the key factors in the growing delegitimisation ... is [US] indifference to its impact and to how it is perceived in the eyes of the 6 billion people in the rest of the world." The principle of political and economic even-handedness is key, and is being flouted.

Most of the above seems undeniable by any reasonable person. It is hard to overstate the practical consequences of the west's moral erosion. The 2001 Afghan invasion commanded widespread international support. Yet, in Afghanistan today, most Nato members are fulfilling their commitments to help stabilise the country in the most half-hearted fashion. American behaviour elsewhere has diminished willingness to assist American purposes anywhere. This is mistaken, but unsurprising. The British contingent is striving its hardest in Helmand province, but the leakage of moral authority from Iraq has impacted on the perceived legitimacy of military action in Afghanistan. British soldiers on the ground pay the price, as ever, for their political masters' misjudgments.

Last Tuesday the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, delivered a shamefully complacent speech about Britain's proud record in upholding international law, notably in Iraq and Afghanistan. "We in the United Kingdom," he said, "take great care to ensure that we comply with the rule of law ... We take legitimacy very seriously." Operationally, on the battlefield, this is true. But it seems astonishing that any member of a government that has joined with the US in inflicting frightful damage on western legitimacy should dare to speak in such terms. Goldsmith added: "International law cannot be a substitute for morality or political judgment." True enough. Blair, with the help of his attorney, has driven a coach and horses through all three.

Morality alone cannot make an international order work. Few of us, however, want to be represented by governments that are perceived by most of the human race as pursuing policies which have no moral basis at all.

Hizbullah is a profoundly unpleasant and violent movement, which has inflicted as much grief upon the people of Lebanon as the Israelis. But as long as Israel continues to deny justice to the Palestinians, Hizbullah's actions will be deemed by many to possess more legitimacy than its own. Higher standards are expected from a sovereign state than a terrorist organisation.

It is understandable that George Bush should have endorsed the current Israeli campaign, for no more can be expected from him. It is almost incomprehensible, however, that Blair should also have done so, save in the context of the prime minister's wider loss of radio contact with Planet Earth. Israeli actions fail the pragmatic as well as the moral test. There is no possibility that they will suppress terrorist resistance to their polity. An Israeli academic chided me this week: "You columnists witter about proportionality - you should consider what the Israeli public demands from its government."

This recalled to me the wise observation of that most brilliant of British strategists Professor Sir Michael Howard in the aftermath of 9/11. "We have just got to hope," he said, "that whatever retaliatory action the Bush government undertakes to satisfy its own people for the twin towers does the least possible damage to the struggle against terrorism."

The defeat of terrorism is best achieved through an unglamorous cocktail of politics, diplomacy, intelligence, bribery, police work and special forces operations. Above all, a successful campaign offers the society from which the terrorists are drawn a just political dispensation. Contrary to widespread belief, the British did not defeat the 1950s Malayan insurgency by brilliant soldiering, but by shrewd politicking, which included a promise to quit the country. Northern Ireland today may not be a satisfactory place, but it owes its relative tranquillity to politics and economics rather than to 30 years of counter-terrorist campaigning.

Israel's attempts to quell opponents by the use of superior force may briefly appease its own public opinion, but contribute nothing to the nation's lasting security - indeed the reverse. Bush deserves some sort of award from the erratic and incompetent leaders of Iran, Venezuela and Cuba, to name but three, because the force most helpful to sustaining them in power is the raucous hostility of the US.

It is extraordinary to behold the loud, small people who direct US policy-making today, and contrast them with the towering figures who dominated in the late 1940s. Can Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld come from the same country that produced Dean Acheson, Averell Harriman, George Kennan and George Marshall? There was nothing limp-wristed about the latter. They forged the policy of containment of the Soviet Union and urged Truman to fight in Korea. Yet all were repositories of deep wisdom and generosity of spirit. When I once applauded their memories to Ray Seitz, then US ambassador in London, he dryly reminded me that none achieved elective office.

The point is well made. But they wielded influence in a fashion that determined US policy, in an era when western command of the moral high ground was hardly disputed in any civilised society. Somehow, though surely not under the current US president or British prime minister, this is what we must regain.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/st...1827328,00.html

John Simkin

Jul 24 2006, 05:10 PM

QUOTE(Max Hastings @ Jul 24 2006, 03:26 PM) [snapback]70053[/snapback]

Can Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld come from the same country that produced Dean Acheson, Averell Harriman, George Kennan and George Marshall? There was nothing limp-wristed about the latter. They forged the policy of containment of the Soviet Union and urged Truman to fight in Korea. Yet all were repositories of deep wisdom and generosity of spirit. When I once applauded their memories to Ray Seitz, then US ambassador in London, he dryly reminded me that none achieved elective office.

As someone said on the Guardian website: "That's the same US that "From 1945 to 2005, the United States attempted to overthrow 50 governments, many of them democracies, and to crush 30 popular movements fighting tyrannical regimes. In the process, 25 countries were bombed, causing the loss of several million lives"?"

John Simkin

Jul 24 2006, 05:24 PM

QUOTE(Max Hastings @ Jul 24 2006, 03:26 PM) [snapback]70053[/snapback]

Last Tuesday the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, delivered a shamefully complacent speech about Britain's proud record in upholding international law, notably in Iraq and Afghanistan. "We in the United Kingdom," he said, "take great care to ensure that we comply with the rule of law ... We take legitimacy very seriously." Operationally, on the battlefield, this is true. But it seems astonishing that any member of a government that has joined with the US in inflicting frightful damage on western legitimacy should dare to speak in such terms. Goldsmith added: "International law cannot be a substitute for morality or political judgment." True enough. Blair, with the help of his attorney, has driven a coach and horses through all three.

Morality alone cannot make an international order work. Few of us, however, want to be represented by governments that are perceived by most of the human race as pursuing policies which have no moral basis at all.

Hizbullah is a profoundly unpleasant and violent movement, which has inflicted as much grief upon the people of Lebanon as the Israelis. But as long as Israel continues to deny justice to the Palestinians, Hizbullah's actions will be deemed by many to possess more legitimacy than its own. Higher standards are expected from a sovereign state than a terrorist organisation.

It is understandable that George Bush should have endorsed the current Israeli campaign, for no more can be expected from him. It is almost incomprehensible, however, that Blair should also have done so, save in the context of the prime minister's wider loss of radio contact with Planet Earth. Israeli actions fail the pragmatic as well as the moral test. There is no possibility that they will suppress terrorist resistance to their polity. An Israeli academic chided me this week: "You columnists witter about proportionality - you should consider what the Israeli public demands from its government."

This only emphasizes the fact that the UK no longer has an independent foreign policy. Blair/Beckett refused to condemn the actions of the Israelis (Blair called it regrettable) or to call for a cease-fire. Whereas the rest of the world, including officials of the United Nations pointed out that Israel’s action was completely out of proportion, and some rightly argued that the bombing of civilian areas in the Lebanon was a war crime.

Rumours began to spread that Bush had given Israel seven days to smash the infrastructure of Lebanon. As it turns out, it seems it was ten days. Today US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has suggested that Bush is now ready to accept a cease-fire. A few hours later Blair claimed he was now in favour of an “immediate cessation of hostilities" in Lebanon.

There was no need for Blair to issue this statement. All we need to do is to read the ones issued by the White House.

Mark Stapleton

Jul 24 2006, 06:11 PM

QUOTE(John Simkin @ Jul 24 2006, 05:24 PM) [snapback]70063[/snapback]

QUOTE(Max Hastings @ Jul 24 2006, 03:26 PM) [snapback]70053[/snapback]

Last Tuesday the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, delivered a shamefully complacent speech about Britain's proud record in upholding international law, notably in Iraq and Afghanistan. "We in the United Kingdom," he said, "take great care to ensure that we comply with the rule of law ... We take legitimacy very seriously." Operationally, on the battlefield, this is true. But it seems astonishing that any member of a government that has joined with the US in inflicting frightful damage on western legitimacy should dare to speak in such terms. Goldsmith added: "International law cannot be a substitute for morality or political judgment." True enough. Blair, with the help of his attorney, has driven a coach and horses through all three.

Morality alone cannot make an international order work. Few of us, however, want to be represented by governments that are perceived by most of the human race as pursuing policies which have no moral basis at all.

Hizbullah is a profoundly unpleasant and violent movement, which has inflicted as much grief upon the people of Lebanon as the Israelis. But as long as Israel continues to deny justice to the Palestinians, Hizbullah's actions will be deemed by many to possess more legitimacy than its own. Higher standards are expected from a sovereign state than a terrorist organisation.

It is understandable that George Bush should have endorsed the current Israeli campaign, for no more can be expected from him. It is almost incomprehensible, however, that Blair should also have done so, save in the context of the prime minister's wider loss of radio contact with Planet Earth. Israeli actions fail the pragmatic as well as the moral test. There is no possibility that they will suppress terrorist resistance to their polity. An Israeli academic chided me this week: "You columnists witter about proportionality - you should consider what the Israeli public demands from its government."

This only emphasizes the fact that the UK no longer has an independent foreign policy. Blair/Beckett refused to condemn the actions of the Israelis (Blair called it regrettable) or to call for a cease-fire. Whereas the rest of the world, including officials of the United Nations pointed out that Israel’s action was completely out of proportion, and some rightly argued that the bombing of civilian areas in the Lebanon was a war crime.

Rumours began to spread that Bush had given Israel seven days to smash the infrastructure of Lebanon. As it turns out, it seems it was ten days. Today US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has suggested that Bush is now ready to accept a cease-fire. A few hours later Blair claimed he was now in favour of an “immediate cessation of hostilities" in Lebanon.

There was no need for Blair to issue this statement. All we need to do is to read the ones issued by the White House.

I agree, John. It seems this has been a joint US/Israeli effort to establish Israel as a regional superpower. Ultimately Syria and Iran are the targets. Blair and that other poodle John Howard just follow like sheep.

The outcome for Lebanon is that this smoking wasteland will become a rich breeding ground for terrorists. I've read that many fleeing Lebanese have stated they are now prepared to give their lives for Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. As if the US and Israeli Governments didn't know this would be one of the consequences. They would be more than happy to see this occur, IMO. A cynic might suggest that the fanatical Christian neocons in Washington and the equally fanatical zeolots in Tel Aviv are dragging the world into some kind of biblical Armagedden prophesy. Bush has already claimed that his orders come from a "higher power".

When the smoke clears, I wonder who'll get the contract for restoring Lebanon's shattered infrastructure?

War on terror indeed. Create the terrorists, then drag the western world into a war on them. Make billions while you're at it. I know who the "axis of evil" is.

John Simkin

Jul 24 2006, 07:10 PM

QUOTE(Mark Stapleton @ Jul 24 2006, 06:11 PM) [snapback]70069[/snapback]

War on terror indeed. Create the terrorists, then drag the western world into a war on them. Make billions while you're at it. I know who the "axis of evil" is.

