Palestine and Israel

[AngryAnt]

Re: Not Good News From Israel

Thanks Phantom, another interesting summary.

Readers however that Phantom is compressing a lot of history into a very brief description and this necessarily leaves a lot out. He also presents one side of the historical argument and not the other. This is fine as we all know Phantom's background and ideological standpoint - but does mean we should take this into account when reading it. I will point out how Phantom is very selective in the facts he presents with regard to one example - the Suez Crisis.

But tensions were building. Britain handed over the Suez Canal to Egypt in 1954, and as a consequence Egypt decided to close the Suez canal to all shipping regardless of nationality, and blockade the southern Israeli port of Eilat.

This is not quite the whole story - the Canal was still owned by British and French interests. The Egyptian president Nasser decided to nationalise the Suez and effectively seized control of the canal. The British moved to protect their financial and strategic interests in attacking Egypt to seize back control of the canal (part of this was to support Israel in the ongoing skirmishes with Egypt and keep the Suez open).

The British invaded Port Said in Egypt expecting to be welcomed as liberators by the Egyptians - however they encountered stiff resistance and house to house fighting ensued with many civilians fighting against the British "liberators" (does this scenario sound familiar to anyone)? Instead the Suez became a symbol of Egyptian national pride which galvanised the Egyptian resistance.

Britain was roundly condemned by the international community and was forced to withdraw. This resulted in the resignation of the then Tory Prime Minister Anthony Eden. At the time the Crisis was seen as a symbol of Middle Eastern independence from the old European powers - it also galvanised "Pan-Arab" feelings against Israel which culminated in the disaster (for the Arabs) of the Six Day War - this led to the weakening of Egypt as a regional power. Ironically Nasser's replacement Anwar Sadat was the first Arab leader to recognise Israel - for his pains he was assassinated in 1981 for this and other reasons.

Many historians of the Middle East look to the Suez crisis as a microcosm of Western interference in the Middle East - Western solutions (usually imposed by force) are doomed to failure - witness the current situation in Iraq for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_crisis - Wikipedia on the Suez crisis for those who are interested.

 

[pahoffm]

Re: Not Good News From Israel

Agreed, I have tried to be concise about 4,000 of Middle East history.
I have tried to lay the facts down as read, and I have kept to secular references.

I have checked my references on the Suez Canal incident.

The version of the Suez Canal I used was from,
The History of the Middle Eastern Wars, J.N.Westwood, Hamlyn, London, 1984.

The expanded rundown that I can follow, from Wkipeadia, is that:
1. Under the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936, the United Kingdom insisted on retaining control over the canal.
2. In 1951, Egypt repudiated the treaty, and by 1954 the United Kingdom had agreed to pull out.
3. After the United Kingdom and the United States withdrew their pledge to support the construction of the Aswan Dam because Egypt had sought weaponry from the Soviet Union, President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the canal.
4. This caused Britain, France, and Israel to invade, in the week-long Suez Crisis of 1956.
5. As a result of damage and sunken ships, the canal was closed until April 1957, when it had been cleared with UN assistance.
6. A United Nations force (UNEF) was established to maintain the neutrality of the canal and the Sinai Peninsula.

That's how Wiki sees it. I hope it sheds light on the cause of the Suez Crisis. However, the Suez Crisis only formed a small part in the overall conflict. It's significance is that it brought Britain & the US behind Israel, and the USSR behind the Arabs.

 

[CarnTheTiges]

Re: Not Good News From Israel

What concerned me about the protest that cracker mentioned was that there were young children, too young to really be able to form a clear opinion about the entire conflict, carrying large posters of Nasrallah (the leader of Hezbollah), this bloke is on the same scale as Bin Laden and probably every bit as fanatical and insane. It would appear that large sections of the Lebanese community both here and abroad regard Lebanon's government as being Hezbollah and that is genuinely a matter of concern, it is also worrying that many are asking for Hezbollah to be recognised as a legitimate non terrorist organisation. They make the proviso that this is for their political and charitable arms, not the military, but personally I don't believe that they can be divorced.

