In a perfect world, a reporter at last week's press conference with George Bush and Tony Blair would have asked Bush, in the presence of his principal European ally, if he believes the European Union is the Antichrist.
Although it sounds like the kind of Pat Robertson lunacy that makes even the wingnuts run for the nearest exit, it's a question Bush should be forced to answer. Bush and other leading Republicans have lined up behind a growing movement of Christian Zionists for whom a European Antichrist figures prominently in an end-times scenario. So they should be forced to explain to the rest of us why they're courting the votes of people who believe our allies are evil incarnate. Could it be that the central requirement for their breathlessly anticipated Armageddon -- that the United States confront Iran -- happens to dovetail so nicely with the neoconservative war agenda?
At the center of it all is Pastor John Hagee, a popular televangelist who leads the 18,000-member Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas. While Hagee has long prophesized about the end times, he ratcheted up his rhetoric this year with the publication of his book, "Jerusalem Countdown," in which he argues that a confrontation with Iran is a necessary precondition for Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ. In the best-selling book, Hagee insists that the United States must join Israel in a preemptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both Israel and the West. Shortly after the book's publication, he launched Christians United for Israel (CUFI), which, as the Christian version of the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee, he said would cause "a political earthquake."
At CUFI's kick-off banquet at the Washington Hilton, attended by over 3,500 members, Republican support for both Hagee's effort and his drumbeat for war with Iran were on full view. Republican National Committee Chair Ken Mehlman told the group that "no regime is more central to the global jihad" than Iran. Just two days before, Newt Gingrich and John McCain made the rounds of the Sunday talk shows to sound the same message, leading Benny Elon, a member of the Israeli Knesset, to comment to the Jerusalem Post that their remarks originated with Hagee. Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback also addressed the group, and Bush sent words of support to the gathering. Republicans, and even some Democrats, spoke at CUFI events to show their "support for Israel." But while public and media attention was on the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, Hagee's focus continued to be on Iran.
While the crisis at the Israel-Lebanon border drew more mainstream media attention to CUFI's activities, Hagee's supporters have long known that leading Republicans are listening. Rabbi Daniel Lapin, a prominent Jewish ally of the evangelical right (and friend of Jack Abramoff) has said that Hagee "without question, yes, absolutely" has the ear of the White House. Hagee's annual Night to Honor Israel at his church has drawn prominent Republicans, including Tom DeLay, who was the keynote speaker in 2002.
Although Republicans would never admit it -- they claim their support for Christian Zionists like Hagee is based on their own support for Israel -- it is clear that they know they need the votes of this constituency to win. In the same way that Karl Rove courted conservative evangelicals in 2004 by appealing to their homophobia, Republican campaign rhetoric for 2006 and 2008 has already shown signs of playing to voters who have been hearing hype for a war with Iran for months -- at church.
While Washington insiders wonder what it means when Republicans like Mehlman and presidential aspirants Gingrich and McCain finger Iran as the central player in an epic clash of civilizations, Hagee already has spent months mobilizing the shock troops in support of another war. As diplomats, experts and pundits debate how many years Iran will need to develop a viable nuclear weapon, Hagee says the mullahs already possess the means to destroy Israel and America. And although Bush insists that diplomatic options are still on the table, Hagee has dismissed pussyfooting diplomacy and primed his followers for a conflagration.
Hagee wields "a very large megaphone" that reaches "a very large group of people," said Rabbi James Rudin of the American Jewish Committee, who has studied the Christian right for 30 years. With CUFI, the pastor has exponentially expanded the reach of his megaphone beyond his television audience. Thanks to the viral marketing made possible by the hundreds of evangelical leaders who have signed on to his new organization, his warmongering has rippled through megachurches across America for months. Hagee calls pastors "the spiritual generals of America," an appropriate phrase given his reliance on them to rally their troops behind his message.
The CUFI board of directors includes the Rev. Jerry Falwell, former Republican presidential candidate and religious right activist Gary Bauer, and George Morrison, pastor of the 8,000-member Faith Bible Chapel in Arvada, Colo., and chairman of the board of Promise Keepers. Rod Parsley, the Ohio televangelist who is rapidly becoming a major political player in the Christian right, signed on to be a regional director.
For Hagee's new project, his influence in Washington is probably less important than his influence over his audience. With the clout of his listeners, he can serve Bush administration hawks by firing up grassroots support for a military strike against Iran. Over 700,000 people purchased his book, "Jerusalem Countdown," and countless more have heard him promote it on Christian radio and television programming. Dramatic, doomsday advertising has been heard by listeners of Christian media as well as on Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly's radio programs. The pages of "Jerusalem Countdown" provide a peculiar mix of biblical prophecy, purported inside information from Israeli government officials and a mixed-up, pared-down lesson in nuclear physics.
"I wrote this book in April 2005, and when people read it, they will think I wrote it late last night after the FOX News report," says the author without a trace of irony. "It's that close to where we are and beyond."
Hagee speaks simultaneously to two audiences about Iran's nuclear capabilities: one that fears a terrorist attack by Iran and another that embraces a biblically mandated apocalypse. To impress the fearful, he mimics Bush's deceptions about Iraq's capacity to attack the United States with weapons of mass destruction, Condoleezza Rice's warnings of mushroom clouds, and Dick Cheney's dissembling about an alliance between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. Comparing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Hitler, Hagee argues that Iran's development of nuclear weapons must be stopped to protect America and Israel from a nuclear attack. Preying on legitimate worries about terrorism, and invoking 9/11, he vividly describes a supposed Iranian-led plan to simultaneously explode nuclear suitcase bombs in seven American cities, or to use an electromagnetic pulse device to create "an American Hiroshima."
When addressing audiences receptive to Scriptural prophecy, however, Hagee welcomes the coming confrontation. He argues that a strike against Iran will cause Arab nations to unite under Russia's leadership, as outlined in chapters 38 and 39 of the Book of Ezekiel, leading to an "inferno [that] will explode across the Middle East, plunging the world toward Armageddon." In Hagee's telling, Israel has no choice but to strike at Iran's nuclear facilities, with or without America's help. The strike will provoke Russia -- which wants Persian Gulf oil -- to lead an army of Arab nations against Israel. Then God will wipe out all but one-sixth of the Russian-led army, as the world watches "with shock and awe," he says, lending either a divine quality to the Bush administration phrase or a Bush-like quality to God's wrath.
But Hagee doesn't stop there. He adds that Ezekiel predicts fire "upon those who live in security in the coastlands." From this sentence, he concludes that there will be judgment upon all who stood by while the Russian-led force invaded Israel, and issues a stark warning to the United States to intervene: "Could it be that America, who refuses to defend Israel from the Russian invasion, will experience nuclear warfare on our east and west coasts?" He says yes, citing Genesis 12:3, in which God said to Israel: "I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you."
To fill the power vacuum left by God's decimation of the Russian army, the Antichrist -- the head of the EU -- will rule "a one-world government, a one-world currency and a one-world religion" for three and a half years. (Hagee adds that "one need only be a casual observer of current events to see that all three of these things are coming into reality." The "demonic world leader" will then be confronted by a false prophet, identified by Hagee as China, at Armageddon, the Mount of Megiddo in Israel. As they prepare for the final battle, Jesus will return on a white horse and cast both villains -- and presumably any nonbelievers -- into a "lake of fire burning with brimstone," thus marking the beginning of his millennial reign.
Hagee doesn't fear a nuclear conflagration, but rather God's wrath for standing by as Iran executes its supposed plot to destroy Israel. A nuclear confrontation between America and Iran, which he says is foretold in the Book of Jeremiah, will not lead to the end of the world, but rather to God's renewal of the Garden of Eden. But Hagee is ultimately less concerned with the fate of Israel or the Jews than with a theocratic Christian right agenda. When Jesus returns for his millennial reign, he tells his television audience, "the righteous are going to rule the nations of the earth When Jesus Christ comes back, he's not going to ask the ACLU if it's all right to pray, he's not going to ask the churches if they can ordain pedophile bishops and priests, he's not going to ask if it's all right to put the Ten Commandments in the statehouses. He's not going to endorse abortion, he's going to run the world by the word of God The world will never end. It's going to become a Garden of Eden, and Christ is going to rule it."
Sarah Posner has covered the religious right for The American Prospect, The Gadflyer, and AlterNet. This article is adapted from "Pastor Strangelove," which appeared in the June 2006 issue of The American Prospect.
Friday, August 4, 2006
Thursday, August 3, 2006
Before and After
These two satellite images provided by GeoEye show the same area of Beirut, Lebanon before and after Israeli bombardment. The image on the left was taken Wednesday July 12, 2006, and the image on the right was taken Monday July 31, 2006. (AP Photo/GeoEye)
Meanwhile in Palestine
Gaza: Israeli attack leaves at least 8 Palestinians dead including 8 year old boy: Israeli invaded southern Gaza early today, killing at least eight Palestinians, including four resistance fighters and an 8-year-old boy.
Almost half the fatalities in the Gaza Strip in July were civilians : In July, the Israeli military killed 163 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, 78 of whom (48 percent) were not taking part in the hostilities when they were killed.
Gaza: Israeli occupation forces kill 7 Palestinians : Including a 10-year-old boy. Video and text
Almost half the fatalities in the Gaza Strip in July were civilians : In July, the Israeli military killed 163 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, 78 of whom (48 percent) were not taking part in the hostilities when they were killed.
Gaza: Israeli occupation forces kill 7 Palestinians : Including a 10-year-old boy. Video and text
Is America Watching a Different War? American, Lebanese and Israeli Panel on How the US Media is Covering the Invasion of Lebanon
Democracy Now, listen to the segment here. Download Show mp3 Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream Read Transcript Help Printer-friendly version Email to a friend Purchase Video/CD
Some have suggested that Americans are watching a different war in Lebanon than much of the world. We’re joined by three panelists -- Peter Hart of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) in New York, Middle East Broadcasters editor Habib Battah in Beirut and Ha'aretz reporter Gideon Levy in Tel Aviv. [includes rush transcript] Continue.
Some have suggested that Americans are watching a different war in Lebanon than much of the world. We’re joined by three panelists -- Peter Hart of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) in New York, Middle East Broadcasters editor Habib Battah in Beirut and Ha'aretz reporter Gideon Levy in Tel Aviv. [includes rush transcript] Continue.
No Peace Without Justice, No Justice Without Truth
Pulling the Plug on Israel
By DAVID HIMMELSTEIN
Whether or not it has reached critical mass, there exists a heterogeneous agglomeration of Jewish people around the world-- e.g., moi--for whom the state of Israel has come to represent an 800-pound albatross that needs to be pried from our necks before it drags us over a cliff. A sense of urgency is propelled by the U.S.-sanctioned bloodletting in Lebanon and Gaza (which now seems to have been planned in advance) and the evident flimsiness of its official justification. With Israeli adventurism on the march, there are well founded fears concerning the general threat that country poses to the peace of the world. Continue.
By DAVID HIMMELSTEIN
Whether or not it has reached critical mass, there exists a heterogeneous agglomeration of Jewish people around the world-- e.g., moi--for whom the state of Israel has come to represent an 800-pound albatross that needs to be pried from our necks before it drags us over a cliff. A sense of urgency is propelled by the U.S.-sanctioned bloodletting in Lebanon and Gaza (which now seems to have been planned in advance) and the evident flimsiness of its official justification. With Israeli adventurism on the march, there are well founded fears concerning the general threat that country poses to the peace of the world. Continue.
War crimes and Lebanon
Thursday August 3, 2006
The Guardian
The US-backed Israeli assault on Lebanon has left the country numb, smouldering and angry. The massacre in Qana and the loss of life is not simply "disproportionate". It is, according to existing international laws, a war crime.
The deliberate and systematic destruction of Lebanon's social infrastructure by the Israeli air force was also a war crime, designed to reduce that country to the status of an Israeli-US protectorate. The attempt has backfired. In Lebanon itself, 87% of the population now support Hizbullah's resistance, including 80% of Christian and Druze and 89% of Sunni Muslims, while 8% believe the US supports Lebanon. But these actions will not be tried by any court set up by the "international community" since the US and its allies that commit or are complicit in these appalling crimes will not permit it.
It has now become clear that the assault on Lebanon to wipe out Hizbullah had been prepared long before. Israel's crimes had been given a green light by the US and its loyal British ally, despite the opposition to Blair in his own country.
In short, the peace that Lebanon enjoyed has come to an end, and a paralysed country is forced to remember a past it had hoped to forget. The state terror inflicted on Lebanon is being repeated in the Gaza ghetto, while the "international community" stands by and watches in silence. Meanwhile, the rest of Palestine is annexed and dismantled with the direct participation of the US and the tacit approval of its allies.
We offer our solidarity and support to the victims of this brutality and to those who mount a resistance against it. For our part, we will use all the means at our disposal to expose the complicity of our governments in these crimes. There will be no peace in the Middle East while the occupations of Palestine and Iraq and the temporarily "paused" bombings of Lebanon continue.
As our political leaders argue over the difference between a "cessation of hostilities" and a "ceasefire", more and more children die. The British government (unlike the US) has agreed to be bound by the UN convention on the rights of the child. This is a legally enforceable international treaty which enshrines the "right to life" as one of its four core principles. I would be very interested to know how the government justifies its actions in relation to its responsibilities under the convention and why our new children's commissioners have remained silent on what appears to be a flagrant disregard of children's rights, as well as a breach of our international obligations.Professor Steve TrevillionUniversity of Leicester
The Guardian
The US-backed Israeli assault on Lebanon has left the country numb, smouldering and angry. The massacre in Qana and the loss of life is not simply "disproportionate". It is, according to existing international laws, a war crime.
The deliberate and systematic destruction of Lebanon's social infrastructure by the Israeli air force was also a war crime, designed to reduce that country to the status of an Israeli-US protectorate. The attempt has backfired. In Lebanon itself, 87% of the population now support Hizbullah's resistance, including 80% of Christian and Druze and 89% of Sunni Muslims, while 8% believe the US supports Lebanon. But these actions will not be tried by any court set up by the "international community" since the US and its allies that commit or are complicit in these appalling crimes will not permit it.
It has now become clear that the assault on Lebanon to wipe out Hizbullah had been prepared long before. Israel's crimes had been given a green light by the US and its loyal British ally, despite the opposition to Blair in his own country.
In short, the peace that Lebanon enjoyed has come to an end, and a paralysed country is forced to remember a past it had hoped to forget. The state terror inflicted on Lebanon is being repeated in the Gaza ghetto, while the "international community" stands by and watches in silence. Meanwhile, the rest of Palestine is annexed and dismantled with the direct participation of the US and the tacit approval of its allies.
We offer our solidarity and support to the victims of this brutality and to those who mount a resistance against it. For our part, we will use all the means at our disposal to expose the complicity of our governments in these crimes. There will be no peace in the Middle East while the occupations of Palestine and Iraq and the temporarily "paused" bombings of Lebanon continue.
As our political leaders argue over the difference between a "cessation of hostilities" and a "ceasefire", more and more children die. The British government (unlike the US) has agreed to be bound by the UN convention on the rights of the child. This is a legally enforceable international treaty which enshrines the "right to life" as one of its four core principles. I would be very interested to know how the government justifies its actions in relation to its responsibilities under the convention and why our new children's commissioners have remained silent on what appears to be a flagrant disregard of children's rights, as well as a breach of our international obligations.Professor Steve TrevillionUniversity of Leicester
Future History: A Glimpse of What U.S. Lebanon Policy Could Spawn
"It is very likely that the world will look back at the summer of 2006 as a seminal moment in Middle East history.
We may well be seeing, as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says, “the birth pangs of a new Middle East.” But it is also quite possible a monster will be born.
The last time a U.S. administration tried to isolate and marginalize Syria and Iran, the result was the birth of Hezbollah, the dawn of suicide bombing and the humbling of a superpower. Now, America is at it again.
“Folly,” wrote historian Barbara Tuchman, is “the pursuit of policy contrary to self-interest.”
The Bush administration set out to redraw the map of the Middle East. Instead, it has set it on fire. Three weeks ago, Hezbollah was a militia/political party engaged in a domestic struggle to survive on the new Lebanese political landscape reshaped by the withdrawal of Syria’s forces. Today, it is the inspiration for a generation. Meanwhile, Iraq is becoming the new Afghanistan.
This is, President Bush tells us, “a moment of opportunity.” The question history will decide is, for whom? "
We may well be seeing, as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says, “the birth pangs of a new Middle East.” But it is also quite possible a monster will be born.
The last time a U.S. administration tried to isolate and marginalize Syria and Iran, the result was the birth of Hezbollah, the dawn of suicide bombing and the humbling of a superpower. Now, America is at it again.
“Folly,” wrote historian Barbara Tuchman, is “the pursuit of policy contrary to self-interest.”
The Bush administration set out to redraw the map of the Middle East. Instead, it has set it on fire. Three weeks ago, Hezbollah was a militia/political party engaged in a domestic struggle to survive on the new Lebanese political landscape reshaped by the withdrawal of Syria’s forces. Today, it is the inspiration for a generation. Meanwhile, Iraq is becoming the new Afghanistan.
This is, President Bush tells us, “a moment of opportunity.” The question history will decide is, for whom? "
Iraq's Shia in 'million man march'
"Shias from southern and central Iraq have begun travelling to Baghdad in answer to Muqtada al-Sadr's call for a "million man march" in support of Lebanon's Hezbollah.
Waving Iraqi flags and chanting "Death to America! Death to Israel", the demonstrators mounted convoys of buses and headed for the capital on Thursday, some of them wearing white shrouds symbolising their readiness to accept martyrdom.
The demonstration is to be held following Friday prayers in the teeming Baghdad suburb of Sadr City, home to some two million people, and comes at a tense time for the capital."
Waving Iraqi flags and chanting "Death to America! Death to Israel", the demonstrators mounted convoys of buses and headed for the capital on Thursday, some of them wearing white shrouds symbolising their readiness to accept martyrdom.
The demonstration is to be held following Friday prayers in the teeming Baghdad suburb of Sadr City, home to some two million people, and comes at a tense time for the capital."
BREAKING NEWS
Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah will be making a speech on Al-Jazeera shortly.
UPDATE
Nasrallah threatens to strike Tel Aviv if Beirut is bombed.
