| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:17 am Post subject: Israeli invasion of Lebanon planned by neocons in June |
| In Pro-Israel Circles, Doubts Grow Over US Policy
http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=9630
http://waynemadsenreport.com
Israeli invasion of Lebanon planned by neocons in June
July 22/23, 2006 --
The Israeli invasion of Lebanon was planned between top Israeli officials and members of the Bush administration.
On June 17 and 18, former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Likud Knesset member Natan Sharansky met with Vice President Dick Cheney at the American Enterprise Institute conference in Beaver Creek, Colorado. There, the impending Israeli invasions of both Gaza and Lebanon were discussed. After receiving Cheney's full backing for the invasion of Gaza and Lebanon, Netanyahu flew back to Israel and participated in a special "Ex-Prime Ministers" meeting, in which he conveyed the Bush administration's support for the carrying out of the "Clean Break" policy -- the trashing of all past Middle East peace accords, including Oslo. Present at the meeting, in addition to Netanyahu, were current Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and former Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Shimon Peres. Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir is very old and suffers from dementia and Ariel Sharon remains in a coma after a series of strokes.
Lebanon and Gaza invasions planned last month in Colorado meetings between Netanyahu, Sharansky, and Cheney.
After the AEI meeting, Sharansky, who has the ear of Bush, met with the Heritage Foundation in Washington and then attended a June 29 seminar at Philadelphia's Main Line Haverford School sponsored by the Middle East Forum led by Daniel Pipes. Sharansky appeared with Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum who this past Thursday was beating the war drums against Syria, Iran, and "Islamo-fascism" in a fiery speech at the National Press Club attended by a cheering section composed of members of the neocon Israel Project, on whose board Santorum serves along with Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss and Virginia GOP Rep. Tom Davis.
Our Washington sources claim that the U.S.-supported invasions of Gaza and Lebanon and the impending attacks on Syria and Iran represent the suspected "event" predicted to take place prior to the November election in the United States and is an attempt to rally the American public around the Bush-Cheney regime during a time of wider war.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Yorker's Hersh: Bush Admin Helped Plan Israeli Offensive :
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/08/13/new-yorker-s-hersh-bush-admin-helped-plan-israeli-offensive.php
Bamford discusses 'A Clean Break'/war for Israel agenda on MSNBC's 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann':
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/08/07/bamford-discusses-a-clean-break-on-msnbc-s-countdown.php
Neocons Ready to Send U.S. Troops to Lebanon:
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=482
Lebanon: Are the Yanks Coming?:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9430
Israel's attack on Lebanon resulted in the tragic attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/07/17/israel-s-attack-on-lebanon-resulted-in-9-11.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14193.htm
White House Endorses Column Calling For Israel to Attack Syria
On Friday, the White House released a document entitled “Setting the Record Straight: President Bush’s Foreign Policy is Succeeding.” One section, headlined “Conservatives Stand Behind The President’s Policies,” contains just one example:
On Wednesday, Max Boot Wrote: “Our Best Response Is Exactly What Bush Has Done So Far – Reject Premature Calls For A Cease-Fire And Let Israel Finish The Job.” (Max Boot, “It’s Time To Let The Israelis Take Off The Gloves,” Los Angeles Times, 7/19/06)
So apparently, urging the Israelis to “take off the gloves” means you are endorsing the administration’s policies in the current conflict. Also, the Boot column that the White House views as an endorsement of their policies also calls on Israel to attack Syria:
Syria is weak and next door. To secure its borders, Israel needs to hit the Assad regime. Hard. If it does, it will be doing Washington’s dirty work.
Tim Russert confronted White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten about the release on Meet the Press yesterday. Bolten claimed the Boot column “was sent around as a reflection of some of the conservative columnists’ support for Israel.” In fact, it was sent around explicitly as reflecting support for administration policy.
Posted 07/25/06 - Think Progress
Transcript:
RUSSERT: Also, the White House communications office, on Friday, issued a statement called “Setting the Record Straight.”
And they had this: “Conservatives Stand Behind the President’s Policies.”
And what they do is refer to an article by Max Boot of the Los Angeles Times as evidence of the conservative support for the president: “It’s time to let the Israelis take off the gloves. To secure its borders, Israel needs to hit the Syrian Assad regime. Hard. If it does, it will be doing Washington’s dirty work. Our best response is exactly what Bush has done so far, reject premature calls for a cease-fire and let Israel finish the job.”
That’s the White House communications office endorsing an article which says, hit Syria - for Israel to hit Syria. Is that administration policy?
BOLTEN: That article was sent around as a reflection of some of the conservative columnists’ support for Israel.
But no, the U.S. policy is that what we are doing and our diplomatic effort, from Secretary Rice, will be to ensure that the world community remains united in its understanding that the problem that we’re facing in the Middle East right now was generated by and is being sustained by terrorist attacks that need to stop.
And the United States will do everything that we can to ensure that there’s a sustainable cease-fire based on the Security Council resolution that says that terrorism has no place in Lebanon or anywhere else.
White House release calls for Israel to hit Syria
By David DeGraw
Posted on July 23, 2006, Printed on July 25, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/degraw/39374/
On Meet the Press, Tim Russert points out a stunning press release from the White House Communications Office. The release, titled Setting The Record Straight, endorses an LA Times Op-Ed that calls for Israel to attack Syria:
"It's time to let the Israelis take off the gloves…. Israel needs to hit the [Syrian] Assad regime. Hard."
It's difficult to not interpret this as the White Communications Office officially endorsing an Israeli attack on Syria.
David DeGraw is AlterNet's video blogger.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/07/20060721-5.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 21, 2006
Setting the Record Straight: President Bush's Foreign Policy Is Succeeding
NBC's David Gregory: "Crisis After Crisis Has Undermined The Bush Doctrine." (NBC's "Today," 7/21/06)
A Consensus Is Building Behind The President's Foreign Policy Approach
The United States Is Rallying The World Behind North Korea. "The U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution Saturday condemning North Korea's recent missile tests and demanding that the reclusive communist nation suspend its ballistic missile program." (Edith M. Lederer, "Security Council Unanimously Adopts North Korea Resolution," The Associated Press, 7/15/06)
The United States Is Rallying The World Behind Its Policy Toward Iran. "World powers rebuked Iran last week by seeking possible punishment from the Security Council, saying Iran had not signaled an intent to negotiate seriously over its disputed nuclear program. … 'Iran has a serious choice to make and we invited it to make the right decision to react positively to the concrete proposals presented to it,' the [G8] leaders said in their statement." (Jeannine Aversa, "Leaders Press North Korea On Missile Tests, Urge Iran To Accept Nuclear Energy Offer," The Associated Press, 7/18/06)
The United States Is Rallying The World Behind Its Policy Toward Iraq. "We will support the newly constitutionally elected government of Iraq and call upon it to continue the policies of inclusiveness as a means to overcome divisions within Iraq. We will continue to assist in building an independent, stable, secure, democratic, prosperous and united Iraq at peace with its neighbours and the international community." ("U.S.-EU Summit Declaration: Promoting Peace, Human Rights And Democracy Worldwide," 6/21/06)
The United States Is Rallying The World Behind Its Policy Toward The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. "We will continue to promote a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the basis of the Roadmap in order to advance a just, viable and lasting two-state solution and we call on both parties to avoid unilateral measures that prejudice final status issues." ("U.S.-EU Summit Declaration: Promoting Peace, Human Rights And Democracy Worldwide," 6/21/06)
Gregory: The Administration Has Exercised "Diplomatic Disengagement From The Israeli Conflict In Favor Of A Wait And See Approach." (NBC's "Today," 7/21/06)
The Administration Is Continuing Its Active Engagement
The Associated Press: "Rice Outlines Plan For Mideast Solution." "Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, heading for a weekend trip to the troubled Middle East, said Friday she would work with allies in the region to help create conditions for 'stability and lasting peace.'" (Anne Gearan, "Rice Outlines Plan For Mideast Solution," The Associated Press, 7/21/06)
The President Has A b Record Of Personal Engagement In The Middle East Peace Process. Since taking office, President Bush has met with Prime Minister Olmert once since Olmert became Prime Minister, President Bush has met with Prime Minister Sharon 12 times, and President Bush has met with President Abbas five times. This includes President Bush's 2003 meeting with Prime Minister Sharon and President Abbas together in Sharm el Sheikh. In 2002, President Bush outlined his vision for Middle East peace, including a two-state solution.
Gregory: President Bush's Foreign Policy "Has Yet To Produce The Promised Results." (NBC's "Today," 7/21/06)
Foreign Policy Problems Did Not Arise Overnight, And They Will Not Be Solved Overnight
President Bush, 9/20/01: "I ask … for your patience in what will be a long struggle." (President Bush, Address To A Joint Session Of Congress And The American People, Washington, DC, 9/20/01)
President Bush's Second Term National Security Strategy: "The United States is in the early years of a long struggle, similar to what our country faced in the early years of the Cold War." ("National Security Strategy," 3/16/06)
President Bush, 7/7/06: "So we're now working the diplomacy, and you're watching the diplomacy work, not only in North Korea, but in Iran. It's kind of painful in a way for some to watch because it takes a while to get people on the same page. … Things just don't happen overnight." (President Bush, Press Conference, Chicago, IL, 7/7/06)
Completing The Formation Of The New Iraqi Government And Killing The Terrorist Leader Zarqawi Are Two Significant Steps Toward Denying Terrorists Safe Haven In Iraq And Safeguarding The People Of The United States.
Gregory: Comments From Conservatives Such As Max Boot Show That Conservatives Are Questioning "The President's Nerve." GREGORY: "Even the President's conservative allies say the world has become more unstable. Where, they now ask, is the President's nerve?" MAX BOOT, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: "We should be more aggressive in trying to make clear to Iran and Syria that their aggressive actions will have consequences." (NBC's "Today," 7/21/06)
Conservatives Stand Behind The President's Policies
On Wednesday, Max Boot Wrote: "Our Best Response Is Exactly What Bush Has Done So Far – Reject Premature Calls For A Cease-Fire And Let Israel Finish The Job." (Max Boot, "It's Time To Let The Israelis Take Off The Gloves," Los Angeles Times, 7/19/06)
# # #
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Olbermann Disses Mearsheimer and Walt Critique:
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=412
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/stopcollection.htm#james_morris
Authors of Israel Lobby Paper Get Warm Reception at Military College:
http://mondoweiss.observer.com/2006/06/authors-of-israel-lobby-paper-get-warm-reception-at-military.html
Must watch/must listen video clip with Dr. Stephen Sniegoski:
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=400
'Iraq War Conceived in Israel' author Dr. Stephen Sniegoski on Karen Kwiatkowski's radio program (General Janis Karpinski of Abu Ghraib also discussed the JINSA/PNAC Neocon war for Israel agenda via the link for her radio program broadcast at the following URL):
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/05/17/iraq-war-conceived-in-israel-author-on-karen-kwiatkowski-s.php
Israel-lobby denial:The bankruptcy of the mainstream Left: (by Dr. Stephen Sniegoski):
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_lobby_left.htm
For additional, scroll down to the 'Pro-Israel lobby under attack' UPI article at the following URL:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/03/17/u-s-middle-east-policy-motivated-by-pro-israel-lobby.php
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFX News Limited
Blair warns Iran, Syria of 'confrontation'
07.28.2006, 02:26 PM
http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2006/07/28/afx2912180.html
WASHINGTON - British Prime Minister Tony Blair warned Iran and Syria that they face 'the risk of increasing confrontation' unless they reform their behavior in the Middle East.
newsdesk@afxnews.com
afp/cml
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush after Syria and Iran for support of Hezbollah - don't tell me that the 'A Clean Break' agenda isn't still on track
Reuters:
Lebanon crisis is part of broader struggle: Bush
By Caren BohanSat Jul 29, 11:18 AM ET
President Bush on Saturday cast the Lebanon war as part of a broader struggle against terrorism and said a strategy to end the violence there must address the threat posed by Hizbollah.