If I were Lebanese I would feel pretty strongly about Israeli bombing and now re-occupation by Israel.  I would also be questioning the motives or at least the strategy that led to the current war and would not be uncritical of Hezbollah at the same time.

I took my kids to an anti-war demo prior to the start of the US invasion of Iraq - I don't think we can be too critical of families that do this as it is also their relatives and friends suffering in Lebanon and it is a bit much to deny people this right.

There is a difference between Nasrallah and Bin Laden - Nasrallah confines his activities to the liberation of Palestine as he sees it and does not so far suggest Al Qaeda style front action across the globe.    Phantom's post is interesting because it suggests why Nasrallah and Hezbollah are popular in Lebanon - they succeeded in freeing Southern Lebanon from Israeli occupation through guerilla style actions.  I believe that they are the only armed organisation that has been successful against the IDF since the creation of Israel - Phantom might confirm this.

Antman I have no problem with families taking their kids on a protest of this sort, what bothered me was that children were holding up photos of a man who is considered to be the leader of a terrorist organisation as if he were some sort of hero. Did your kids hold up pictures of Saddam Hussein when you took them to the anti-war demo? That's facetious, I know and I'm sorry if it offends, but to me it's basically the same thing. If someone is idolising Nasrallah then they don't have a great grip on both sides of the conflict.

 

[Liverpool]

Re: Not Good News From Israel

There is a difference between Nasrallah and Bin Laden - Nasrallah confines his activities to the liberation of Palestine as he sees it and does not so far suggest Al Qaeda style front action across the globe.

Antman,
Maybe you missed the part of Phantom's post about Nasrallah that contained these quotes:

Speaking at a graduation ceremony in Haret Hreik, Nasrallah announced on October 22, 2002: "if they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."

The New York Times qualifies this as "genocidal thinking", whereas the New York Sun likens it to the 1992 Hezbollah statement, which vowed, "It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth."

Michael Rubin qualifies his goal as genocide too, quoting Nasrallah ruling out "co-existence with" the Jews or "peace", as "they are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment."

The Age quotes him like so: "There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel."


To me, these quotes are NOT confining his hatred of Jews to the 'liberation' of Palestine, but the eradication of Israel and all Jews on Earth, wouldn't you agree?
Nasrallah and Bin-Laden both have allies in Iran/Syria, both are leaders of terrorist organisations, and both want to rid the world of Jews and Israel.
They have more in common than you care to admit mate.

 

[AngryAnt]

Re: Not Good News From Israel

Antman I have no problem with families taking their kids on a protest of this sort, what bothered me was that children were holding up photos of a man who is considered to be the leader of a terrorist organisation as if he were some sort of hero. Did your kids hold up pictures of Saddam Hussein when you took them to the anti-war demo? That's facetious, I know and I'm sorry if it offends, but to me it's basically the same thing. If someone is idolising Nasrallah then they don't have a great grip on both sides of the conflict.

No - not offended CTT - good point. Again it all depends on definition. If you were a Lebanese you might respect Nasrallah for leading Hezbollah to remove Israelis from Southern Lebanon.

Imagine if part of Australia was occupied by an invader. If one guy and his organisation was able to rid the country of the invaders he would be celebrated, correct?

Bear in mind I am not trying to defend the guy or his actions - merely point out why some Lebanese would regard him as a hero.

 

[AngryAnt]

Re: Not Good News From Israel

To me, these quotes are NOT confining his hatred of Jews to the 'liberation' of Palestine, but the eradication of Israel and all Jews on Earth, wouldn't you agree?
Nasrallah and Bin-Laden both have allies in Iran/Syria, both are leaders of terrorist organisations, and both want to rid the world of Jews and Israel.
They have more in common than you care to admit mate.