Nasrallah: If Israel bombs Beirut, we`ll bomb Tel Aviv
We will launch missiles into cities south of Haifa
We will continue to launch rockets, with even greater force
Hezbollah fighters` ability to hold back IDF troops is a miracle
Hezbollah, IDF ground battles now more widespread, violent
Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah will be making a speech on Al-Jazeera shortly.
UPDATE
Nasrallah threatens to strike Tel Aviv if Beirut is bombed.
Nasrallah: If Israel bombs Beirut, we`ll bomb Tel Aviv
We will launch missiles into cities south of Haifa
We will continue to launch rockets, with even greater force
Hezbollah fighters` ability to hold back IDF troops is a miracle
Hezbollah, IDF ground battles now more widespread, violent
When Prayer Is Not Enough
By The Rt. Rev. Riah H. Abu El-Assal
Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem
Dear Friends,
For the past forty years we have been largely alone on this desert fighting a predator that not only robbed us of all but a small piece of our historic homeland, but threatens the traditions and holy sites of Christianity. We are tired, weary, sick, and wounded. We need your help.
click here to read the rest
Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem
Dear Friends,
For the past forty years we have been largely alone on this desert fighting a predator that not only robbed us of all but a small piece of our historic homeland, but threatens the traditions and holy sites of Christianity. We are tired, weary, sick, and wounded. We need your help.
click here to read the rest
The Neocons' next war
This is a very important article- Please read it
Aug. 3, 2006 | The National Security Agency is providing signal intelligence to Israel to monitor whether Syria and Iran are supplying new armaments to Hezbollah as it fires hundreds of missiles into northern Israel, according to a national security official with direct knowledge of the operation. President Bush has approved the secret program.
Inside the administration, neoconservatives on Vice President Dick Cheney's national security staff and Elliott Abrams, the neoconservative senior director for the Near East on the National Security Council, are prime movers behind sharing NSA intelligence with Israel, and they have discussed Syrian and Iranian supply activities as a potential pretext for Israeli bombing of both countries, the source privy to conversations about the program says. (Intelligence, including that gathered by the NSA, has been provided to Israel in the past for various purposes.) The neoconservatives are described as enthusiastic about the possibility of using NSA intelligence as a lever to widen the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah and Israel and Hamas into a four-front war.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is said to have been "briefed" and to be "on board," but she is not a central actor in pushing the covert neoconservative scenario. Her "briefing" appears to be an aspect of an internal struggle to intimidate and marginalize her. Recently she has come under fire from prominent neoconservatives who oppose her support for diplomatic negotiations with Iran to prevent its development of nuclear weaponry.
Rice's diplomacy in the Middle East has erratically veered from initially calling on Israel for "restraint," to categorically opposing a cease-fire, to proposing terms for a cease-fire guaranteed to conflict with the European proposal, and thus to thwarting diplomacy, prolonging the time available for the Israeli offensive to achieve its stated aim of driving Hezbollah out of southern Lebanon. But the neocon scenario extends far beyond that objective to pushing Israel into a "cleansing war" with Syria and Iran, says the national security official, which somehow will redeem Bush's beleaguered policy in the entire region.
In order to try to understand the neoconservative road map, senior national security professionals have begun circulating among themselves a 1996 neocon manifesto against the Middle East peace process. Titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," its half-dozen authors included neoconservatives highly influential with the Bush administration -- Richard Perle, first-term chairman of the Defense Policy Board; Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of defense; and David Wurmser, Cheney's chief Middle East aide.
"A Clean Break" was written at the request of incoming Likud Party Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and intended to provide "a new set of ideas" for jettisoning the policies of assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Instead of trading "land for peace," the neocons advocated tossing aside the Oslo agreements that established negotiations and demanding unconditional Palestinian acceptance of Likud's terms, "peace for peace." Rather than negotiations with Syria, they proposed "weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria." They also advanced a wild scenario to "redefine Iraq." Then King Hussein of Jordan would somehow become its ruler; and somehow this Sunni monarch would gain "control" of the Iraqi Shiites, and through them "wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria."
click here to finish reading
Aug. 3, 2006 | The National Security Agency is providing signal intelligence to Israel to monitor whether Syria and Iran are supplying new armaments to Hezbollah as it fires hundreds of missiles into northern Israel, according to a national security official with direct knowledge of the operation. President Bush has approved the secret program.
Inside the administration, neoconservatives on Vice President Dick Cheney's national security staff and Elliott Abrams, the neoconservative senior director for the Near East on the National Security Council, are prime movers behind sharing NSA intelligence with Israel, and they have discussed Syrian and Iranian supply activities as a potential pretext for Israeli bombing of both countries, the source privy to conversations about the program says. (Intelligence, including that gathered by the NSA, has been provided to Israel in the past for various purposes.) The neoconservatives are described as enthusiastic about the possibility of using NSA intelligence as a lever to widen the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah and Israel and Hamas into a four-front war.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is said to have been "briefed" and to be "on board," but she is not a central actor in pushing the covert neoconservative scenario. Her "briefing" appears to be an aspect of an internal struggle to intimidate and marginalize her. Recently she has come under fire from prominent neoconservatives who oppose her support for diplomatic negotiations with Iran to prevent its development of nuclear weaponry.
Rice's diplomacy in the Middle East has erratically veered from initially calling on Israel for "restraint," to categorically opposing a cease-fire, to proposing terms for a cease-fire guaranteed to conflict with the European proposal, and thus to thwarting diplomacy, prolonging the time available for the Israeli offensive to achieve its stated aim of driving Hezbollah out of southern Lebanon. But the neocon scenario extends far beyond that objective to pushing Israel into a "cleansing war" with Syria and Iran, says the national security official, which somehow will redeem Bush's beleaguered policy in the entire region.
In order to try to understand the neoconservative road map, senior national security professionals have begun circulating among themselves a 1996 neocon manifesto against the Middle East peace process. Titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," its half-dozen authors included neoconservatives highly influential with the Bush administration -- Richard Perle, first-term chairman of the Defense Policy Board; Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of defense; and David Wurmser, Cheney's chief Middle East aide.
"A Clean Break" was written at the request of incoming Likud Party Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and intended to provide "a new set of ideas" for jettisoning the policies of assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Instead of trading "land for peace," the neocons advocated tossing aside the Oslo agreements that established negotiations and demanding unconditional Palestinian acceptance of Likud's terms, "peace for peace." Rather than negotiations with Syria, they proposed "weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria." They also advanced a wild scenario to "redefine Iraq." Then King Hussein of Jordan would somehow become its ruler; and somehow this Sunni monarch would gain "control" of the Iraqi Shiites, and through them "wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria."
click here to finish reading
U.S. to Supply Food with One Hand, Arms with Other by Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS - As Israel's bombing of Lebanon continues unabated into its fourth consecutive week, the United States says it stands ready to provide food, medicine and humanitarian assistance to the thousands of internally displaced Lebanese caught in the crossfire. But Washington has also decided to accelerate the supply of lethal weapons to Israel -- ''perhaps intended to kill the very Lebanese the United States is planning to feed and shelter,'' says one Arab diplomat at the United Nations.
''It is U.S. hypocrisy at its worst,'' he told IPS, speaking on condition of anonymity, because his country receives millions of dollars in U.S. economic aid.
''The right hand obviously does not know what its left hand is up to. Or does it?'' he asked.
Irene Khan, secretary-general of the London-based Amnesty International (AI), is equally harsh in her reaction. ''It is ridiculous to talk about providing humanitarian aid on the one hand, and to provide arms on the other,'' she says.
In the face of such human suffering in Lebanon and Israel, Khan says, ''It is imperative that all governments stop the supply of arms and weapons to both sides immediately.''
[click here to finish reading]
''It is U.S. hypocrisy at its worst,'' he told IPS, speaking on condition of anonymity, because his country receives millions of dollars in U.S. economic aid.
''The right hand obviously does not know what its left hand is up to. Or does it?'' he asked.
Irene Khan, secretary-general of the London-based Amnesty International (AI), is equally harsh in her reaction. ''It is ridiculous to talk about providing humanitarian aid on the one hand, and to provide arms on the other,'' she says.
In the face of such human suffering in Lebanon and Israel, Khan says, ''It is imperative that all governments stop the supply of arms and weapons to both sides immediately.''
[click here to finish reading]
Human Rights Watch: Fatal Strikes: Israel’s Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon
This report documents serious violations of international humanitarian law (the laws of war) by Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in Lebanon between July 12 and July 27, 2006, as well as the July 30 attack in Qana. During this period, the IDF killed an estimated 400 people, the vast majority of them civilians, and that number climbed to over 500 by the time this report went to print. The Israeli government claims it is taking all possible measures to minimize civilian harm, but the cases documented here reveal a systematic failure by the IDF to distinguish between combatants and civilians.
Since the start of the conflict, Israeli forces have consistently launched artillery and air attacks with limited or dubious military gain but excessive civilian cost. In dozens of attacks, Israeli forces struck an area with no apparent military target. In some cases, the timing and intensity of the attack, the absence of a military target, as well as return strikes on rescuers, suggest that Israeli forces deliberately targeted civilians.
The Israeli government claims that it targets only Hezbollah, and that fighters from the group are using civilians as human shields, thereby placing them at risk. Human Rights Watch found no cases in which Hezbollah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack. Hezbollah occasionally did store weapons in or near civilian homes and fighters placed rocket launchers within populated areas or near U.N. observers, which are serious violations of the laws of war because they violate the duty to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties. However, those cases do not justify the IDF’s extensive use of indiscriminate force which has cost so many civilian lives. In none of the cases of civilian deaths documented in this report is there evidence to suggest that Hezbollah forces or weapons were in or near the area that the IDF targeted during or just prior to the attack.
By consistently failing to distinguish between combatants and civilians, Israel has violated one of the most fundamental tenets of the laws of war: the duty to carry out attacks on only military targets. The pattern of attacks during the Israeli offensive in Lebanon suggests that the failures cannot be explained or dismissed as mere accidents; the extent of the pattern and the seriousness of the consequences indicate the commission of war crimes.
This report is based on extensive on-the-ground research in Lebanon. Since the start of hostilities, Human Rights Watch has interviewed victims and witnesses of attacks in one-on-one settings, conducted on-site inspections (when security allowed), and collected information from hospitals, humanitarian groups, and government agencies. Human Rights Watch also conducted research in Israel, inspecting the IDF’s use of weapons and discussing the conduct of forces with IDF officials. The research was extensive, but given the ongoing war and the scope of the bombings, Human Rights Watch does not claim that the findings are comprehensive; further investigation is required to document the war’s complete impact on civilians and to assess the full scope of the IDF’s compliance with and disregard for international humanitarian law.
While not the focus of this report, Human Rights Watch has separately and simultaneously documented violations of international humanitarian law by Hezbollah, including a pattern of attacks that amount to war crimes. Between July 12, when Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers and killed eight, and July 27, the group launched a reported 1,300 rockets into predominantly civilian areas in Israel, killing 18 civilians and wounding more than 300. Without guidance systems for accurate targeting, the rockets are inherently indiscriminate when directed toward civilian areas, especially cities, and thus are serious violations of the requirement of international humanitarian law that attackers distinguish at all times between combatants and civilians. Some of these rockets, Human Rights Watch found, are packed with thousands of metal ball-bearings, which spray more than 100 meters from the blast and compound the harm to civilians.
This report analyzes a selection of Israeli air and artillery attacks that together claimed at least 153 civilian lives, or over a third of the reported Lebanese deaths in the conflict’s first two weeks. Of the 153 civilian deaths documented in this report by name, sixty-three of the victims were children under the age of eighteen, and thirty-seven of them were under ten. Israeli air strikes also killed many dual nationals who were vacationing in Lebanon when the fighting began, including Brazilian, Canadian, German, Kuwaiti, and U.S. citizens. The full death toll is certainly higher because medical and recovery teams have been unable to retrieve many bodies due to ongoing fighting and the dire security situation in south Lebanon.
The report breaks civilian deaths into two categories: attacks on civilian homes and attacks on civilian vehicles. In both categories, victims and witnesses interviewed independently and repeatedly said that neither Hezbollah fighters nor Hezbollah weapons were present in the area during or just before the Israeli attack took place. While some individuals, out of fear or sympathy, may have been unwilling to speak about Hezbollah’s military activity, others were quite open about it. In totality, the consistency, detail, and credibility of testimony from a broad array of witnesses who did not speak to each other leave no doubt about the validity of the patterns described in this report. In many cases, witness testimony was corroborated by reports from international journalists and aid workers. During site visits conducted in Qana, Srifa, and Tyre, Human Rights Watch saw no evidence that there had been Hezbollah military activity around the areas targeted by the IDF during or just prior to the attack: no spent ammunition, abandoned weapons or military equipment, trenches, or dead or wounded fighters. Moreover, even if Hezbollah had been in a populated area at the time of an attack, Israel would still be legally obliged to take all feasible precautions to avoid or minimize civilian casualties resulting from its targeting of military objects or personnel. In the cases documented in this report, however, the IDF consistently tolerated a high level of civilian casualties for questionable military gain.
In one case, an Israeli air strike on July 13 destroyed the home of a cleric known to have sympathy for Hezbollah but who was not known to have taken any active part in hostilities. Even if the IDF considered him a legitimate target (and Human Rights Watch has no evidence that he was), the strike killed him, his wife, their ten children, and the family’s Sri Lankan maid.
On July 16, an Israeli airplane fired on a civilian home in the village of Aitaroun, killing eleven members of the al-Akhrass family, among them seven Canadian-Lebanese dual nationals who were vacationing in the village when the war began. Human Rights Watch independently interviewed three villagers who vigorously denied that the family had any connection to Hezbollah. Among the victims were children aged one, three, five, and seven.
Others civilians came under attack in their cars as they attempted to flee the fighting in the South. This report alone documents twenty-seven civilian deaths that resulted from such attacks. The number is surely higher, but at the time the report went to press, ongoing Israeli attacks on the roads made it impossible to retrieve all the bodies.
Starting around July 15, the IDF issued warnings to residents of southern villages to leave, followed by a general warning for all civilians south of the Litani River, which mostly runs about 25 kilometers north of the Israel-Lebanon border, to evacuate immediately. Tens of thousands of Lebanese fled their homes to the city of Tyre (itself south of the Litani and thus within the zone Israel ordered evacuated) or further north to Beirut, many waving white flags. As they left, Israeli forces fired on dozens of vehicles with warplanes and artillery.
Two Israeli air strikes are known to have hit humanitarian aid vehicles. On July 18 the IDF hit a convoy of the Red Crescent Society of the United Arab Emirates, destroying a vehicle with medicines, vegetable oil, sugar and rice, and killing the driver. On July 23, Israeli forces hit two clearly marked Red Cross ambulances in the village of Qana.
As of August 1, tens of thousands of civilians remained in villages south of the Litani River, despite the warnings to leave. Some chose to stay, but the vast majority, Human Rights Watch found, was unable to flee due to destroyed roads, a lack of gasoline, high taxi fares, sick relatives, or ongoing Israeli attacks. Many of the civilians who remained were elderly, sick, or poor.
Israel has justified its attacks on roads by citing the need to clear the transport routes of Hezbollah fighters moving arms. Again, none of the evidence gathered by Human Rights Watch, independent media sources, or Israeli official statements indicate that any of the attacks on vehicles documented in this report resulted in Hezbollah casualties or the destruction of weapons. Rather, the attacks killed and wounded civilians who were fleeing their homes, as the IDF had advised them to do.
In addition to strikes from airplanes, helicopters, and traditional artillery, Israel has used artillery-fired cluster munitions against populated areas, causing civilian casualties. One such attack on the village of Blida on July 19 killed a sixty-year-old woman and wounded at least twelve civilians, including seven children. The wide dispersal pattern of cluster munitions and the high dud rate (ranging from 2 to 14 percent, depending on the type of cluster munition) make the weapons exceedingly dangerous for civilians and, when used in populated areas, a violation of international humanitarian law.
Statements from Israeli government officials and military leaders suggest that, at the very least, the IDF has blurred the distinction between civilian and combatant, and is willing to strike at targets it considers even vaguely connected to the latter. At worst, it considers all people in the area of hostilities open to attack.
On July 17, for example, after IDF strikes on Beirut, the commander of the Israeli Air Force, Eliezer Shkedi, said, “in the center of Beirut there is an area which only terrorists enter into.”1 The next day, the IDF deputy chief of staff, Moshe Kaplinski, when talking about the IDF’s destruction of Beirut’s Dahia neighborhood, said, “the hits were devastating, and this area, which was a Hezbollah symbol, became deserted rubble.”2
On July 27, Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon said that the Israeli air force should flatten villages before ground troops move in to prevent casualties among Israeli soldiers fighting Hezbollah. Israel had given civilians ample time to leave southern Lebanon, he claimed, and therefore anyone remaining should be considered a supporter of Hezbollah. “All those now in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hezbollah,” he said.3
International humanitarian law requires effective advance warnings to the civilian population prior to an attack, when conditions permit. But those warnings do not way relieve Israel from its obligation at all times to distinguish between combatants and civilians and to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians from harm. In other words, issuing warnings in no way entitles the Israeli military to treat those civilians who remain in southern Lebanon as combatants who are fair game for attack.
In addition to recommendations to the Israeli government and Hezbollah that they respect international humanitarian law, Human Rights Watch calls on the U.S. government immediately to suspend transfer of all arms that have been documented or credibly alleged to have been used in violation of international humanitarian law in Lebanon, as well as funding or support for such materiel, pending an end to the violations. Human Rights Watch calls upon the Iranian and Syrian governments to do the same with regards to military assistance to Hezbollah.
This report does not address Israeli attacks on Lebanon’s infrastructure or Beirut’s southern suburbs, which is the subject of ongoing Human Rights Watch research. It also does not address Hezbollah’s indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israel, which have been reported on and denounced separately and continues to be the subject of ongoing Human Rights Watch investigations. In addition, Human Rights Watch continues to investigate allegations that Hezbollah is shielding its military personnel and materiel by locating them in civilian homes or areas, and it is deeply concerned by Hezbollah’s placement of certain troops and materiel near civilians, which endangers them and violates the duty to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties. Human Rights Watch uses the occasion of this report to reiterate Hezbollah’s legal duty never to deliberately use civilians to shield military objects and never to needlessly endanger civilians by conducting military operations, maintaining troops, or storing weapons in their vicinity.