Amid mounting concern over civilian casualties in the fighting between Israel and Hizbollah guerrillas, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was headed to Israel to discuss the terms of a proposal for a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for a negotiated truce.
A day after Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced they would try to offer the resolution next week, Bush used his weekly radio broadcast to highlight his goals.
"As we work to resolve this current crisis, we must recognize that Lebanon is the latest flashpoint in a broader struggle between freedom and terror that is unfolding across the region," Bush said.
Bush and Blair agreed that a multinational force for Lebanon should be formed quickly to help speed delivery of aid to thousands of displaced Lebanese and help stabilize the border.
"We will work with our allies to adopt a resolution that establishes a framework to end the violence quickly, and mandates the multinational force," he said.
"This approach will demonstrate the international community's determination to support the government of Lebanon, and defeat the threat from Hizbollah and its foreign sponsors."
BUSH BLAMES HIZBOLLAH, IRAN AND SYRIA
At least 462 people, mostly civilians, have been killed in Lebanon since the conflict erupted on July 12 when Hizbollah seized two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid.
Hizbollah, which wants to swap the soldiers for Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners held by Israel, has killed 51 Israelis, 18 of them civilians hit by rockets fired into the Jewish state.
Bush blames the violence on Hizbollah and its foreign sponsors Iran and Syria.
But the crisis, coming amid an escalation of sectarian violence in Iraq, has put Bush on the defensive about his foreign policy agenda of trying to spread freedom in the Middle East.
Bush's approach to the Middle East came under criticism in the Democratic response to his radio address.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a potential presidential candidate in 2008, said the administration might have been able to handle the Israel-Lebanon crisis more effectively if it had a Mideast envoy in place.
"If we would have had a permanent Middle East envoy in the region, we would have been in a better position to disarm Hizbollah and protect Israel, and implement a concurrent ceasefire along with a legitimate, international peacekeeping force on the ground," Richardson said in the Democratic radio address.
Richardson also said the administration had proven inept at diplomacy. He faulted, among other things, the policy in Iraq where "waves of bloody violence push the country toward civil war" with no end in sight.
Bush cited Iraq in the radio address and repeated his goal of establishing a democracy "in the heart of the Middle East."
In Lebanon, he said ridding the country of "terrorists and foreign influence" would eventually bring about a better life there.
"This moment of conflict in the Middle East is painful and tragic," Bush said. "Yet it is also a moment of opportunity for broader change in the region."
Last edited by Alpha on Sun Sep 03, 2006 5:53 am; edited 12 times in total | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:20 am Post subject: Syria to enter conflict if Lebanon invaded: minister |
| http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=482
Neocons Ready to Send U.S. Troops to Lebanon
Wednesday July 26th 2006, 2:06 pm
According to Ken Silverstein of Harper’s Magazine, “a well-connected former CIA officer has told me that the Bush Administration is … considering” sending U.S troops to Lebanon as “peacekeepers,” that is to say shock troops for the Israeli invasion.
The officer, who had broad experience in the Middle East while at the CIA, noted that NATO and European countries, including England, have made clear that they are either unwilling or extremely reluctant to participate in an international force. Given other nations’ lack of commitment, any “robust” force—between 10,000 and 30,000 troops, according to estimates being discussed in the media—would by definition require major U.S. participation. According to the former official, Israel and the United States are currently discussing a large American role in exactly such a “multinational” deployment, and some top administration officials, along with senior civilians at the Pentagon, are receptive to the idea.
I bet they are, especially considering these “top administration officials” (think Cheney) and “senior civilians at the Pentagon” are neocons.
Predictably, the “uniformed military … is ardently opposed to sending American soldiers to the region, according to my source. ‘They are saying “What the f—?”‘ he told me. “Most of our combat-ready divisions are in Iraq or Afghanistan, or on their way, or coming back. The generals don’t like it because we’re already way overstretched,’” not that this matters to the neocons, who are well-accustomed to committing U.S. troops to do Israel’s bidding.
“Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I’ll tell you what I think the real threat [is] and actually has been since 1990—it’s the threat against Israel,” declared Philip Zelikow, the executive director of Bush’s nine eleven whitewash commission. Zelikow made this admission before a crowd at the University of Virginia on September 10, 2002.
Sending U.S. troops to Lebanon “would be viewed in the Arab world as the United States picking up a combat role on behalf of Israel,” Silverstein’s CIA source added.
“Once you start fighting in a place like that you’re basically at war with the Shiite population. That means that our soldiers are going to be getting shot at by Hezbollah. This would be a sheer disaster for us.”
Indeed, it would also be a disaster for U.S. troops in Iraq, surrounded by 15 million Shi’ites. If Ayatollah Sistani issues a fatwa in response to the neocons attacking fellow Shi’ites in Lebanon, the U.S. military is doomed. It would make the Tet Offensive in Vietnam look like a tea party. It would be a replay of Dunkirk.
Silverstein concludes:
The scenario of an American deployment appears to come straight out of the neoconservative playbook: send U.S. forces into the Middle East, regardless of what our own military leaders suggest, in order to “stabilize” the region. The chances of success, as we have seen in Iraq, are remote. So what should be done? My source said the situation is so volatile at the moment that the only smart policy is to get an immediate ceasefire and worry about the terms of a lasting truce afterwards.
But then the idea is not to “stabilize” the region or gain a “ceasefire and worry about the terms of a lasting truce afterwards,” but rather pitch it into chaos.
“The neo-Jacobins are rushing to get America involved in a general Middle Eastern war before Americans have time to think,” warns Paul Craig Roberts. “Once we have attacked other sovereign Islamic countries, we will have to bring back the draft in order to raise the necessary armies or resort to nuclear weapons…. The root of the Middle Eastern problem is Israel’s uncanny ability to manipulate American public opinion and US foreign policy. This unique power means Israel doesn’t have to compromise. Instead, the Israelis escalate and involve us ever more deeply and one-sidedly in their disputes with Arabs…. Bush’s neo-Jacobins will not be content until they have 600 million enraged Muslims at our throats.”
Indeed, this is precisely what the neocons desire—millions of enraged Muslims taking up arms against the United States, as this will force a reluctant and usually peaceful population—always opposed to war because they pay the ultimate price—to donate their sons and daughters to a horrific war.
The Straussian strain of neocon consider the American people little more than sheep to be culled and manipulated for their gain—and the gain of Israel.
According to the aged neocon Norman Podhoretz, the only impediment standing in the way of neocon glory is the American people, who have yet to demonstrate they have “the stomach to do what will be required,” that is to say sacrifice ourselves to neocon-neoliberal and Zionist hegemony and the eradication (or at minimum submission) of the Muslim hordes.
According to Roberts, the “vision” of the neocons “is to knock off Iraq, Iran and Syria, the countries that could get in the way of Israel expelling the Palestinians to Jordan and grabbing Lebanon, as well. This is what World War IV is all about.” For the neocons, there is “no room for diplomacy, compromise and agreements. These are the tools of wimps and will cause ‘a relapse into appeasement and diplomatic evasion.’ There is only room for war…. To pursue the insane agenda of conquering and occupying the Middle East not only requires the stomach for inhumane acts, but also demands millions of Americans taking up arms. Here come the draft and a generation of casualties.”
Or the end of the planet as we know it, as Hezbollah—and soon millions of enraged Shi’ites not only in Lebanon but also in Iraq and Iran—have no intention of throwing down their Kalashnikovs and RPGs and surrendering to the Zionists, determined to wipe them out or at minimum enslave them, as they attempt to enslave the Palestinians.
It will be a bitter fight to the end—and in order to “win,” the United States and Israel will resort to dragging out the “mini-nukes” and irradiating all those who dare resist. Bush’s neocons have already indicated they fully intend to use nuclear weapons.
In fact, if you count depleted uranium, they are already nuking the Arabs of Iraq and now Lebanon (see Dr. Doug Rokke, PhD., former Director, U.S. Army Depleted Uranium project, Depleted Uranium Situation Worsens Requiring Immediate Action By President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, and Prime Minister Olmert, i.e., at least 100 GBU 28 bunker busters containing depleted uranium warheads are on their way to Israel to be used in Lebanon).
I am old enough to remember nuclear drills in grade school, as we were continually propagandized as children to believe the evil commies would nuke us at any minute. Of course, the Soviet Union had no intention of nuking us, nor us them, and this was called MAD, or Mutually Assured Destruction—a good deal for the death merchants, but a scary deal for everybody else, culminating in the Cuban Missile Crisis, an event I am old enough to remember as well.
Later, when I was a bit older and more cynical, I made light of my grade school nuke drills, declaring the reason we crawled down beneath our desks on hands and knees was to kiss our posteriors good-bye, as any nuclear confrontation between nations bristling with thermonuclear weapons would be certain suicide.
I am now beginning to believe such a suicide is actually possible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Syria to enter conflict if Lebanon invaded: minister
MADRID, July 23, 2006 (AFP) - A Syrian minister warned Israel in an interview published Sunday that a major ground incursion into Lebanon would draw his country into the Middle East conflict.
"If Israel makes a land entry into Lebanon, they can get to within 20 kilometres (12 miles) of Damascus," Information Minister Moshen Bilal told the Spanish newspaper ABC.
"What will we do? Stand by with our arms folded? Absolutely not. Without any doubt Syria will intervene in the conflict." Bilal said Syria wanted above all a ceasefire "as soon as possible" combined with a prisoner exchange and indicated he was working to that end with Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos, whom he met in recent days in Madrid.
But he added: "I repeat, if Israel makes a land invasion of Lebanon and gets near us, Syria will not stand by with arms folded. It will enter the conflict." Israel has said it wants to push Hezbollah militias 20 kilometres north of its border.
Bilal criticised the United States saying that it was "unjustifiable" that "the superpower is not working for a rapid ceasefire." He rejected claims by Washington that Damascus has armed Hezbollah, saying that it offered "moral support" but adding that "we do not finance any resistance." -AFP
Going after Syria (and then Iran) is accordance with the 'A Clean Break'/war for Israel agenda which esteemed intelligence author/writer James Bamford discusses on pages 261-269/321 of his 'A Pretext for War' book (scroll down to pages 261-269 at the following URL):
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/02/11/a-clean-break-from-james-bamford-s-a-pretext-for-war.php
Pat Buchanan: No, This Is Not 'Our War' (it's Israel's war):
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/07/21/pat-buchanan-no-this-is-not-our-war-it-s-israel-s-war.php
Neocons Resurrect Plans For Regional War In The Middle East:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/17/neocons-middle-east-war/
Last edited by Alpha on Thu Jul 27, 2006 1:02 pm; edited 1 time in total | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:22 am Post subject: |
| July 24, 2006
Danger! Legacy Ahead!