I do admit it - but the distinction does become problematic in circumstances where he is clearly fighting for his homeland.

Again, please bear in mind I am not defending Nasrallah or his actions - but if we are for peace in the Middle East we must understand why many Palestinians do regard him as a hero who stood up to the invaders and repelled them from Southern Lebanon once already, instead of condemning them for supporting a "terrorist organisation".

 

[AngryAnt]

Re: Not Good News From Israel

Agreed, I have tried to be concise about 4,000 of Middle East history.
I have tried to lay the facts down as read, and I have kept to secular references.

I have checked my references on the Suez Canal incident.

The version of the Suez Canal I used was from,
The History of the Middle Eastern Wars, J.N.Westwood, Hamlyn, London, 1984.

The expanded rundown that I can follow, from Wkipeadia, is that:
1. Under the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936, the United Kingdom insisted on retaining control over the canal.
2. In 1951, Egypt repudiated the treaty, and by 1954 the United Kingdom had agreed to pull out.
3. After the United Kingdom and the United States withdrew their pledge to support the construction of the Aswan Dam because Egypt had sought weaponry from the Soviet Union, President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the canal.
4. This caused Britain, France, and Israel to invade, in the week-long Suez Crisis of 1956.
5. As a result of damage and sunken ships, the canal was closed until April 1957, when it had been cleared with UN assistance.
6. A United Nations force (UNEF) was established to maintain the neutrality of the canal and the Sinai Peninsula.

That's how Wiki sees it. I hope it sheds light on the cause of the Suez Crisis. However, the Suez Crisis only formed a small part in the overall conflict. It's significance is that it brought Britain & the US behind Israel, and the USSR behind the Arabs.

Yeah - thats more like it. Its also mportant to recognise that the Suez was just as much to do with Egyptian sovereignty and nationalism as it was about strategy or anti-Israeli activity.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Re: Not Good News From Israel

I just can't understand why the majority of the Lebanese population are still supporting an organisation (Hezbollah) that is prevoking this war which is resulting in the destruction of their own country??

Partly because of their limited success in opposing the IDF, but mostly because while the Western media portrays Hezbollah as purely a 'terrorist organisation', they also actually do an enormous amount of grass roots work helping others in the community - as does Hamas.

IMO there's a world of difference between an international 'terrorist' group like al Queda and groups like Hezbollah and Hamas who are genuine political entities with nationalist agendas. The common Western perception is that Hezbollah and Hamas are purely military organisations and this is from where they draw their public support (which is true in part), but the reality is that the many either Palestinian or Lebanese families owe their children's education, or a pension, or food support, or the house they live in (among many other things) to Hezbollah or Hamas.

There's a lot going on behind the scenes in this conflict and very little of it gets into the mainstream media. This conflict has far more to do with water, energy resources and geopolitical strategising by one the one hand, the US, UK, Turkey, Israel, Azerbaijan and Georgia (this is also the side Howard will throw our lot in with), and on the other hand Syria, Iran, Russia, China and other Central Asian and Far East countries. India and Pakistan are both largely sitting on the fence and playing both sides to some extent (IMO they will eventually side with the Eastern bloc).

Virtually unnoticed, the inauguration of the Ceyhan-Tblisi-Baku (BTC) oil pipeline, which links the Caspian sea to the Eastern Mediterranean, took place on the 13th of July, at the very outset of the Israeli sponsored bombings of Lebanon.

...

The BTC pipeline totally bypasses the territory of the Russian Federation. It transits through the former Soviet republics of Azerbaijan and Georgia, both of which have become US "protectorates", firmly integrated into a military alliance with the US and NATO. Moreover, both Azerbaijan and Georgia have longstanding military cooperation agreements with Israel. In 2005, Georgian companies received some $24 million in military contracts funded out of U.S. military assistance to Israel under the so-called "Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program".

...