The armed conflict between Israel and Hezbollah is governed by international treaties, as well as the rules of customary international humanitarian law. Article 3 Common to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 sets forth minimum standards for all parties to a conflict between a state party such as Israel and a non-state party such as Hezbollah. Israel has also asserted that it considers itself to be responding to the actions of the sovereign state of Lebanon, not just to those of Hezbollah. Any hostilities between Israeli forces and the forces of Lebanon would fall within the full Geneva Conventions to which both Lebanon and Israel are parties. In either case, the rules governing bombing, shelling, and rocket attacks are effectively the same.
Since the start of the conflict, Israeli forces have consistently launched artillery and air attacks with limited or dubious military gain but excessive civilian cost. In dozens of attacks, Israeli forces struck an area with no apparent military target. In some cases, the timing and intensity of the attack, the absence of a military target, as well as return strikes on rescuers, suggest that Israeli forces deliberately targeted civilians.
The Israeli government claims that it targets only Hezbollah, and that fighters from the group are using civilians as human shields, thereby placing them at risk. Human Rights Watch found no cases in which Hezbollah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack. Hezbollah occasionally did store weapons in or near civilian homes and fighters placed rocket launchers within populated areas or near U.N. observers, which are serious violations of the laws of war because they violate the duty to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties. However, those cases do not justify the IDF’s extensive use of indiscriminate force which has cost so many civilian lives. In none of the cases of civilian deaths documented in this report is there evidence to suggest that Hezbollah forces or weapons were in or near the area that the IDF targeted during or just prior to the attack.
By consistently failing to distinguish between combatants and civilians, Israel has violated one of the most fundamental tenets of the laws of war: the duty to carry out attacks on only military targets. The pattern of attacks during the Israeli offensive in Lebanon suggests that the failures cannot be explained or dismissed as mere accidents; the extent of the pattern and the seriousness of the consequences indicate the commission of war crimes.
This report is based on extensive on-the-ground research in Lebanon. Since the start of hostilities, Human Rights Watch has interviewed victims and witnesses of attacks in one-on-one settings, conducted on-site inspections (when security allowed), and collected information from hospitals, humanitarian groups, and government agencies. Human Rights Watch also conducted research in Israel, inspecting the IDF’s use of weapons and discussing the conduct of forces with IDF officials. The research was extensive, but given the ongoing war and the scope of the bombings, Human Rights Watch does not claim that the findings are comprehensive; further investigation is required to document the war’s complete impact on civilians and to assess the full scope of the IDF’s compliance with and disregard for international humanitarian law.
While not the focus of this report, Human Rights Watch has separately and simultaneously documented violations of international humanitarian law by Hezbollah, including a pattern of attacks that amount to war crimes. Between July 12, when Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers and killed eight, and July 27, the group launched a reported 1,300 rockets into predominantly civilian areas in Israel, killing 18 civilians and wounding more than 300. Without guidance systems for accurate targeting, the rockets are inherently indiscriminate when directed toward civilian areas, especially cities, and thus are serious violations of the requirement of international humanitarian law that attackers distinguish at all times between combatants and civilians. Some of these rockets, Human Rights Watch found, are packed with thousands of metal ball-bearings, which spray more than 100 meters from the blast and compound the harm to civilians.
This report analyzes a selection of Israeli air and artillery attacks that together claimed at least 153 civilian lives, or over a third of the reported Lebanese deaths in the conflict’s first two weeks. Of the 153 civilian deaths documented in this report by name, sixty-three of the victims were children under the age of eighteen, and thirty-seven of them were under ten. Israeli air strikes also killed many dual nationals who were vacationing in Lebanon when the fighting began, including Brazilian, Canadian, German, Kuwaiti, and U.S. citizens. The full death toll is certainly higher because medical and recovery teams have been unable to retrieve many bodies due to ongoing fighting and the dire security situation in south Lebanon.
The report breaks civilian deaths into two categories: attacks on civilian homes and attacks on civilian vehicles. In both categories, victims and witnesses interviewed independently and repeatedly said that neither Hezbollah fighters nor Hezbollah weapons were present in the area during or just before the Israeli attack took place. While some individuals, out of fear or sympathy, may have been unwilling to speak about Hezbollah’s military activity, others were quite open about it. In totality, the consistency, detail, and credibility of testimony from a broad array of witnesses who did not speak to each other leave no doubt about the validity of the patterns described in this report. In many cases, witness testimony was corroborated by reports from international journalists and aid workers. During site visits conducted in Qana, Srifa, and Tyre, Human Rights Watch saw no evidence that there had been Hezbollah military activity around the areas targeted by the IDF during or just prior to the attack: no spent ammunition, abandoned weapons or military equipment, trenches, or dead or wounded fighters. Moreover, even if Hezbollah had been in a populated area at the time of an attack, Israel would still be legally obliged to take all feasible precautions to avoid or minimize civilian casualties resulting from its targeting of military objects or personnel. In the cases documented in this report, however, the IDF consistently tolerated a high level of civilian casualties for questionable military gain.
In one case, an Israeli air strike on July 13 destroyed the home of a cleric known to have sympathy for Hezbollah but who was not known to have taken any active part in hostilities. Even if the IDF considered him a legitimate target (and Human Rights Watch has no evidence that he was), the strike killed him, his wife, their ten children, and the family’s Sri Lankan maid.
On July 16, an Israeli airplane fired on a civilian home in the village of Aitaroun, killing eleven members of the al-Akhrass family, among them seven Canadian-Lebanese dual nationals who were vacationing in the village when the war began. Human Rights Watch independently interviewed three villagers who vigorously denied that the family had any connection to Hezbollah. Among the victims were children aged one, three, five, and seven.
Others civilians came under attack in their cars as they attempted to flee the fighting in the South. This report alone documents twenty-seven civilian deaths that resulted from such attacks. The number is surely higher, but at the time the report went to press, ongoing Israeli attacks on the roads made it impossible to retrieve all the bodies.
Starting around July 15, the IDF issued warnings to residents of southern villages to leave, followed by a general warning for all civilians south of the Litani River, which mostly runs about 25 kilometers north of the Israel-Lebanon border, to evacuate immediately. Tens of thousands of Lebanese fled their homes to the city of Tyre (itself south of the Litani and thus within the zone Israel ordered evacuated) or further north to Beirut, many waving white flags. As they left, Israeli forces fired on dozens of vehicles with warplanes and artillery.
Two Israeli air strikes are known to have hit humanitarian aid vehicles. On July 18 the IDF hit a convoy of the Red Crescent Society of the United Arab Emirates, destroying a vehicle with medicines, vegetable oil, sugar and rice, and killing the driver. On July 23, Israeli forces hit two clearly marked Red Cross ambulances in the village of Qana.
As of August 1, tens of thousands of civilians remained in villages south of the Litani River, despite the warnings to leave. Some chose to stay, but the vast majority, Human Rights Watch found, was unable to flee due to destroyed roads, a lack of gasoline, high taxi fares, sick relatives, or ongoing Israeli attacks. Many of the civilians who remained were elderly, sick, or poor.
Israel has justified its attacks on roads by citing the need to clear the transport routes of Hezbollah fighters moving arms. Again, none of the evidence gathered by Human Rights Watch, independent media sources, or Israeli official statements indicate that any of the attacks on vehicles documented in this report resulted in Hezbollah casualties or the destruction of weapons. Rather, the attacks killed and wounded civilians who were fleeing their homes, as the IDF had advised them to do.
In addition to strikes from airplanes, helicopters, and traditional artillery, Israel has used artillery-fired cluster munitions against populated areas, causing civilian casualties. One such attack on the village of Blida on July 19 killed a sixty-year-old woman and wounded at least twelve civilians, including seven children. The wide dispersal pattern of cluster munitions and the high dud rate (ranging from 2 to 14 percent, depending on the type of cluster munition) make the weapons exceedingly dangerous for civilians and, when used in populated areas, a violation of international humanitarian law.
Statements from Israeli government officials and military leaders suggest that, at the very least, the IDF has blurred the distinction between civilian and combatant, and is willing to strike at targets it considers even vaguely connected to the latter. At worst, it considers all people in the area of hostilities open to attack.
On July 17, for example, after IDF strikes on Beirut, the commander of the Israeli Air Force, Eliezer Shkedi, said, “in the center of Beirut there is an area which only terrorists enter into.”1 The next day, the IDF deputy chief of staff, Moshe Kaplinski, when talking about the IDF’s destruction of Beirut’s Dahia neighborhood, said, “the hits were devastating, and this area, which was a Hezbollah symbol, became deserted rubble.”2
On July 27, Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon said that the Israeli air force should flatten villages before ground troops move in to prevent casualties among Israeli soldiers fighting Hezbollah. Israel had given civilians ample time to leave southern Lebanon, he claimed, and therefore anyone remaining should be considered a supporter of Hezbollah. “All those now in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hezbollah,” he said.3
International humanitarian law requires effective advance warnings to the civilian population prior to an attack, when conditions permit. But those warnings do not way relieve Israel from its obligation at all times to distinguish between combatants and civilians and to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians from harm. In other words, issuing warnings in no way entitles the Israeli military to treat those civilians who remain in southern Lebanon as combatants who are fair game for attack.
In addition to recommendations to the Israeli government and Hezbollah that they respect international humanitarian law, Human Rights Watch calls on the U.S. government immediately to suspend transfer of all arms that have been documented or credibly alleged to have been used in violation of international humanitarian law in Lebanon, as well as funding or support for such materiel, pending an end to the violations. Human Rights Watch calls upon the Iranian and Syrian governments to do the same with regards to military assistance to Hezbollah.
This report does not address Israeli attacks on Lebanon’s infrastructure or Beirut’s southern suburbs, which is the subject of ongoing Human Rights Watch research. It also does not address Hezbollah’s indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israel, which have been reported on and denounced separately and continues to be the subject of ongoing Human Rights Watch investigations. In addition, Human Rights Watch continues to investigate allegations that Hezbollah is shielding its military personnel and materiel by locating them in civilian homes or areas, and it is deeply concerned by Hezbollah’s placement of certain troops and materiel near civilians, which endangers them and violates the duty to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties. Human Rights Watch uses the occasion of this report to reiterate Hezbollah’s legal duty never to deliberately use civilians to shield military objects and never to needlessly endanger civilians by conducting military operations, maintaining troops, or storing weapons in their vicinity.
The armed conflict between Israel and Hezbollah is governed by international treaties, as well as the rules of customary international humanitarian law. Article 3 Common to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 sets forth minimum standards for all parties to a conflict between a state party such as Israel and a non-state party such as Hezbollah. Israel has also asserted that it considers itself to be responding to the actions of the sovereign state of Lebanon, not just to those of Hezbollah. Any hostilities between Israeli forces and the forces of Lebanon would fall within the full Geneva Conventions to which both Lebanon and Israel are parties. In either case, the rules governing bombing, shelling, and rocket attacks are effectively the same.
The Family That Stays Together Dies Together
By Robert Fisk
"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."
"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."
War of the Generals
By Uri Avnery
"THE SIMPLE truth is that up to now, the 22nd day of the war, not one single military target has been reached. The same army that took just six days to rout three big Arab armies in 1967 has not succeeded in overcoming a small "terrorist organization" in a time span that is already longer than the momentous Yom Kippur War. Then, the army succeeded in just 20 days in turning a stunning defeat at the beginning into a resounding military victory at the end.
In order to create an image of achievement, military spokesmen asserted yesterday that "we have succeeded in killing 200 (or 300, or 400, who is counting?) of the 1000 fighters of Hizbullah." The assertion that the entire terrifying Hizbullah consisted of one thousand fighters speaks for itself.
According to correspondents, President Bush is frustrated. The Israeli army has not "delivered the goods". Bush sent them into war believing that the powerful army, equipped with the most advanced American arms, will "finish the job" in a few days. It was supposed to eliminate Hizbullah, turn Lebanon over to the stooges of the US, weaken Iran and perhaps also open the way to "regime change" in Syria. No wonder that Bush is angry.
Ehud Olmert is even more furious. He went to war in high spirits and with a light heart, because the Air Force generals had promised to destroy Hizbullah and their rockets within a few days. Now he is stuck in the mud, and no victory in sight."
"THE SIMPLE truth is that up to now, the 22nd day of the war, not one single military target has been reached. The same army that took just six days to rout three big Arab armies in 1967 has not succeeded in overcoming a small "terrorist organization" in a time span that is already longer than the momentous Yom Kippur War. Then, the army succeeded in just 20 days in turning a stunning defeat at the beginning into a resounding military victory at the end.
In order to create an image of achievement, military spokesmen asserted yesterday that "we have succeeded in killing 200 (or 300, or 400, who is counting?) of the 1000 fighters of Hizbullah." The assertion that the entire terrifying Hizbullah consisted of one thousand fighters speaks for itself.
According to correspondents, President Bush is frustrated. The Israeli army has not "delivered the goods". Bush sent them into war believing that the powerful army, equipped with the most advanced American arms, will "finish the job" in a few days. It was supposed to eliminate Hizbullah, turn Lebanon over to the stooges of the US, weaken Iran and perhaps also open the way to "regime change" in Syria. No wonder that Bush is angry.
Ehud Olmert is even more furious. He went to war in high spirits and with a light heart, because the Air Force generals had promised to destroy Hizbullah and their rockets within a few days. Now he is stuck in the mud, and no victory in sight."
Time to Call It Quits
By SAREE MAKDISI
"After three weeks of devastating bombardment, Israel's much vaunted army finds itself unable to fight its way more than a few kilometers into Lebanon. The heavy resistance they have encountered on the ground is the most obvious explanation for why the Israelis prefer on the whole to go on dropping bombs on children from a safe distance: not only is it less dangerous, it also involves much less effort.
The "deep penetration" raid on Baalbeck was meant to show off the capabilities of Israel's armed forces, to make up for their humiliating performance on the ground and their repeated massacres of civilians from the air, including the refugees sheltering in Qana (an event whose cover story has gone through at least three variations, none of them convincing to anyone other than the Israelis themselves).
Instead, it left a hospital in ruins, more than a dozen civilians dead, and elite forces in possession of an unfortunate middle-aged shopkeeper and an assortment of his friends and relatives.
Surely this would be the right moment for Israel to give up and call it quits."
"After three weeks of devastating bombardment, Israel's much vaunted army finds itself unable to fight its way more than a few kilometers into Lebanon. The heavy resistance they have encountered on the ground is the most obvious explanation for why the Israelis prefer on the whole to go on dropping bombs on children from a safe distance: not only is it less dangerous, it also involves much less effort.
The "deep penetration" raid on Baalbeck was meant to show off the capabilities of Israel's armed forces, to make up for their humiliating performance on the ground and their repeated massacres of civilians from the air, including the refugees sheltering in Qana (an event whose cover story has gone through at least three variations, none of them convincing to anyone other than the Israelis themselves).
Instead, it left a hospital in ruins, more than a dozen civilians dead, and elite forces in possession of an unfortunate middle-aged shopkeeper and an assortment of his friends and relatives.
Surely this would be the right moment for Israel to give up and call it quits."
Halutz's Bombing War
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
""Israel is doomed," said a friend of mine some months ago, returning to the U.S. after a trip to Israel. I asked him why, and my friend, who spent twenty years working at a high level in the Pentagon, answered, "They've put in an Air Force man as chief of the General Staff."
He was talking about Dan Halutz, appointed chief of the General Staff of the IDF in February of this year.
The trouble is that history shows air power doesn't win wars, or even battles. The best known example is the bombing of Germany by the Americans and the British in World War Two. The plan, as advanced by Britain's Arthur "Bomber" Harris, was to kill a million Germans and paralyze industrial production. Harris began his career with the British bombing campaigns in Mesopotamia in the 1920s, then Palestine, against the Great Rising, in the 1930s.
Dan Halutz is in the LeMay tradition, a brutish lout. He raised a storm when he was asked what feelings, what moral tremors he might have had about the dropping of a one-ton bomb in a house in Gaza. Halutz's jaunty reply was to the effect that all he felt was "a slight tremor in the wing of the airplane."
So the brazen thug Halutz got the big job, just at the moment the Israeli high command was firming up plans for its long planned onslaught on Lebanon. It was Halutz who sold Olmert and Peretz on the fantasy of swift and devastating air force raids finishing off Hezbollah. "
""Israel is doomed," said a friend of mine some months ago, returning to the U.S. after a trip to Israel. I asked him why, and my friend, who spent twenty years working at a high level in the Pentagon, answered, "They've put in an Air Force man as chief of the General Staff."
He was talking about Dan Halutz, appointed chief of the General Staff of the IDF in February of this year.
The trouble is that history shows air power doesn't win wars, or even battles. The best known example is the bombing of Germany by the Americans and the British in World War Two. The plan, as advanced by Britain's Arthur "Bomber" Harris, was to kill a million Germans and paralyze industrial production. Harris began his career with the British bombing campaigns in Mesopotamia in the 1920s, then Palestine, against the Great Rising, in the 1930s.
Dan Halutz is in the LeMay tradition, a brutish lout. He raised a storm when he was asked what feelings, what moral tremors he might have had about the dropping of a one-ton bomb in a house in Gaza. Halutz's jaunty reply was to the effect that all he felt was "a slight tremor in the wing of the airplane."
So the brazen thug Halutz got the big job, just at the moment the Israeli high command was firming up plans for its long planned onslaught on Lebanon. It was Halutz who sold Olmert and Peretz on the fantasy of swift and devastating air force raids finishing off Hezbollah. "
Wednesday, August 2, 2006
Smoke fills the air following air strikes on the Lebanese village ofAita al-Shaab, near the Israeli-Lebanese border. Israeli commandosstruck deep into Lebanon and snatched five suspected guerrillas in ahelicopter raid that provoked the heaviest rain of Hezbollah rocketfire in the 22-day-old conflict.(AFP/Denis Sinyakov)
A Lebanese man holds the body of his child after he was killed duringan overnight Israeli airborne operation on the eastern Lebanese cityof Baalbeck, 60 miles (100 km) northeast of Beirut, August 2, 2006.Israeli commandoes snatched three Hizbollah members, killing 19civilians in the raid. REUTERS/Mohammed Solh
The Mideast PR War
News on a Platter
By Matthias Gebauer in Israel
Propaganda is part of every war, just like bombs and soldiers. Still, it's remarkable how professionally Israel deals with foreign journalists, catering conscientiously to all their needs. Lunch included.