There's a reason the Middle East is heating up
by Justin Raimondo
The Israelis are conducting not only a shooting war but also a propaganda war: if there is a way to "spin" the deaths of Lebanese civilians, the smashing of the infrastructure, and even the bombing of an anti-Hezbollah Christian-owned television station, then surely Israel's skillful propagandists – here and in Israel proper – are bound to find it. The idea is to shape the narrative of the conflict so that Israel is portrayed as a reluctant warrior.
In America, this is easy: the "mainstream" media, always attentive to the powerful Israel lobby, refrains from showing pictures that might upset the carefully nurtured image of the Jewish state as a heroic David up against an Arab-Muslim giant. Whenever there is an "expert" to be consulted, half the time it's an Israeli, or someone from Israel's amen corner, who explains to the TV audience that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization along the lines of al-Qaeda – without mentioning that this is no guerrilla group, but a highly organized political party, which, as President Lahoud of Lebanon reminded us the other day, is "part of the government of Lebanon." The other day on MSNBC's Scarborough Country, I had to laugh when Joe Scarborough announced the guests on an upcoming segment about the Lebanon crisis: Bibi Netanyahu, Mort Zuckerman, and Pat Buchanan.
If anyone else but Buchanan had been involved it would have been the onscreen equivalent of a mugging, but Pat acquitted himself quite well. The point, however, is that there is no question of "balance" when it comes to media portrayals of the July war, or of any topics having to do with Israel. It's all pro-Israel, all the time, and it is nothing short of miraculous that a trenchant critic like Buchanan is allowed to give his opinion at all.
The U.S. government, therefore, has a lot of leeway when it comes to its relationship with Israel. It can get away with pursuing Israel's interests, to the detriment of our own, simply on account of the blindness of most people to the nature of the "special relationship" – and its geopolitical and financial repercussions. Very few know, for example, that Israel gets over $3 billion a year from the U.S. in "foreign aid," and that we subsidize the Israeli military budget to the tune of some 20 percent. Any news that puts Israel in a bad light is downplayed, or else completely ignored. For example, the shocking charges against two lobbyists for Israel, AIPAC honcho Steve Rosen and the group's Iran analyst, Keith Weissman – spying for Israel – should have generated front-page headlines; instead, the case has puttered along pretty much beneath the media radar.
In Europe, it is quite different: the pictures of the slaughter are getting through via the mass media, and people are less naïve about the true nature of the Israeli state. Even the British government broke with the Yanks on this one, as Foreign Office official Kim Howells looked askance at the rape of Lebanon:
"The destruction of the infrastructure, the death of so many children and so many people: these have not been surgical strikes. If they are chasing Hezbollah, then go for Hezbollah. You don't go for the entire Lebanese nation…. I very much hope that the Americans understand what's happening to Lebanon."
The sheer brazenness of this operation, and the American complicity, is shocking – and here I thought nothing could shock me anymore. After all, Israel has invaded a sovereign nation, attacked communities that are hostile to Hezbollah (such as the Christian Maronites), bombed Lebanese army barracks, and tried to shut down the Lebanese media – all of which are roughly comparable to, say, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. Not that any of this is surprising, coming from the Israelis – but the Americans have not caviled in the slightest. If anything, George W. Bush is more pro-Israel than many Israelis, and his support for the invasion has been unequivocal, even enthusiastic.
This enthusiasm is partly explained by the president's fulsome support for the Jewish state: no American administration has been quite as pro-Israel as this one. Yet one could imagine that, behind the scenes, there would be tensions between the U.S. and Israel, at least over the timetable of the Lebanese incursion. The longer Israel stays in and keeps up the merciless bombardment, the morepressure Washington faces from its Arab allies in the region, who fear their populations' outrage at the continuing carnage. U.S. support for the invasion is also having repercussions in Iraq, where the ruling Shi'ite coalition is not exactly friendly to Tel Aviv, Shi'ite radicals are up in arms, and the speaker of the Parliament is now calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.
The U.S. is provoking all sorts of negative reactions to its endorsement of Israeli brutality, and so why, one has to ask, are they doing it?
Aside from the usual reasons – this administration's pro-Israel orientation, the hijacking of American foreign policy by the neoconservatives, and the support for Israel coming from important Republican constituencies, such as the evangelical Christians – the decisive factor is George W. Bush's growing fixation on his legacy as president.
Every occupant of the White House who approaches the end of his second term has similar concerns, naturally enough: they all want to ensure that they not go down in the history books as a failure. But this president, who has had to endure a merciless mocking from the chattering classes over his relative lack of sophistication and general state of unpreparedness for the role of chief executive, has a lot more invested in this than most. He has prided himself on not taking the easy road, swimming against the tide in the hope that history will prove him right – and now, as the end of his reign approaches, he must take history by the throat or else forever lose the opportunity.
The Israeli invasion is one such opportunity. What was surprising about the American response to Tel Aviv's untrammeled aggression was not that they wholeheartedly endorsed it, but how quickly and pointedly they used the occasion to turn up the heat on Damascus and score points against Tehran. Can they really be thinking about taking on Syria and Iran – even as the Iraqi "model" explodes in a maelstrom of sectarian strife?
Yes, they can, and it's due, in large degree, to one man's vanity. In George W. Bush's case, this is one of his most striking characteristics, which, entwined with his arrogance and stubbornness, seems to define his personality. He doesn't want to go down in history as George the Clueless: he dreams of being George the Conqueror, the man who had the vision to defy the experts, the media, and the American public, and "liberate" not only Iraq but the entire Middle East.
George W. Bush bears all the ominous hallmarks of a True Believer. Here is a president who, in his last inaugural address, proclaimed "the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." Grandiosity doesn't even begin to describe the presidential mindset – it is more like megalomania – and the abundant danger of such ambition on the part of such a man is all too apparent.
"By our efforts we have lit a fire as well, a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power; it burns those who fight its progress."
The neocons thrilled to those words as the president uttered them in his second inaugural address, but lately, it seemed, the fire had gone out of George. Before the Israelis unleashed their fury on the hapless civilians of Beirut, the War Party, you'll remember, was in full retreat. Chastened by the failure of the Iraqi misadventure, beleaguered by legal and political problems on the home front – a fewindictments, the growing unpopularity of the war – and weakened by defections from their own ranks, the neoconservatives were on the run. In the administration, they were getting out of government – Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith – and in the public square they were keeping a low profile.
Not anymore. A week or so before the invasion, Richard Perle attacked Condi Rice in the Washington Post, signaling neocon disaffection with an administration that seemed to have fallen prey to a paralyzing realism. Iran was being allowed to get away with thumbing its nose at U.S. demands that the mullahs dismantle their nascent nuclear industry. The regime-change campaign aimed at Syria seemed to have fizzled out. In short: the Revolution had been betrayed.
The Israelis changed all that when they started bombing Beirut. The regime-changers once again had their agenda front and center, and the prospect of a conflict with Syria and/or Iran gained instant momentum.
The Revolution, once badly stalled, is revving up its motors, and the War Party is back in its full fighting stance. What is appalling and frightening is that the Democrats are in many cases worse than the Republicans on the Lebanon invasion question: this means there will be no brake on the administration in taking this road to further "regime change" in the Middle East.
Iran is their ultimate goal, but the road to Tehran runs through Damascus, and the preparations for the Syrian campaign have been extensive and very well thought out. They succeeded in pinning the blame for the assassination of Rafik Hariri on the Syrians, even though the evidence seems to contradict this conclusion. The U.S.-Israeli campaign to get the Syrian army kicked out of Lebanon achieved its goal just over a year before the Israelis marched in. This could be serendipity, but here's another "coincidence" – a week or so before the invasion, the Lebanese announced they had busted a cell of Israeli agents who had been carrying out assassinations in the country. One wonders what a full investigation of their activities would have revealed – if the war hadn't delayed or obscured it. After all, someone killed Hariri…
The Israelis, in any case, are now destroying Hariri's legacy – the Beirut he rebuilt after the ravages of the last Israeli assault – and they won't stop until their masters in Washington start to get antsy. And maybe not even then. In the case of the "special relationship" between Washington and Tel Aviv, it is hard to tell, very often, who is the master and who is the slave. As Professor Paul W. Schroeder put it in The American Conservative, the Iraq war represented "something unique in history":
"It is common for great powers to try to fight wars by proxy, getting smaller powers to fight for their interests. This would be the first instance I know where a great power (in fact, a superpower) would do the fighting as the proxy of a small client state."
Israel is doing its own fighting – for once – but don't worry, relief is on the way. The American secretary of state has a plan for a "robust" international force that will take on the job of cleaning out Hezbollah and administering the occupation of a "buffer zone" within Lebanon. We are assured there will be no Americans in this force, but that seems highly improbable. If ever such a force comes into existence and is sent to police the mean streets of south Lebanon, then you can bet your bottom dollar the Yanks are coming, too.
In the meantime, it will take months to organize an international "peacekeeping" mission: this will give the Israelis plenty of time to continue their terror campaign, and perhaps come right to the gates of Beirut. The drama has yet to play itself out, but whatever the outcome, we can be sure that the script was written well in advance.
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9397 | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:47 pm Post subject: "STOP SHOOTING! START TALKING!" |
| http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en
"STOP SHOOTING! START TALKING!"
They came from all over the country, Jews and Arabs [Palestinians – JPLO], from the air-raid shelters of Haifa and Nazareth and the still safe neighbourhoods of metropolitan Tel-Aviv.
The third demonstration against the war in Lebanon attracted much greater numbers than the first ones. While the first had 100 participants and the second reached already about 1000, this time (July 22) some 5000 took part.
"Olmert get out of Lebanon -- the war is a disaster!" the protesters shouted. "We hall neither die nor kill - in the service of the USA" "Peretz, Peretz beware - in The Hague they are waiting for you! "Olmert, Olmert resign - you are not wanted anymore" "All the cabinet ministers are war criminals" and more.
After marching from Rabin Square to Cinemateque Square, the protesters held a rally that filled the square and flowed over into the neighboring streets.
The first speaker was former minister and Israel-Prize laureate Shulamit Aloni, who condemned the war in the harshest terms. She was followed by former MK Issam Makhoul for Hadash, former MK Uri Avnery for Gush Shalom, Youth movements' representative Yael Leirer, Yishai Menuhin for "Yesh Gvul", Awad Abd-al-Fatah for Balad, and Abeer Kopti for the Haifa group "Women Against War". The rally was conducted by Huloud Badawi of Ta'ayush and Jana Knofowa of the "Women's Coalition for Peace".