In April 2006, Israel and Turkey announced plans for four underwater pipelines, which would bypass Syrian and Lebanese territory.
"Turkey and Israel are negotiating the construction of a multi-million-dollar energy and water project that will transport water, electricity, natural gas and oil by pipelines to Israel, with the oil to be sent onward from Israel to the Far East,

The new Turkish-Israeli proposal under discussion would see the transfer of water, electricity, natural gas and oil to Israel via four underwater pipelines.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961328841&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


“Baku oil can be transported to Ashkelon via this new pipeline and to India and the Far East.[via the Red sea]"

"Ceyhan and the Mediterranean port of Ashkelon are situated only 400 km apart. Oil can be transported to the city in tankers or via specially constructed under-water pipeline. From Ashkelon the oil can be pumped through already existing pipeline to the port of Eilat at the Red Sea; and from there it can be transported to India and other Asian countries in tankers. (REGNUM )
Water for Israel

Also involved in this project is a pipeline to bring water to Israel, pumping water from upstream resources of the Tigris and Euphrates river system in Anatolia. This has been a long-run strategic objective of Israel to the detriment of Syria and Iraq. Israel's agenda with regard to water is supported by the military cooperation agreement between Tel Aviv and Ankara.

...

War and Oil Pipelines

Prior to the bombing of Lebanon, Israel and Turkey had announced the underwater pipeline routes, which bypassed Syria and Lebanon. These underwater pipeline routes did not overtly encroach on the territorial sovereignty of Lebanon and Syria.

On the other hand, the development of alternative land based corridors (for oil and water) through Lebanon and Syria would require Israeli-Turkish territorial control over the Eastern Mediterranean coastline through Lebanon and Syria.

The implementation of this project requires the militarisation of the East Mediterranean coastline, sea ways and land routes, extending from the port of Ceyhan across Syria and Lebanon to the Lebanese-Israeli border.

The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil

China and Russia have beaten the US to the punch by claiming a huge slice of Central Asian oil reserves and are beginning to make inroads into the Caspian basin and the Middle East. The current conflict is almost entirely about securing energy reserves for the US..Israel, Lebanon and to a lesser extent Palestine, and their age old conflicts are merely the covenient smokescreen...all this has been in the pipeline (pardon the pun) for some time now.

Iran and Syria are quite obviously the longer term objectives for the US led bloc...which is why Russia is building a massive base in the Syrian port of Tartus, arming Syria to the hilt and has given even greater military support to Iran - among which is the world's most sophisticated missile defense system (Russian technology).

That's before we even get into Chinese assistance and strategising. There is no way either China or Russia will allow the US bloc to control the Middle East and thereby gain significant strategic advantage toward controlling global energy reserves. There is also no way the US will allow Russia and China to make further gains than they already have while the Bush admin has been asleep at the wheel.

The battle lines are drawn folks; we are at the beginning of a revamped 'Cold War' with the Israel-Lebanon conflict as the warm up 'entertainment.' It's all very civil now compared to how it's going to be months or years from now...like practically all wars throughout history it is more about control of resources and territory than anything else.

I didn't really want to weigh into this discussion - mostly due to time restraints and the fact I partly sympathise with both sides - but I think the above are important points which are almost entirely ignored by our media and need clarification.

 

[pahoffm]

Re: Not Good News From Israel

Definitely food for thought Rayzor.

I saw on the news this morning that virually all of the AWB's contracts for wheat export into Iraq had gone to US companies.

Yes, the AWB's activities cannot be justified, and the US is paying a very large price to obtain those wheat deals.

Yeah - thats more like it. Its also mportant to recognise that the Suez was just as much to do with Egyptian sovereignty and nationalism as it was about strategy or anti-Israeli activity.

No doubt.
The old Big Brother syndome.
The British had effectively handed over the Suez Canal to Egypt in 1954. Yet as soon as Egypt wanted to use it for political purposes, the British still felt that they had an interest in it.
We've certainly seen in politics & war that a multitude of agendas can govern an individual conflict.