The phone rings at 9 a.m. -- right on time. "Hello, this is the Government Press Office," pipes a woman's voice. "What are you planning to do today? Do you need an idea?" And then the suggestions just keep coming -- interview partners; a tour to the houses in Haifa that were struck by Katyusha rockets, complete with victim interviews. An expert will come along too, one who explains the nature of the rockets -- "in clean sound bites, if you want."
There's more on the plate. "The highlight is still to come," says the lady from Israel's press office, the GPO. "We can offer an interview in Naharya with the parents of the kidnapped soldiers," she says. She explains that the parents of Ehud Goldwasser, who has been held by Hezbollah since July 12, are waiting in a hotel. An interpreter? No need. "They speak good English, don't worry."
Many journalists come along, most of them by GPO bus. About 15 camera teams have set up their equipment. Twenty radio and print journalists are enjoying their coffee and the specially prepared sandwiches. Then the parents arrive. The father self-consciously steps up to the microphone. The desk in front of him bristles with microphones -- as if a politician were giving a press conference. He's sweating slightly; the veins on his forehead are bulging.
Shlomo Goldwasser doesn't have much to say -- not much more than the banal phrases security officials often teach parents so they stay on message. "They, my son's kidnappers, are responsible for Ehud's safety," Goldwasser says. "They are also responsible for returning him to us soon -- and unscathed." He says he can't think of anything else to tell us. He's a father, he says, not a politician.
"Please don't smile"
Goldwasser has barely finished speaking when a journalistic scrum erupts and cameramen start to shout. "Mr. Goldwasser, over here," one of them calls. "Please don't smile." Others want to hear childhood stories -- "It tugs on the viewers' heartstrings." Elsewhere, the man's wife has to leaf repeatedly through the family photo album. She responds to the orders given her like a robot and would presumably even start crying if she were told to do so. Fortunately no one makes such a request.
The disgraceful spectacle goes on for 90 minutes. The parents say they've got nothing to do with politics, nor with the war. They've been told appearances in public could save their son. And it's all organized and choreographed by the Israeli government's press office -- organized for foreign journalists, so that one of the reasons for the current war, the suffering of parents and civilians, receives the public attention it is due. But the parents, in this story, somehow come off only as extras.
Propaganda is a part of war -- especially when a state wants the world to see its decision to take up arms as justified and just. It's no different than the run up to the first Gulf War or the more recent war in Afghanistan -- or, more perfidiously, to the second US war against Iraq. Vast armies of public relations workers develop an emotionally charged image meant to provide media and public support for the conflict's architects. It's standard procedure -- public relations for war.
Not all the information circulated in such a controlled atmosphere, of course, is to be believed. But it's hard to criticize Israel for wanting to see victims of Hezbollah rockets -- 17 killed since the beginning of the war against the militant group -- in the media. Indeed it is precisely these victims that fuel the Israeli operations currently raging in southern Lebanon.
PR warriors take to the mountains
Still, Israel's support and supervision of foreign journalists seems downright excessive. As soon as you've received your press credentials from the GPO, you're bombarded with e-mails and phone calls. When covering other crisis regions, German reporters often have to make an effort to be extra nice and polite and have to search out interviewees and contacts themselves. Not here. In Israel, reporters are on an all-inclusive package trip -- and are well looked after.
Well-thought-out story ideas including transportation, lunch and selected military experts -- all these things are offered without ever having to be asked for. Many journalists happily accept the offer. For days, images of Israeli artillery units flickered on TV screens the world over -- one reason of course being that the PR warriors always took the camera teams to the frontlines around sunset. The soft, warm twilight is favored by camera men and photographers.
An e-mail that arrived on Wednesday is a good example. It offers no less than 11 news stories. The Israeli refugees, perhaps. Or the problems with Arab Israelis? A feature about how an entire village has been dispersed across Israel? A report on people who had to leave their houses? Former hostages? Or a village that has been shot at for decades? It's all available.
There's no need to go anywhere. "The contacts can be reached by phone," the woman from the press office says. "It's better to do it that way, especially for the radio." The organizers know exactly what the reporters want. Radio and TV journalists often have to go on air so often that they barely get a chance to leave the hotel. So when a Katyusha rocket strikes, an e-mail containing a list of eyewitnesses, complete with their mobile phone numbers, is more than welcome.
Language barriers are willingly breached as well. Every list includes eyewitnesses with different language profiles. There's plenty to choose from in an immigrant country like Israel: English, French, Spanish, Russian and of course several German speakers in every city. Laborious simultaneous translations are rendered superfluous by the service.
The Israeli public relations experts, though, have their work cut out for them. With public opinion turning against the Israelis following the bombing of the UN outpost in southern Lebanon, the country's use of excessive force is once again a major issue. And the war doesn't seem as though it will come to an end any time soon.
By Matthias Gebauer in Israel
Propaganda is part of every war, just like bombs and soldiers. Still, it's remarkable how professionally Israel deals with foreign journalists, catering conscientiously to all their needs. Lunch included.
The phone rings at 9 a.m. -- right on time. "Hello, this is the Government Press Office," pipes a woman's voice. "What are you planning to do today? Do you need an idea?" And then the suggestions just keep coming -- interview partners; a tour to the houses in Haifa that were struck by Katyusha rockets, complete with victim interviews. An expert will come along too, one who explains the nature of the rockets -- "in clean sound bites, if you want."
There's more on the plate. "The highlight is still to come," says the lady from Israel's press office, the GPO. "We can offer an interview in Naharya with the parents of the kidnapped soldiers," she says. She explains that the parents of Ehud Goldwasser, who has been held by Hezbollah since July 12, are waiting in a hotel. An interpreter? No need. "They speak good English, don't worry."
Many journalists come along, most of them by GPO bus. About 15 camera teams have set up their equipment. Twenty radio and print journalists are enjoying their coffee and the specially prepared sandwiches. Then the parents arrive. The father self-consciously steps up to the microphone. The desk in front of him bristles with microphones -- as if a politician were giving a press conference. He's sweating slightly; the veins on his forehead are bulging.
Shlomo Goldwasser doesn't have much to say -- not much more than the banal phrases security officials often teach parents so they stay on message. "They, my son's kidnappers, are responsible for Ehud's safety," Goldwasser says. "They are also responsible for returning him to us soon -- and unscathed." He says he can't think of anything else to tell us. He's a father, he says, not a politician.
"Please don't smile"
Goldwasser has barely finished speaking when a journalistic scrum erupts and cameramen start to shout. "Mr. Goldwasser, over here," one of them calls. "Please don't smile." Others want to hear childhood stories -- "It tugs on the viewers' heartstrings." Elsewhere, the man's wife has to leaf repeatedly through the family photo album. She responds to the orders given her like a robot and would presumably even start crying if she were told to do so. Fortunately no one makes such a request.
The disgraceful spectacle goes on for 90 minutes. The parents say they've got nothing to do with politics, nor with the war. They've been told appearances in public could save their son. And it's all organized and choreographed by the Israeli government's press office -- organized for foreign journalists, so that one of the reasons for the current war, the suffering of parents and civilians, receives the public attention it is due. But the parents, in this story, somehow come off only as extras.
Propaganda is a part of war -- especially when a state wants the world to see its decision to take up arms as justified and just. It's no different than the run up to the first Gulf War or the more recent war in Afghanistan -- or, more perfidiously, to the second US war against Iraq. Vast armies of public relations workers develop an emotionally charged image meant to provide media and public support for the conflict's architects. It's standard procedure -- public relations for war.
Not all the information circulated in such a controlled atmosphere, of course, is to be believed. But it's hard to criticize Israel for wanting to see victims of Hezbollah rockets -- 17 killed since the beginning of the war against the militant group -- in the media. Indeed it is precisely these victims that fuel the Israeli operations currently raging in southern Lebanon.
PR warriors take to the mountains
Still, Israel's support and supervision of foreign journalists seems downright excessive. As soon as you've received your press credentials from the GPO, you're bombarded with e-mails and phone calls. When covering other crisis regions, German reporters often have to make an effort to be extra nice and polite and have to search out interviewees and contacts themselves. Not here. In Israel, reporters are on an all-inclusive package trip -- and are well looked after.
Well-thought-out story ideas including transportation, lunch and selected military experts -- all these things are offered without ever having to be asked for. Many journalists happily accept the offer. For days, images of Israeli artillery units flickered on TV screens the world over -- one reason of course being that the PR warriors always took the camera teams to the frontlines around sunset. The soft, warm twilight is favored by camera men and photographers.
An e-mail that arrived on Wednesday is a good example. It offers no less than 11 news stories. The Israeli refugees, perhaps. Or the problems with Arab Israelis? A feature about how an entire village has been dispersed across Israel? A report on people who had to leave their houses? Former hostages? Or a village that has been shot at for decades? It's all available.
There's no need to go anywhere. "The contacts can be reached by phone," the woman from the press office says. "It's better to do it that way, especially for the radio." The organizers know exactly what the reporters want. Radio and TV journalists often have to go on air so often that they barely get a chance to leave the hotel. So when a Katyusha rocket strikes, an e-mail containing a list of eyewitnesses, complete with their mobile phone numbers, is more than welcome.
Language barriers are willingly breached as well. Every list includes eyewitnesses with different language profiles. There's plenty to choose from in an immigrant country like Israel: English, French, Spanish, Russian and of course several German speakers in every city. Laborious simultaneous translations are rendered superfluous by the service.
The Israeli public relations experts, though, have their work cut out for them. With public opinion turning against the Israelis following the bombing of the UN outpost in southern Lebanon, the country's use of excessive force is once again a major issue. And the war doesn't seem as though it will come to an end any time soon.
Cream of the American crop in Iraq...
Report to suggest Marines shot unarmed Iraqi women and children : Evidence collected on the deaths of 24 Iraqis in Haditha supports accusations that U.S. Marines deliberately shot the civilians, including unarmed women and children, a Pentagon official said Wednesday.
Soldier says comrades threatened him: A U.S. soldier testified Wednesday that four of his colleagues accused of murdering three Iraqis during a raid threatened to kill him if he told anyone about the shooting deaths.
U.S. Army commander investigated in Iraq killing spree : Col. Michael Steele, whose heroics were portrayed in the movie "Black Hawk Down," is under investigation for allegedly encouraging his men to go on a killing spree.
Soldier says comrades threatened him: A U.S. soldier testified Wednesday that four of his colleagues accused of murdering three Iraqis during a raid threatened to kill him if he told anyone about the shooting deaths.
U.S. Army commander investigated in Iraq killing spree : Col. Michael Steele, whose heroics were portrayed in the movie "Black Hawk Down," is under investigation for allegedly encouraging his men to go on a killing spree.
Hizbullah's attacks stem from Israeli incursions into Lebanon
By Anders Strindberg
NEW YORK
As pundits and policymakers scramble to explain events in Lebanon, their conclusions are virtually unanimous: Hizbullah created this crisis. Israel is defending itself. The underlying problem is Arab extremism.
Sadly, this is pure analytical nonsense. Hizbullah's capture of two Israeli soldiers on July 12 was a direct result of Israel's silent but unrelenting aggression against Lebanon, which in turn is part of a six-decades long Arab-Israeli conflict.
Since its withdrawal of occupation forces from southern Lebanon in May 2000, Israel has violated the United Nations-monitored "blue line" on an almost daily basis, according to UN reports. Hizbullah's military doctrine, articulated in the early 1990s, states that it will fire Katyusha rockets into Israel only in response to Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians or Hizbullah's leadership; this indeed has been the pattern.
In the process of its violations, Israel has terrorized the general population, destroyed private property, and killed numerous civilians. This past February, for instance, 15-year-old shepherd Yusuf Rahil was killed by unprovoked Israeli cross-border fire as he tended his flock in southern Lebanon. Israel has assassinated its enemies in the streets of Lebanese cities and continues to occupy Lebanon's Shebaa Farms area, while refusing to hand over the maps of mine fields that continue to kill and cripple civilians in southern Lebanon more than six years after the war supposedly ended. What peace did Hizbullah shatter?
Hizbullah's capture of the soldiers took place in the context of this ongoing conflict, which in turn is fundamentally shaped by realities in the Palestinian territories. To the vexation of Israel and its allies, Hizbullah - easily the most popular political movement in the Middle East - unflinchingly stands with the Palestinians.
Since June 25, when Palestinian fighters captured one Israeli soldier and demanded a prisoner exchange, Israel has killed more than 140 Palestinians. Like the Lebanese situation, that flare-up was detached from its wider context and was said to be "manufactured" by the enemies of Israel; more nonsense proffered in order to distract from the apparently unthinkable reality that it is the manner in which Israel was created, and the ideological premises that have sustained it for almost 60 years, that are the core of the entire Arab-Israeli conflict.
Once the Arabs had rejected the UN's right to give away their land and to force them to pay the price for European pogroms and the Holocaust, the creation of Israel in 1948 was made possible only by ethnic cleansing and annexation. This is historical fact and has been documented by Israeli historians, such as Benny Morris. Yet Israel continues to contend that it had nothing to do with the Palestinian exodus, and consequently has no moral duty to offer redress.
For six decades the Palestinian refugees have been refused their right to return home because they are of the wrong race. "Israel must remain a Jewish state," is an almost sacral mantra across the Western political spectrum. It means, in practice, that Israel is accorded the right to be an ethnocracy at the expense of the refugees and their descendants, now close to 5 million.
Is it not understandable that Israel's ethnic preoccupation profoundly offends not only Palestinians, but many of their Arab brethren? Yet rather than demanding that Israel acknowledge its foundational wrongs as a first step toward equality and coexistence, the Western world blithely insists that each and all must recognize Israel's right to exist at the Palestinians' expense.
Western discourse seems unable to accommodate a serious, as opposed to cosmetic concern for Palestinians' rights and liberties: The Palestinians are the Indians who refuse to live on the reservation; the Negroes who refuse to sit in the back of the bus.
By what moral right does anyone tell them to be realistic and get over themselves? That it is too much of a hassle to right the wrongs committed against them? That the front of the bus must remain ethnically pure? When they refuse to recognize their occupier and embrace their racial inferiority, when desperation and frustration causes them to turn to violence, and when neighbors and allies come to their aid - some for reasons of power politics, others out of idealism - we are astonished that they are all such fanatics and extremists.
The fundamental obstacle to understanding the Arab-Israeli conflict is that we have given up on asking what is right and wrong, instead asking what is "practical" and "realistic." Yet reality is that Israel is a profoundly racist state, the existence of which is buttressed by a seemingly endless succession of punitive measures, assassinations, and wars against its victims and their allies.
A realistic understanding of the conflict, therefore, is one that recognizes that the crux is not in this or that incident or policy, but in Israel's foundational and per- sistent refusal to recognize the humanity of its Palestinian victims. Neither Hizbullah nor Hamas are driven by a desire to "wipe out Jews," as is so often claimed, but by a fundamental sense of injustice that they will not allow to be forgotten.
These groups will continue to enjoy popular legitimacy because they fulfill the need for someone - anyone - to stand up for Arab rights. Israel cannot destroy this need by bombing power grids or rocket ramps. If Israel, like its former political ally South Africa, has the capacity to come to terms with principles of democracy and human rights and accept egalitarian multiracial coexistence within a single state for Jews and Arabs, then the foundation for resentment and resistance will have been removed. If Israel cannot bring itself to do so, then it will continue to be the vortex of regional violence.
• Anders Strindberg, formerly a visiting professor at Damascus University, Syria, is a consultant on Middle East politics working with European government and law-enforcement agencies. He has also covered Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories as a journalist since the late 1990s, primarily for European publications.
Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links
NEW YORK
As pundits and policymakers scramble to explain events in Lebanon, their conclusions are virtually unanimous: Hizbullah created this crisis. Israel is defending itself. The underlying problem is Arab extremism.
Sadly, this is pure analytical nonsense. Hizbullah's capture of two Israeli soldiers on July 12 was a direct result of Israel's silent but unrelenting aggression against Lebanon, which in turn is part of a six-decades long Arab-Israeli conflict.
Since its withdrawal of occupation forces from southern Lebanon in May 2000, Israel has violated the United Nations-monitored "blue line" on an almost daily basis, according to UN reports. Hizbullah's military doctrine, articulated in the early 1990s, states that it will fire Katyusha rockets into Israel only in response to Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians or Hizbullah's leadership; this indeed has been the pattern.
In the process of its violations, Israel has terrorized the general population, destroyed private property, and killed numerous civilians. This past February, for instance, 15-year-old shepherd Yusuf Rahil was killed by unprovoked Israeli cross-border fire as he tended his flock in southern Lebanon. Israel has assassinated its enemies in the streets of Lebanese cities and continues to occupy Lebanon's Shebaa Farms area, while refusing to hand over the maps of mine fields that continue to kill and cripple civilians in southern Lebanon more than six years after the war supposedly ended. What peace did Hizbullah shatter?
Hizbullah's capture of the soldiers took place in the context of this ongoing conflict, which in turn is fundamentally shaped by realities in the Palestinian territories. To the vexation of Israel and its allies, Hizbullah - easily the most popular political movement in the Middle East - unflinchingly stands with the Palestinians.
Since June 25, when Palestinian fighters captured one Israeli soldier and demanded a prisoner exchange, Israel has killed more than 140 Palestinians. Like the Lebanese situation, that flare-up was detached from its wider context and was said to be "manufactured" by the enemies of Israel; more nonsense proffered in order to distract from the apparently unthinkable reality that it is the manner in which Israel was created, and the ideological premises that have sustained it for almost 60 years, that are the core of the entire Arab-Israeli conflict.
Once the Arabs had rejected the UN's right to give away their land and to force them to pay the price for European pogroms and the Holocaust, the creation of Israel in 1948 was made possible only by ethnic cleansing and annexation. This is historical fact and has been documented by Israeli historians, such as Benny Morris. Yet Israel continues to contend that it had nothing to do with the Palestinian exodus, and consequently has no moral duty to offer redress.
For six decades the Palestinian refugees have been refused their right to return home because they are of the wrong race. "Israel must remain a Jewish state," is an almost sacral mantra across the Western political spectrum. It means, in practice, that Israel is accorded the right to be an ethnocracy at the expense of the refugees and their descendants, now close to 5 million.