Steven Jones (Palestine Chronicle)

I recently came across a graphic on the McClatchy (formerly Knight Ridder) website entitled “Weapons aimed at Israel”[McClatchy Washington Bureau 7/21/06]]. Curious, I opened the link. I discovered that Hezbollah currently has aimed at Israel short range Katyusha rockets (developed, ironically, by the USSR to repel the Nazis in WWII), as well as series of medium and longer-range missiles, including the Iranian made Fadjr 3 and Zelzal-2 among others. I clicked back to the previous page to see if there was a graphic on “Israeli weapons used to vaporize and incinerate Lebanese and Palestinian civilians.” Much to my disappointment, but not to my surprise, I found nothing.

The New York Times was a little (a very little) more informative. In an article dated July 22 [“U.S. Speeds Up Bomb Delivery for the Israelis”], the Times states that “the Bush administration is rushing a delivery of precision-guided bombs to Israel, which requested the expedited shipment last week after beginning its air campaign against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon.” According to the “American officials” cited by the Times, the rush job is out of the ordinary and has not been announced publicly by the government, but the bombs are “part of a multi million-dollar arms sale package approved last year that Israel is able to draw on as needed.” We are further informed that this is “just one example of a broad array of armaments that the U.S. has long provided Israel”, without being given any details.

The Times goes on to state that “Israel’s need for precision-guided munitions is driven in part by its strategy in Lebanon,” which is, judging from what Israel has done in Lebanon since July 12, to massacre as many civilians and as few militants as possible in a savage campaign of bombing that is fulfilling the promise of IDF chief Dan Halutz (certainly in line to become Israel’s next former General/war criminal PM) to set Lebanese infrastructure back “20, maybe 50 years.” Meanwhile, judging from the number of rockets that Hezbollah continues to fire into Israel, the IDF bombardment, including 23 tons of ordinance dropped on a single target, has done little damage to “terrorist infrastructure.”

I recalled a line in William Blum’s Rogue State. “A terrorist is someone with a bomb but not an air force.” I followed a certain logic: Israel is fighting “terrorism”, therefore Israel is not itself a terrorist entity, therefore Israel must have an air force with which to drop their American bombs so precisely on minivans of Lebanese families fleeing their homes on the advice of Israeli leaflets raining down from cruel summer skies warning of an imminent heavy metal sufa. Sufa means storm in Hebrew and, coincidentally, is also the name of the type of Israeli fighter jet that crashed during take off from the Negev on its way to Lebanon the other day [Ha’aretz 7/20/06]. It turns out that despite its Hebrew name, the Sufa is actually manufactured in Texas by none other than Lockheed Martin. According to the same Ha’aretz article, Israel bought 102 of these new fighter jets, also known as the F-16I, at a cost of “nearly $70 million” per aircraft.

http://www.palestinechronicle.com/story-07240641722.htm

Owen Parsons

Jul 24 2006, 10:46 PM

It looks like Israel is tired of acting like NATO and now wants to bring NATO into the fray. They've just been paving the way for NATO occupation. This comes from Arutz Sheva, a right-wing Israeli news source:

QUOTE

Peretz Opens Door to NATO Force
12:37 Jul 23, '06 / 27 Tammuz 5766

(IsraelNN.com) Defense Minister Amir Peretz (Labor) stated Sunday morning that
Israel would allow a NATO force to patrol in Lebanon. He said the presence of an international force is due to the "weakness of the Lebanese army." However, European officials have pushed for a United National force. Previous U.N. patrols have been ineffective and often have openly aided Hizbullah terrorists to attack Israel.

Ministers Peretz spoke following a meeting with German Foreign Minister Frank Walter Steinmeier. Israel and NATO have forged closer relations the past year, and NATO officials visited Jerusalem earlier this year. (source)

(This isn't my discovery by the way, thanks go to Francisco Gil-White's latest article, although he draws all the wrong conclusions from this.)

EDIT: I've just found some additional interesting information. Apparently Israel conducted a joint "tactical exercise" with NATO about a month ago (its first).

IDF AND NATO STRENGTHEN TIES

"For the first time since its founding in 1949, NATO will fully integrate Israeli naval forces into a military exercise, Arutz-7 reported. Israel has previously only been allowed to observe such exercises. The military exercise will take place in the Black sea off the coast of Romania. The exercise will involve simulated combat between missile boat fleets as well as search-and rescue drills.

Senior IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) officers said that the NATO mission was designed to strengthen ties between Israel and the alliance and to look into possibilities for future military cooperation. Some analysts have speculated that Israel would apply for membership in the NATO alliance, but IDF officials have indicated that formal membership would limit Israel's ability to apply military force independently, as it sees fit." (source)

From the Jerusalem Post:

Israel in first NATO tactical exercise

"The purpose of the exercise, explained Lavi, was to create better interoperability between the Israeli Navy and NATO naval forces. To do that, the exercise practiced communicating between the fleets and emphasized how the different independent systems on each boat worked in concert with one another." (source)

Sid Walker

Jul 24 2006, 11:09 PM

It's my understanding that Hizbollah has repeatedly said it will disarm when the Lenanese Military are capable of defending the country.

It therefore seems to me that Condoleeza has an obvious game plan for solving the 'conflict'.

She has only to persuade her good friend George W and the nice folk at the Pentagon to arm its democratic ally in the middle east to a sufficient level that next time Israel attacks, The Lebanon can repel and punish the aggressor with superior force.

On that basis, Hizbollah would aurely disarm and the Israelis would be presumably be delighted to have a secure neighbour to the north.

How's about that for an instant peace policy? Who could possibly object? Even the Military Industrial Complex would have a field day. As we ALL know, it's ONLY interest is to sell more arms. Hence arming The Lebanon to at least the Israeli level would be in the MIDs interests also, wouldn't it?

Win, win, win all round!

Wonder why this will never happen?

Mark Stapleton

Jul 25 2006, 01:25 AM

QUOTE(Owen Parsons @ Jul 24 2006, 10:46 PM) [snapback]70116[/snapback]

It looks like Israel is tired of acting like NATO and now wants to bring NATO into the fray. They've just been paving the way for NATO occupation. This comes from Arutz Sheva, a right-wing Israeli news source:

QUOTE

Peretz Opens Door to NATO Force
12:37 Jul 23, '06 / 27 Tammuz 5766

(IsraelNN.com) Defense Minister Amir Peretz (Labor) stated Sunday morning that
Israel would allow a NATO force to patrol in Lebanon. He said the presence of an international force is due to the "weakness of the Lebanese army." However, European officials have pushed for a United National force. Previous U.N. patrols have been ineffective and often have openly aided Hizbullah terrorists to attack Israel.

Ministers Peretz spoke following a meeting with German Foreign Minister Frank Walter Steinmeier. Israel and NATO have forged closer relations the past year, and NATO officials visited Jerusalem earlier this year. (source)

(This isn't my discovery by the way, thanks go to Francisco Gil-White's latest article, although he draws all the wrong conclusions from this.)

EDIT: I've just found some additional interesting information. Apparently Israel conducted a joint "tactical exercise" with NATO about a month ago (its first).

IDF AND NATO STRENGTHEN TIES

"For the first time since its founding in 1949, NATO will fully integrate Israeli naval forces into a military exercise, Arutz-7 reported. Israel has previously only been allowed to observe such exercises. The military exercise will take place in the Black sea off the coast of Romania. The exercise will involve simulated combat between missile boat fleets as well as search-and rescue drills.

Senior IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) officers said that the NATO mission was designed to strengthen ties between Israel and the alliance and to look into possibilities for future military cooperation. Some analysts have speculated that Israel would apply for membership in the NATO alliance, but IDF officials have indicated that formal membership would limit Israel's ability to apply military force independently, as it sees fit." (source)

From the Jerusalem Post:

Israel in first NATO tactical exercise

"The purpose of the exercise, explained Lavi, was to create better interoperability between the Israeli Navy and NATO naval forces. To do that, the exercise practiced communicating between the fleets and emphasized how the different independent systems on each boat worked in concert with one another." (source)

Owen,

Well that is very interesting. It would seem that there's a larger strategy being employed here. The US can't wait any longer. Control of the entire region, with Israel as a willing ally, would seem to be the big picture.

Maybe the concern over Iran's pending nuclear capability has forced their hand. Once Tehran has this capability, there's no way the US and Israel could throw their weight around like this.

Sid Walker

Jul 25 2006, 01:54 AM

"(IsraelNN.com) Defense Minister Amir Peretz (Labor) stated Sunday morning that Israel would allow a NATO force to patrol in Lebanon."

So, Israel will "allow" NATO forces into The Lebanon - a sovereign nation whose population is not represented in the Knesset.

How jolly nice.

Does that mean putative NATO forces in The Lebanon won't be attacked and murdered by the Israeli military - a fate experienced by both UN forces and the Red Cross?

It's great to hear from 'left-wing' Zionists such as Peretz on matters such as this, so we can better understand the Zionist 'center of gravity' on this debate.

Mark Stapleton

Jul 25 2006, 09:31 AM

QUOTE(Sid Walker @ Jul 25 2006, 01:54 AM) [snapback]70157[/snapback]

"(IsraelNN.com) Defense Minister Amir Peretz (Labor) stated Sunday morning that Israel would allow a NATO force to patrol in Lebanon."

So, Israel will "allow" NATO forces into The Lebanon - a sovereign nation whose population is not represented in the Knesset.

How jolly nice.

Does that mean putative NATO forces in The Lebanon won't be attacked and murdered by the Israeli military - a fate experienced by both UN forces and the Red Cross?

It's great to hear from 'left-wing' Zionists such as Peretz on matters such as this, so we can better understand the Zionist 'center of gravity' on this debate.

I agree Sid.

The sad thing is that they'll convince gullible people in the West that they're being fair and reasonable (because the Western media will say this is so, of course).

Israel and the US have zero respect for the sovereignty of other nations. That's an undisputable fact. Under the dubious pretexts of spreading democracy, liberating them from oppression and eradicating terrorism (a problem mostly of their own making), our allies have sunk to the status of global cowards and bullies. The emperor is buck naked and what an awful sight it is.

From today's Sydney Daily Telegraph comes this quote from Connie Rice during her visit to Sydney four months ago:

I do think we were hurt by sixty years of turning a blind eye to the absence of freedom in the Middle East. But we have a different course now and I believe over time the people of the Middle East will see that that's a course supportive of their aspirations.

My interpretation of this garbage is:

We are in deep trouble. We want that oil--ALL the oil, before China gets a sniff. Because of the way Israel and the US have behaved in the region since WW2, there's no chance of us getting it peacefully so we're just going to take it by force. But don't worry friends--we'll say we're bringing freedom to the region. Ain't that hilarious? We get the oil and Israel gets to destroy its regional enemies. It's win win. BTW, if you're not with us, you're against us. That should keep you all in line.