 

[Liverpool]

Re: Not Good News From Israel

Lebanese photographer doctored image
August 7, 2006 - 6:43AM

Reuters, the global news and information agency, told a freelance Lebanese photographer on Sunday it would not use any more of his pictures after he doctored an image of the aftermath of an Israeli air strike on Beirut.

The photograph by Adnan Hajj, which was published on news Web sites on Saturday, showed thick black smoke rising above buildings in the Lebanese capital after an Israeli air raid in the war with the Shi'ite Islamic group Hizbollah, now in its fourth week.

Reuters withdrew the doctored image on Sunday and replaced it with the unaltered photograph after several news blogs said it had been manipulated using Photoshop software to show more smoke.

"The photographer has denied deliberately attempting to manipulate the image, saying that he was trying to remove dust marks and that he made mistakes due to the bad lighting conditions he was working under," said Moira Whittle, the head of public relations for Reuters.

"This represents a serious breach of Reuters' standards and we shall not be accepting or using pictures taken by him," Whittle said in a statement issued in London.

Hajj worked for Reuters as a non-staff freelance, or contributing photographer, from 1993 until 2003 and again since April 2005.

He was among several photographers from the main international news agencies whose images of a dead child being held up by a rescuer in the village of Qana, south Lebanon, after an Israeli air strike on July 30 have been challenged by blogs critical of the mainstream media's coverage of the Middle East conflict.

Reuters and other news organisations reviewed those images and have all rejected allegations that the photographs were staged.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/lebanese-photographer-doctored-image/2006/08/07/1154802782164.html

 

[pahoffm]

Re: Not Good News From Israel

Thought I'd post this.
Quite thought provoking.

> Subject: Al Jazeera television
>
> Here is a powerful and amazing statement on Al Jazeera television.
> The woman is Wafa Sultan, an Arab-American psychologist from Los
> Angeles. I would suggest watching it ASAP because I don't know how
> long the link will be active. (put this site in your address bar)


> http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=null

 

[CarnTheTiges]

Re: Not Good News From Israel

I saw that footage of Wafa Sultan, Phantom, it's a shame that more world leaders of all sides of this conflict don't think like her.
RW brought up a really interesting point about the largely unnoticed, to this point, influences of China and Russia and I also think he may be very right that we're witnessing the beginning of a new cold war. Makes you wonder about where exactly Australia will stand considering our links with the US and China.

 

[pahoffm]

Re: Not Good News From Israel

I'm not worried at this stage about China.
They seem to keep to themselves, and don't have great territorial ambitions.
It is interesting to note how China has come to reinvigorate itself in the modern world.
It does not throw stones at the Western World.
It has quietly overcome its economic problems, much like India & some SE Asian countries.
I see this in great contrast to many other countries in Western Asia who prefer to blame the US, rather than actively solving their own problems as China, India & others have done.

Russia.
I have grave feelings for Russia. For all the centuries of its existance, it has probably known about 50 years of clean & clear civilization, then it had a revolution that returned it to barbarism.
I could be wrong about Russia, but the place has stunk of  corruption for years, whether it be the old totalitarian corruption or the new democratic corruption.
Russians just seem to have an inate ability to turn good into bad.

Whichever,
Both Russia & China share common borders with many of the Western Asian Muslim countries. In a way, Russia & China help to keep world order.

 

[CarnTheTiges]

Re: Not Good News From Israel

Of course you also don't find Muslims attacking China. I doubt they would even if China didn't give them support. It just wouldn't do to wake the sleeping dragon.

 

[pahoffm]

Re: Not Good News From Israel

Yes, it amazes me.

Case studies:
1. China, took its first steps towards modernization in 1947. In 60 years it has become the economic power of the region.