Is it not understandable that Israel's ethnic preoccupation profoundly offends not only Palestinians, but many of their Arab brethren? Yet rather than demanding that Israel acknowledge its foundational wrongs as a first step toward equality and coexistence, the Western world blithely insists that each and all must recognize Israel's right to exist at the Palestinians' expense.
Western discourse seems unable to accommodate a serious, as opposed to cosmetic concern for Palestinians' rights and liberties: The Palestinians are the Indians who refuse to live on the reservation; the Negroes who refuse to sit in the back of the bus.
By what moral right does anyone tell them to be realistic and get over themselves? That it is too much of a hassle to right the wrongs committed against them? That the front of the bus must remain ethnically pure? When they refuse to recognize their occupier and embrace their racial inferiority, when desperation and frustration causes them to turn to violence, and when neighbors and allies come to their aid - some for reasons of power politics, others out of idealism - we are astonished that they are all such fanatics and extremists.
The fundamental obstacle to understanding the Arab-Israeli conflict is that we have given up on asking what is right and wrong, instead asking what is "practical" and "realistic." Yet reality is that Israel is a profoundly racist state, the existence of which is buttressed by a seemingly endless succession of punitive measures, assassinations, and wars against its victims and their allies.
A realistic understanding of the conflict, therefore, is one that recognizes that the crux is not in this or that incident or policy, but in Israel's foundational and per- sistent refusal to recognize the humanity of its Palestinian victims. Neither Hizbullah nor Hamas are driven by a desire to "wipe out Jews," as is so often claimed, but by a fundamental sense of injustice that they will not allow to be forgotten.
These groups will continue to enjoy popular legitimacy because they fulfill the need for someone - anyone - to stand up for Arab rights. Israel cannot destroy this need by bombing power grids or rocket ramps. If Israel, like its former political ally South Africa, has the capacity to come to terms with principles of democracy and human rights and accept egalitarian multiracial coexistence within a single state for Jews and Arabs, then the foundation for resentment and resistance will have been removed. If Israel cannot bring itself to do so, then it will continue to be the vortex of regional violence.
• Anders Strindberg, formerly a visiting professor at Damascus University, Syria, is a consultant on Middle East politics working with European government and law-enforcement agencies. He has also covered Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories as a journalist since the late 1990s, primarily for European publications.
Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links
Mideast Weapons Deserve Scrutiny
Israel’s cluster bombs and alleged phosphorus use have escaped attention
8/2/06
On July 24, Human Rights Watch reported that Israel was using cluster bombs "in populated areas of Lebanon," which it said "may violate the prohibition on indiscriminate attacks contained in international humanitarian law." But despite the extensive media coverage of the current conflict in the Middle East, almost no U.S. outlets are reporting on these findings.
The Los Angeles Times buried the news at the end of a July 25 report, which concluded that the "Israeli army said it was checking into the group's allegations, but added that the weapons were legal under international standards." On July 27, the New York Times reported that an Israeli general "acknowledged that Israel had used cluster munitions in the conflict."
The Times described the alleged use of such weapons as "another matter that has drawn criticism."Yet this reference was the first time the paper's readers heard of the matter—at least when it came to Israel's arsenal. On July 19, the Times did report that U.S. and Israeli officials claimed that Hezbollah had altered some of their rockets by "attaching cluster bombs as warheads, or filling an explosive shell with ball bearings that have devastating effect."
NBC Nightly News similarly (7/25/06) noted the lethality of Hezbollah's arsenal, with correspondent Martin Fletcher reporting that "the Katyusha is full of these tiny ball bearings that are aimed to kill and hurt as many people as possible." Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer (7/28/06) contrasted the ball-bearing packed Katyushas that "are meant to kill and maim" with Israel's "precision-guided munitions" as evidence that "Hezbollah is deliberately trying to create civilian casualties on both sides while Israel is deliberately trying to minimize civilian casualties, also on both sides."
Weapons loaded with ball bearings would seem designed to be anti-personnel weapons, and their use has been condemned by human rights organizations because of their wide and imprecise blast range (Human Rights Watch, 7/18/06). But cluster bombs, which likewise have a wide and imprecise blast range, pose an even deadlier threat to civilians, as they can spread hundreds of "bomblets" that become "de facto antipersonnel landmines" (Human Rights Watch, 3/03). Amnesty International called the use of cluster bombs by the U.S. in civilian areas of Iraq "a grave violation of international humanitarian law" (4/2/03).
Other reports have raised the strong possibility that cluster bombs may have been used in Gaza (Agence France Presse, 7/25/06). And some doctors and Lebanese officials believe that injuries in Lebanon indicate the use of incendiary weapons such as white phosphorus (Inter Press Service, 7/28/06; Agence France Presse, 7/30/06). White phosphorus causes severe and deep burns to the skin and cannot be extinguished with water; the New York Times once called it (3/22/95) one of "the worst chemical weapons" in existence. Israel's use of such weapons would not be without precedent; Human Rights Watch reported in 1996 (5/96) that there was "compelling" evidence that Israel used phosphorus weapons against civilians in its 1982 and 1983 attacks on Southern Lebanon. (The U.S. has admitted to using white phosphorus as a weapon in Iraq; see Extra!, 3-4/06.)
Few outlets have even addressed Israel's possible use of white phosphorus, but when it is reported the results are not particularly enlightening. On July 24, CNN asked its military analyst Gen. James "Spider" Marks about white phosphorus; though he seemed to know very little about its possible use in Lebanon, he nonetheless declared that it probably wasn't being used: "I don't know anything about Israeli targeting methods and specifically whether they're using white phosphorus or not.... But it's not used against civilians. So I can't comment on whether they're targeting civilians and I would be surprised--in fact, I would deny that they even were, frankly." CNN host Anderson Cooper gave his guest some help by reiterating the Israeli position: "What they certainly are saying is, 'Look, we're point blank not targeting civilians, we're targeting Hezbollah positions.' They say Hezbollah very knowingly, you know, has their infrastructure, has their mobile rockets, launching from residential neighborhoods, and that's why we're seeing the civilian damage to the extent that we have."
The next night, a CNN report assured that "Israel says all its weapons and ammunition comply with international law," a point underscored by a former Justice Department official who declared use of white phosphorus legal. The same source, on the other hand, determined that Hezbollah's rockets loaded with ball bearings were "primarily a terror weapon of no particular military utility. That would make this even more legally questionable."
These legal opinions are not shared by all experts. An official with the U.N. body that enforces the Chemical Weapons Convention told the BBC (BBC News Online, 11/16/05) that if white phosphorus were used to camouflage movement, it would be legal. However, if it is "specifically intended to be used as a weapon," that would be prohibited. (See Extra!, 3-4/06.) While Israel denies such intentions, the reports coming in of civilians severely burned by phosphorus raise serious questions that can't simply be dismissed with Israeli assurances. As Human Rights Watch reported (7/30/06), its researchers in Lebanon "have documented dozens of cases in which Israeli forces have carried out indiscriminate attacks against civilians while in their homes or traveling on roads to flee the fighting."
Anyone reading the coverage of the Israeli invasion and bombing of Lebanon is keenly aware of the weapons in Hezbollah's arsenal. (See the chart "Hezbollah Firepower" in USA Today's July 28 edition, for example.) As noted by Frida Berrigan and William Hartung (Foreign Policy in Focus, 7/26/06):
Much has been made in the U.S. media of the Syrian- and Iranian-origin weaponry used by Hezbollah in the escalating violence in Israel and Lebanon. There has been no parallel discussion of the origin of Israel's weaponry, the vast bulk of which is from the United States.
When roughly 800 have been killed in Lebanon—mostly civilians—and the civilian death toll in Israel stands at 19, media coverage that focuses on assurances by Israeli officials and pro-war pundits that Israel does not intentionally target civilians gives a false sense of reality. U.S. news outlets need to explain the consequences of Israel's cluster bombs and other weapons—along with Hezbollah's ball bearings.
8/2/06
On July 24, Human Rights Watch reported that Israel was using cluster bombs "in populated areas of Lebanon," which it said "may violate the prohibition on indiscriminate attacks contained in international humanitarian law." But despite the extensive media coverage of the current conflict in the Middle East, almost no U.S. outlets are reporting on these findings.
The Los Angeles Times buried the news at the end of a July 25 report, which concluded that the "Israeli army said it was checking into the group's allegations, but added that the weapons were legal under international standards." On July 27, the New York Times reported that an Israeli general "acknowledged that Israel had used cluster munitions in the conflict."
The Times described the alleged use of such weapons as "another matter that has drawn criticism."Yet this reference was the first time the paper's readers heard of the matter—at least when it came to Israel's arsenal. On July 19, the Times did report that U.S. and Israeli officials claimed that Hezbollah had altered some of their rockets by "attaching cluster bombs as warheads, or filling an explosive shell with ball bearings that have devastating effect."
NBC Nightly News similarly (7/25/06) noted the lethality of Hezbollah's arsenal, with correspondent Martin Fletcher reporting that "the Katyusha is full of these tiny ball bearings that are aimed to kill and hurt as many people as possible." Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer (7/28/06) contrasted the ball-bearing packed Katyushas that "are meant to kill and maim" with Israel's "precision-guided munitions" as evidence that "Hezbollah is deliberately trying to create civilian casualties on both sides while Israel is deliberately trying to minimize civilian casualties, also on both sides."
Weapons loaded with ball bearings would seem designed to be anti-personnel weapons, and their use has been condemned by human rights organizations because of their wide and imprecise blast range (Human Rights Watch, 7/18/06). But cluster bombs, which likewise have a wide and imprecise blast range, pose an even deadlier threat to civilians, as they can spread hundreds of "bomblets" that become "de facto antipersonnel landmines" (Human Rights Watch, 3/03). Amnesty International called the use of cluster bombs by the U.S. in civilian areas of Iraq "a grave violation of international humanitarian law" (4/2/03).
Other reports have raised the strong possibility that cluster bombs may have been used in Gaza (Agence France Presse, 7/25/06). And some doctors and Lebanese officials believe that injuries in Lebanon indicate the use of incendiary weapons such as white phosphorus (Inter Press Service, 7/28/06; Agence France Presse, 7/30/06). White phosphorus causes severe and deep burns to the skin and cannot be extinguished with water; the New York Times once called it (3/22/95) one of "the worst chemical weapons" in existence. Israel's use of such weapons would not be without precedent; Human Rights Watch reported in 1996 (5/96) that there was "compelling" evidence that Israel used phosphorus weapons against civilians in its 1982 and 1983 attacks on Southern Lebanon. (The U.S. has admitted to using white phosphorus as a weapon in Iraq; see Extra!, 3-4/06.)
Few outlets have even addressed Israel's possible use of white phosphorus, but when it is reported the results are not particularly enlightening. On July 24, CNN asked its military analyst Gen. James "Spider" Marks about white phosphorus; though he seemed to know very little about its possible use in Lebanon, he nonetheless declared that it probably wasn't being used: "I don't know anything about Israeli targeting methods and specifically whether they're using white phosphorus or not.... But it's not used against civilians. So I can't comment on whether they're targeting civilians and I would be surprised--in fact, I would deny that they even were, frankly." CNN host Anderson Cooper gave his guest some help by reiterating the Israeli position: "What they certainly are saying is, 'Look, we're point blank not targeting civilians, we're targeting Hezbollah positions.' They say Hezbollah very knowingly, you know, has their infrastructure, has their mobile rockets, launching from residential neighborhoods, and that's why we're seeing the civilian damage to the extent that we have."
The next night, a CNN report assured that "Israel says all its weapons and ammunition comply with international law," a point underscored by a former Justice Department official who declared use of white phosphorus legal. The same source, on the other hand, determined that Hezbollah's rockets loaded with ball bearings were "primarily a terror weapon of no particular military utility. That would make this even more legally questionable."
These legal opinions are not shared by all experts. An official with the U.N. body that enforces the Chemical Weapons Convention told the BBC (BBC News Online, 11/16/05) that if white phosphorus were used to camouflage movement, it would be legal. However, if it is "specifically intended to be used as a weapon," that would be prohibited. (See Extra!, 3-4/06.) While Israel denies such intentions, the reports coming in of civilians severely burned by phosphorus raise serious questions that can't simply be dismissed with Israeli assurances. As Human Rights Watch reported (7/30/06), its researchers in Lebanon "have documented dozens of cases in which Israeli forces have carried out indiscriminate attacks against civilians while in their homes or traveling on roads to flee the fighting."
Anyone reading the coverage of the Israeli invasion and bombing of Lebanon is keenly aware of the weapons in Hezbollah's arsenal. (See the chart "Hezbollah Firepower" in USA Today's July 28 edition, for example.) As noted by Frida Berrigan and William Hartung (Foreign Policy in Focus, 7/26/06):
Much has been made in the U.S. media of the Syrian- and Iranian-origin weaponry used by Hezbollah in the escalating violence in Israel and Lebanon. There has been no parallel discussion of the origin of Israel's weaponry, the vast bulk of which is from the United States.
When roughly 800 have been killed in Lebanon—mostly civilians—and the civilian death toll in Israel stands at 19, media coverage that focuses on assurances by Israeli officials and pro-war pundits that Israel does not intentionally target civilians gives a false sense of reality. U.S. news outlets need to explain the consequences of Israel's cluster bombs and other weapons—along with Hezbollah's ball bearings.
"أبو مازن" يلغي حملة تبرّعاتٍ لصالح لبنان الشقيق!!
القدس المحتلة – المركز الفلسطينيّ للإعلام
كشفت بعض المصادر المُقرَّبة من مكتب الرئاسة الفلسطينية، عن أنّ رئيس الحكم الذاتي الفلسطيني، محمود عباس "أبو مازن"، خضع لمطلبٍ من السفارة الأمريكية بالقدس المحتلة حيث حلّ لجنةً أشرفت على لجنة جمع تبرعات للأشقاء في لبنان الذي يتعرّض لحرب صهيونية أمريكية.
وأوضحت المصادر التي طلبت عدم الكشف عنها أنّه بعد الإعلان عن إطلاق حملة دعم الشعب اللبناني الشقيق تحت رعاية "عباس" والقطاع الخاص، التقى جميع أفراد اللجنة المنظمة والمشرفة على الحملة، وبعد تداولٍ استمرّ لساعاتٍ تم الاتفاق بين المنظّمين على خطوات عمل اللجنة والبرنامج الذي سيتمّ تنفيذه، كما تم تقسيم العمل على الأفراد.
وأضافت المصادر نفسها، أنّه لم تكدْ تمضي ساعات على هذا الاجتماع حتّى تمت المفاجأة التي لم تكنْ متوقّعة، حيث أصدر عباس أوامره بوقف الحملة، وذلك بناءً على قرارٍ سياسيّ اتُّخِذ!.
وبيّنت المصادر أنّ هذا القرار جاء بعد طلبٍ من السفارة الأمريكية بالقدس المحتلة طالب فيه عباس بعدم ربط نفسه ومجريات الأحداث بفلسطين بما يجري في لبنان.
كشفت بعض المصادر المُقرَّبة من مكتب الرئاسة الفلسطينية، عن أنّ رئيس الحكم الذاتي الفلسطيني، محمود عباس "أبو مازن"، خضع لمطلبٍ من السفارة الأمريكية بالقدس المحتلة حيث حلّ لجنةً أشرفت على لجنة جمع تبرعات للأشقاء في لبنان الذي يتعرّض لحرب صهيونية أمريكية.
وأوضحت المصادر التي طلبت عدم الكشف عنها أنّه بعد الإعلان عن إطلاق حملة دعم الشعب اللبناني الشقيق تحت رعاية "عباس" والقطاع الخاص، التقى جميع أفراد اللجنة المنظمة والمشرفة على الحملة، وبعد تداولٍ استمرّ لساعاتٍ تم الاتفاق بين المنظّمين على خطوات عمل اللجنة والبرنامج الذي سيتمّ تنفيذه، كما تم تقسيم العمل على الأفراد.
وأضافت المصادر نفسها، أنّه لم تكدْ تمضي ساعات على هذا الاجتماع حتّى تمت المفاجأة التي لم تكنْ متوقّعة، حيث أصدر عباس أوامره بوقف الحملة، وذلك بناءً على قرارٍ سياسيّ اتُّخِذ!.
وبيّنت المصادر أنّ هذا القرار جاء بعد طلبٍ من السفارة الأمريكية بالقدس المحتلة طالب فيه عباس بعدم ربط نفسه ومجريات الأحداث بفلسطين بما يجري في لبنان.
شيعة السعودية يتظاهرون دعما لحزب الله
خرج أكثر من 2000 من المسلمين الشيعة بمظاهرات في المنطقة الشرقية بالسعودية ليل أمس تعبيرا عن استنكارهم للعدوان الإسرائيلي على لبنان، ودعمهم لحزب الله وزعيمه حسن نصر الله.
وسار نحو ألفي سعودي بمظاهرة في مدينة القطيف شرق البلاد، بالتزامن مع خروج عدة مئات في مظاهرة مماثلة بالدمام.
وحمل المتظاهرون وبينهم نساء وأطفال خلال المظاهرات أعلام حزب الله الصفراء وصور أمينه العام السيد حسن نصر الله.
وذكر موقع للشيعة السعوديين على الإنترنت أن المتظاهرين رددوا شعارات تقول "لاشيعية لاسُنية وحدة وحدة إسلامية" وأيضا "نصر الله يا حبيب يا حبيب اضرب اضرب تل أبيب".
يُشار إلى أن الصحف السعودية تجاهلت المظاهرات التي تعتبر ممنوعة في المملكة ذات الغالبية السُنية.
وذكر أحد المشاركين أن المتظاهرين تفرقوا بهدوء بعد انتهائها، مشيرا إلى أن انتشارا أمنيا خفيفا واكب حركتهم.
ومعلوم أن السعودية اتخذت موقفا ناقدا من حزب الله بعد حادث أسر الجنديين الإسرائيليين، وهي الواقعة التي فجرت الحرب الحالية.
2,000 Saudi Shiites demonstrated in S.A. in support of Hizbullah. The demonstrations took place in Dammam and Qutaif. The demonstrators shouted for Sunni-Shi'a unity.This is a significant development since S.A. does not allow demonstrations; it is indicative that the pressure has reached such level that it could not be contained.