All speakers demanded an immediate end to the war and the start of negotiations, before we get sucked into the Lebanese quagmire the same way as in last war.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take a look at the following as well:
www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=A%20C20060723&articleId=2797
Secret 2001 Pentagon Plan to Attack Lebanon
Bush's Plan for "Serial War" revealed by General Wesley Clark
by A Concerned Citizen
July 23, 2006
GlobalResearch.ca
"[The] Five-year campaign plan [includes]... a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan" (Pentagon official quoted by General Wesley Clark)
According to General Wesley Clark--the Pentagon, by late 2001, was Planning to Attack Lebanon
"Winning Modern Wars" (page 130) General Clark states the following:
"As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.
...He said it with reproach--with disbelief, almost--at the breadth of the vision. I moved the conversation away, for this was not something I wanted to hear. And it was not something I wanted to see moving forward, either. ...I left the Pentagon that afternoon deeply concerned."
Of course, this wholly consistent with the US Neocons' master plan, "Rebuilding America's Defenses," published in August 2000 by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
And, as PNAC's website ( http://www.newamericancentury.org ) notes, that the lead author of that plan, Thomas Donnelly, was a top official of Lockheed Martin--a company well acquainted with war and its profit potential.
It's no surprise that Republicans are starting to talk about withdrawing troops from Iraq; the troops will be needed in Lebanon. And maybe Sudan and Syria?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
More on General Clark--and his failure to mention all this in his pre-Iraq war commentary on CNN--is in Sydney Schanberg's 9/29/03 article "The Secrets Clark Kept: What the General Never Told Us About the Bush Plan for Serial War" at http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0340,schanberg,47436,1.html
The Secrets Clark Kept
What the General Never Told Us About the Bush Plan for Serial War
by Sydney H. Schanberg
September 29th, 2003 7:30 PM
Wesley Clark, the retired four-star general who is one of 10 candidates for the Democratic nomination for president, has written a new book that is just arriving on bookstore shelves. Called Winning Modern Wars, it’s mostly about the Iraq war and terrorism—and it is laced with powerful new information that he held back from the public when he was a CNN military commentator during the Bush administration’s preparations for the war.
For example, he says he learned from military sources at the Pentagon in November 2001, just two months after the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, that serious planning for the war on Iraq had already begun and that, in addition to Iraq, the administration had drawn up a list of six other nations to be targeted over a period of five years.
Here’s what he writes on page 130:
"As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan." Clark adds, "I left the Pentagon that afternoon deeply concerned."
He never disclosed anything like this information in any of his CNN commentaries or in the opinion columns he wrote for print media at the time. If Americans had known such things, and if the information is accurate, would they have supported the White House’s march to war? Would Congress have passed the war resolution the White House asked for?
On the next page of the book, 131, Clark writes: "And what about the real sources of terrorists—U.S. allies in the region like Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia? Wasn’t it the repressive policies of the first, and the corruption and poverty of the second, that were generating many of the angry young men who became terrorists? And what of the radical ideology and direct funding spewing from Saudi Arabia? Wasn’t that what was holding the radical Islamic movement together? . . . It seemed that we were being taken into a strategy more likely to make us the enemy—encouraging what could look like a ‘clash of civilizations’—not a good strategy for Winning the war on terror."
These are very potent observations, coming from a military man with more than three decades of experience who is known for his intellectual candlepower. He was a leading commentator on television, chosen for his expertise in military strategy and geopolitics. Why didn’t he share these opinions with us then, when an informed public might have raised its voice and demanded more answers from the White House?
Was Clark being censored? Or was it self-censorship? In the introduction to Winning Modern Wars, he writes that while he is "protecting" his military sources by leaving them unidentified, "the public interest demands that some of this information be shared." He adds, "Nothing in this book is derived from classified material nor have I written anything that could compromise national security." Then why wait until now to serve "the public interest"? Was the general worried that if he had spoken earlier, in a jingoistic atmosphere, he would have been labeled unpatriotic? It’s an understandable concern.
Whatever his reasons, General Clark surely has some explaining to do now.
Maybe he has some valid explanations, such as that these views are conclusions that evolved over a period of time. But that’s not the way he writes it in the book.
Inconsistencies between old and new remarks are common topics in presidential elections—if that’s what these are. Inconsistencies aren’t mortal sins, just mortal imperfections. Reporters commit them. Anyone who publishes stuff commits them. Sometimes they happen because of changes in circumstances. Sometimes it’s plain old sloppy thinking. But the best way for the perpetrator to deal with them is to point them out as quickly as possible and explain them.
For a presidential candidate, the urgency is more intense, because if you let such problems hang around unattended to, the press will eventually discover them and, like rabid geese, nibble you to death.
Also, in this campaign especially, truth telling (or the lack of it) has become a big issue. The president and several lieges at his roundtable uttered so many distortions and exaggerations and untrue "facts" about why we had to go to war with Iraq that both President Bush and Vice President Cheney eventually had to come forward and admit they had "misspoken"—in particular about Iraq’s nuclear capabilities. They still haven’t acknowledged a lot of other misspeaks. Those running against this president would be well-advised not to fall into his errant ways.
Getting back to the Winning Modern Wars book, it is Clark's second and a sequel of sorts to the first one, which had a similar title, Waging Modern War, and came out two years ago. Both are published by PublicAffairs. Waging was mostly about the successful 78-day air war in Kosovo in 1999, which Clark directed as NATO military chief (officially the supreme allied commander, Europe). Winning is a much slimmer book that reads like a campaign document. Clark knows people will perceive it that way and he denies any political motivation, saying in the introduction that he wrote it as a public duty, especially for the nation’s military men and women. "Offering this analysis," he says, "is the least I can do to help them and to help my country."
One must note, however, that by his own word in the book, he wrote it with considerable speed over the summer and was updating it as late as the first week in September. It started arriving in bookstores only a few days ago, one week after he announced his candidacy.
Also in the introduction, the general writes another commentary that he never gave on CNN:
"After 9/11, during the first months of the war on terror, a critical opportunity to nail Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was missed. Additionally, our allies were neglected and a counter-terrorist strategy was adopted that, despite all the rhetoric, focused the nation on a conventional attack on Iraq rather than a shadowy war against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks: Al Qaeda. I argue that not only did the Bush administration misunderstand the lessons of modern war, it made a policy blunder of significant proportions. . . . [E]vidence and rhetoric were used selectively to justify the decision to attack Iraq. . . . [W]e had re-energized Al Qaeda by attacking an Islamic state and presenting terrorists with ready access to vulnerable U.S. forces. It was the inevitable result of a flawed strategy."
And on page 135, still another previously unspoken analysis: "And so, barely six months into the war on terror, the direction seemed set. The United States would strike, using its military superiority; it would enlarge the problem, using the strikes on 9/11 to address the larger Middle East concerns. . . and it would dissipate the huge outpouring of goodwill and sympathy it had received in September 2001 by going it largely alone, without the support of a formal alliance or full support from the United Nations. And just as the Bush administration suggested, [the conflict] could last for years."
I think reasonable people would agree that GeneraI Clark has a campaign problem—namely, the differences between what he has said in the past about the war and the president, and what he’s saying now. Now he’s saying that George Bush took the country "recklessly" into war. He never used language like that as a commentator. In fact, in an April 10 column for the Times of London, just after the fall of Baghdad, he wrote, "President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt."
Clark should probably talk to the public about these discrepancies as soon as he can. The issues for him are credibility and trust. Americans have grown cynical. They’ve listened to hurricanes of hot air over the years. Who knows? If a candidate were to start telling the unvarnished truth, they might freeze in their tracks and listen. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:17 am Post subject: UN's Annan accuses Israel of deliberate attack |
| UN's Annan accuses Israel of deliberate attack
Israeli bomb kills UN observers
Four United Nations peacekeepers have been killed in an Israeli air strike on an observation post in southern Lebanon, the UN has said.
A bomb struck the post occupied by the peacekeepers of the Unifil force in the Khiam area, it said.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said he was "shocked" at the "apparently deliberate targeting" of the post.
The attack came as Israel said it would control an area in southern Lebanon until international forces deployed.
The force will be discussed at crisis talks to be held in Rome on Wednesday.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will be at the talks after ending her tour of the Middle East on Tuesday.
More than 380 Lebanese and 42 Israelis have died in nearly two weeks of conflict in Lebanon, which began after Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid on 12 July.
Protest
The UN in Lebanon says the Israeli air force destroyed the observer post, in which four military observers were sheltering.
It said the four, from Austria, Canada, China and Finland, had taken shelter in a bunker under the post after it was earlier shelled 14 times by Israeli artillery.
A rescue team was also shelled as it tried to clear the rubble.
"I am shocked and deeply distressed by the apparently deliberate targeting by Israeli Defence Forces of a UN Observer post in southern Lebanon," Mr Annan said in a statement from Rome.
Unifil has been operational in the border area since 1978 and is currently 2,000 strong.
In other military action:
The Israeli army said it had killed a senior Hezbollah commander, Abu Jaafar, in fighting in southern Lebanon
Earlier the UN had said Israeli forces were now in control of the town of Bint Jbeil after fierce fighting and were moving on the village of Yaroun to the south
Israel resumed air raids on Beirut, with explosions heard in southern suburbs - a Hezbollah stronghold
Hezbollah maintained fire of Katyusha rockets into Israel, killing a 15-year-old Arab-Israeli girl in the northern Israeli village of Maghar and striking Haifa with a large salvo
Hezbollah said 27 of its fighters had been killed as of Monday, but the Israeli military said it had killed "some dozens".
Truce call
Earlier, Israeli Defence Minister Amir Peretz had said a "security zone" in southern Lebanon would be maintained "under the control of our forces if there is not a multinational force".
He said: "We have no other option. We have to build a new security strip that will be a cover for our forces."
He did not specify whether Israeli troops would remain there but insisted they would "continue to control [Hezbollah]" in their operations.
Israeli government sources have estimated the width of the zone at anything from three to 10km (1.9-6.2 miles).
An unnamed Israeli official quoted by Reuters news agency said between 10,000 and 20,000 international peacekeepers would be needed.
BBC defence and security correspondent Rob Watson says Israeli details on the zone - and how it will be secured - are far from clear.
Israel is acting with tremendous restraint, were they targeting civilian populations there would be thousands upon thousands dead
Steve Gross, US
He says it is possible Mr Peretz is trying to put pressure on the international community to deliver the peacekeeping force.
The idea of the multinational force will be high on the agenda of foreign ministers who meet in Rome on Wednesday.
Earlier, Ms Rice had expressed concern for the suffering of "innocent people" in the fighting during her tour of the Middle East.
She met Israeli PM Ehud Olmert and later Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Mr Abbas called for an immediate end to "aggression against the Gaza Strip and the West Bank" and for an "immediate ceasefire" in Lebanon.
Ms Rice said the only solution was a sustainable and enduring peace.
Her words were reinforced later by US President George W Bush who said: "I support a sustainable ceasefire that will bring about an end to violence... Our mission and our goal is to have a lasting peace, not a temporary peace."
In his meeting with Ms Rice, Mr Olmert said he was "very conscious" of the humanitarian needs of Lebanon's civilians, but insisted Israel was defending itself against terrorism.