2. Japan, renewed European contact in the 1850s, by the turn of the 19th into the 20th century it had become the industrial force of the East.

3. Israel, 1948, from a group of sparse settlements has become the most technologically advanced nation in the region.

4. United Arab Emirates, from 1990 in just 15 years has become the powerhouse of industry in the Arab region.

I suggest to other leaders in the Middle East that they stop whinging about what other countries in the world may have, and get on and start doing something positive for their own people.

Why do so many Arab nations hate Israel?
Envy.
It stands for what they haven't created themselves.
Economic prosperity.
True equality.

 

[AngryAnt]

Re: Not Good News From Israel

More from Robert Fisk, the highly respected English journalist who has lived in and followed the Lebanese people's history for the past 30 years.


A few days out of date but still well worth reading.



Entire Lebanese family killed in Israeli attack on hospital

By Robert Fisk

08/03/06 "The Independent" -- -- An attack on a hospital, the killing of an entire Lebanese family, the seizure of five men in Baalbek and a new civilian death toll - 468 men, women and children - marked the 22nd day of Israel's latest war on Lebanon.

The Israelis claimed that helicopter-borne soldiers had seized senior Hizbollah leaders although one of them turned out to be a local Baalbek grocer. In a village near the city, Israeli air strikes killed the local mayor's son and brother and five children in their family.

The battle for Lebanon was fast moving out of control last night. Lebanese troops abandoned many of their checkpoints and European diplomats were warning their colleagues that militiamen were taking over the positions. Up to 8,000 Israeli troops were reported to have crossed the border by last night in what was publicised as a military advance towards the Litani river. But far more soldiers would be needed to secure so large an area of southern Lebanon.

The Israelis sent paratroopers to attack an Iranian-financed hospital in Baalbek in the hope of capturing wounded Hizbollah fighters but, after an hour's battle, got their hands on only five men whom the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, later called "tasty fish". The operation suggests what Hizbollah has all along said was the purpose of the Israeli campaign: to swap prisoners and to exchange Hizbollah fighters for the two Israeli soldiers who were captured on the border on 12 July.

Hizbollah continued to fire dozens of missiles over the border into Israel, killing one Israeli and wounding 21, with Israeli artillery firing shells back into Lebanon at the rate of one every two minutes. For the first time, a Hizbollah rocket struck the West Bank as well as the Israeli town of Beit Shean, the longest-range missile to have been fired so far. Yet still the West seems unable to produce an end to a war which is clearly overwhelming both Hizbollah and the Israelis.

Hizbollah obviously has far more missiles than the Israelis believed - there is not a town in northern Israel which is safe from their fire - and the Israeli army apparently has no plan to defeat Hizbollah other than the old and hopeless policy of occupying southern Lebanon. If Hizbollah had planned this campaign months in advance - and if the Israelis did the same - then neither side left room for diplomacy.

The French have wisely said they will lead a peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon only after a ceasefire. And to be sure, they will not let this become a Nato-led army. France already has a company of 100 soldiers in the UN force in southern Lebanon, whose commander is himself French, but Paris, after watching the chaos in Iraq, has no illusions about Western armies in the Middle East.

Outside the shattered Dar al-Hikma hospital in Baalbek yesterday stood two burnt cars and a minivan, riddled with bullet-holes. Hizbollah, it seems, fought the Israelis there for more than an hour. The hospital, which includes several British-manufactured heart machines, was empty when the Israeli raid began and was partly destroyed in the fighting.

The Lebanese army, which has tried to stay out of the conflict - heaven knows what its 75,000 soldiers are supposed to do - was attacked again by the Israelis yesterday when they fired a missile into a car which they claimed was carrying a Hizbollah leader. They were wrong. The soldier inside died instantly, joining the 11 other Lebanese troops proclaimed as "martyrs" by the government from a logistics unit killed in an Israeli air raid two weeks ago.