Owen Parsons

Jul 25 2006, 07:35 PM

More details on this NATO force:

QUOTE

US, Israel ready to back NATO-led force in Lebanon

Sun Jul 23, 6:19 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States and
Israel said that they were ready to support an international force led by
NATO in south Lebanon to ease tensions.

No US troops are likely to be in the force, which according to a US media report could be between 10,000 and 20,000 strong and led by a contingent from France or Turkey.

There could be delicate questions, however, over whether the force's mission is to disarm Hezbollah or to support the Lebanese army's efforts to take control in the south of the country.

John Bolton, the US ambassador to the United Nations, said Sunday the US administration would take the idea of NATO leading a buffer force "seriously".

In Jerusalem, Defence Minster Amir Peretz said Israel supported the deployment of an international force in southern Lebanon.

Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora said, however, that the United Nations should take the lead if an international force is to be established.

As Israel pursues its military campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon, an operation which has left hundreds dead and forced hundreds of thousands to flee their homes, the proposed force is to be discussed by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on her crisis mission to Italy and the Middle East this week.

"It's a new idea. We'll certainly take it seriously," Bolton said on CNN television's "Late Edition" programme when asked about the possibility of NATO leading the force.

"I think we have been looking carefully at the possibility of a multinational force perhaps authorized by the Security Council, but not a UN-helmeted force," he added.

Rice had already stated that the United States was open to the proposal. The Israeli defence minister discussed the idea during talks in Jerusalem with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

"Due to the weakness of the Lebanese army, Israel supports the possibility of deploying a multinational force with a strong mandate," a defence ministry official quoted Peretz as saying, adding that the force could be sponsored by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Siniora, who called for an immediate ceasefire, said no concrete proposals have been offered for a multinational force.

"If it is going to be considered, then it has to be under the flag of the United Nations," he told CNN.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair and other leaders have already called for a "robust" force, to take the place of the 2,000-strong UN observer mission already in Lebanon.

The Washington Post quoted US officials as saying that planning for a force is in early stages and that the United States cannot contribute because it is already stretched by operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Rice said Friday she did not think US ground forces would take part.

Officials quoted by the Washington Post said the force could be 10,000-20,000 troops and be led by a French or Turkish contingent. Italy, Brazil, Pakistan, India and Germany have also been named as nations that could send military units.

"The questions about what kind of force it is -- what its command structure is, is it a UN force, is it an international force -- those are the discussions that are going on and I think are going to go on over the next few days," Rice said Friday.

However, on Sunday Mohamad Chatah, an advisor to Siniora, said the issue of a multinational force is "not at the centre of the problem."

"What -- you send troops to finish a war that Israel couldn't finish?" he asked on CNN.

"And unless we have a clear solution to these problems and a political framework, a multinational force, whether NATO or a UN force, doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

"We need to agree, quickly, on an end to this and a political solution that makes sense. And then a multinational support (force) can provide a lot of assistance to our own armed forces."

Bolton said that any force would have to be part of an effort to implement UN Security Council resolution 1559, which calls for Lebanese government forces to be able to assert their authority over all of the country's territory.

"I think you don't want a multilateral force that usurps that role," Bolton said on the "Fox News Sunday" programme. "You want a multilateral presence, an international presence that strengthens the Lebanese government's ability to control all of its territory." (link)

Isn't it funny that while the Lebanese P.M. wants a UN force, our own Ambassador to the UN (who is trying to bring about "reform") wants a NATO force "perhaps authorized by the Security Council." Blair and others are sick of the UN and want something a little more "robust." We can gather from all this that Siniora has no say in the country he is supposed to govern and that NATO will bypass the Security Council altogether, just like they did in Kosovo. NATO is going to "help" him "implement" resolution 1559, whether he wants their help or not.

Also, Israel is committing more war crimes. This comes from HRW:

QUOTE

Israeli Cluster Munitions Hit Civilians in Lebanon

(Beirut, July 24, 2006) – Israel has used artillery-fired cluster munitions in populated areas of Lebanon, Human Rights Watch said today. Researchers on the ground in Lebanon confirmed that a cluster munitions attack on the village of Blida on July 19 killed one and wounded at least 12 civilians, including seven children. Human Rights Watch researchers also photographed cluster munitions in the arsenal of Israeli artillery teams on the Israel-Lebanon border.

"Cluster munitions are unacceptably inaccurate and unreliable weapons when used around civilians," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. "They should never be used in populated areas." (Human Rights Watch)

QUOTE

Rice Sees Israeli Bombs as Birth Pangs

WASHINGTON - Condoleezza Rice has described the plight of Lebanon as a part of the "birth pangs of a new Middle East" and said that Israel should ignore calls for a ceasefire.

"This is a different Middle East. It's a new Middle East. It's hard, We're going through a very violent time," the US secretary of state said.

"A ceasefire would be a false promise if it simply returns us to the status quo.

"Such a step would allow terrorists to launch attacks at the time and terms of their choosing and to threaten innocent people, Arab and Israeli, throughout the region."

She was speaking on Saturday after meeting with members of a United Nations team that had just returned from the region.

More than 300 Lebanese civilians have been killed in 11 days of Israeli air and artillery strikes against Hezbollah, the armed Lebanese Shia group. (Palestine Chronicle)

John Simkin

Jul 25 2006, 08:21 PM

Two sides of the story published in the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/st...1828055,00.html

This is a fight for our survival

Isaac Herzog, Israeli government
Tuesday July 25, 2006
The Guardian

Some may wonder how, as a man of the left and Israel's peace camp, I can at the same time be a member of a government now fighting a war in Lebanon. The answer is the same one that Clement Attlee or even Harold Wilson would have given: when your very existence is under threat, you have the right to defend yourself, and the responsibility to your people to defend their security. Let's be clear: Hizbullah is a terrorist organisation. This is not a political issue, it is not an ideological issue; it is a matter of survival. That is why I and the vast majority of the Israeli population support this military response.

Israel today is facing a sustained onslaught from one of the world's most dangerous and effective terrorist organisations. In the past few days, 1,000 rockets and 1,200 mortar rounds have been hurled across the border by Hizbullah at hospitals, schools and homes. Their intention is the killing and maiming of Israelis in general.

Israel is fighting back. Israel's use of force is entirely proportionate to the extent of the threat that Hizbullah poses. A third of our people are in immediate danger of Hizbullah missiles and are sheltering for fear of their lives. The whole of the north of our country has in effect been shut down. International law recognises the right to respond to the extent of a threat, and Israel has therefore acted within international law.

Our goals are clear. Israel was forced to enter this conflict after an unprovoked attack by Hizbullah terrorists across the border, in which three soldiers were killed, and two kidnapped. The attack, one of many in recent years, was made possible because of an abnormal political situation in Lebanon. Since May 2000 the southern part of that country has effectively been hijacked by a terrorist organisation. Hizbullah controls the border, and administers every aspect of life for the residents of southern Lebanon. The organisation is armed, trained and kept afloat by foreign powers - Iran and Syria are at the forefront.

This terrorist organisation openly desires the destruction of Israel. Its leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, is an anti-semite, and is one of the most cynical leaders in the region. He uses Lebanon as a launch pad to pursue his own agenda with a wilful disregard of the hardship and pain he has brought on his fellow countrymen and women in Lebanon.

This situation is unacceptable. It will not continue. Israel's goal, first and foremost, is to ensure that, when our operations end, Hizbullah no longer controls the border with Israel, and may not reignite fighting at its whim. This is why a simple ceasefire, as attractive as it sounds, is not enough. It would allow Hizbullah, as it has done for six years, to rest, regroup, replenish supplies, and then start the fighting all over again.

The goal of ending Hizbullah's capacity for aggression can be achieved in a number of ways. From our point of view, the obvious solution would be the deployment by the Lebanese army of its forces throughout the entirety of Lebanese territory. This is in accordance with the norms of life in sovereign countries. It is also required by Lebanon's obligations according to UN resolution 1559. We are told, however, that the Lebanese army is weak and small, and contains within its own ranks a considerable number of Hizbullah sympathisers.

So be it. Clearly, it is imperative that the international community endeavours to help the Lebanese government to reach a situation where it is able to effectively police its territory, and prevent it from being seized by armed organisations in the pay of foreign states.

The international community has already proved that with solid, unified support it helped Lebanon rid itself of Syrian occupation. The same international will must now be garnered to rid Lebanon of Hizbullah. For the interim period, however, Israel could accept the deployment of a sizeable, effective international force along the border.

Hopefully, the Israeli action of recent days has disabused Hizbullah and its backers of the notion that Israel is a "paper tiger", lacking the will to act in its citizens' defence. If this lesson has not been absorbed, and the aggression recommences, Israel will be prepared, if necessary, to mobilise once again.

It is to be hoped that arrangements of this type, along with the immediate return of the kidnapped soldiers, will now be enforced upon Hizbullah. The lives and dignity of the people of both Lebanon and northern Israel have for too long been forfeit to the whims of a terror group in the pay of a neighbouring dictatorship. It is time for this situation to end. Hizbullah's immoral and illegal behaviour must end so a new era may dawn on the region.

· Isaac Herzog is minister of tourism and a member of Israel's security cabinet

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/st...1828055,00.html

We are defending our sovereignty

Ali Fayyad, Hizbullah leadership
Tuesday July 25, 2006
The Guardian

For nearly two weeks Israel has been waging a war of terror and aggression against Lebanon. Its stated justification is the capture by the Islamic Resistance (Hizbullah) of two Israeli soldiers with the aim of exchanging them for Lebanese prisoners. The war has already resulted in the killing of around 400 and wounding of more than 1,000 Lebanese. Most are civilians (a third children), crushed in their homes or ripped to pieces in their cars by Israeli bombs and missiles.

In reality, the Israeli escalation is less about the two soldiers and more about its determination to disarm the Lebanese resistance. According to the US, Israel and some other western states, this would implement UN security council resolution 1559, which led to the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon last year.

Most Lebanese, however, do not regard the resistance forces of Hizbullah as militias, as referred to in the UN resolution, let alone any kind of terrorist organisation. Our resistance accomplished a major national mission by forcing Israeli troops to withdraw from most Lebanese territory in 2000 after 22 years of occupation. Since then there has been intense national debate about how Lebanon can defend itself in future once the resistance has achieved the liberation of the remaining occupied Lebanese land (the Shaba'a farms area) and the release of Lebanese detainees.

The Lebanese people's support for the resistance was demonstrated by the fact that Hizbullah and its allies won more seats in the 2005 elections, following the Syrian withdrawal, than when Syrian troops were still in the country. That is why Israel is now targeting civilians.