A new face to Hezbollah's resistance
By Syed Saleem Shahzad
Asia Times
"SOUTH LEBANON - The US ruling political elite failed to understand (or deliberately ignored) the real pulse of the post-September 11, 2001, situation when they decided to invade Iraq in 2003, despite repeated opposition from top Pentagon and intelligence officials. The ongoing chaos in Iraq is evidence enough of the dire consequences of this miscalculation. Now, Asia Times Online has learned from contacts both in Lebanon and in the region that Israel, too, has embarked on a military adventure in defiance of warnings from within its establishment of the need for caution.
In Iraq, after the US-led invasion, people decided at the neighborhood level to form bands of resistance. These turned into Islamic groups, which in turn melted into the broader resistance. The Lebanese street, certainly in the south, appears much the same. But a trustworthy organization - Hezbollah - is already on the ground and people only need to join forces with this broad resistance. The next step, therefore, is for this resistance of Lebanon to become a part of the international anti-US Islamic movement. The Israelis were warned. "
Asia Times
"SOUTH LEBANON - The US ruling political elite failed to understand (or deliberately ignored) the real pulse of the post-September 11, 2001, situation when they decided to invade Iraq in 2003, despite repeated opposition from top Pentagon and intelligence officials. The ongoing chaos in Iraq is evidence enough of the dire consequences of this miscalculation. Now, Asia Times Online has learned from contacts both in Lebanon and in the region that Israel, too, has embarked on a military adventure in defiance of warnings from within its establishment of the need for caution.
In Iraq, after the US-led invasion, people decided at the neighborhood level to form bands of resistance. These turned into Islamic groups, which in turn melted into the broader resistance. The Lebanese street, certainly in the south, appears much the same. But a trustworthy organization - Hezbollah - is already on the ground and people only need to join forces with this broad resistance. The next step, therefore, is for this resistance of Lebanon to become a part of the international anti-US Islamic movement. The Israelis were warned. "
How Israel's bombing turned Hizbollah leader into a symbol of Muslim pride
By Patrick Cockburn
"A year ago he seemed a rebel without a cause. Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hizbollah, was an important figure in Lebanon but seemed destined to remain on the sidelines of Middle East politics. He was the most important leader of the 1.4 million-strong Shia community in Lebanon and nobody doubted the efficiency of Hizbollah as a paramilitary organisation. He was intelligent, charismatic and experienced but he seemed to have reached the peak of his influence.
There is no doubt that Nasrallah thought this summer was an opportune moment to heat up the border with Israel. But he can hardly have expected Israel and the US to forget their own grim experiences in Lebanon after the invasion of 1982 and play so completely into his hands. "
"A year ago he seemed a rebel without a cause. Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hizbollah, was an important figure in Lebanon but seemed destined to remain on the sidelines of Middle East politics. He was the most important leader of the 1.4 million-strong Shia community in Lebanon and nobody doubted the efficiency of Hizbollah as a paramilitary organisation. He was intelligent, charismatic and experienced but he seemed to have reached the peak of his influence.
There is no doubt that Nasrallah thought this summer was an opportune moment to heat up the border with Israel. But he can hardly have expected Israel and the US to forget their own grim experiences in Lebanon after the invasion of 1982 and play so completely into his hands. "
Shockwaves from Lebanon
Leader
Wednesday August 2, 2006
The Guardian
"Another disconcerting issue, with even more unpredictable consequences, is the transformation of Hizbullah - at least in the eyes of the Arab public - from an essentially local and specifically Shia movement into a more generalised symbol of resistance and hope.
Hizbullah, on the other hand, is a mass grassroots movement and the main representative of the Lebanese Shia, who are the largest religious group in the country. Whatever they think of Shia Islam, Arab Sunnis and even Christians can be heard now declaring their respect - if not actual support - for Hizbullah as a resistance movement. In contrast to the old-style Arab leaders - corrupt and often blustering but acquiescent in the face of US power - Nasrallah is seen as free from corruption and as a man who does what he says he will do. The reality may be different, but it is the perceptions that count. He is an inspirational figure whom some are already likening to Gamal Abdul Nasser, the Egyptian leader who thumbed his nose at the British empire in the 1950s."
Wednesday August 2, 2006
The Guardian
"Another disconcerting issue, with even more unpredictable consequences, is the transformation of Hizbullah - at least in the eyes of the Arab public - from an essentially local and specifically Shia movement into a more generalised symbol of resistance and hope.
Hizbullah, on the other hand, is a mass grassroots movement and the main representative of the Lebanese Shia, who are the largest religious group in the country. Whatever they think of Shia Islam, Arab Sunnis and even Christians can be heard now declaring their respect - if not actual support - for Hizbullah as a resistance movement. In contrast to the old-style Arab leaders - corrupt and often blustering but acquiescent in the face of US power - Nasrallah is seen as free from corruption and as a man who does what he says he will do. The reality may be different, but it is the perceptions that count. He is an inspirational figure whom some are already likening to Gamal Abdul Nasser, the Egyptian leader who thumbed his nose at the British empire in the 1950s."
The refugees' fury will be felt for generations to come
Karma Nabulsi
Wednesday August 2, 2006
The Guardian
"Israel has failed to understand that it cannot expel a people and call itself the victim; that it cannot conquer its neighbours and treat any and all resistance to that conquest as terrorism; that it cannot arm itself as a regional superpower and annihilate the institutional fabric of two peoples without incurring the fury of their children in the years that follow."
· Karma Nabulsi teaches politics and international relations at Oxford University. She is the author of Traditions of War: Occupation, Resistance and the Law karmanabulsi@hotmail.com
Wednesday August 2, 2006
The Guardian
"Israel has failed to understand that it cannot expel a people and call itself the victim; that it cannot conquer its neighbours and treat any and all resistance to that conquest as terrorism; that it cannot arm itself as a regional superpower and annihilate the institutional fabric of two peoples without incurring the fury of their children in the years that follow."
· Karma Nabulsi teaches politics and international relations at Oxford University. She is the author of Traditions of War: Occupation, Resistance and the Law karmanabulsi@hotmail.com
UN Approaches the Dustbin of History
By NASEER ARURI
"Meanwhile, Condoleezza Rice continues to excuse her opposition to a halt of civilian killings by repeating a pathetic phrase: We seek a "sustainable cease-fire," as if a cease fire is the end of a negotiating process rather than the beginning and the necessary condition. Even more disingenuously, President Bush does the same thing by repeating an inane goal of getting to the "root cause," forgetting that his understanding of relevant history goes back to less than five years.
Should the Security Council acquiesce in this complicity, it will have forfeited its raison d'etre, i.e., responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and will have also rendered the office of the Secretary-General a virtual agency among the layers of the US foreign policy bureaucracy. Kofi Anan, who waited until July 21st to call for an immediate ceasefire, has no option now but to make good on his request, despite the opposition of the US pro-Israel lobby and its neo-conservative operatives, whose man at the UN is acting as a second ambassador from Israel, a fact which has dealt a severe blow to the humanitarian image of the UN system. Expressing his contempt for the United Nations, John Bolton had this to say about the United Nations in the year 2000 ""If I were doing the Security Council today, I'd have one permanent member [the United States] because that's the real reflection of the distribution of power in the world."
The UN Charter is being effectively put to the test. It will either be a catalyst of peace in the Middle East, or a witness to the "birth pangs of a new Middle East," as the US Secretary of State has crudely put it. It will either be upheld and implemented, or it will be consigned to the dustbin of history."
"Meanwhile, Condoleezza Rice continues to excuse her opposition to a halt of civilian killings by repeating a pathetic phrase: We seek a "sustainable cease-fire," as if a cease fire is the end of a negotiating process rather than the beginning and the necessary condition. Even more disingenuously, President Bush does the same thing by repeating an inane goal of getting to the "root cause," forgetting that his understanding of relevant history goes back to less than five years.
Should the Security Council acquiesce in this complicity, it will have forfeited its raison d'etre, i.e., responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and will have also rendered the office of the Secretary-General a virtual agency among the layers of the US foreign policy bureaucracy. Kofi Anan, who waited until July 21st to call for an immediate ceasefire, has no option now but to make good on his request, despite the opposition of the US pro-Israel lobby and its neo-conservative operatives, whose man at the UN is acting as a second ambassador from Israel, a fact which has dealt a severe blow to the humanitarian image of the UN system. Expressing his contempt for the United Nations, John Bolton had this to say about the United Nations in the year 2000 ""If I were doing the Security Council today, I'd have one permanent member [the United States] because that's the real reflection of the distribution of power in the world."
The UN Charter is being effectively put to the test. It will either be a catalyst of peace in the Middle East, or a witness to the "birth pangs of a new Middle East," as the US Secretary of State has crudely put it. It will either be upheld and implemented, or it will be consigned to the dustbin of history."
Qana; Rockets; and The Truth That Will Not Bring Them Back!
It was early in the morning on July 30, 2006 in Qana, Lebanon. A building housing more than sixty Lebanese was bombed by Israel with American bombs.
By now you have probably heard about it, but as the story progressed the truth started to reveal itself.
At first the Israeli military said they were responding to rocket fire from the village. Air Force Chief of Staff Brig.-Gen. Amir Eshel even showed video footage of rockets being fired. You might have seen the footage.
“Some 150 rockets were fired from the Lebanese village of Qana over the past 20 days, Air Force Chief of Staff Brig.-Gen. Amir Eshel said on Sunday evening.
Speaking to reporters, Eshel added that Hizbullah rocket launchers were hidden in civilian buildings in the village. He proceeded to show video footage of rocket launchers being driven into the village following launches.”
On FOXNews, Major General Edwards said that it was unlikely that rockets were fired from the village.
According to "Red Cross workers and residents of Qana, where Israeli bombing killed at least 60 civilians, [IPS was told] that no Hezbollah rockets were launched from the city before the Israeli air strike."
It gets worse…
“According to reporters at the scene, an Israeli missile hit a three-story building where relatives from two extended families were seeking refuge. There were only eight survivors. The youngest of the dead was 10 months old. The oldest was 95. One person was in a wheelchair. No weapons were found in the building that was hit.”
Robert Fisk quickly reported on this war crime too:
“And there was no doubt of the missile which killed all those children yesterday. It came from the United States, and upon a fragment of it was written: ‘For use on MK-84 Guided Bomb BSU-37-B.’ No doubt the manufacturers can call it "combat-proven" because it destroyed the entire three-storey house in which the Shalhoub and Hashim families lived. They had taken refuge in the basement from an enormous Israeli bombardment, and that is where most of them died.”
Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz informs of us new developments that put what Eshel said/showed in contradiction:
"It now appears that the military had no information on rockets launched from the site of the building, or the presence of Hezbollah men at the time.The Israel Defense Forces had said after the deadly air-strike that many rockets had been launched from Qana. However, it changed its version on Monday."
This change of version raises quite a few questions, but none more than those that do with the obvious lie and cover-up.
Some of you may have seen the photographs of the carnage in Qana. If not then you can view it here on a fellow blogger’s, Saracen, website.
WARNING: the images are graphic, which is why I did not include them. Amongst the images of the rubble and the dead is the infamous picture of the shrapnel that shows it was an American-made bomb. That image serves as an indictment to ALL of us.
Hear me NOW: know what YOU are paying for; know what YOU are responsible for.
Do YOU have children? Imagine these broken bodies as being YOURS or someone in YOUR family.
Sincerely upset,
Truth Addict
ضرب هلال الممانعة لتحقيق شرق أوسط عميل وراء قانا ما وراء دير ياسين
د. عادل سمارة
منذ أن بدأ العدوان الصهيوني على لبنان في 12 تموز وحتى الآن، وربما لمدة طويلة قادمة، والتحليلات تتفاوت وتتعدد عن أهداف هذا العدوان ومن ورائه. وربما ما من أحد لمس الهدف الأساس وهو أن هذا الكيان إستيطاني أصلاً وتوسعي بالطبيعة وعدواني تلبية لوظيفته ودوره الذي خلقه المركز الرأسمالي من أجله. لذا، لا يمكنه إلا اختلاق حروب ضد العرب لتحقيق ذلك. هذا الهدف هو جذر كافة السيناريوهات التي ليست إلا تفرعات له. يذكرني الجدل حول أهداف العدوان بما كتبه كثير من الفلسطينيين والعرب عن شارون عندما وصل إلى رئاسة الوزراء قبل بضع سنوات، حيث ساد الترويج بأن مرحلة شارون ستكون أكثر دموية ...الخ. وقد كتبت آنذاك في هذه النشرة وفي جريدة القدس المحلية، أن شارون لن يختلف عن غيره قط، وربما حتى في الدرجة فما بالك في النوع. وقد ارتكزت في تحليلي وما زلت على حقيقة أنه ما من حاكم وبطانته في هذا الكيان إلا وكان حريصاً على أن يكون دموياً أكثر من سابقيه، وأكثر ممن سيخلفوه. نعم لأننا نتحدث عن عقلية ونفسية سياسية مريضتين ملوثتين بخدمة رأس المال وبثقافة تلمودية كارهة وموتورة، وبزعم تفوق لا اساس له. وحين يكون نظام حكم مريض نفسياً، فهو لن يخضع قط للتحليل والقياس العلميين ولا للتوقعات البشرية الواعية. وما يمكن توقعه منه هو التطرف الأقصى، الذي يصعب التكهن به.
بالمقابل، يمكننا معرفة سلوك الأنظمة العربية لأن الإحاطة بها أمر ليس صعباً. فهي صنيعة المركز الرأسمالي، تابعة، ومحمية من عدو الأمة، وأمرها بسيط، لأن معادلتها بسيطة: أن تبقى في السلطة وأن تدفع مقابل ذلك وطناً. نعم رُفعت الأقلام وجفت الصحف. وهذا ما يجعل الكيان الصهيوني وهذه الأنظمة أكثر تحالفاً، وإن غير معلن، كلما ازدادت تبعيتها[1]. وهذا ايضاً ما كشفته مسيرة التسوية منذ كامب ديفيد إلى أوسلو إلى وادي عربة إلى اتفاق موريتانيا إلى اتفاقات كثيرة غير معلنة لكنها موجودة على الأرض. ولعل ما زاد انكشافه هو عملية حزب الله بأسر الجنديين الاسرائيليين في جنوب لبنان وصمود المقاومة اللبنانية لحزب الله. فثأر حزب الله لاستغاثة غزة وصموده في الجنوب كان في الحقيقة مثابة القول: انتبهوا في الطبقات الشعبية العربية، فالمعركة داخل الوطن العربي، مع الطبقات الحاكمة هناك، فهي معيقة أي انتصار وهي حليفة اسرائيل ومن ورائها. ومن هنا، فإن زعم رئيس الوزراء الصهيوين يوم 31 تموز بأن دولا عربية وإسلامية موافقة على عدوانه على لبنان، زعم له اساس، إذا قررنا النظر إلى الأمور حسب المصالح وبالتالي السلوك. ويصح كذلك زعمنا، أن صمود حزب الله وثأره لغزة هو ايضاً هجوم في الأساس على هذه الأنظمة أكثر مما هو هجوم على العدوان.
نعم، مختلف السيناريوهات ممكنة، ولننظر قبل تعدادها في مرجعيتها التاريخية والسياسية . يقول موشيه شاريت عن بن غوريون:
"في ذهن بن غوريون والضباط لا قلق لدينا من العالم، ولا على الاقتصاد. ليس للسلام مكاناً. لا يؤخذ بالاعتبار ما يدور في المنطقة او في العالم. فبرأيهم، ان على الدولة ان ترى الحرب كمسألة مبدأ، وربما الوسيلة الوحيدة لزيادة الرفاه وللحفاظ على التوتر الأخلاقي...(ان العمليات الانتقامية) هي إكسير الحياة...فهي التي تساعدنا على استمرار التوتر المدني والعسكري. وبدونها، لن تكون لدينا أمة مقاتلة، فعدم وجود نظام حكم حربي يعني ضياعنا. .. لهذا الغرض، فإن بوسعنا اختلاق مخاطر، في الحقيقة نحن مجبرون على فعل ذلك. أعطنا حرباً مع البلدان العربية، وعندها ستزول كل مشاكلنا... ذات مرة تفوَّه بن غوريون نفسه بأن علينا ان نجد عربيا ونعطيه مليون ليرة، ليقوم في النهاية بحرب ضدنا[2]" .
نعم، بن غوريون نفسه قال ذات مرة:
"ستكون حدود إسرائيل "طبيعية" حينما يكون نهر الأردن حدها من الشرق، ونهر الليطاني في لبنان حدها من الشمال"[3]".
أما الصهيوني يوسف عجنون، الحاصل على جائزة نوبل، والذي كان قبل شهرين في البتراء يدوس على المجد العربي، فقال: "أتمنى أن تحتل اسرائيل دمشق" ومع ذلك، وربما بسبب ذلك حصل على هذه الجائزة.
ألا توضح هذه الأقوال أن مسألة احتلال الفرات والنيل هي مسألة جدية؟ ألا تفسر هذه كلها لماذا لم تحترم إسرائيل اتفاق أوسلو مع أنه لصالحها تماماًَ؟ وباختصار، ألا يوضح حرق لبنان اليوم وبموافقة معظم العالم الرسمي والأمم المتحدة ألا يوضح هذا لإسرائيل الاستنتاج بأن بوسعها نهب أرض جديدة، ولتكن جنوب لبنان تمهيداً لترانسفير شامل للفلسطينيين من الضفة الغربية وغزة؟
هناك من قال أن هدف العدوان الحالي هو احتلال جنوب لبنان وضمه إلى إسرائيل، ولذا، تقوم إسرائيل بطرد سكانه بقنابل الطائرات. وهناك من يقول إن ما تريده إسرائيل هو إقامة منطقة عازلة مفرغة من السكان لكي لا تتمكن صواريخ حزب الله من وصول قلب شمال إسرائيل، وهناك من يقول إن هدف إسرائيل مشترك ومتفق عليه مع تركيا وأميركا وبريطانيا لاحتلال الجنوب لأنه يسهل وصول الماء من تركيا والنفط من اذربيجان. وهناك من يقول إنه تقاسم وظيفي، تحتل إسرائيل الجنوب وتستوطن فيه وتسيطر الولايات المتحدة على بقية لبنان وتقيم في مشيخة بدون دشاديش بيضاء، لتضع سوريا بين فكي كماشة أميركي، كخطوة لاحتلال كامل الوطن العربي احتلالاً مباشراً. وهناك من يرجح إخضاع الجنوب اللبناني لاحتلال جديد ، اي لقوات دولية في خدمة إسرائيل.