The obscene score-card for death in this latest war now stands as follows:
508 Lebanese civilians, 46 Hizbollah guerrillas, 26 Lebanese soldiers, 36 Israeli soldiers and 19 Israeli civilians.

In other words, Hizbollah is killing more Israeli soldiers than civilians and the Israelis are killing far more Lebanese civilians than they are guerrillas. The Lebanese Red Cross has found 40 more civilian dead in the south of the country in the past two days, many of them with wounds suggesting they might have survived had medical help been available.

© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14341.htm

 

[AngryAnt]

Re: Not Good News From Israel

Another story from Fisk - this one looks at the historical experience of foreign armies in Lebanon.

A Nato-led force would be in Israel's interests, but not Lebanon's

Every foreign army - including the Israelis - comes to grief in Lebanon.

By Robert Fisk

08/01/06 "The Independent" -- -- So, how come George Bush and Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara - after their inevitable disasters in Afghanistan and Iraq - believe that a Nato-led force is going to survive on the south Lebanese border? The Israelis would obviously enjoy watching its deployment - it will be time for the West to take the casualties - but Hizbollah is likely to view its arrival as a proxy Israeli army. It is, after all, supposed to be a "buffer" force to protect Israel - not, as the Lebanese have quickly noted, to protect Lebanon - and the last Nato army that came to this country was literally blasted out of its mission by suicide bombers.

How blithely the US and British governments have erased the narrative of the old Multinational Force - the MNF - which arrived in Beirut to escort Palestinian guerrillas out of Lebanon in August of 1982 and then, after the massacre of up to 1,700 Palestinian guerrillas at the Sabra and Chatila camps by Israel's proxy Lebanese militia, returned to protect the survivors and extend the sovereignty of the Lebanese government.

Does that sound familiar? And they also came to train the Lebanese army - one of the missions being foisted on the new Bush-Blair army - and they failed. Blown up by suicide bombers at their Beirut headquarters with the loss of 241 American lives, the US Marines retreated into the ground, digging earthworks beneath Beirut airport.

And there they lived until the newly-trained Lebanese army broke apart in February 1984 - at which point, President Ronald Reagan decided to "redeploy" his troops offshore. Like other famous historical redeployments - Napoleon's redeployment from Moscow, for example, or Custer's last redeployment - it represented a national disaster, a colossal blow to US prestige in the region and a warning that such Lebanese adventures always end in tears. The French left shortly afterwards. So did the Italians. A company of British troops had been the first to scuttle out.

So, how come anyone believes that the next foreign army to arrive in the Lebanese meat-grinder is going to be any more successful? True, the MNF was not backed by a UN Security Council resolution. But since when were Hizbollah susceptible to the UN? They have already failed to disarm - as they were required to under UN resolution 1559 - and one of the world's toughest guerrilla armies is not going to hand over its guns to Nato generals. But most of the force will be Muslim, we are told. This may be true, and the Turks are already unwisely agreeing to participate. But are the Lebanese going to accept the descendants of the hated Ottoman empire? Will the the Shia south of Lebanon accept Sunni Muslim soldiers?

Indeed, how come the people of southern Lebanon have not been consulted about the army which is supposed to live in their lands? Because, of course, it is not coming for them. It will come because the Israelis and the Americans want it there to help reshape the Middle East. This no doubt makes sense in Washington - where self-delusion rules diplomacy almost as much as it does in Israel - but America's dreams usually become the Middle East's nightmares.

And this time, we will watch a Nato-led army's disintegration at close quarters. South-west Afghan-istan and Iraq are now so dangerous that no reporters can witness the carnage being perpetrated as a result of our hopeless projects. But, in Lebanon, it's going to be live-time coverage of a disaster that can only be avoided by the one diplomatic step Messrs Bush and Blair refuse to take: by talking to Damascus.