In the context of the continued occupation, detention of prisoners and repeated Israeli attacks and incursions into Lebanese territory, the capture of the Israeli soldiers was entirely legitimate. The operation was fully in line with the Lebanese ministerial declaration, supported in parliament, that stressed the right of the resistance to liberate occupied Lebanese territory, free prisoners of war and defend Lebanon against Israeli aggression. International law also allows peoples and states to take action to protect their citizens and territory. The Israeli onslaught is aimed not only at liquidating the resistance and destroying the country's infrastructure but at intervening in Lebanese politics and imposing conditions on what can be agreed.

There is now a clear national consensus on the need to maintain the military power necessary to prevent Lebanon from being subjugated by Israel's war machine. Popular resistance is a way of redressing the huge imbalance of power, defending Lebanon's sovereignty and preventing Israel from intervening in Lebanese internal affairs, as has happened repeatedly since 1948. It is also - as has been the case in the prisoner-capture operation - dictated by an entirely local agenda, rather than reflecting any Syrian or Iranian policy.

The aggression against Lebanon, which has primarily targeted civilians and failed to achieve any tangible military objectives, is part of a continuing attempt to impose Israeli hegemony on the area and prevent the emergence of a regional system that might guarantee stability, self-determination, freedom and democracy.

Hizbullah has tried from the start of this crisis to limit the escalation by adopting a policy of limited response while avoiding civilian targets; its aims were restricted to freeing the prisoners of war held in both camps. However, Israel's systematic destruction of entire civilian areas in Beirut and elsewhere and perpetration of scores of horrific massacres prompted Hizbullah to shift to an all-out confrontation to affirm Lebanon's right to deter aggression and defend its territorial integrity and its citizens, just as any sovereign state would do.

Thus far, Hizbullah has had surprising military successes, while maintaining its position in the face of Israel's superior fire power, and preserved its capacity to wage a long-term war. But Hizbullah is still ready to accept a ceasefire and negotiate indirectly an exchange of prisoners to bring the current crisis to an end.

This is what Israel has so far rejected, with the support of the US. For this is also a war of American hegemony over the Middle East, and the US - supported by the British government - is fully complicit in the Israeli war crimes carried out in the past two weeks. It would appear that the peaceful option will not be given a chance until Hizbullah and the forces of resistance have demonstrated their ability to confront Israel's aggression and thwart its objectives, as happened in 1993 and 1996. That is why resistance is not only a pillar of our sovereignty but also a prerequisite of stability.

· Ali Fayyad is a senior member of Hizbullah's executive committee

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/st...1828134,00.html

Sid Walker

Jul 26 2006, 04:24 AM

Last night, on national TV, Australian Prime Minister John Howard repeated hisd Government's pro-Israeli line on the current conflict in The Lebanon.

Inter alia, Howard said:

QUOTE

Once a war starts, innocent people do get hurt and killed and this war is no exception, but it is true that the cause of this current conflict was the action of Hezbollah going across the Israeli border, provocatively capturing soldiers, and until there is an acceptance in the entire Arab world - and I mean the entire Arab world - of Israel's right to exist and an embrace of the two-state solution, we're never going to have a lasting peace.

This is consistent with the general impression one gleans from the mainstream media about this incident.

There appears to be an alternative narrative, however, doucmented HERE. In this account, the soldiers were captured while walkabout in Southern Lebanon.

As an entire country is currently being destroyed, allegedly in response to the soldiers' capture - and given the possibility an even wider and more terrible war ensuing - it seems of some importance to establish the truth on this matter.

Do any forum members have more definitive information?

Where were these Israeli soldiers when captured? Were they inside Israel - or operating (illegally) within another country?

Peter Lemkin

Jul 26 2006, 05:01 AM

QUOTE(John Simkin @ Jul 22 2006, 07:06 PM) [snapback]69791[/snapback]

It is 50 years since the Suez Crisis. It seems that once again Israel seems to be in a conspiracy with two other nations, in order to create havoc on a neighbouring state. Whereas the rest of the world has rightly condemned the bombing of the Lebanese people and called for a cease-fire, Blair and Bush have only expressed regret. Evidence has emerged that Bush and his lap dog, Blair, have given Israel a week to destroy the infrastructure of the Lebanon.

As a journalist said on the BBC last night, the idea of bombing civilian areas (so far an estimated 345 people have been killed) in exchange for the capture of three Israeli soldiers, is an example of punishing people because they are considered to be “collectively responsible” for the actions of a group of terrorists. He added, this is just the kind of thing that the Nazis did in occupied Europe. It did not work then and it will not work now. The people of Europe refused to be suppressed into submission. There is no reason to believe that the people living in the Lebanon will react any differently from Europeans. The end result is that the Lebanon will become a breeding ground for terrorism.

I wonder if Blair would have ordered the bombing of Dublin after the IRA bombings in the 1970s? If he did, he would have been rightly condemned as a war criminal. It is only acceptable if you are bombing Arabs.

Of course Blair does not make these decisions himself. We are now a client state. We do not have an independent foreign policy. We just follow the one carried out by the US.

You've got it right John. I see it as American foreign policy as much as Israeli, however. The soldiers were just an excuse. Israel, after all, has been capturing Palestinian and other Arab civilains, soldiers and even legislators - or just killing them - and has not addressed its long illegal occupation - nor its effects on a huge occupied and miserable population. Again when people do not look at history, but only at the immediate 'situation' they can be manipulated into false notions of who is the aggressor and who the victim. Israel now [with the current foreign policy and government] is just a moored American aircraftcarrier in the Middle East for projection of American Foreign Policy. It is just a continuation of the march toward empire and away from any sense of care for humans as humans. Neither the government of Israel nor the USA care one wit about the lives of innocent persons not of their tribe or nation and label it with newspeak - collateral damage. This will only prolong the death and suffering and tension in the region for another few decades - which is what it is intended for...the humans be damned in this cynical and bloody chessgame for power over oil and geopolitical advantage. This kind of policy is only creating new enemies toward those behind it with every day. All nations and adminstrations involved will have to answer for their War Crimes and disregard of Peace and the humans lives destroyed. Arabs are the 'fashionable' 'other' to disregard now as even worthy of concern about....but that is interchangable...Vietnamese, Cuban, Nicaraguan, whatever...just the 'flavor' of hate for the times. The problem is that the world is increasingly run by fundamentalist madmen - Jewish, Christian, Islamic and other.....but I'd have to put the blame for the largest part of this madness having been created as a result of many of the actions of the USA, since the War...taking over from the British before it. Empire and the quest for it will always produce a reaction.

John Simkin

Jul 26 2006, 09:59 AM

Greg Palast's newsletter that arrived this morning:

BLOOD IN BEIRUT: $75.05 A BARREL

The failure to stop the bloodletting in the Middle East, Exxon's record second-quarter profits and Iran's nuclear cat-and-mouse game have something in common -- it's the oil.

By Greg Palast
July 26, 2006

I can't tell you how it started -- this is a war that's been fought since the Levites clashed with the Philistines -- but I can tell you why the current mayhem has not been stopped. It's the oil.

I'm not an expert on Palestine nor Lebanon and I'd rather not pretend to be one. If you want to know what's going on, read Robert Fisk. He lives there. He speaks Arabic. Stay away from pundits whose only connection to the Middle East is the local falafel stand.

So why am I writing now? The answer is that, while I don't speak Arabic or Hebrew, I am completely fluent in the language of petroleum.

What? You don't need a degree in geology to know there's no oil in Israel, Palestine or Lebanon. (A few weeks ago, I was joking around with Afif Safieh, the Palestinian Authority's Ambassador to the US, asking him why he was fighting to have a piece of the only place in the Middle East without oil. Well, there's no joking now.)

Let's begin with the facts we can agree on: the berserkers are winning. Crazies discredited only a month ago are now in charge, guys with guns bigger than brains and souls smaller still. Here's a list:

-- Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's approval rating in June was down to a Bush-level of 35%. But today, Olmert's poll numbers among Israeli voters have more than doubled to 78% as he does his bloody John Wayne "cleanin' out the varmints" routine. But let's not forget: Olmert can't pee-pee without George Bush's approval. Bush can stop Olmert tomorrow. He hasn't.

-- Hezbollah, a political party rejected overwhelmingly by Lebanese voters sickened by their support of Syrian occupation, holds a mere 14 seats out of 128 in the nation's parliament. Hezbollah was facing demands by both Lebanon's non-Shia majority and the United Nations to lay down arms. Now, few Lebanese would suggest taking away their rockets. But let's not forget: Without Iran, Hezbollah is just a fundamentalist street gang. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can stop Hezbollah's rockets tomorrow. He hasn't.

-- Hamas, just days before it kidnapped and killed Israeli soldiers, was facing certain political defeat at the hands of the Palestinian majority ready to accept the existence of Israel as proposed in a manifesto for peace talks penned by influential Palestinian prisoners. Now the Hamas rocket brigade is back in charge. But let's not forget: Hamas is broke and a joke without the loot and authority of Saudi Arabia. King Abdullah can stop these guys tomorrow. He hasn't.

Why not? Why haven't what we laughably call "leaders" of the USA, Iran and Saudi Arabia called back their delinquent spawn, cut off their allowances and grounded them for six months?

Maybe because mayhem and murder in the Middle East are very, very profitable to the sponsors of these characters with bombs and rockets. America, Iran and Saudi Arabia share one thing in common: they are run by oil regimes. The higher the price of crude, the higher the profits and the happier the presidents and princelings of these petroleum republics.

This Thursday, Exxon is expected to report the highest second-quarter earnings of any corporation since the days of the Pharaoh, $9.9 billion in pure profit collected in just three months -- courtesy of an oil shortage caused by pipelines on fire in Iraq, warlord attacks in Nigeria, the lingering effects of the sabotage of Venezuela's oil system by a 2002 strike... the list could go on.

Exxon's brobdingnagian profits simply reflect the cold axiom that oil companies and oil states don't make their loot by finding oil but by finding trouble. Finding oil increases supply. Increased supply means decreased price. Whereas finding trouble -- wars, coup d'etats, hurricanes, whatever can disrupt supply -- raises the price of oil.

A couple of examples from today's Bloomberg newswire are:

"Crude oil traded above $75 a barrel in New York as fighting between Israeli and Iranian-backed Hezbollah forces in Lebanon entered its 14th day... Oil prices rose last month on concern for supplies from Iran, the world's fourth largest producer, may be disrupted in its dispute with the United Nations over its uranium enrichment ... [And, said a trader,] 'I still think $85 is likely this summer. I'm really surprised we haven't seen any hurricanes.'''