Ms Rice highlighted the need for Israel to consider the humanitarian needs of both Lebanon and the Palestinian people and the need for a durable peace.
She said: "It is time for a new Middle East, it is time to say to those who do not want a different kind of Middle East that we will prevail; they will not."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/5215366.stm...
Forwarded:
The UN's Kofi Annan has just mentioned in a press conference (which I am sure you already aware of unless you have already gone to bed) that Israel deliberately attacked the UN peacekeepers in Lebanon (this has the making of a major international incident with the dead UN peacekeepers being from Europe and China as Annan has mentioned that Israel deliberately sought out to kill these UN peacekeepers).
Israel has a track record of deliberate attacks such as with the USS Liberty ( http://www.ussliberty.org ) and Qana as well.. CNN's Christiane Amanpour mentioned Qana this now but said that it was a 'mistake' which is pure BS... Did you see the following write-up about Qana from my prior email send?:
With regard to what Israel is currently doing in Lebanon, take a look at the following (pages 141-144 from Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book):
...About the same time, beginning on April 11, 1996, a series of shock waves rumbled through the Muslim world as a result of Israel's massive bombardment of Beirut and southern Lebanon, which Israel had by then been occupying for fourteen years. Known as "Operation of Grapes of Wrath," it was the first time Israel had attacked Beirut since Ariel Sharon's ill-fated 1982 invasion of Lebanon. According to Israeli writer Israel Shahak, the real purpose of the attack was to capture as much Lebanese territory as possible.
"It is quite obvious," wrote Shahak, "that the first and most important Israeli aim to be established in the 'Grapes of Wrath' is to establish its sovereignty over Lebanon -- to be exercised in a comparable manner to its control over the Gaza Strip."
Two days after it began, on April 13, ambulance driver Abbas Jiha from the village of Mansouri was busy rushing patients wounded in the fighting to a hospital in the town of Sidon. On his return to Mansouri, panic had broken out and explosions were taking place. People began pleading for him to take them to Sidon. Jiha quickly squeezed four of his children into his ambulance along with ten other people, including a family, and began driving toward Sidon.
Suddenly, an Israeli helicopter began chasing his ambulance. Minutes later, two missiles were fired, one of which exploded through the rear door, engulfing the vehicle in fire and smoke and hurling it sixty feet through the air. Thrown clear, Abbas Jiha began running toward the flaming heap of twisted metal. "My God, my God," he screamed, shaking his fist at the sky, "my family has gone." In all, six people were killed, including Jiha's nine year-old daughter and his wife.
Israeli officials later admitted the ambulance had been targeted but claimed, falsely, that the vehicle was owned by Hezbollah and was transporting one of the group's fighters. Jiha had no connection with terrorist groups, and the thought that Israel could target an ambulance packed with innocent people, including many children, outraged Muslims throughout the Middle East.
On April 18, one week into Operation Grapes of Wrath, a reporter for London's newspaper The Independent was traveling in southern Lebanon with a United Nations convoy. Robert Fisk, Britain's most highly decorated foreign correspondent, spent a quarter of a century covering the Middle East and was the recipient of the British International Journalist of the Year Award seven times, including for 1996. As the vehicles were approaching the small village of Qana, Fisk could hear the sound of artillery, he recalled.
The convoy had stopped at Qana that morning and noticed it was crowded with about eight hundred refugees. They had been transported there for their safety by armored UN vehicles from nearby villages that had come under Israeli bombardment. When the convoy finally arrived in Qana shortly after two in the afternoon, fire was everywhere and proximity shells were bursting in the air. Antipersonnel weapons designed to explode about two dozen feet above ground, they would shower down razor-sharp shrapnel, butchering anyone beneath.
"It was a massacre," wrote Fisk in a front-page story. "Israel's slaughter of civilians in this terrible 10-day offensive -- 206 by last night --- has been so cavalier, so ferocious, that not a Lebanese will forgive this massacre. There had been the ambulance attacked on Saturday, the sisters killed in Yohmor the day before, the 2-year old girl decapitated by an Israeli missile four days ago. And earlier yesterday, the Israelis had slaughtered a family of 12 -- the youngest was a four-day-old baby -- when Israeli helicopter pilots fired missiles into their home."
The Israeli government later claimed the attack on the UN refugee camp at Qana was a mistake. But a formal, top-level United Nations investigation came to a different conclusion. "It is unlikely" that Israeli gunners simply erred, said the report, and demanded that Israel pay $1.7 million in damages. "Contrary to repeated denials," said the report, "two Israeli helicopters and a remotely piloted vehicle were present in the Qana area at the time of the shelling." Amnesty International also conducted an investigation of the massacre, and they concluded "that the IDF [Israeli Defense Force} intentionally attacked the UN compound."
Arieh Shavit, a columnist for the Israeli daily newspaper Ha'aretz, noted: "How easily we killed them [in Qana] without shedding a tear. We did not denounce the crime, did not arrange for a legal clarification, because this time we tried to deny the abominable horror and move on." And the international edition of Time magazine noted, "Around the Middle East... Qana is already a byword for martydom. The southern Lebanese village figures as a shrine drawing up to 1,000 pilgrims a day: busloads of schoolchildren, Cabinet ministers from Beirut, even a daughter of Iran's President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Black banners overlooking rows of graves decry the 'barbarity' of Israel."
While largely ignored by the American press, the massacre at Qana was front-page news in London, much of Europe, and throughout the Middle East, where the story continued for days. Already burning with hatred for America and Israel, the pictures of headless Arab babies and other grisly photographs that appeared throughout the media were likely the final shove, pushing bin Laden over the edge and leading him to dedicating his life to war against what he would call the Israeli - United States alliance. From then on, he would often use the massacre at Qana as a battle cry, and it would become the match lighting the fuse that would eventually lead to the World Trade Center on a Tuesday morning five years later.... | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 7:51 am Post subject: Why Is Israel Destroying Lebanon? |
| http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14191.htm
Why Is Israel Destroying Lebanon?
By Patrick Seale
07/25/06 "Al-Hayat" 07/21/07 --- - Israel is waging a war of extermination in Lebanon. Without regard to the civilian population, it is seeking to destroy Hizballah, much as it has attempted over the past six months to destroy Hamas in the occupied Palestinian territories. It wants to root out these movements altogether.
Its strategy in Lebanon seems to be to empty the south of its population, driving the Shi'ites out of their traditional homeland, where they have lived for centuries, in much the same way as it continues its pitiless onslaught on Gaza. In Lebanon, some 600,000 people have already been displaced, while the entire country is being brutalized and strangled.
Why this Israeli savagery? By their cross-border raids and the capture of three Israeli soldiers, Hizballah and Hamas humiliated the Israeli army and dented its deterrent capability. In Israeli eyes, this cannot go unpunished. It is determined to bring home to the Arabs the tremendous cost of daring to attack Israel.
The Israeli army has a score to settle with Hizballah which, by guerrilla harassment, drove it out of Lebanon in 2000, ending its 22-year occupation of the south. With this success, Hizballah demonstrated to the whole Arab world - and to the Palestinians in particular -- that Israel was not invincible. Now Israel is trying to set the record straight.
No doubt some Israeli hawks, like chief of staff Dan Halutz, regret the 'unfinished business' of Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon when, having killed 17,000 Lebanese and Palestinians, it failed to secure the political reward of bringing a submissive Lebanon into its orbit.
This time, too, Israel may find that its war aim of destroying Hizballah and Hamas is unattainable. These are popular movements enjoying mass support. If crushed in the short-term, they will eventually spring back to life and seek revenge. To 'win', Israel would have to kill, not just hundreds, but hundreds of thousands, of people.
Hizballah's leader, Shaikh Hassan Nasrallah -- Israel's 'Enemy Number One' -- has repeatedly warned Israel to expect 'surprises'. The missile attacks on Haifa, Israel's third largest city, and the disabling of one of Israel's most advanced warships, were certainly painful surprises. They carried the war into Israel's home territory, posing a severe challenge to Israel's strategic doctrine, which has always been to fight its wars on Arab territory.
The greatest 'surprise' Hizballah's might still have up its sleeve would be to survive the present crisis, bloody but unbowed. The longer Hizballah holds out, the greater Israel's problems with the international community, and the greater the pressure of Arab opinion on those Arab regimes that have so far stood shiftily on the sidelines.
Israel has always relied on brute force to ensure its security. Since its creation in 1948, it has sought to dominate the region by military means. This doctrine rests on the belief that the Arabs will never be strong enough, or capable enough, to challenge it. This is a fundamentally racist attitude.
But beneath the bluster and the muscle-flexing lies a deep-seated paranoia and insecurity, reflected in the conviction, shared by many of Israel's citizens, that the Arabs want to kill them and that they face a permanent existential threat. The choice, they seem to believe, is between killing or being killed. This dark view of their environment - something of a self-fulfilling prophecy -- goes some way to explaining the extravagantly disproportionate nature of Israel's attacks and its blatant disregard for international legality and any semblance of morality.
Israel is able to behave in this way because it has been given extraordinary immunity by the United States. A striking aspect of the crisis is, indeed, America's total political, diplomatic and strategic support for Israel -- even to the point of rushing to give it $300 million of aviation fuel with which to continue smashing Lebanon!
America's gross bias has paralysed the Security Council, the G8 and the European Union. So great is American pressure that none of these bodies has been able to insist on an immediate end to the Israeli onslaught. Britain dutifully followed its American Big Brother in repeating the mantra that 'Israel has the right to defend itself', while even France, Lebanon's traditional protector, has tended to put the blame on Hizballah, rather than Israel, for the massive destruction and loss of life.
Terrorism is usually defined as the indiscriminate killing of civilians in pursuit of political goals. Is this not what Israel is doing in both Lebanon and Gaza? It is killing large numbers of Lebanese and Palestinian civilians in pursuit of its political aim of annihilating Hizballah and Hamas. By any objective standard, Israel is guilty of state terrorism.
But killing Arabs in this wanton manner and smashing their countries must inevitably have negative consequences for Israel's own security. Israel's terrorist behaviour legitimizes the terrorism of its enemies. And America's uncritical support for Israel legitimises terrorism against the United States itself. That is what 9/11 was all about, although to this day the United States has not faced up to why it was attacked. The United States and Israel are sowing the wind and will reap the whirlwind.
Washington's unconditional backing for Israel highlights the fact that this is not simply a war between Israel and Hizballah. By seeking to bomb Lebanon into submission, Israel intends to strike a blow at the Iran-Syria-Hizballah axis, which has challenged US-Israeli dominance in the region. The key issue is whose will is to prevail in this vital part of the world.
If the conflict had been a purely local one, Israel might have agreed to an exchange of prisoners, as both Hizballah and Hamas demanded, and as has taken place a number of times in the past. Some 10,000 Palestinian prisoners still languish in Israeli jails. To secure their release is a major Palestinian objective.
But the war has a wider dimension. The United States has given Israel a free rein because it is confronted with the probability of two highly disagreeable developments: a nuclear-armed Iran and a humiliating defeat in Iraq. It urgently needs to regain the initiative in the wider Middle East and has persuaded itself - or been persuaded by Israel's friends inside and outside the Administration -- that Israel can help it do so. The pro-Israeli neocons in the U.S have been trumpeting that a victory for Israel in Lebanon will be a victory for the United States, and a defeat for Israel will be a defeat for the United States.