وقد لا يبدو مفاجئاً القول أن هذه جميعها سيناريوهات مطروحة صهيونياً، فلا تناقض بينها، بل كل واحد منها درجة في المشروع العدواني الأقصى، وما يحققه عدوان معين هو تمهيد لما قد يتحقق لاحقاً. لذا، يصبح تحديد ما تريده اسرائيل من هذا العدوان رياضة ذهنية لا أكثر. ولكن يكون المهم، أن على كل عربي أن يكون يقظاً بالمطلق، فهي حرب مفتوحة حقاً ودائمة حقاً، لذا، فإن إطلاق رصاصة يمكن أن يعني حرباً شاملة. المهم هو، طبيعة التحالف الرأسمالي الصهيوني والكمبرادوري العربي، المهم إستهداف هذا الوطن بلا مواربة.
يرجح الكثيرون أن تسير الأمور هذه المرة باتجاه دمار شامل للجنوب، وزرع قوات دولية فيه، وتثبيت حكومة عميلة في بقية لبنان، وبعدها يمهد العدو لعدوان آخر واغتصاب آخر. لذا، ستكون المعركة المقبلة داخل لبنان، اي بين من سيلجأ لطلب القوات الدولية، ومن يرفضها كعدو دولي هدفه في النهاية ليس فقط تثبيت الارض المحتلة عام 1948 وحماية الكيان الاستيطاني، بل كذلك تمكين هذا الكيان من التوسع بحماية دولية. هل سيغير "لبنانيو أميركا" موقفهم الحالي ويطالبوا بقوة دولية وبسلاح المقاومة ورأس لبنان؟ على الأرجح نعم. ولذا، قد تكون المعركة داخل لبنان.
سيكون غريباً إيراد كل هذه السيناريوهات. فالكل يتحدث عن وقف إطلاق النار، وليكن بعد ذلك ما يكون. ولا شك أن وقف إطلاق النار أمر هام وحساس، ولكن من يطلق النار ومن ورائه لا يمكن أن يوقفها إلا إذا كان سيحقق من ورائها أكثر مما يحقق بالنار نفسها. نعم، لن يوقفوا النار لحفظ الأرواح بل لقتل أجيال المستقبل. المقصود بهذا الوقف هو الوصول إلى إبقاء الوضع الراهن، لكلٍ ما كسب، اسرائيل تبقى طبيعية، ومن ثم .... لا قتال بعد اليوم؟ المقصود بالوقف هو وقف النار مع اسرائيل، وإشعالها بين اللبنانيين، دون إعادة الحقوق (بدءاً من عدم توطين الفلسطينيين في لبنان، وانتهاء بدمج اليهود في الوطن العربي بعد إنهاء الصهيونية) التي من أجلها كان كل ما حصل!!! ووقف النار في لبنان لاستئنافها لصالح الشرق الاوسط العميل.
فالمرحلة الحالية من سيطرة رأس المال الانجلو سكسوني على العالم، واستماتته للسيطرة بل إمتلاك الثروة والسوق العربيين، والتحكم بالنفط للتحكم بنمو عمالقة آسيا، وعجائز الامبريالية القديمة في أوروبا، وهذا لا يتحقق إلا بالحرب، وتوسيع المعركة. إنه يضع اميركا في موضع من لا يرى للحرب بديلا إلا الحرب. وهذا ما يبدو من إصرار الولايات المتحدة على عدم وقف النار رغم هزائم الدولة الوظيفية الصهيونية في الميدان البري. ومع ذلك، سوف تتوقف النار على لبنان، ولكن، على الكل أن يعرف أنها سوف تشتعل مجدداً. فهذا صراع لا حل له على المدى المرئي. وإذا توقفت النار في لبنان، فهي لن تتوقف في المعركة الشاملة معركة "الشرق الأوسط العميل"، معركة تقويض المشروع النهضوي العربي مرة وإلى الأبد.
لماذا قتل المدنيين والتدمير الشامل؟
لا مجال للقول أن قتل المدنيين بالمجازر وتدمير كل ما هو على الأرض كان صدفة أو بلا خطة. فكل سيناريو مما اشرنا إليها أعلاه يجعل هذا القتل والتدمير ضروريين وحتميين. ويؤكد أن وقف النار سيكون فاصلاً بين مجزرتين. فما يريده كل طرف لا يقبل به الطرف الأخر. لذلك، ليست المفاجأة هي الحرب السادسة بل هناك مفاجئتان كلتاهما في المستوى العربي:
الأولى: إعادة الاصطفاف الرسمي العربي ووضوح ذلك. لقد وقفت معظم الأنظمة العربية في صف العدو، وتوجتها بفتاوى أدواتها الدينية.
والثانية: بروز قوة عربية معنوية وإيمانية لجمت جموح العدو، وكسرت أنفه في الميدان. لذا، كان لا بد له من التميز، ولو بذبح المدنيين بعد ان عجز عن ما تميز به دوماً. وإن كان هذا الذبح والتدمير منسجم مع نظريته المعهودة بالوصول إلى ركوع العرب كلياُ؟ لتمرير ما يريد؟
من دمج المفاجئتين معاً، توصل العدو إلى استنتاجين:
الأول: إن ما قامت به الانظمة العربية من حرب أهلية مفتوحة ضد الأمة العربية، ضد الطبقات الشعبية ليس كافياً للإجهاز على المشروع النهضوي العربي والتقدم بمشروع شرق أوسط عميل، ولا بد من تكميل هذه الحرب بحرب دولية ضد الشعب العربي، والتي ستكون بدايتها قوات دولية في لبنان، قوات دولية ضد لبنان، كما هي قوات احتلال العراق، وضرب السودان وتمزيق الصومال، وتفكيك مصر طائفياً...الخ. وهذا يخالف ما توقعه كثرون، وانا نفسي في بداية هذا العدوان من أنه معركة وقد لا يتحول إلى حرب. أي أن تطورات الموقف العربي الرسمي، أو الكشف عنها، ونذالة العالم الرسمي قد تدفع وتشجع اميركا لتوسيع المعركة إلى حرب ضد هلال الممانعة.
والثاني: أن العدوان الحالي على لبنان يمكن توسيعه ليصبح حرباً ضد كل قوى الممانعة أو هلال الممانعة من طهران إلى بيروت. هي الحرب إذن، تبدأ بسيناريو وتنتهي بآخر، حسب التطورات على الأرض. لذا، ليس مستبعداً الهجوم على سوريا وإيران أو جرهما عبر حرق لبنان. وعند وصول هذه اللحظة تكون الولايات المتحدة قد حققت رؤيتها لمعركة مجدو! ولكن الرأسمالية هذه المرة بوشاح ديني مشوه. فهي تدرك أن لا بد من "صنعا وإن طال السفر"- وإن عظم الثمن، لا بد من التحكم بالنفط للتحكم في العالم، ولا تحكم بالنفط إلا عبر احتلال الوطن العربي وتحويله إلى فسيفساء من الانظمة العميلة.
إن العدوان على هلال الممانعة هام وضروري. فما دامت إيران بصدد امتلاك سلاح نووي، فهذا سيحول دون شرق أوسط عميل. سيحقق توازن رعب، وبعدها يمكن أن تتخذ حروب المنطقة شكلاً اقتصادياً، لكن لهذا حديث آخر.
___________
· الآراء الواردة في المقالات لا تعبر بالضرورة عن رأي إدارة الموقع أو محرري "كنعان".
· عند الاقتباس أو إعادة النشر، يرجى الاشارة الى "كنعان".
· يرجى ارسال كافة المراسلات والمقالات الى عنوان "كنعان" الالكتروني: mail@kanaanonline.org
· To visit Kana’an website, please go to: http://www.kanaanonline.org.
· To subscribe to our mailing list, please send a blank e-mail message to arabic-join@kanaanonline.org.
· To unsubscribe from our mailing list, please send a blank e-mail message to arabic-leave@kanaanonline.org.
[1] كتبت في كراس، أزمة الثورة العربية وانحطاط كامب ديفيد، 1978 (منشورات دار العامل- رام الله 1978)، أن جبهة سوف تتكون من أنظمة عربية وإسرائيل. وقد هوجمت إثر ذلك بتهمة التطرف والميل لاختلاق شعارات مثيرة!!!
[2] Quoted in, The Global Political Economy of Israel, by Jonathan Nitzan and Shimshon Bichler, Ploto Press, 2002,note 8, p. 102.
[3] Ben Gurion, Israel's founding leader, Israel's border should be "natural", that is, the Jordan
River in the East, and the Litani River of Lebanon in the north. In 1967, Israel gained control over the Jordan River, in the occupied Palestinian land, but all its attempts to establish the Litani border have failed so far. As I argued in Israel/Palestine, already when the Israeli army left southern Lebanon in 2000, the plans to return were ready. Spotlight, Israel's "new Middle East" By Tanya Reinhart, 28 July 2006, note (12)
_______________________________________________
Arabic mailing list
Arabic@kanaanonline.org
http://kanaanonline.org/mailman/listinfo/arabic_kanaanonline.org
منذ أن بدأ العدوان الصهيوني على لبنان في 12 تموز وحتى الآن، وربما لمدة طويلة قادمة، والتحليلات تتفاوت وتتعدد عن أهداف هذا العدوان ومن ورائه. وربما ما من أحد لمس الهدف الأساس وهو أن هذا الكيان إستيطاني أصلاً وتوسعي بالطبيعة وعدواني تلبية لوظيفته ودوره الذي خلقه المركز الرأسمالي من أجله. لذا، لا يمكنه إلا اختلاق حروب ضد العرب لتحقيق ذلك. هذا الهدف هو جذر كافة السيناريوهات التي ليست إلا تفرعات له. يذكرني الجدل حول أهداف العدوان بما كتبه كثير من الفلسطينيين والعرب عن شارون عندما وصل إلى رئاسة الوزراء قبل بضع سنوات، حيث ساد الترويج بأن مرحلة شارون ستكون أكثر دموية ...الخ. وقد كتبت آنذاك في هذه النشرة وفي جريدة القدس المحلية، أن شارون لن يختلف عن غيره قط، وربما حتى في الدرجة فما بالك في النوع. وقد ارتكزت في تحليلي وما زلت على حقيقة أنه ما من حاكم وبطانته في هذا الكيان إلا وكان حريصاً على أن يكون دموياً أكثر من سابقيه، وأكثر ممن سيخلفوه. نعم لأننا نتحدث عن عقلية ونفسية سياسية مريضتين ملوثتين بخدمة رأس المال وبثقافة تلمودية كارهة وموتورة، وبزعم تفوق لا اساس له. وحين يكون نظام حكم مريض نفسياً، فهو لن يخضع قط للتحليل والقياس العلميين ولا للتوقعات البشرية الواعية. وما يمكن توقعه منه هو التطرف الأقصى، الذي يصعب التكهن به.
بالمقابل، يمكننا معرفة سلوك الأنظمة العربية لأن الإحاطة بها أمر ليس صعباً. فهي صنيعة المركز الرأسمالي، تابعة، ومحمية من عدو الأمة، وأمرها بسيط، لأن معادلتها بسيطة: أن تبقى في السلطة وأن تدفع مقابل ذلك وطناً. نعم رُفعت الأقلام وجفت الصحف. وهذا ما يجعل الكيان الصهيوني وهذه الأنظمة أكثر تحالفاً، وإن غير معلن، كلما ازدادت تبعيتها[1]. وهذا ايضاً ما كشفته مسيرة التسوية منذ كامب ديفيد إلى أوسلو إلى وادي عربة إلى اتفاق موريتانيا إلى اتفاقات كثيرة غير معلنة لكنها موجودة على الأرض. ولعل ما زاد انكشافه هو عملية حزب الله بأسر الجنديين الاسرائيليين في جنوب لبنان وصمود المقاومة اللبنانية لحزب الله. فثأر حزب الله لاستغاثة غزة وصموده في الجنوب كان في الحقيقة مثابة القول: انتبهوا في الطبقات الشعبية العربية، فالمعركة داخل الوطن العربي، مع الطبقات الحاكمة هناك، فهي معيقة أي انتصار وهي حليفة اسرائيل ومن ورائها. ومن هنا، فإن زعم رئيس الوزراء الصهيوين يوم 31 تموز بأن دولا عربية وإسلامية موافقة على عدوانه على لبنان، زعم له اساس، إذا قررنا النظر إلى الأمور حسب المصالح وبالتالي السلوك. ويصح كذلك زعمنا، أن صمود حزب الله وثأره لغزة هو ايضاً هجوم في الأساس على هذه الأنظمة أكثر مما هو هجوم على العدوان.
نعم، مختلف السيناريوهات ممكنة، ولننظر قبل تعدادها في مرجعيتها التاريخية والسياسية . يقول موشيه شاريت عن بن غوريون:
"في ذهن بن غوريون والضباط لا قلق لدينا من العالم، ولا على الاقتصاد. ليس للسلام مكاناً. لا يؤخذ بالاعتبار ما يدور في المنطقة او في العالم. فبرأيهم، ان على الدولة ان ترى الحرب كمسألة مبدأ، وربما الوسيلة الوحيدة لزيادة الرفاه وللحفاظ على التوتر الأخلاقي...(ان العمليات الانتقامية) هي إكسير الحياة...فهي التي تساعدنا على استمرار التوتر المدني والعسكري. وبدونها، لن تكون لدينا أمة مقاتلة، فعدم وجود نظام حكم حربي يعني ضياعنا. .. لهذا الغرض، فإن بوسعنا اختلاق مخاطر، في الحقيقة نحن مجبرون على فعل ذلك. أعطنا حرباً مع البلدان العربية، وعندها ستزول كل مشاكلنا... ذات مرة تفوَّه بن غوريون نفسه بأن علينا ان نجد عربيا ونعطيه مليون ليرة، ليقوم في النهاية بحرب ضدنا[2]" .
نعم، بن غوريون نفسه قال ذات مرة:
"ستكون حدود إسرائيل "طبيعية" حينما يكون نهر الأردن حدها من الشرق، ونهر الليطاني في لبنان حدها من الشمال"[3]".
أما الصهيوني يوسف عجنون، الحاصل على جائزة نوبل، والذي كان قبل شهرين في البتراء يدوس على المجد العربي، فقال: "أتمنى أن تحتل اسرائيل دمشق" ومع ذلك، وربما بسبب ذلك حصل على هذه الجائزة.
ألا توضح هذه الأقوال أن مسألة احتلال الفرات والنيل هي مسألة جدية؟ ألا تفسر هذه كلها لماذا لم تحترم إسرائيل اتفاق أوسلو مع أنه لصالحها تماماًَ؟ وباختصار، ألا يوضح حرق لبنان اليوم وبموافقة معظم العالم الرسمي والأمم المتحدة ألا يوضح هذا لإسرائيل الاستنتاج بأن بوسعها نهب أرض جديدة، ولتكن جنوب لبنان تمهيداً لترانسفير شامل للفلسطينيين من الضفة الغربية وغزة؟
هناك من قال أن هدف العدوان الحالي هو احتلال جنوب لبنان وضمه إلى إسرائيل، ولذا، تقوم إسرائيل بطرد سكانه بقنابل الطائرات. وهناك من يقول إن ما تريده إسرائيل هو إقامة منطقة عازلة مفرغة من السكان لكي لا تتمكن صواريخ حزب الله من وصول قلب شمال إسرائيل، وهناك من يقول إن هدف إسرائيل مشترك ومتفق عليه مع تركيا وأميركا وبريطانيا لاحتلال الجنوب لأنه يسهل وصول الماء من تركيا والنفط من اذربيجان. وهناك من يقول إنه تقاسم وظيفي، تحتل إسرائيل الجنوب وتستوطن فيه وتسيطر الولايات المتحدة على بقية لبنان وتقيم في مشيخة بدون دشاديش بيضاء، لتضع سوريا بين فكي كماشة أميركي، كخطوة لاحتلال كامل الوطن العربي احتلالاً مباشراً. وهناك من يرجح إخضاع الجنوب اللبناني لاحتلال جديد ، اي لقوات دولية في خدمة إسرائيل.
وقد لا يبدو مفاجئاً القول أن هذه جميعها سيناريوهات مطروحة صهيونياً، فلا تناقض بينها، بل كل واحد منها درجة في المشروع العدواني الأقصى، وما يحققه عدوان معين هو تمهيد لما قد يتحقق لاحقاً. لذا، يصبح تحديد ما تريده اسرائيل من هذا العدوان رياضة ذهنية لا أكثر. ولكن يكون المهم، أن على كل عربي أن يكون يقظاً بالمطلق، فهي حرب مفتوحة حقاً ودائمة حقاً، لذا، فإن إطلاق رصاصة يمكن أن يعني حرباً شاملة. المهم هو، طبيعة التحالف الرأسمالي الصهيوني والكمبرادوري العربي، المهم إستهداف هذا الوطن بلا مواربة.
يرجح الكثيرون أن تسير الأمور هذه المرة باتجاه دمار شامل للجنوب، وزرع قوات دولية فيه، وتثبيت حكومة عميلة في بقية لبنان، وبعدها يمهد العدو لعدوان آخر واغتصاب آخر. لذا، ستكون المعركة المقبلة داخل لبنان، اي بين من سيلجأ لطلب القوات الدولية، ومن يرفضها كعدو دولي هدفه في النهاية ليس فقط تثبيت الارض المحتلة عام 1948 وحماية الكيان الاستيطاني، بل كذلك تمكين هذا الكيان من التوسع بحماية دولية. هل سيغير "لبنانيو أميركا" موقفهم الحالي ويطالبوا بقوة دولية وبسلاح المقاومة ورأس لبنان؟ على الأرجح نعم. ولذا، قد تكون المعركة داخل لبنان.