In Tehran, President Ahmadinejad may or may not have a plan to make a nuclear bomb, but he sure as heck knows that hinting at it raises the price of the one thing he certainly does have -- oil. Every time he barks, 'Mad Mahmoud' knows that he's pumping up the price of crude. Just a $10 a barrel "blow-up-in-the-Mideast" premium brings his regime nearly a quarter of a billion dollars each week (including the little kick to the value of Iran's natural gas). Not a bad pay-off for making a bit of trouble.

Saudi Arabia's rake-in from The Troubles? Assuming just a $10 a barrel boost for Middle Eastern mayhem and you can calculate that the blood in the sand puts an extra $658 million a week in Abdullah's hand.

And in Houston, you can hear the cash registers jing-a-ling as explosions in Kirkuk, Beirut and the Niger River Delta sound like the sleigh-bells on Santa's sled. At $75.05 a barrel, they don't call it "sweet" crude for nothing. That's up 27% from a year ago. The big difference between then and now: the rockets' red glare.

Exxon's second-quarter profits may bust records, but next quarter's should put it to shame, as the "Lebanon premium" and Iraq's insurgency have puffed up prices, up by an average of 11% in the last three months.

So there's not much incentive for the guys who supply the weaponry to tell their wards to put away their murderous toys. This war's just too darn profitable.

We are trained to think of Middle Eastern conflicts as just modern flare-ups of ancient tribal animosities. But to uncover why the flames won't die, the usual rule applies: follow the money.

Am I saying that Tehran, Riyadh and Houston oil chieftains conspired to ignite a war to boost their petroleum profits? I can't imagine it. But I do wonder if Bush would let Olmert have an extra week of bombings, or if the potentates of the Persian Gulf would allow Hamas and Hezbollah to continue their deadly fireworks if it caused the price of crude to crash. You know and I know that if this war took a bite out of Exxon or the House of Saud, a ceasefire would be imposed quicker than you can say, "Let's drill in the Arctic."

Eventually, there will be another ceasefire. But Exxon shareholders need not worry. Global warming has heated the seas sufficiently to make certain that they can look forward to a hellacious -- and profitable -- season of hurricanes.

Sid Walker

Jul 26 2006, 02:20 PM

Greg Palast, IMO, is a more devious shill for not-very-nice political forces than Melanie Phillips on her high-performing days. Blaming big oil for wars in the middle east. Now when did I last hear that decreasingly plausible line? March 2003? Around the time R Murdoch told us to expect lower oil prices after the invasion of Iraq, LOL.

I may have imagined it - but it seemed to me the BBC (international TV service) momentarily lost a little composure, the moment the announcement came through that the four murdered UN observers had been killed by a precision guided missile. This news arrived just after the Beeb had replayed (several times!) an interview with an Israeli Government spokesperson assuring all and sundry that the observers' deaths were just a terribly tragic accident.

The BBC commentators displayed the kind of gentle annoyance one might expect from a doting parent whose delinquent child had been caught out, yet again, electrocuting a family pet and lying about it afterwards. Sheepish grins and shrugs all round. Oh dear, Jonny is naughty sometimes, but he's our boy and we do love him!

Regarding the hotly-debated topic of the "proportionality" of Israel's "response", the figure of 10 to 1 deaths has been quoted often.

Ex-Israeli anti-Zionist Gilad Atzmon writes that a more accurate ratio would be 500,000 : 2

That was the proportion of involuntarily relocated Lebanese refugees to the two involuntarily relocated Israeli soldiers, whose interdiction allegedly triggered Israel's latest assault on its northern neighbour.

Of course, this ratio may need to be revised upwards; the number of Lebanese refugees rises on an hourly basis.

Mark Stapleton

Jul 26 2006, 04:20 PM

QUOTE(Sid Walker @ Jul 26 2006, 02:20 PM) [snapback]70349[/snapback]

Greg Palast, IMO, is a more devious shill for not-very-nice political forces than Melanie Phillips on her high-performing days. Blaming big oil for wars in the middle east. Now when did I last hear that decreasingly plausible line? March 2003? Around the time R Murdoch told us to expect lower oil prices after the invasion of Iraq, LOL.

I may have imagined it - but it seemed to me the BBC (international TV service) momentarily lost a little composure, the moment the announcement came through that the four murdered UN observers had been killed by a precision guided missile. This news arrived just after the Beeb had replayed (several times!) an interview with an Israeli Government spokesperson assuring all and sundry that the observers' deaths were just a terribly tragic accident.

The BBC commentators displayed the kind of gentle annoyance one might expect from a doting parent whose delinquent child had been caught out, yet again, electrocuting a family pet and lying about it afterwards. Sheepish grins and shrugs all round. Oh dear, Jonny is naughty sometimes, but he's our boy and we do love him!

Regarding the hotly-debated topic of the "proportionality" of Israel's "response", the figure of 10 to 1 deaths has been quoted often.

Ex-Israeli anti-Zionist Gilad Atzmon writes that a more accurate ratio would be 500,000 : 2

That was the proportion of involuntarily relocated Lebanese refugees to the two involuntarily relocated Israeli soldiers, whose interdiction allegedly triggered Israel's latest assault on its northern neighbour.

Of course, this ratio may need to be revised upwards; the number of Lebanese refugees rises on an hourly basis.

The IDF was reportedly reminded 10 times of the UN peacekeepers presence. Still they copped a direct hit. I can't see the IDF deliberately hitting them because there's no military or political advantage in doing so. However, if it was not deliberate then it's a shocking display of carelessness. Is the IDF that careless?

As far as world opinion is concerned, this war is going very badly for Israel. The death of the peacekeepers means the PR battle is comprehensively lost, IMO. China is furious and demanding an explanation from Israel. I'm keen to see what excuse John Howard comes up with for his dear friends in Jerusalem. What an embarrassment this man is.

Sid Walker

Jul 27 2006, 02:03 AM

As more news filters in about today's Israeli strikes on the UNIFIL observation team, the story sounds eerily reminiscent of the USS Liberty attack. Apparently there were numerous attacks over a sustained period and the Israelis were warned many times. When the kill came, it was a precision weapon. To dispatch such a missile, exact co-ordinates must be entered by the operator. Little room for acciudents in this procedure, one would have thought. One commentator speculates that the strike might well have been a deliberate assault to remove indpendent witnesses close to the Syrian border.

On cue, the White House announces that there's no evidence the attacks were deliberate. Gee, they sure have good 'intelligence' in Washington. Just like 1967? The quality of spin has been declining ever since the smooth-lying Ari Fleischer left the team; amazingly, Washington has yet to blame Iran or Syria for these UN slayings.

From Rome, Condi Rice calls for "sustainable peace" but not a cease fire. I guess that gives the Lebanese something else to look forward to. Santa Clause is due too in another six months.

Ariel Sharon stirs. Perhaps the 'Hero of Qatana' misses the action? Terror 101.

The suave Israeli Government spokesman Mark Regev appears on the screen once again. He assures the gullible that Israel's Lebanon 'operation' is on behalf of the whole world. The suffering Jewish State is making great sacrifices for humanity by waging the War on Terror on the front lines. He hisses when Syria is mentioned. It's a terrorist country, addicted to war and lying. He says this without a trace of irony.

Meanwhile, Reuters reports that Israeli surgical strikes have destroyed another aid lorry, killing its driver (it's the second in a week).

The Israelis continue to use cluster bombs and phosphorus (a chemical weapon). Even the timid Human Rights Watch is finding this hard to be 'even-handed' about. Those with strong stomaches might care to check THIS link.

Only the most profound racism on the Israeli side can explain their nonchalence about massive civilian casualties in The Lebanon and their determination to persist with military policies that will inevtiably lead to a lot more of the same.

Lest we forget, Gaza continues to scream in agony, its torments largely overlooked in the current excitement.

I received this article via Israel Shamir's email list. It makes grim reading. The courage of the Palestinian people is almost beyond belief. They show us all that the human spirit is still alive, even within their walled, segmented, bombed and largely destroyed ghetto.

_______________________

QUOTE

Gaza is out of news. The Strip could be relocated to Mars - there no reports from there, just brief reports of Jews bombing away the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and another small power plant. Israel allows no reporters inside. Our friend Silvia Cattori tried to get in, could not make it, but managed to record the following interview with a Palestinian located in the North of Gaza:

Silvia Cattori: What is the mental state of the population after weeks of bombings and deprivations?

A: We have suffered. We are in a dramatic situation. The Israeli army has entered up to Saladine Street; the military has cut Gaza in two: it is like it was before. They have installed a base. There are a dozen tanks with bulldozers. They are in the process of razing land, greenhouses; they are destroying all that remains of life. For two weeks, the F-16s and the drones bomb and destroy our homes. There are hundreds of dead and badly wounded.

S.C.: Is it blind bombing of everything as opposed to bombing that is targeting "terrorists"?

A: The day before yesterday, for example, the Israelis attacked a house, assassinating an entire family, under the pretext that it sheltered Mohamed Daif, the head of those firing the Qassam rockets. However, it wasn't true. Unfortunately, an entire family, a father, a mother, five daughters and two sons lost their lives.

S.C.: Having cut Gaza in two, are the soldiers threatening the population from this position?

A: Yes, their tanks, posted in the centre of the Gaza Strip, between Del Balla and Kahn Younes, are currently firing rockets - just like in the north of Gaza.

S.C.: Are the tanks moving?

A: No, the Israeli soldiers are chicken; they are afraid of being attacked by the resistance.

S.C.: Do the members of the Hamas Government still show themselves on the street?

A: We are seeing no one. They are all on the list of the next assassinations. They only come out when they have a rendez-vous, but it is always done with great secrecy.

S.C.: During the two weeks of the bombings that have left you without water, without electricity, without food, have you been afraid for your family?

A: The first attack by the Israeli planes at Betlaya was near my house. It was there that there were a large number of wounded and killed. The children were in a panic. Fearing that Israel would attack our neighbourhood, we left our house to move away from the zone. Now, we have returned home.

S.C.: How do people put up with living in such a horrible situation? Do they want you to free the captured soldier as quickly as possible to end Israel's pretext to continue the collective punishment?

A: The majority of the Palestinians support the position of the resistance, the position that the soldier won't be released until Israel releases 1000 of the weakest prisoners they hold, women and children. Prisoners that are living - contrary to the Israeli propaganda film shown recently on television in the west that we have heard about - under inhuman conditions. This film didn't talk about the torture of the prisoners, didn't show prisoners being held like beasts in tents, plagued by insects and disease, didn't say that most of the prisoners can only see their families once every six months. [1]

S.C.: Has the accord signed between Fatah and Hamas two weeks ago taken affect?

A: They were speaking of an entente. But on the ground, it is the contrary. The Fatah militia continues their assassinations, so the Palestinians continue to be threatened by two enemies: that is, by Israel and by those Palestinians who are collaborating with the occupier in order to destablize Hamas. The Israeli attacks actually prevented a civil war between Palestinians. At this moment, each Palestinian, no matter what party, feels above all like a target of Israeli shooting.