This is the essential background to Israel's war, which had clearly been long planned in concert with the United States, and with the encouragement of some Christian Lebanese extremists, not unhappy to see Israel 'do the dirty work' for them in 'breaking' Hizballah.
The situation is complicated by a further layer of conflict. The Arab oil producers in the Gulf dread an upset in the regional power balance. They want to continue enjoying their great wealth under the umbrella of American protection. These Gulf regimes fear a dominant Iran and an assertive Shi'ism. This may explain their astonishing passivity in the face of Israel's aggression. But by failing forcefully to condemn Israel's brutality or spring to the defence of beleaguered Lebanon and Gaza, they expose themselves to the anger of the Arab public.
The explosive impact on Arab opinion of the war in Lebanon and the martyrdom of the Palestinians should not be under-estimated, particularly in view of the graphic media coverage of Israeli atrocities, provided by Al-Jazeera and Hizballah's satellite channel, Al-Manar,
Israel's indifference to Arab life risks convincing many young Arabs that long-term coexistence with Israel is not possible. Arab intellectuals are increasingly expressing the view that Israel is a colonial state, which must eventually disappear, as Europe's colonial empires did in their time.
At their summit meeting in Beirut in March 2002, all the Arab states declared their readiness to establish normal peaceful relations with Israel within its 1967 borders. But Israel, intent on expanding its borders, rejected the offer. It must surely be time for Israel to think again. The offer may still be on the table.
Only by withdrawing from Palestinian territories, respecting Lebanon's sovereignty and returning the Golan to Syria will Israel live in peace. End
http://nomorewarforisrael.blogspot.com | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 7:21 pm Post subject: Lebanon: Are the Yanks Coming? |
| July 28, 2006
Lebanon: Are the Yanks Coming?
Let's hope not…
by Justin Raimondo
Zbigniew Brzezinski, speaking at a forum sponsored by the New America Foundation, had this to say about the Israeli invasion of Lebanon:
"I hate to say this but I will say it. I think what the Israelis are doing today for example in Lebanon is in effect, in effect – maybe not in intent – the killing of hostages. The killing of hostages. Because when you kill 300 people, 400 people, who have nothing to do with the provocations Hezbollah staged, but you do it in effect deliberately by being indifferent to the scale of collateral damage, you're killing hostages in the hope of intimidating those that you want to intimidate. And more likely than not you will not intimidate them. You'll simply outrage them and make them into permanent enemies with the number of such enemies increasing."
Harsh words, but true. Intimidation is what the Israeli blitz is all about: it's shock-and-awe in Lebanon, with the IDF playing the role of the Americans and Hassan Nasrallah cast as Saddam Hussein. Except Hezbollah is not rolling over and playing dead, like the ragtag Iraqi army: instead, they are fighting the Israelis to a standstill, and the IDF – only a week into the war – is already bogged down.
What to do? Call in the Americans!
Oh, they're denying it, but, as Ken Silverstein reports in Harper's, U.S. officials are actively discussing the possibility of U.S. military intervention:
"A well-connected former CIA officer has told me that the Bush Administration is in fact considering exactly such a deployment. … According to the former official, Israel and the United States are currently discussing a large American role in exactly such a 'multinational' deployment, and some top administration officials, along with senior civilians at the Pentagon, are receptive to the idea."
Israeli soldiers are too precious to be used in such a casualty-heavy operation: they're only good for bullying Palestinian civilians and bulldozing houses. It's time for the Americans to take bullets for the Israelis – to fight a war that is unambiguously for Israel's sake.
In the case of the invasion of Iraq, it was possible to obfuscate the War Party's real objective and motive by throwing inallthatstuffabout "weapons of mass destruction" and Iraq's alleged "links" to al-Qaeda. It all turned out to be a lie, of course, a cover story to mask their realmotives and intentions: but this time there's no disguising what the War Party is all about, which is making the Middle East safe for Israel.
This is, of course, a perfectly rational objective for Israeli policymakers – and it is even proper, given our long-standing alliance with Tel Aviv, that this should be a subset of our overall goals in the region. It is, however, a perversion of the policymaking process to make Israel's security the centerpiece of America's agenda in the Middle East – which is precisely the course taken by this administration, with disastrous results.
Let us take, for example, our attitude toward Hezbollah, which is no more – nor less – a "terrorist" organization than the Haganah, the Stern Gang, or any of the other outlawed underground Zionist groups that fought for – and won – Israeli independence. God only knows why they are more terrorist than, say, the IDF, as it slaughtersdefenselessLebanesecivilians and blows up basic infrastructure – or the U.S., as our warplanes conduct underreported aerial bombing campaigns against the Iraqi insurgency and inflict untold "collateral damage" on "liberated" Iraqis.
Pro-Israel war propaganda routinely conflates Hezbollah and al-Qaeda, yet they are two completely different – and competing – organizations. The former is nationalist, and relatively secular in that membership is open to all. There are many Christian Hezbollah operatives who fight on its behalf because they see themselves as Lebanese patriots, not holy warriors embarked on a religious crusade. Yes, it is openly funded by Iran, and the Syrians also give to the cause, which they see as pan-Arabist rather than having much to do with Islam.
Israel's stateside cheering section characterizes Hezbollah as an Iranian and/or Syrian "proxy." In this view, Nasrallah is the puppet and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is pulling the strings. Damascus, too, is relegated to the role of a Persian satrap on account of its mutual defense pact with Tehran.
Follow the money, say the conspiracy theorists, because it tells the whole story. Iran funds Hezbollah. Therefore, Iran controls Hezbollah to such an extent that it directs all military operations, with every attack launched on orders from Tehran. The capture of the two Israeli soldiers, they aver, was carried out at the Iranians' behest. How do they know this? They don't, and this just goes to show that Arabs are not the only Middle Eastern constituency for elaborate conspiracy theories.
The Israelis' cartoonish depiction differs considerably from the complex interplay of national, religious, and ideological loyalties that coalesced into Hezbollah, or the "Party of God." While it is true that the group's Khomeini-inspired ideology looks to Tehran for inspiration and support, the leaders and cadre are still Lebanese. Don't be fooled by the religious trappings: Hezbollah was born as a nationalistic reaction to the Israeli invasion of 1982, and its success is due much more to its prowess on the battlefield than to any purely ideological or religious appeal.
This "follow the money" methodology, which makes Hezbollah out to be an Iranian cat's-paw, aside from its crude reductionism, doesn't quite fit the facts. My Arab sources tell me Egypt has also made under-the-table contributions. Does this make Hezbollah Hosni Mubarak's sock-puppet? I suspect a number of other Arab governments funnel funds to the Lebanese, just as they support the Palestinians materially as well as rhetorically. Yet these governments no more control Hezbollah's activities on the ground than do the Persians or the Syrians.
This is the only Arab military force to have defeated the IDF and driven them off occupied Arab lands. Winners are always popular, which is why Hezbollah has near-universal support in the southern region – and, now, throughout Lebanon and the Arab world. These Lebanese nationalists have no interest in establishing a Shi'ite super-state dominated by ethnic Persians: they are merely looking to the only regional allies they can count on in any showdown with the Israelis.
What the IDF is fighting is not a "proxy" army, but a homegrown resistance movement. Hezbollah has a political as well as a military presence in Lebanon, boasting three ministers in the government – a government, I might add, once enthusiastically praised by none other than President Bush as an exemplar of his "global democratic revolution."
As I wrote in my last column on this subject, al-Qaeda benefits from the rape of Lebanon almost as much as the Israelis – and in the long run they may reap even greater rewards in terms of winning worldwide support. Bin Laden's chief aide-de-camp, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was quick to take advantage of the opportunity to inject his two cents and call for holy war against the "Zionists and Crusaders." After all, events seem to confirm, in Muslim eyes, al-Qaeda's central ideological and strategic thesis, which is that the West, and America specifically, is out to destroy Islam, and must therefore itself be destroyed.
Hezbollah, on the other hand, has in the past disclaimed any intention of attacking America or American interests abroad. Nasrallah has denounced terrorist attacks against the U.S., including the 9/11 attack.
"We reject those methods, and believe they contradict Islam and the teachings of the Quran, which do not permit this barbarity."
Hezbollah's ire is aimed exclusively at Israel, and yet how long can this continue when their children, their parents, their family and friends are coming under fire from warplanes fueled by shipments from the U.S.? Those bombs falling on their heads are in large part paid for by the American taxpayers. And as Uncle Sam, disdaining all talk of a cease-fire, gives the green light to the Israelis to swallow southern Lebanon, one has to ask: Why are we making enemies of these people?
In giving unconditional support to the invaders, Israel's amen corner in the U.S. has to answer this question: how does it further American interests?
The answer is, it doesn't. Quite the contrary: it strengthens the deadliest of our enemies, the terrorist network associated with Osama bin Laden, and threatens to recruit Hezbollah – the "A-team" of Middle Eastern paramilitary factions – into a worldwide Islamic insurgency directed primarily against the United States.
America is not going to cut the Gordian knot of the Middle East's ethnic and religious conflicts by means of military intervention, and diplomatic efforts can only have a limited and probably temporary effect. The aim of our policy in the region should be avoidance of conflict, instead of provoking or sanctioning it – and, most importantly, we must avoid getting ourselves sucked into the vortex of age-old hatreds that erupt there with such regularity. The American people seem to understand this instinctively: a recent poll shows a majority oppose U.S. participation in a "peacekeeping" force, and they also take a much more evenhanded view of which side is to blame.
The invasion of Lebanon is Israel's gift to bin Laden, and the U.S. – by appearing to egg the Israelis on – is gift-wrapping it for him. Al-Qaeda has made little or no inroads into the Levant, as far as anyone knows: we have now given them a very big opening.
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9430 | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 7:36 pm Post subject: |
| What this Catastrophe is all about...
http://counterpunch.com/reinhart07272006.html
From Bush's perspective, he only has two years to consolidate his vision of complete U.S. control of the Middle East, and to do that, all seeds of resistance should be crushed in a devastating blow that will make it clear to every single Arab that obeying the master is the only way to stay alive. If Israel is willing to do the job, and crush not only the Palestinians, but also Lebanon and Hezbollah, then the U.S., torn from the inside by growing resentment over Bush's wars, and perhaps unable to send new soldiers to be killed for this cause right now, will give Israel all the backing it can. As Rice announced in her visit in Jerusalem on July 25, what is at stakes is "a new Middle East". "We will prevail" - she promised Olmert.