سيكون غريباً إيراد كل هذه السيناريوهات. فالكل يتحدث عن وقف إطلاق النار، وليكن بعد ذلك ما يكون. ولا شك أن وقف إطلاق النار أمر هام وحساس، ولكن من يطلق النار ومن ورائه لا يمكن أن يوقفها إلا إذا كان سيحقق من ورائها أكثر مما يحقق بالنار نفسها. نعم، لن يوقفوا النار لحفظ الأرواح بل لقتل أجيال المستقبل. المقصود بهذا الوقف هو الوصول إلى إبقاء الوضع الراهن، لكلٍ ما كسب، اسرائيل تبقى طبيعية، ومن ثم .... لا قتال بعد اليوم؟ المقصود بالوقف هو وقف النار مع اسرائيل، وإشعالها بين اللبنانيين، دون إعادة الحقوق (بدءاً من عدم توطين الفلسطينيين في لبنان، وانتهاء بدمج اليهود في الوطن العربي بعد إنهاء الصهيونية) التي من أجلها كان كل ما حصل!!! ووقف النار في لبنان لاستئنافها لصالح الشرق الاوسط العميل.
فالمرحلة الحالية من سيطرة رأس المال الانجلو سكسوني على العالم، واستماتته للسيطرة بل إمتلاك الثروة والسوق العربيين، والتحكم بالنفط للتحكم بنمو عمالقة آسيا، وعجائز الامبريالية القديمة في أوروبا، وهذا لا يتحقق إلا بالحرب، وتوسيع المعركة. إنه يضع اميركا في موضع من لا يرى للحرب بديلا إلا الحرب. وهذا ما يبدو من إصرار الولايات المتحدة على عدم وقف النار رغم هزائم الدولة الوظيفية الصهيونية في الميدان البري. ومع ذلك، سوف تتوقف النار على لبنان، ولكن، على الكل أن يعرف أنها سوف تشتعل مجدداً. فهذا صراع لا حل له على المدى المرئي. وإذا توقفت النار في لبنان، فهي لن تتوقف في المعركة الشاملة معركة "الشرق الأوسط العميل"، معركة تقويض المشروع النهضوي العربي مرة وإلى الأبد.
لماذا قتل المدنيين والتدمير الشامل؟
لا مجال للقول أن قتل المدنيين بالمجازر وتدمير كل ما هو على الأرض كان صدفة أو بلا خطة. فكل سيناريو مما اشرنا إليها أعلاه يجعل هذا القتل والتدمير ضروريين وحتميين. ويؤكد أن وقف النار سيكون فاصلاً بين مجزرتين. فما يريده كل طرف لا يقبل به الطرف الأخر. لذلك، ليست المفاجأة هي الحرب السادسة بل هناك مفاجئتان كلتاهما في المستوى العربي:
الأولى: إعادة الاصطفاف الرسمي العربي ووضوح ذلك. لقد وقفت معظم الأنظمة العربية في صف العدو، وتوجتها بفتاوى أدواتها الدينية.
والثانية: بروز قوة عربية معنوية وإيمانية لجمت جموح العدو، وكسرت أنفه في الميدان. لذا، كان لا بد له من التميز، ولو بذبح المدنيين بعد ان عجز عن ما تميز به دوماً. وإن كان هذا الذبح والتدمير منسجم مع نظريته المعهودة بالوصول إلى ركوع العرب كلياُ؟ لتمرير ما يريد؟
من دمج المفاجئتين معاً، توصل العدو إلى استنتاجين:
الأول: إن ما قامت به الانظمة العربية من حرب أهلية مفتوحة ضد الأمة العربية، ضد الطبقات الشعبية ليس كافياً للإجهاز على المشروع النهضوي العربي والتقدم بمشروع شرق أوسط عميل، ولا بد من تكميل هذه الحرب بحرب دولية ضد الشعب العربي، والتي ستكون بدايتها قوات دولية في لبنان، قوات دولية ضد لبنان، كما هي قوات احتلال العراق، وضرب السودان وتمزيق الصومال، وتفكيك مصر طائفياً...الخ. وهذا يخالف ما توقعه كثرون، وانا نفسي في بداية هذا العدوان من أنه معركة وقد لا يتحول إلى حرب. أي أن تطورات الموقف العربي الرسمي، أو الكشف عنها، ونذالة العالم الرسمي قد تدفع وتشجع اميركا لتوسيع المعركة إلى حرب ضد هلال الممانعة.
والثاني: أن العدوان الحالي على لبنان يمكن توسيعه ليصبح حرباً ضد كل قوى الممانعة أو هلال الممانعة من طهران إلى بيروت. هي الحرب إذن، تبدأ بسيناريو وتنتهي بآخر، حسب التطورات على الأرض. لذا، ليس مستبعداً الهجوم على سوريا وإيران أو جرهما عبر حرق لبنان. وعند وصول هذه اللحظة تكون الولايات المتحدة قد حققت رؤيتها لمعركة مجدو! ولكن الرأسمالية هذه المرة بوشاح ديني مشوه. فهي تدرك أن لا بد من "صنعا وإن طال السفر"- وإن عظم الثمن، لا بد من التحكم بالنفط للتحكم في العالم، ولا تحكم بالنفط إلا عبر احتلال الوطن العربي وتحويله إلى فسيفساء من الانظمة العميلة.
إن العدوان على هلال الممانعة هام وضروري. فما دامت إيران بصدد امتلاك سلاح نووي، فهذا سيحول دون شرق أوسط عميل. سيحقق توازن رعب، وبعدها يمكن أن تتخذ حروب المنطقة شكلاً اقتصادياً، لكن لهذا حديث آخر.
___________
· الآراء الواردة في المقالات لا تعبر بالضرورة عن رأي إدارة الموقع أو محرري "كنعان".
· عند الاقتباس أو إعادة النشر، يرجى الاشارة الى "كنعان".
· يرجى ارسال كافة المراسلات والمقالات الى عنوان "كنعان" الالكتروني: mail@kanaanonline.org
· To visit Kana’an website, please go to: http://www.kanaanonline.org.
· To subscribe to our mailing list, please send a blank e-mail message to arabic-join@kanaanonline.org.
· To unsubscribe from our mailing list, please send a blank e-mail message to arabic-leave@kanaanonline.org.
[1] كتبت في كراس، أزمة الثورة العربية وانحطاط كامب ديفيد، 1978 (منشورات دار العامل- رام الله 1978)، أن جبهة سوف تتكون من أنظمة عربية وإسرائيل. وقد هوجمت إثر ذلك بتهمة التطرف والميل لاختلاق شعارات مثيرة!!!
[2] Quoted in, The Global Political Economy of Israel, by Jonathan Nitzan and Shimshon Bichler, Ploto Press, 2002,note 8, p. 102.
[3] Ben Gurion, Israel's founding leader, Israel's border should be "natural", that is, the Jordan
River in the East, and the Litani River of Lebanon in the north. In 1967, Israel gained control over the Jordan River, in the occupied Palestinian land, but all its attempts to establish the Litani border have failed so far. As I argued in Israel/Palestine, already when the Israeli army left southern Lebanon in 2000, the plans to return were ready. Spotlight, Israel's "new Middle East" By Tanya Reinhart, 28 July 2006, note (12)
_______________________________________________
Arabic mailing list
Arabic@kanaanonline.org
http://kanaanonline.org/mailman/listinfo/arabic_kanaanonline.org
Hezbollah south of the border
The Pentagon insists that South America's Triple Border region, where Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay meet near the spectacular Iguacu Falls, is crammed with terrorists funneling cash to the likes of Hezbollah and al-Qaeda. The place is a dizzying black void of contraband, narco-trafficking, weapons smuggling, money laundering, car theft, piracy and corruption - but where, oh where, are the terrorists? - Pepe Escobar
Continued.
Continued.
Lebanese Red Cross Repeatedly Targeted
By Dahr Jamail
""You can see here that everyone the Israelis are attacking are civilians and the Red Cross," Shaulan said. "And now we are having trouble reaching villages to collect bodies because they've bombed most of the roads and bridges before they told people to leave their homes."
Mohammad Zatar, who has been working for the Lebanese Red Cross in Tyre since 1993, said he had never before seen attacks on rescue workers. "
""You can see here that everyone the Israelis are attacking are civilians and the Red Cross," Shaulan said. "And now we are having trouble reaching villages to collect bodies because they've bombed most of the roads and bridges before they told people to leave their homes."
Mohammad Zatar, who has been working for the Lebanese Red Cross in Tyre since 1993, said he had never before seen attacks on rescue workers. "
Tuesday, August 1, 2006
Israel admits that it just really likes to kill people, especially little children.
Israel admits : There were no rocket launches from Qana on the day of the strike: It now appears that the military had no information on rockets launched from the site of the building, or the presence of Hezbollah men at the time.
'No Hezbollah Rockets Fired from Qana': Red Cross workers and residents of Qana, where Israeli bombing killed at least 60 civilians, have told IPS that no Hezbollah rockets were launched from the city before the Israeli air strike.
Qana bombs an Israeli 'war crime' : A human rights group says the Israeli air strike on Qana that killed 54 civilians is a "war crime". It said the failure to distinguish between civilians and combatants could be judged as a war crime, and called for an UN probe into the conflict.
'No Hezbollah Rockets Fired from Qana': Red Cross workers and residents of Qana, where Israeli bombing killed at least 60 civilians, have told IPS that no Hezbollah rockets were launched from the city before the Israeli air strike.
Qana bombs an Israeli 'war crime' : A human rights group says the Israeli air strike on Qana that killed 54 civilians is a "war crime". It said the failure to distinguish between civilians and combatants could be judged as a war crime, and called for an UN probe into the conflict.
Dear Kofi, by Mike Whitney
To the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations; Kofi Annan 08/01/06
Dear Secretary General,
I am writing to ask you to take swift action to address the threat of escalating violence in the Middle East. Yesterday, Israel’s Security Cabinet approved “an expansion of the ground campaign in Lebanon” removing any chance of a quick end to the present hostilities. The news was compounded by report in “The Jerusalem Post” which said that the Bush administration is asking Israel “to attack Syria”. This creates the strong probability that what was once a “border skirmish” could very well balloon into a region-wide conflagration. As Secretary-General it is your responsibility to discourage further aggression by persuading the other member states to call for an immediate cease-fire. Unfortunately, your attempts in this regard have been frustrated by the Bush administration's maneuvering and obstructionism.
In the last few days, 15 foreign ministers met in Rome to prepare a statement calling for an immediate cease-fire. As you know, all of the countries supported the motion except for the United States which blocked the measure to give Israel more time to carry out its vicious air-campaign. I think you'll agree that the UN cannot survive if one of its members on the Security Council supports the idea of unilateral warfare.
The obstructionism of the US in the last week has been nothing short of extraordinary. Condoleezza Rice has devoted all her energy to torpedoing the peace initiative, while US Ambassador, John Bolton has effectively impeded every attempt to condemn Israel’s decimation of Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure. The administration’s diplomatic strategy is a carefully-calculated plan to use the United Nations as cover for Israel’s brutal onslaught. In fact, just hours after Condi Rice blocked the Rome initiative, Israeli Justice Minister, Haim Ramon, boasted to the press that Israel had been given “international authorization” to continue its attacks “until Hezbollah is no longer present in southern Lebanon.”
No such “authorization” was ever given. Ramon distorted the statement to justify his belief that “everyone in southern Lebanon is a terrorist” and to continue Israel’s gratuitous assault on Lebanon. He was clearly acting in concert with Bolton and Rice.
The United States cannot be allowed to thwart the will of the majority. That would mean certain death for countless thousands of innocent civilians in the Middle East.
Will you be a part of this charade or will you take steps to avert the impending catastrophe? It is very likely that the hostilities in Lebanon will quickly spread to Damascus and Tehran unless something is done now. It’s up to you to use whatever power you have to prevent this tragedy from unfolding.
The United Nations is not expected to provide soldiers or weaponry to stop US/Israeli aggression. That would be impossible. It can, however, discourage aggression by using its “moral authority” to isolate and condemn the guilty states. We must realize, however, that preserving the peace is impossible if one of the offending nations has a place on the Security Council and can veto any resolution that is not in its interest. That is why drastic measures are needed to deal effectively with this dire situation. Here’s what you must do:
You must convene an emergency meeting of the General Assembly to decide whether the United States should be immediately removed from the Security Council. I think you will find that there is broad international support for this proposal. Once the matter is resolved then the US and Israel will be forced to prosecute their conflicts without the mask of international legitimacy. As you know, the United States depends quite heavily on the UN to conceal its meddling in the developing world. Even now, the Bush administration is trying to gain access Sudan’s oil and natural gas reserves by insisting that troops be deployed to the region for "humanitarian" reasons. This is just another cynical scheme to intrude militarily wherever there are vital resources.
The administration has decided that it will run the world directly from Washington; transforming the UN into a “cats-paw” for America’s geopolitical ambitions. In fact, John Bolton’s package of “Reforms” has been nothing more than a blueprint for turning the UN into a fully-owned franchise of the multinational corporations, the international banking establishment and Israel.
This must be stopped.
It is up to you, Mr. Secretary, to put an end to this farce and restore the credibility of the institution. Prove to the world that the medic at the Qana massacre was wrong when he said that the UN was nothing more than a “gravedigger”.
The United Nations needs to sever the cord that keeps the United States and Israel within the body of nations. Let them wander through the dessert of isolation for a decade or so while their fortunes change and their power dissipates. Eventually, they will return to the family of civilized countries eager to face our collective problems together with humility and greater regard for the lives of others.
Sincerely,
Mike Whitney
Dear Secretary General,
I am writing to ask you to take swift action to address the threat of escalating violence in the Middle East. Yesterday, Israel’s Security Cabinet approved “an expansion of the ground campaign in Lebanon” removing any chance of a quick end to the present hostilities. The news was compounded by report in “The Jerusalem Post” which said that the Bush administration is asking Israel “to attack Syria”. This creates the strong probability that what was once a “border skirmish” could very well balloon into a region-wide conflagration. As Secretary-General it is your responsibility to discourage further aggression by persuading the other member states to call for an immediate cease-fire. Unfortunately, your attempts in this regard have been frustrated by the Bush administration's maneuvering and obstructionism.
In the last few days, 15 foreign ministers met in Rome to prepare a statement calling for an immediate cease-fire. As you know, all of the countries supported the motion except for the United States which blocked the measure to give Israel more time to carry out its vicious air-campaign. I think you'll agree that the UN cannot survive if one of its members on the Security Council supports the idea of unilateral warfare.
The obstructionism of the US in the last week has been nothing short of extraordinary. Condoleezza Rice has devoted all her energy to torpedoing the peace initiative, while US Ambassador, John Bolton has effectively impeded every attempt to condemn Israel’s decimation of Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure. The administration’s diplomatic strategy is a carefully-calculated plan to use the United Nations as cover for Israel’s brutal onslaught. In fact, just hours after Condi Rice blocked the Rome initiative, Israeli Justice Minister, Haim Ramon, boasted to the press that Israel had been given “international authorization” to continue its attacks “until Hezbollah is no longer present in southern Lebanon.”
No such “authorization” was ever given. Ramon distorted the statement to justify his belief that “everyone in southern Lebanon is a terrorist” and to continue Israel’s gratuitous assault on Lebanon. He was clearly acting in concert with Bolton and Rice.
The United States cannot be allowed to thwart the will of the majority. That would mean certain death for countless thousands of innocent civilians in the Middle East.
Will you be a part of this charade or will you take steps to avert the impending catastrophe? It is very likely that the hostilities in Lebanon will quickly spread to Damascus and Tehran unless something is done now. It’s up to you to use whatever power you have to prevent this tragedy from unfolding.
The United Nations is not expected to provide soldiers or weaponry to stop US/Israeli aggression. That would be impossible. It can, however, discourage aggression by using its “moral authority” to isolate and condemn the guilty states. We must realize, however, that preserving the peace is impossible if one of the offending nations has a place on the Security Council and can veto any resolution that is not in its interest. That is why drastic measures are needed to deal effectively with this dire situation. Here’s what you must do:
You must convene an emergency meeting of the General Assembly to decide whether the United States should be immediately removed from the Security Council. I think you will find that there is broad international support for this proposal. Once the matter is resolved then the US and Israel will be forced to prosecute their conflicts without the mask of international legitimacy. As you know, the United States depends quite heavily on the UN to conceal its meddling in the developing world. Even now, the Bush administration is trying to gain access Sudan’s oil and natural gas reserves by insisting that troops be deployed to the region for "humanitarian" reasons. This is just another cynical scheme to intrude militarily wherever there are vital resources.
The administration has decided that it will run the world directly from Washington; transforming the UN into a “cats-paw” for America’s geopolitical ambitions. In fact, John Bolton’s package of “Reforms” has been nothing more than a blueprint for turning the UN into a fully-owned franchise of the multinational corporations, the international banking establishment and Israel.
This must be stopped.
It is up to you, Mr. Secretary, to put an end to this farce and restore the credibility of the institution. Prove to the world that the medic at the Qana massacre was wrong when he said that the UN was nothing more than a “gravedigger”.
The United Nations needs to sever the cord that keeps the United States and Israel within the body of nations. Let them wander through the dessert of isolation for a decade or so while their fortunes change and their power dissipates. Eventually, they will return to the family of civilized countries eager to face our collective problems together with humility and greater regard for the lives of others.
Sincerely,
Mike Whitney
NYT: Some Bush Sr. advisers express 'deep unease' with 'Israel policies of the son'
"Some advisers to the father are expressing increasingly deep unease with the Israel policies of the son," reads an article slated for the front page of Wednesday's New York Times.
The paper reports that there is "a generational and philosophical divide between the Bushes" which "is exacerbating the friction between their camps."
"When they first met as United States president and Israeli prime minister, George W. Bush made clear to Ariel Sharon he would not follow in the footsteps of his father," writes Sheryl Gay Stolberg for the Times.
"The first President Bush had been tough on Israel, especially the housing settlements Sharon had helped develop," Stolberg continues. "But over tea in the Oval Office that day in March 2001 the new president charted a different course, going beyond the usual expression of support by pledging to use force to protect Israel." Continued.
The paper reports that there is "a generational and philosophical divide between the Bushes" which "is exacerbating the friction between their camps."
"When they first met as United States president and Israeli prime minister, George W. Bush made clear to Ariel Sharon he would not follow in the footsteps of his father," writes Sheryl Gay Stolberg for the Times.
"The first President Bush had been tough on Israel, especially the housing settlements Sharon had helped develop," Stolberg continues. "But over tea in the Oval Office that day in March 2001 the new president charted a different course, going beyond the usual expression of support by pledging to use force to protect Israel." Continued.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)