S.C.: Can even the father of a family like you, who has nothing to do with the resistance, be hit by what they call a targeted assassination?

A: You must know that our crime is being Palestinian, to belong to Palestine. If I find myself by chance in the same taxi as someone that an Israeli plane wants to assassinate, I can be killed.

S.C.: For that you will have to face more and more aggression? The Israeli army has announced that Operation Summer Rain will last as long as necessary.

A: You know that Israel is government by lunatics at this moment. They are narrow-minded politicians. They have unleashed war in Gaza, and, as of two days, they have declared war on Lebanon. Maybe that will give us a bit of a break because the pressure is only longer only concentrated on us.

S.C.: One thing that is worrisome in any situation of war is the trauma undergone by the children. Are they still normal after all they have had to endure?

A: The other day I wanted to take my kids to the sea. My three-year-old daughter started to cry. She said, "No, Daddy, I never want to go to the beach again." I asked her why. "I don't want to die." I said, "OK, if you don't want to die, I'll go with your brothers and sisters." "You neither. No one should go to the beach," she cried. You can see how a three-year-old child reacts after seeing on television the family massacred on the beach. If I talk about the beach, she cries.

S.C.: Were the victims these last months people like you, people who are not armed, who have no protection, and who do not harm anyone?

A: Almost all of the victims are civilians. However, the Israeli army justifies the bombings of families who are eating or sleeping saying that there are fighters among them. There are members of the resistance, but they aren't among these victims. Everyone in Palestine, with the exception of the collaborators, is a resistor in spirit.

S.C.: With such a catastrophic situation, one that is ongoing, in what kind of mental state are you?

A: We continue to live in spite of the unlivable situation Israel imposes upon us. We are accustomed to living this life that isn't a life. There is no food, there is only brackish water, there is no electricity. This is our life. But it is better than living a life were we crush ourselves.

SC.: How will you be able to rebuild yet again the entire infrastructure that the Israel bombing is destroying? Do you think they can be put back in action quickly?

A: The Israelis will never leave standing anything we build. Each time that we repair the transformer in the north or the south of Gaza, they bomb it again. We have yet to hear any protests from the Arab or European states. Some states have condemned the Israeli operations, but their condemnations are too weak. It isn't enough to make Israel back off. From the moment that Europe cut off our aid, it meant they have been collaborating with Israel in its collective punishment, to starve us and to make us suffer more.

S.C.: Do you have the impression that the journalists who obtained permission to enter Gaza have been correctly informing the world on the suffering you are undergoing?

A: It is always the same thing, whether they come or not. I would have been very happy it if had been you who had gotten permission to come, because I am certain you would have reported with honesty. We follow the news. It is always a superficial and Israeli version of things that is shown. The suffering of the people, our pain, all those at CNN, Fox News, the BBS, have no idea what it is. They lie in our faces. We watch their lies live.

S.C.: Don't you think that those journalists that ignore your reality and repeat the same things are led into error by the Palestinian chauffeurs and guides accompanying and supervising them and informing them in a biased way?

A: All they have to do is what you do, go out into the street and get people to talk. It's not by them all staying in the same five star hotels in Gaza that they will be able to find the truth.

S.C.: They don't go out into the streets?

A: Even when they go, they conform to the information given by Israeli press officers or the supervision of their agencies. At the end of the day, they say what their Jerusalem or other office tells them to say and don't say what they have been told not to say. You're a journalist; you should know how it works.

S.C.: I wasn't able to enter Gaza this time and can't report on what is happening to you. It makes me all the more sad because I have remained very attached to the place and I knew so many Palestinians who were suffering and two members of the ISM as well as the London journalist James Miller - who wanted to report about your suffering and the assassination of children - who were killed in 2003 by the Israeli army.

A: They won't let you in because you are too honest. Israel well knows that you do not look at our reality in the same way as the journalists who generally come here. If you were seeing everything through the eyes of Israeli propaganda, you could have entered Gaza....

S.C. I was interrogated by the Israel secret service Sabak on my arrival at Ben Gurion airport. Won't I put any Palestinian I meet into danger if these services, which have their spies on every Palestinian street, are watching me now?

A: You can't put anyone in danger. Every Palestinian is in danger. At any moment, the drone that is flying overhead can strike me. Don't let yourself be intimidated. Do you know why they intimidated you when you arrived and why they follow you? Because those people are afraid of you?

S.C.: Afraid of me? Are you joking?

A: All of these soldiers and spies that make up the most formidable army in the world, in spite of their power, are afraid of anyone who uses his words...to speak the truth. They are afraid of those who speak the truth. They are weak people. We can win this fight even though our means are nothing compared to theirs, because we have the will and the courage that they don't have.

S.C.: What I have seen since I started traveling through the West Bank is without a doubt less atrocious than what is happening in Gaza, but, believe me, it is already too much to support. I cried when I saw a group of people being held like animals in an enclosed space at the checkpoint in Bethlehem. I cried when I arrived in Naplouse and I saw the crowd of silent people who were waiting for the soldiers to condescend to let them leave. You Palestinians seem so strong in the face of all of these humiliations they impose. Do you cry sometimes?

A: Of course I cry. I often cry now when I see all of these families who have been assassinated. A quarter of the victims are children.

S.C.: Does your wife cry, too?

A: Yes, often. Everywhere around, here in Gaza, or over there in the West Bank, are people struck by misfortune that breaks your heart. We are one people and we are suffering together. We are one unique body.

[1] It may be the film recently shown by the television network Arte.

P.S.: This interview was conducted via internet and telephone.

Translated by Signs of the Times

Mark Stapleton

Jul 27 2006, 06:44 AM

QUOTE(Sid Walker @ Jul 27 2006, 02:03 AM) [snapback]70414[/snapback]

As more news filters in about today's Israeli strikes on the UNIFIL observation team, the story sounds eerily reminiscent of the USS Liberty attack. Apparently there were numerous attacks over a sustained period and the Israelis were warned many times. When the kill came, it was a precision weapon. To dispatch such a missile, exact co-ordinates must be entered by the operator. Little room for acciudents in this procedure, one would have thought. One commentator speculates that the strike might well have been a deliberate assault to remove indpendent witnesses close to the Syrian border.

On cue, the White House announces that there's no evidence the attacks were deliberate. Gee, they sure have good 'intelligence' in Washington. Just like 1967? The quality of spin has been declining ever since the smooth-lying Ari Fleischer left the team; amazingly, Washington has yet to blame Iran or Syria for these UN slayings.

From Rome, Condi Rice calls for "sustainable peace" but not a cease fire. I guess that gives the Lebanese something else to look forward to. Santa Clause is due too in another six months.

Ariel Sharon stirs. Perhaps the 'Hero of Qatana' misses the action? Terror 101.

The suave Israeli Government spokesman Mark Regev appears on the screen once again. He assures the gullible that Israel's Lebanon 'operation' is on behalf of the whole world. The suffering Jewish State is making great sacrifices for humanity by waging the War on Terror on the front lines. He hisses when Syria is mentioned. It's a terrorist country, addicted to war and lying. He says this without a trace of irony.

Meanwhile, Reuters reports that Israeli surgical strikes have destroyed another aid lorry, killing its driver (it's the second in a week).

The Israelis continue to use cluster bombs and phosphorus (a chemical weapon). Even the timid Human Rights Watch is finding this hard to be 'even-handed' about. Those with strong stomaches might care to check THIS link.

Only the most profound racism on the Israeli side can explain their nonchalence about massive civilian casualties in The Lebanon and their determination to persist with military policies that will inevtiably lead to a lot more of the same.

Lest we forget, Gaza continues to scream in agony, its torments largely overlooked in the current excitement.

I received this article via Israel Shamir's email list. It makes grim reading. The courage of the Palestinian people is almost beyond belief. They show us all that the human spirit is still alive, even within their walled, segmented, bombed and largely destroyed ghetto.

_______________________

QUOTE

Gaza is out of news. The Strip could be relocated to Mars - there no reports from there, just brief reports of Jews bombing away the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and another small power plant. Israel allows no reporters inside. Our friend Silvia Cattori tried to get in, could not make it, but managed to record the following interview with a Palestinian located in the North of Gaza:

Silvia Cattori: What is the mental state of the population after weeks of bombings and deprivations?

A: We have suffered. We are in a dramatic situation. The Israeli army has entered up to Saladine Street; the military has cut Gaza in two: it is like it was before. They have installed a base. There are a dozen tanks with bulldozers. They are in the process of razing land, greenhouses; they are destroying all that remains of life. For two weeks, the F-16s and the drones bomb and destroy our homes. There are hundreds of dead and badly wounded.

S.C.: Is it blind bombing of everything as opposed to bombing that is targeting "terrorists"?

A: The day before yesterday, for example, the Israelis attacked a house, assassinating an entire family, under the pretext that it sheltered Mohamed Daif, the head of those firing the Qassam rockets. However, it wasn't true. Unfortunately, an entire family, a father, a mother, five daughters and two sons lost their lives.

S.C.: Having cut Gaza in two, are the soldiers threatening the population from this position?

A: Yes, their tanks, posted in the centre of the Gaza Strip, between Del Balla and Kahn Younes, are currently firing rockets - just like in the north of Gaza.

S.C.: Are the tanks moving?

A: No, the Israeli soldiers are chicken; they are afraid of being attacked by the resistance.

S.C.: Do the members of the Hamas Government still show themselves on the street?

A: We are seeing no one. They are all on the list of the next assassinations. They only come out when they have a rendez-vous, but it is always done with great secrecy.

S.C.: During the two weeks of the bombings that have left you without water, without electricity, without food, have you been afraid for your family?

A: The first attack by the Israeli planes at Betlaya was near my house. It was there that there were a large number of wounded and killed. The children were in a panic. Fearing that Israel would attack our neighbourhood, we left our house to move away from the zone. Now, we have returned home.

S.C.: How do people put up with living in such a horrible situation? Do they want you to free the captured soldier as quickly as possible to end Israel's pretext to continue the collective punishment?

A: The majority of the Palestinians support the position of the resistance, the position that the soldier won't be released until Israel releases 1000 of the weakest prisoners they hold, women and children. Prisoners that are living - contrary to the Israeli propaganda film shown recently on television in the west that we have heard about - under inhuman conditions. This film didn't talk about the torture of the prisoners, didn't show prisoners being held like beasts in tents, plagued by insects and disease, didn't say that most of the prisoners can only see their families once every six months. [1]

S.C.: Has the accord signed between Fatah and Hamas two weeks ago taken affect?