But Israel is not sacrificing its soldiers and citizens only to please t! he Bush administration. The "new Middle East" has been a dream of the Israeli ruling military circles since at least 1982, when Sharon led the country to the first Lebanon war with precisely this declared goal. Hezbollah's leaders have argued for years that its real long-term role is to protect Lebanon, whose army is too weak to do this. They have said that Israel has never given up its aspirations for Lebanon and that the only reason it pulled out of Southern Lebanon in 2000 is because Hezbollah's resistance has made maintaining the occupation too costly. Lebanon's people know what every Israeli old enough to remember knows - that in the vision of 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 Isra! eli army left Southern Lebanon in 2000, the plans to return were ready.[12] But in Israel's military vision, in the next round, the land should be first "cleaned" of its residents, as Israel did when it occupied the Syrian Golan Heights in 1967, and as it is doing now in southern Lebanon. To enable Israel's eventual realization of Ben Gurion's vision, it is necessary to establish a "friendly regime" in Lebanon, one that will collaborate in crushing any resistance. To do this, it is necessary first to destroy the country, as in the U.S. model of Iraq. These were precisely Sharon's declared aims in the first Lebanon war. Israel and the U.S. believe that now conditions have ripened enough that these aims can finally be realized.
Tanya Reinhart is a Professor of Linguistics at Tel Aviv University and the author of Israel/Palestine: How to End the War of 1948 and The Roadmap to Nowhere. She can be reached through her website: http://www.tau.ac.il/~reinhart | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 8:20 am Post subject: |
| http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/28/1440244
Friday, July 28th, 2006
NATIONAL EXCLUSIVE: Hezbollah Leader Hassan Nasrallah Talks With Former US Diplomats on Israel, Prisoners and Hezbollah’s Founding
Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The US government considers Hezbollah a terrorist organization, but several former former US diplomats sat down with the group’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, in Lebanon earlier this year. In a US national exclusive, we play excerpts of the interview, and speak to former US Ambassador and White House Terrorism Task Force Director Edward Peck, who took part in the meeting. [includes rush transcript]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheik Hassan Nasrallah is the leader of the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah. Although the United States considers Hezbollah a terrorist organization, three former U.S. diplomats had a chance to meet with Nasrallah this past February in Lebanon. The diplomats were members of a delegation organized by the Council for the National Interest.
During the meeting, Nasrallah discussed Hezbollah’s strategy to free Lebanese prisoners being held in Israel. He also spoke about the origins of Hezbollah, and recounted an event that is back in the news this week—Israel’s bombing of a UN observation post in the southern Lebanese town of Qana in 1996 which killed 106 Lebanese refugees.
One of the retired diplomats who met with Nasrallah in February was Edward Peck - he joins us from our Washington studio. Edward Peck is the former U.S. chief of mission in Iraq and ambassador to Mauritania. He served as the deputy director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism in the Reagan administration.
Edward Peck. Former U.S. Chief of Mission in Iraq and ambassador to Mauritania. He served as deputy director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism in the Reagan Administration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...
JUAN GONZALEZ: During the meeting, Nasrallah was asked about Hezbollah's strategy to free Lebanese prisoners being held in Israel. This was his response.
SHEIKH SAYYED HASSAN NASRALLAH: [translated] The only possible strategy is for you to have Israeli prisoners, soldiers, the soldiers as prisoners, and then you negotiate with the Israelis in order to have your prisoners released. Here, this is the only choice. Here, you don't have multiple choices in order for you to choose one of them. You have no multiple choices. You have two options, either to have these prisoners or detainees remain in Israeli prisons or to capture Israeli soldiers.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah. One of the retired diplomats who met with Nasrallah in February is Edward Peck. When we come back from our break, he joins us in studio. Edward Peck, former U.S. Chief of Mission in Iraq and ambassador to Mauritania.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: We turn to one of the retired diplomats who met with Hassan Nasrallah in February, Edward Peck. He is the former U.S. Chief of Mission in Iraq and ambassador to Mauritania, served as the Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism in the Reagan administration. We welcome to you Democracy Now!, Ambassador Peck.
EDWARD PECK: Thank you, ma'am.
AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Can you describe this meeting you had with the head of Hezbollah in Lebanon? And then we'll talk about the content of what he had to say, because this was before the capture of the two soldiers, and he basically said this was the plan.
EDWARD PECK: Well, we were out there as international election observers in Gaza for the election, and then we traveled elsewhere through the area, to Israel, to the West Bank, to Jordan, Syria, and finally to Lebanon, where we met with Nasrallah. We had spoken already with senior officials in Egypt and for Hamas and Fatah and the presidents of Syria and Lebanon in an effort, which the Council for the National Interest was sponsoring, to get a feeling for the area, how it was at that time in January.
It was interesting to meet with him, because we had already met with leaders of Hamas and Fatah before and after the election was over in Palestine, and his point was a fairly simple one, I think. Talking to us, retired diplomats, Americans, his key concerns were essentially how to free his country from the domination, which he perceived, and how to go about building the nation up again, despite all of the things that had happened to it over the years.
So it was a logical, reasonable presentation. No screaming, no shrieking. You know, just an educated intelligent man talking about serious issues that he perceived. It was interesting in the sense that the projection of people like that in this country is of, you know, blood-soaked wackos, and there are some of those out there on all sides, but that certainly was not the case with him. He believes very strongly in what he’s doing, which is something that you want to think about as you deal with him, because he is intent on accomplishing the objectives that he believes are the right ones.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And this issue of using Israeli, capturing Israeli soldiers to, in essence, trade for Lebanese prisoners is not unheard of, actually. Didn’t Nasrallah negotiate a major prisoner release back in 2004?
EDWARD PECK: Yes, and the Palestinians and the Israelis and the Lebanese, Hezbollah and Israelis have negotiated prisoner exchanges before. As I think you're aware, the Israelis have been holding a number of Lebanese as prisoners that they kidnapped from Lebanon, which is one of the contentious issues that upsets the folks on the northern side of that border.
AMY GOODMAN: I mean, he was very clear, Nasrallah, saying the only possible strategy is to have Israeli prisoners and soldiers as prisoners, and then you negotiate in order to get your prisoners. This is the only choice. You don't have multiple choices in order for you to choose. You have the two options, either to have your detainees remain in Israeli prisons or to capture an Israeli soldier.
EDWARD PECK: Yeah, and it’s called a bargaining chip. It’s kind of a demeaning phrase, but if you've got some, and we've got some, then perhaps we can make an exchange. And that has indeed happened before. One of the things that concerns me, of course, is that I am not convinced that it’s the capture of those two soldiers, which has provoked this horrific Israeli response. I believe they were looking for an excuse, and there it was, and this is what’s happened since.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, let's go back to this videotape that we have gotten a copy of. During your meeting with Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, he also discussed the founding of Hezbollah.
SHEIKH SAYYED HASSAN NASRALLAH: [translated] You know that in the year 1978, the Israelis invaded South Lebanon, and the UN Security Council issued or passed the Resolution 425. They requested that the Israeli forces immediately withdraw from South Lebanon, and the Israelis did not. On the contrary, in the year 1982, they invaded more Lebanese territory. They even occupied the capital, Beirut. Mr. Sharon was the defense minister then.
Between 1978, 1982, up ’til the year 2000, the international community did nothing to help the Israeli occupation forces out of Lebanon, nor did it, meaning the international community, do anything to prevent these aggressions on Lebanon. There was a resolution called 425, but it was put on the shelf. We, as Lebanese, were left to face our fate.
Lebanon is a small country, weak, an army with very humble capabilities. What is first is that the people is torn as a result of the civil war, while facing the strongest army in the Middle East, meaning the Israeli Army. Not only the international community, specifically the U.S. administration, did nothing, there's also the Arab League, the OIC, Organization of Islamic Countries, nobody did anything.
We are a group of Lebanese youth. We took the decision that we needed to confront and resist the occupation. The resistance which we have established, when we started with it, I was -- our ages, he’s talking about the ages of the young who took part in this -- I was 22 years old then. The oldest among us was 27 years old, because those who were over 30 then believed that it was impossible to defeat Israel. They viewed themselves as sage, as wise people, and they viewed us or considered us as the crazy youth.
AMY GOODMAN: Hezbollah founder Hassan Nasrallah, speaking with a group -- leader, not founder -- speaking with a group of U.S. diplomats, including Ambassador Edward Peck, who joins us in our studio in Washington. Juan?
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Ambassador, he mentions there this UN Resolution 425, which obviously is almost ancient history, forgotten in current crisis. But Israel is constantly mentioning UN Resolution 1559, and there are some, including Hezbollah, who believe that that resolution doesn't really apply to Hezbollah, per se. Could you explain that and the differences of opinion about even this latest resolution?
EDWARD PECK: Well, let me start with saying that people in the Middle East, for obvious reasons, find it sort of ironic that Israel is now insisting on the implementation of 1559, whereas, as Nasrallah said, they ignored this earlier Security Council resolution demanding that they remove themselves from South Lebanon for 20 years, that that’s called selective morality. Everybody practices that, but it kind of cuts the ground up from under your stance if you think that only certain Security Council resolutions should be enforced.
Hezbollah, the problem we face -- the problem the Lebanese government faces is that Hezbollah is a political party, as you’re aware, that does a lot of things in the humanitarian and social field, which is good, and does some things in the military field, which certain people consider to be not good. And the Lebanese government, which is weak and riven, as you know, by the many, many sectarian groups and the differences that they have religiously and socially, is in no position whatsoever to take on Hezbollah. That would be a civil war. And while Israel does not mind necessarily seeing that happen, would like very much to have Hezbollah go away, there’s no way in the world, as far as I can tell, that the Lebanese would even consider undertaking this. And this was made clear to us by the leaders of the Lebanese government with whom we also met on that trip.
AMY GOODMAN: Ambassador Peck, did you have any inkling, when you met with Nasrallah, after talking to him, that something was imminent, that some kind of action was going to be taken?
EDWARD PECK: No, ma'am. Certainly not from that meeting. But those of us who have lived in and worked on that part of the world for a long -- well, for any length of time recognize that eventually there’s going to be some kind of an explosion, to use the phrase correctly, because the situations like that, just they're rumbling. They’re like, you know, semi-nascent volcanic eruptions. Something is going to happen. But certainly, there was no indication at that moment that I detected, nor my colleagues either, that something like this was going to transpire.
And it’s worthwhile noticing, by the way, that what some people call the disproportionality of the Israeli reaction -- if I could, I have a piece of paper here I would like to quote from, if I may, because this discussion comes up so many times. In 1985, when I was the Deputy Director of the Reagan White House Task Force on Terrorism, they asked us -- this is a Cabinet Task Force on Terrorism; I was the Deputy Director of the working group -- they asked us to come up with a definition of terrorism that could be used throughout the government. We produced about six, and each and every case, they were rejected, because careful reading would indicate that our own country had been involved in some of those activities.
After the task force concluded its work, Congress got into it, and you can google into U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2331, and read the U.S. definition of terrorism. And one of them in here says -- one of the terms, “international terrorism,” means “activities that,” I quote, “appear to be intended to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.”
Yes, well, certainly, you can think of a number of countries that have been involved in such activities. Ours is one of them. Israel is another. And so, the terrorist, of course, is in the eye of the beholder. And I think it’s useful for people who discuss that phrase to remember that Israel was founded by terrorist organizations and terrorist leaders, Menachem Begin, who became statesmen and went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize. And Nasrallah may not be the same kind of guy, but his intentions are the same. He wants to free his country from domination by another.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go back to the videotape. Nasrallah also mentioned an event that’s back in the news this week, and that’s Israel's bombing of a UN observation post in the southern Lebanese town of Qana in 1996. In that attack ten years ago, about 106 refugees were killed.