So when this latest foreign army arrives, count the days - or hours - to the first attack upon it. Then we'll hear all over again that we are fighting evil, that "they" - Hizbollah or Palestinian guerrillas, or anyone else planning to destroy "our" army - hate our values; and then, of course, we'll be told that this is all part of the "War on Terror" - the nonsense which Israel has been peddling. And then perhaps we'll remember what George Bush senior said after Hizbollah's allies suicide-bombed the Marines in 1982, that American policy would not be swayed by a bunch of "insidious terrorist cowards".

And we all know what happened then. Or have we forgotten?

Day 20

* Lebanese dead - at least 577 confirmed, could be up to 750. Israeli dead - 51.

* Israel bombs and shells southern Lebanon despite announced halt in air raids.

* Rescue workers find 28 bodies buried for days in destroyed buildings in three Lebanese villages.

* UN postpones a meeting on Lebanon peacekeeping force indefinitely.

* Bush says he will seek UN action this week to end the fighting.

* Clashes near Aita Al-Shaab leave four Hizbollah fighters dead and three Israelis wounded.

Every foreign army - including the Israelis - comes to grief in Lebanon.

© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14309.htm

 

[AngryAnt]

Re: Not Good News From Israel

For those interested in Fisk and where he is coming from, here is the Wikipedia entry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fisk

 

[Liverpool]

Re: Not Good News From Israel

For those interested in Fisk and where he is coming from, here is the Wikipedia entry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fisk

Yeah, Fisk is the man Bin-Laden calls a "neutral" reporter... :hihi

Even has a verb named after him: "fisking" described here:

Irish journalist Eoghan Harris had earlier used the term "fisking" with a different meaning - "To fisk is not to face the facts for as long as possible and, when found out, to divert the public from your mistake by spinning shiny stories in the air."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisking

Just a snippet from Andrew Sulivan:

Sullivan was responding to a dispatch by Fisk from Pakistan describing his savage beating at the hands of Afghan refugees:

"They started by shaking hands. We said "Salaam aleikum" – peace be upon you – then the first pebbles flew past my face. A small boy tried to grab my bag. Then another. Then someone punched me in the back. Then young men broke my glasses, began smashing stones into my face and head. I couldn't see for the blood pouring down my forehead and swamping my eyes. And even then, I understood. I couldn't blame them for what they were doing. In fact, if I were the Afghan refugees of Kila Abdullah, close to the Afghan-Pakistan border, I would have done just the same to Robert Fisk. Or any other Westerner I could find."

He related their anger to Westerner activities in the area, like arming them during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, leaving after the war, ignoring pleas for support during the civil war that followed, then bombing civilians during the War on Terror.

Sullivan presented three arguments in response to Fisk's piece. Firstly, that Fisk's piece was, "a classic piece of leftist pathology" because "he refuses to see them as morally culpable or even responsible."

Secondly, disregarding the notion put forth by Fisk that Westerner activity in the region was a potential factor behind refugee anger, Sullivan presented the circular argument that the anger had no reason, except for racism, and identified Fisk as racist for believing that "the color of a person’s skin condemns him automatically and justifies violence against him."

Lastly, he dismissed the idea that the effects of Westerner activity in the region provided any context for understanding refugee anger towards Westerners, calling Fisk's sympathy for refugee anger an "a priori moral absolution," that ignored the mob's culpability for their acts.

He concluded that, "(the left-wing intelligentsia) won’t recognize reality, or abandon their racism, or moderate their spectacular condescension to the inhabitants of the developing world – even when reality, literally, crushingly, punches them in the face.

Antman,
I've been accused in the past as 'trawling' the internet finding quotes from Islamic leaders regarding the Jews.
It's nice to see yourself doing the trawling this time to find some leftist propaganda to read by Robert Fisk.

 

[Liverpool]

Re: Not Good News From Israel

If you want to see some real propaganda...just watch something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDiC6KVBZUk

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoa0IiEr-2Q

Now that trawling and propaganda at its best! :hihi