A: They were speaking of an entente. But on the ground, it is the contrary. The Fatah militia continues their assassinations, so the Palestinians continue to be threatened by two enemies: that is, by Israel and by those Palestinians who are collaborating with the occupier in order to destablize Hamas. The Israeli attacks actually prevented a civil war between Palestinians. At this moment, each Palestinian, no matter what party, feels above all like a target of Israeli shooting.

S.C.: Can even the father of a family like you, who has nothing to do with the resistance, be hit by what they call a targeted assassination?

A: You must know that our crime is being Palestinian, to belong to Palestine. If I find myself by chance in the same taxi as someone that an Israeli plane wants to assassinate, I can be killed.

S.C.: For that you will have to face more and more aggression? The Israeli army has announced that Operation Summer Rain will last as long as necessary.

A: You know that Israel is government by lunatics at this moment. They are narrow-minded politicians. They have unleashed war in Gaza, and, as of two days, they have declared war on Lebanon. Maybe that will give us a bit of a break because the pressure is only longer only concentrated on us.

S.C.: One thing that is worrisome in any situation of war is the trauma undergone by the children. Are they still normal after all they have had to endure?

A: The other day I wanted to take my kids to the sea. My three-year-old daughter started to cry. She said, "No, Daddy, I never want to go to the beach again." I asked her why. "I don't want to die." I said, "OK, if you don't want to die, I'll go with your brothers and sisters." "You neither. No one should go to the beach," she cried. You can see how a three-year-old child reacts after seeing on television the family massacred on the beach. If I talk about the beach, she cries.

S.C.: Were the victims these last months people like you, people who are not armed, who have no protection, and who do not harm anyone?

A: Almost all of the victims are civilians. However, the Israeli army justifies the bombings of families who are eating or sleeping saying that there are fighters among them. There are members of the resistance, but they aren't among these victims. Everyone in Palestine, with the exception of the collaborators, is a resistor in spirit.

S.C.: With such a catastrophic situation, one that is ongoing, in what kind of mental state are you?

A: We continue to live in spite of the unlivable situation Israel imposes upon us. We are accustomed to living this life that isn't a life. There is no food, there is only brackish water, there is no electricity. This is our life. But it is better than living a life were we crush ourselves.

SC.: How will you be able to rebuild yet again the entire infrastructure that the Israel bombing is destroying? Do you think they can be put back in action quickly?

A: The Israelis will never leave standing anything we build. Each time that we repair the transformer in the north or the south of Gaza, they bomb it again. We have yet to hear any protests from the Arab or European states. Some states have condemned the Israeli operations, but their condemnations are too weak. It isn't enough to make Israel back off. From the moment that Europe cut off our aid, it meant they have been collaborating with Israel in its collective punishment, to starve us and to make us suffer more.

S.C.: Do you have the impression that the journalists who obtained permission to enter Gaza have been correctly informing the world on the suffering you are undergoing?

A: It is always the same thing, whether they come or not. I would have been very happy it if had been you who had gotten permission to come, because I am certain you would have reported with honesty. We follow the news. It is always a superficial and Israeli version of things that is shown. The suffering of the people, our pain, all those at CNN, Fox News, the BBS, have no idea what it is. They lie in our faces. We watch their lies live.

S.C.: Don't you think that those journalists that ignore your reality and repeat the same things are led into error by the Palestinian chauffeurs and guides accompanying and supervising them and informing them in a biased way?

A: All they have to do is what you do, go out into the street and get people to talk. It's not by them all staying in the same five star hotels in Gaza that they will be able to find the truth.

S.C.: They don't go out into the streets?

A: Even when they go, they conform to the information given by Israeli press officers or the supervision of their agencies. At the end of the day, they say what their Jerusalem or other office tells them to say and don't say what they have been told not to say. You're a journalist; you should know how it works.

S.C.: I wasn't able to enter Gaza this time and can't report on what is happening to you. It makes me all the more sad because I have remained very attached to the place and I knew so many Palestinians who were suffering and two members of the ISM as well as the London journalist James Miller - who wanted to report about your suffering and the assassination of children - who were killed in 2003 by the Israeli army.

A: They won't let you in because you are too honest. Israel well knows that you do not look at our reality in the same way as the journalists who generally come here. If you were seeing everything through the eyes of Israeli propaganda, you could have entered Gaza....

S.C. I was interrogated by the Israel secret service Sabak on my arrival at Ben Gurion airport. Won't I put any Palestinian I meet into danger if these services, which have their spies on every Palestinian street, are watching me now?

A: You can't put anyone in danger. Every Palestinian is in danger. At any moment, the drone that is flying overhead can strike me. Don't let yourself be intimidated. Do you know why they intimidated you when you arrived and why they follow you? Because those people are afraid of you?

S.C.: Afraid of me? Are you joking?

A: All of these soldiers and spies that make up the most formidable army in the world, in spite of their power, are afraid of anyone who uses his words...to speak the truth. They are afraid of those who speak the truth. They are weak people. We can win this fight even though our means are nothing compared to theirs, because we have the will and the courage that they don't have.

S.C.: What I have seen since I started traveling through the West Bank is without a doubt less atrocious than what is happening in Gaza, but, believe me, it is already too much to support. I cried when I saw a group of people being held like animals in an enclosed space at the checkpoint in Bethlehem. I cried when I arrived in Naplouse and I saw the crowd of silent people who were waiting for the soldiers to condescend to let them leave. You Palestinians seem so strong in the face of all of these humiliations they impose. Do you cry sometimes?

A: Of course I cry. I often cry now when I see all of these families who have been assassinated. A quarter of the victims are children.

S.C.: Does your wife cry, too?

A: Yes, often. Everywhere around, here in Gaza, or over there in the West Bank, are people struck by misfortune that breaks your heart. We are one people and we are suffering together. We are one unique body.

[1] It may be the film recently shown by the television network Arte.

P.S.: This interview was conducted via internet and telephone.

Translated by Signs of the Times

A disturbing post. The major difference between the Liberty incident and the killing of the UN observers is that there was no internet in 1967. Besides the statements of those involved, there was only the mainstream news media so this issue was silenced by LBJ and his friends by threatening retribution for those who spoke out. Even if they did, the media, deeply sympathetic to the Israeli cause, wasn't interested. That's why the Liberty story was never really fully exposed and analysed when it occurred. The fact that the victims of the Liberty attack were all Americans also made it easier for LBJ to cover for Israel.

Actually, the death of the observers could turn out to be a disaster for Israel as it will prompt more thinking people to circumvent the mainstream media and find out what Israel has actually been doing to the Palestinians. The US/Israeli propaganda machine only gives us the story from the Israeli perspective but the internet provides the opportunity to look beyond the superficiality and get a glimpse of the real story. Of course, the internet can be spiked also, but more politicians and opinion leaders (those not captive to the Israeli lobby, that is) are beginning to speak out. Hopefully, we're getting close to critical mass.

The old fighting terrorism line is wearing very thin. It can't justify the mass slaughter of civilians and constant oppression of civilian populations. It's all total bullshit. The Jewish terrorists of pre-Israel days called themselves warriors in the noble struggle for Hebrew liberation. What's it going to take for the world to see the double standards being employed here?

Mark Stapleton

Jul 27 2006, 10:31 AM

Five myths supporting Israeli war crimes:

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0725-35.htm

Sid Walker

Jul 27 2006, 11:14 AM

QUOTE(Mark Stapleton @ Jul 27 2006, 10:31 AM) [snapback]70448[/snapback]

Five myths supporting Israeli war crimes:

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0725-35.htm

A very good article Mark.

Thanks for the link.

Ron Ecker

Jul 27 2006, 04:52 PM

QUOTE(Mark Stapleton @ Jul 27 2006, 05:44 AM) [snapback]70436[/snapback]

The major difference between the Liberty incident and the killing of the UN observers is that there was no internet in 1967. Besides the statements of those involved, there was only the mainstream news media so this issue was silenced by LBJ and his friends by threatening retribution for those who spoke out. Even if they did, the media, deeply sympathetic to the Israeli cause, wasn't interested. That's why the Liberty story was never really fully exposed and analysed when it occurred. The fact that the victims of the Liberty attack were all Americans also made it easier for LBJ to cover for Israel.

I came across this yesterday in an Oklahoma State University student publication:

QUOTE

In 1967, President Johnson worked secretly with the Israeli government and used their military to attack the U.S.S. Liberty off the coast of Israel in the Mediterranean. He is quoted on record for saying he wanted to see the ship “on the bottom” of the Mediterranean, according to tapes released in 2001.

The U.S. wanted to blame the attack on Egypt to justify a full-scale invasion of the Middle East. Israeli fighter planes could not sink the nation’s most decorated warship in time. They ended after Russian spies were seen watching.

http://www.ocolly.com/read_story.php?a_id=30268

Does anyone have any idea what LBJ tape(s) about the Liberty the writer is talking about?

Ron Ecker

Jul 27 2006, 09:07 PM

QUOTE(Mark Stapleton @ Jul 26 2006, 03:20 PM) [snapback]70353[/snapback]

The IDF was reportedly reminded 10 times of the UN peacekeepers presence. Still they copped a direct hit. I can't see the IDF deliberately hitting them because there's no military or political advantage in doing so. However, if it was not deliberate then it's a shocking display of carelessness. Is the IDF that careless?

Hezbollah was reportedly using the UN post as a shield to launch rocket attacks. If true, then a tactical decision was made to remove the shield.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...a9-7f94d5fc6d50

Mark Stapleton

Jul 28 2006, 02:12 AM

QUOTE(Ron Ecker @ Jul 27 2006, 04:52 PM) [snapback]70475[/snapback]

QUOTE(Mark Stapleton @ Jul 27 2006, 05:44 AM) [snapback]70436[/snapback]

The major difference between the Liberty incident and the killing of the UN observers is that there was no internet in 1967. Besides the statements of those involved, there was only the mainstream news media so this issue was silenced by LBJ and his friends by threatening retribution for those who spoke out. Even if they did, the media, deeply sympathetic to the Israeli cause, wasn't interested. That's why the Liberty story was never really fully exposed and analysed when it occurred. The fact that the victims of the Liberty attack were all Americans also made it easier for LBJ to cover for Israel.

I came across this yesterday in an Oklahoma State University student publication:

QUOTE

In 1967, President Johnson worked secretly with the Israeli government and used their military to attack the U.S.S. Liberty off the coast of Israel in the Mediterranean. He is quoted on record for saying he wanted to see the ship “on the bottom” of the Mediterranean, according to tapes released in 2001.

The U.S. wanted to blame the attack on Egypt to justify a full-scale invasion of the Middle East. Israeli fighter planes could not sink the nation’s most decorated warship in time. They ended after Russian spies were seen watching.

http://www.ocolly.com/read_story.php?a_id=30268

Does anyone have any idea what LBJ tape(s) about the Liberty the writer is talking about?