SHEIKH SAYYED HASSAN NASRALLAH: [translated] Between the years 1985 and the year 2000, we went on with the resistance. There was, for example, the Qana massacre. You’ve heard about that. The UN Security Council did not to condemn the Qana massacre, due to the U.S. veto. In other words, our experience with the international community, first, it does not protect us, meaning it does not prevent Israeli aggressions on Lebanon. And even after the aggression takes place, they do not even condemn the aggressor. On the contrary, they condemn the victim and regard those who defend themselves as terrorists.
AMY GOODMAN: Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, speaking with U.S. diplomats in February, among them, Ambassador Edward Peck, who is the former Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism in the Reagan administration, joining us in Washington. You were meeting with Nasrallah, as, of course, the occupation and the war in Iraq continued. What effect was that having on him? How did he describe that?
EDWARD PECK: I don't remember directly, but one of the things that we spoke -- I have to tell you that we spoke to so many interesting people, interesting in the sense of having things to say that we needed to hear, that I would have to remind myself. But I think it’s important for Americans to try to understand that those dots are connected. There is, in the minds of the people in that part of the world, at the very minimum, a connection between Palestine, West Bank and Gaza and Lebanon and Iraq and Afghanistan and the threats against Syria and Iran. And Nasrallah, who is an educated man, is certainly aware that these things are indeed linked, and he probably, and I have to -- I’m open to correction -- he probably implied that there was a direct connection between what America's involved in in Iraq and the American concerns with the security and safety of Israel at any cost.
JUAN GONZALEZ: In your opinion as a veteran diplomat, what is the impact of these United States actions in the world at large, especially in the Arab world? How is our standing in the eyes of the Arab world developing, especially now in this latest Lebanon situation?
EDWARD PECK: Well, the latest situation is merely, you know, further indications of the sorts of things that they had already come to believe. There are facts and there are facts, and then there are perceptions, and perceptions are the only reality. And the perceptions, in the minds of an awful lot of people in the Arab world and Europe and elsewhere, reflects the loss of American prestige, credibility, respect, as we go on doing things, which seem in the eyes of others to be irrational and unjustifiable.
And now, when we have stepped up and say -- you know, the first thing that you do in any struggle anywhere in the world is try to get a ceasefire so you can work on solving or trying to solve underlying problems. And then the United States says, “No, no. No ceasefire. Let's let them go on bombing and killing.” I think that the damage to us is not only vital, I think it is going to have a lasting effect on our relations with the rest of the world commercially, socially, culturally, in every way imaginable.
AMY GOODMAN: Ambassador Peck, the way the Western media deals with al-Qaeda, with Hamas, with Hezbollah, is sort of basically massing them all together. You have been meeting with people individually. What is your sense? I mean, the latest news, al-Qaeda releasing a new recording urging Muslims to attack Israel and its allies over the ongoing attacks in Lebanon and Gaza. What is your sense of where they agree and disagree and how much they work together?
EDWARD PECK: I guess it’s the sort of thing that you could see -- it's a clumsy analogy, but it’s the sort of thing where Democrats and Republicans will work together towards the achievement of an objective that they both see desirable, and as soon as that is over, they’ll go back to squabbling again.
And I think that that’s the sort of thing that applies with any political, economic, military operation, so that Hezbollah and Hamas, which are from different sects, different sections of Islam, are perfectly prepared, for example, to take money and arms, if they can get them, from Iran. But they have no desire, certainly in the case of Hamas, to become a Shiite-dominated fundamentalist government. It’s in the same way that we provide arms and money and so forth to Israel, but Israel certainly does not do our bidding, as we have seen many times, especially since we don't ask them to do much.
The linkage of America with Israel with this perceived war on Islam is, to me, deeply concerning, because history has shown that you can build tremendous pressures of that kind, especially in societies which tend to be less developed than our own, which tend to be less well educated than our own in many cases, and which become -- you know, they're more traditional than we are, and you can generate an awful lot of anger and resentment, which we have succeeded in doing.
AMY GOODMAN: Ambassador Peck, I want to thank you very much for being with us, former ambassador to Mauritania.
EDWARD PECK: Sorry to talk so much.
AMY GOODMAN: No. Thank you very much for speaking with us, speaking with us from Washington. Former White House Task Force Deputy Director on Terrorism in the Reagan administration.
To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click here for our new online ordering or call 1 (888) 999-3877.
http://waynemadsenreport.com
Israeli invasion of Lebanon planned by neocons in June
July 22/23, 2006 --
The Israeli invasion of Lebanon was planned between top Israeli officials and members of the Bush administration.
On June 17 and 18, former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Likud Knesset member Natan Sharansky met with Vice President Dick Cheney at the American Enterprise Institute conference in Beaver Creek, Colorado. There, the impending Israeli invasions of both Gaza and Lebanon were discussed. After receiving Cheney's full backing for the invasion of Gaza and Lebanon, Netanyahu flew back to Israel and participated in a special "Ex-Prime Ministers" meeting, in which he conveyed the Bush administration's support for the carrying out of the "Clean Break" policy -- the trashing of all past Middle East peace accords, including Oslo. Present at the meeting, in addition to Netanyahu, were current Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and former Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Shimon Peres. Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir is very old and suffers from dementia and Ariel Sharon remains in a coma after a series of strokes.
Lebanon and Gaza invasions planned last month in Colorado meetings between Netanyahu, Sharansky, and Cheney.
After the AEI meeting, Sharansky, who has the ear of Bush, met with the Heritage Foundation in Washington and then attended a June 29 seminar at Philadelphia's Main Line Haverford School sponsored by the Middle East Forum led by Daniel Pipes. Sharansky appeared with Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum who this past Thursday was beating the war drums against Syria, Iran, and "Islamo-fascism" in a fiery speech at the National Press Club attended by a cheering section composed of members of the neocon Israel Project, on whose board Santorum serves along with Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss and Virginia GOP Rep. Tom Davis.
Our Washington sources claim that the U.S.-supported invasions of Gaza and Lebanon and the impending attacks on Syria and Iran represent the suspected "event" predicted to take place prior to the November election in the United States and is an attempt to rally the American public around the Bush-Cheney regime during a time of wider war.
Additional at following URL:
Israeli invasion of Lebanon planned by neocons in June:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/07/24/israeli-invasion-of-lebanon-planned-by-neocons-in-june.php
Neocons Ready to Send U.S. Troops to Lebanon:
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=482
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel's attack on Lebanon resulted in the tragic attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/07/17/israel-s-attack-on-lebanon-resulted-in-9-11.php
Iran: The Next War
Even before the bombs fell on Baghdad, a group of senior Pentagon officials were plotting to invade another country. Their covert campaign once again relied on false intelligence and shady allies. But this time, the target was Iran.
BY JAMES BAMFORD
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/10962352/iran_the_next_war/1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out pages 1 and 2 of the comments at the following blog entry about Bush and Blair:
Bush And Blair Dismiss Growing Worldwide Calls For Cease-Fire...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/07/28/bush-and-blair-dismiss-gr_n_26039.html
Iran given August 31st deadline with UN Security Council vote to be taken on Monday - 30 days grace after August 31
UN to give Iran until August 31 to suspend uranium enrichment
by Tim Witcher 17 minutes ago
The UN Security Council would consider sanctions against Iran if it does not halt uranium enrichment by August 31, under a resolution drawn up by the six major powers, diplomats said.
A text of the proposed resolution was distributed to the 15 council nations on Friday, and US ambassador John Bolton told reporters at the UN headquarters that a vote could be held early next week.
If Iran continues to pursue uranium enrichment, "the next step will be the consideration of sanctions in the Security Council, and it would be our intention to move forcefully to get those sanctions adopted," Bolton said.
The first stage would be political and economic sanctions, diplomats stressed.
The United States and its allies believe that Iran is seeking to build a nuclear bomb. Iran has insisted its programme is peaceful but has refused to comply with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) orders to suspend uranium enrichment and other activities.
Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- the five permanent members of the Security Council -- and Germany drew up the draft resolution during weeks of painstaking talks.
Russia and China have led opposition to any talk of sanctions in the resolution.
Russia's ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, stressed that the new resolution would not threaten sanctions and that it was "an invitation to dialogue" with Iran.
But he also acknowledged that if Iran did not respond, the Security Council would then consider "measures of pressure, like sanctions" under Article 41 of Chapter Seven of the UN Charter. Article 41 would not allow the use of force.
Churkin insisted sanctions would be "the next step, a possibility along with other possibilities."
The draft resolution calls on Iran to follow IAEA directives "without further delay" and highlights the three years the IAEA has spent trying to get information about Iran's nuclear programme.
If passed, it would call on the IAEA director Mohammed ElBaradei to give a report on whether Iran has complied by August 31.
While warning of further measures, the resolution "underlines that further decisions will be required should such additional measures be necessary," meaning that a new resolution would have to be passed to get sanctions.
Diplomats said the resolution would increase pressure on Iran to respond to an offer of economic and political incentives to halt its nuclear production that was made by Britain, France and Germany in June.
Iran has said it will not reply before August 22, nine days before the proposed UN deadline.
Bolton said the resolution would be "a mandatory command" to comply with IAEA resolutions and set out a tough line on the issue.
"The draft text will impose a mandatory and binding requirement on Iran that it suspend all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities," said Bolton.
"I think the resolution will put the ball back in Iran's court," he said.
"They can take one path and suspend their uranium enrichment activities and come into discussions on the very generous offer," made by the European Union trio, or "they will face increased international isolation, economic and political pressure," said Bolton.
The vote is virtually certain to be passed without difficulty, as all five permanent members support it, lifting any threat of a veto.
The accord on a draft resolution was sealed despite China hinting it could hold up other key UN business after the United States refused to accept criticism of Israel in a Security Council statement this week on the killing of four UN peacekeepers in Lebanon.
Bolton said he had not seen any sign of Chinese objections to the text.
Russia is believed to have greater influence over Iran among the UN's major powers.
Russia's President Vladimir Putin spoke about the nuclear dispute with Iran's hardline president Mahmud Ahmadinejad in telephone talks on Tuesday, the Kremlin said.
-------------------------------------
Sounds just like the BS that we had in the run-up to Iraq.. Take a look at the Bamford Rolling Stone article again as Jim mentioned how the AIPAC (pro-Israel) lobby has been pushing for US to go after Iran for years.. Did you see how JINSAN Michael Ledeen was mentioned in that Bamford article as well..
Iran: The Next War (latest Bamford article for Rolling Stone magazine):
Even before the bombs fell on Baghdad, a group of senior Pentagon officials were plotting to invade another country. Their covert campaign once again relied on false intelligence and shady allies. But this time, the target was Iran.
BY JAMES BAMFORD
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/10962352/iran_the_next_war/1
Israeli invasion of Lebanon planned by neocons in June:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/07/24/israeli-invasion-of-lebanon-planned-by-neocons-in-june.php
Neocons Ready to Send U.S. Troops to Lebanon:
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=482 | | | | Alpha | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