Nice find, Ron. I suspect the writer is using a bit of 'student poetic license' there. I've never heard of anything like this on the LBJ tapes. LBJ always removed incriminating evidence. I would be keen to find out the author's sources.

Sadly, from what has been revealed in the last 30 years about LBJ's activities, I wouldn't put it past him.

QUOTE(Ron Ecker @ Jul 27 2006, 09:07 PM) [snapback]70503[/snapback]

QUOTE(Mark Stapleton @ Jul 26 2006, 03:20 PM) [snapback]70353[/snapback]

The IDF was reportedly reminded 10 times of the UN peacekeepers presence. Still they copped a direct hit. I can't see the IDF deliberately hitting them because there's no military or political advantage in doing so. However, if it was not deliberate then it's a shocking display of carelessness. Is the IDF that careless?

Hezbollah was reportedly using the UN post as a shield to launch rocket attacks. If true, then a tactical decision was made to remove the shield.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...a9-7f94d5fc6d50

Very interesting. If true, then Kofi Annan was right.

They were told repeatedly that the observers were in the shelter. That would make it murder--and another war crime.

John Simkin

Jul 28 2006, 03:01 PM

Tony Blair has been rightly criticised by the media for appearing to be George Bush’s lap dog. He has just dashed off to Washington where he will try to persuade Bush to call for a cease-fire. No chance of course. One of the problems is that Bush’s support for Israel has increased his poll-ratings. It seems the American public think that the bombing of the Lebanon is likely to reduce the threat of terrorism. They clearly know nothing about politics in the Middle East.

Owen Parsons

Jul 28 2006, 06:39 PM

The "hiding among civilians" myth

Israel claims it's justified in bombing civilians because Hezbollah mingles with them. In fact, the militant group doesn't trust its civilians and stays as far away from them as possible.

By Mitch Prothero

Jul. 28, 2006 | The bombs came just as night fell, around 7 p.m. The locals knew that the 10-story apartment building had been the office, and possibly the residence, of Sheik Tawouk, the Hezbollah commander for the south, so they had moved their families out at the start of the war. The landlord had refused to rent to Hezbollah when they requested the top floors of the building. No matter, the locals said, the Hezb guys just moved in anyway in the name of the "resistance."

Everyone knew that the building would be hit eventually. Its location in downtown Tyre, which had yet to be hit by Israeli airstrikes, was not going to protect it forever. And "everyone" apparently included Sheik Tawouk, because he wasn't anywhere near it when it was finally hit.

Two guided bombs struck it in a huge flash bang of fire and concrete dust followed by the roar of 10 stories pancaking on top of each other, local residents said. Jihad Husseini, 46, runs the driving school a block away and was sitting in his office when the bombs struck. He said his life was saved because he had drawn the heavy cloth curtains shut on the windows facing the street, preventing him from being hit by a wave of shattered glass. But even so, a chunk of smoldering steel flew through the air, broke through the window and the curtain, and shot past his head and through the wall before coming to rest in his neighbor's home.

But Jihad still refuses to leave.

"Everything is broken, but I can make it better," he says, surrounded by his sons Raed, 20, and Mohammed, 12. "I will not leave. This place is not military, it is not Hezbollah; it was an empty apartment."

Throughout this now 16-day-old war, Israeli planes high above civilian areas make decisions on what to bomb. They send huge bombs capable of killing things for hundreds of meters around their targets, and then blame the inevitable civilian deaths -- the Lebanese government says 600 civilians have been killed so far -- on "terrorists" who callously use the civilian infrastructure for protection.

But this claim is almost always false. My own reporting and that of other journalists reveals that in fact Hezbollah fighters -- as opposed to the much more numerous Hezbollah political members, and the vastly more numerous Hezbollah sympathizers -- avoid civilians. Much smarter and better trained than the PLO and Hamas fighters, they know that if they mingle with civilians, they will sooner or later be betrayed by collaborators -- as so many Palestinian militants have been.

For their part, the Israelis seem to think that if they keep pounding civilians, they'll get some fighters, too. The almost nightly airstrikes on the southern suburbs of Beirut could be seen as making some sense, as the Israelis appear convinced there are command and control bunkers underneath the continually smoldering rubble. There were some civilian casualties the first few nights in places like Haret Hreik, but people quickly left the area to the Hezbollah fighters with their radios and motorbikes.

But other attacks seem gratuitous, fishing expeditions, or simply intended to punish anything and anyone even vaguely connected to Hezbollah. Lighthouses, grain elevators, milk factories, bridges in the north used by refugees, apartment buildings partially occupied by members of Hezbollah's political wing -- all have been reduced to rubble.

In the south, where Shiites dominate, just about everyone supports Hezbollah. Does mere support for Hezbollah, or even participation in Hezbollah activities, mean your house and family are fair game? Do you need to fire rockets from your front yard? Or is it enough to be a political activist?

The Israelis are consistent: They bomb everyone and everything remotely associated with Hezbollah, including noncombatants. In effect, that means punishing Lebanon. The nation is 40 percent Shiite, and of that 40 percent, tens of thousands are employed by Hezbollah's social services, political operations, schools, and other nonmilitary functions. The "terrorist" organization Hezbollah is Lebanon's second-biggest employer.

People throw the phrase "ghost town" around a lot, but Nabatiya, a bombed-out town about 15 miles from the Lebanon-Israel border, deserves it. One expects the spirits of the town's dead, or its refugees, to silently glide out onto its abandoned streets from the ruined buildings that make up much of the town.

Not all of the buildings show bomb damage, but those that don't have metal shutters blown out as if by a terrible wind. And there are no people at all, except for the occasional Hezbollah scout on a motorbike armed only with a two-way radio, keeping an eye on things as Israeli jets and unmanned drones circle overhead.

Overlooking the outskirts of this town, which has a peacetime population of 100,000 or so -- mostly Shiite supporters of Hezbollah and its more secular rival Amal -- is the Ragheh Hareb Hospital, a facility that makes quite clear what side the residents of Nabatiya are on in this conflict.

The hospital's carefully sculpted and trimmed front lawn contains the giant Red Crescent that denotes the Muslim version of the Red Cross. As we approach it, an Israeli missile streaks by, smashing into a school on the opposite hilltop. As we crouch and then run for the shelter of the hospital awning, that giant crescent reassures me until I look at the flagpole. The Lebanese flag and its cedar tree is there -- right next to the flag of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

It's safe to say that Ragheh Hareb Hospital has an association with Hezbollah. And the staff sports the trimmed beards and polite, if somewhat ominous, manner of the group. After young men demand press IDs and do some quick questioning, they allow us to enter.

Dr. Ahmed Tahir recognizes me from a funeral in the nearby village of Dweir. An Israeli bomb dropped on their house killed a Hezbollah cleric and 11 members of his immediate family, mostly children. People in Lebanon are calling it a war crime. Tahir looks exhausted, and our talk is even more tense than the last time.

"Maybe it would be best if the Israelis bombed your car on the road here," he said, with a sharp edge. "If you were killed, maybe the public outcry would be so bad in America that the Jews would be forced to stop these attacks."

When I volunteered that the Bush administration cared little for journalists, let alone ones who reported from Hezbollah territory, he shrugged. "Maybe if it was an American bomb used by the Israelis that killed an American journalist, they would stop this horror," he said.

The handful of people in the town include some from Hezbollah's political wing, as well as volunteers keeping an eye on things while the residents are gone. Off to the side, as we watch the Israelis pummel ridgelines on the outskirts of town, one of the political operatives explains that the fighters never come near the town, reinforcing what other Hezbollah people have told me over the years.

Although Israel targets apartments and offices because they are considered "Hezbollah" installations, the group has a clear policy of keeping its fighters away from civilians as much as possible. This is not for humanitarian reasons -- they did, after all, take over an apartment building against the protests of the landlord, knowing full well it would be bombed -- but for military ones.

"You can be a member of Hezbollah your entire life and never see a military wing fighter with a weapon," a Lebanese military intelligence official, now retired, once told me. "They do not come out with their masks off and never operate around people if they can avoid it. They're completely afraid of collaborators. They know this is what breaks the Palestinians -- no discipline and too much showing off."

Perhaps once a year, Hezbollah will hold a military parade in the south, in which its weapons and fighters appear. Media access to these parades is tightly limited and controlled. Unlike the fighters in the half dozen other countries where I have covered insurgencies, Hezbollah fighters do not like to show off for the cameras. In Iraq, with some risk taking, you can meet with and even watch the resistance guys in action. (At least you could during my last time there.) In Afghanistan, you can lunch with Taliban fighters if you're willing to walk a day or so in the mountains. In Gaza and the West Bank, the Fatah or Hamas fighter is almost ubiquitous with his mask, gun and sloganeering to convince the Western journalist of the justice of his cause.

The Hezbollah guys, on the other hand, know that letting their fighters near outsiders of any kind -- journalists or Lebanese, even Hezbollah supporters -- is stupid. In three trips over the last week to the south, where I came near enough to the fighting to hear Israeli artillery, and not just airstrikes, I saw exactly no fighters. Guys with radios with the look of Hezbollah always found me. But no fighters on corners, no invitations to watch them shoot rockets at the Zionist enemy, nothing that can be used to track them.

Even before the war, on many of my trips to the south, the Lebanese army, or the ubiquitous guy on a motorbike with a radio, would halt my trip and send me over to Tyre to get permission from a Hezbollah official before I could proceed, usually with strict limits on where I could go.

Every other journalist I know who has covered Hezbollah has had the same experience. A fellow journalist, a Lebanese who has covered them for two decades, knows only one military guy who will admit it, and he never talks or grants interviews. All he will say is, "I'll be gone for a few months for training. I'll call when I'm back." Presumably his friends and neighbors may suspect something, but no one says anything.

Hezbollah's political members say they have little or no access to the workings of the fighters. This seems to be largely true: While they obviously hear and know more than the outside world, the firewall is strong.

Israel, however, has chosen to treat the political members of Hezbollah as if they were fighters. And by targeting the civilian wing of the group, which supplies much of the humanitarian aid and social protection for the poorest people in the south, they are targeting civilians.

Earlier in the week, I stood next to a giant crater that had smashed through the highway between Tyre and Sidon -- the only route of escape for most of the people in the far south. Overhead, Israeli fighters and drones circled above the city and its outlying areas and regular blasts of bombs and naval artillery could be heard.

The crater served as a nice place to check up on the refugees, who were forced by the crater to slow down long enough to be asked questions. They barely stopped, their faces wrenched in near panic. The main wave of refugees out of the south had come the previous two days, so these were the hard-luck cases, the people who had been really close to the fighting and who needed two days just to get to Tyre, or who had had to make the tough decision whether to flee or stay put, with neither choice looking good.

The roads in the south are full of the cars of people who chose wrong -- burned-out chassis, broken glass, some cars