|
Notify me of new HIR pieces!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Understanding the US position (Part 2) Why does the US propose a United Nations
intervention? Historical and Investigative Research - 1 August
2006 1 | 2
Three days ago, 29 July, the Los Angeles Times
published an article on the US reaction to the Israel-Lebanon war that bears
a close analysis. It opens with the following lines: “After more
than two weeks of fierce fighting between Israeli forces and Hezbollah
guerrillas, leaders from the Middle East to Washington and the United Nations
signaled a sense of urgency Friday to end the conflict. Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice returns to the region today for the second round of
diplomacy in a week. In the hours before her arrival, Hezbollah
political leaders here reversed course and agreed to join a Lebanese
government proposal aimed at stopping the fighting in the country's south.”[1]
[my emphasis] It is hard to imagine better coordination between
the US Secretary of State and the Hezbollah leadership. “Israel
dismissed Hezbollah’s offer as disingenuous and said it was an indication of
the guerrillas’ weakness on the battlefield. But the Shiite Muslim militia’s
willingness to participate in the initiative shows a flexibility to negotiate
not previously evident as the fighting raged in southern Lebanon.” Israel says the Hezbollah offer is disingenuous, but
according to the LA Times, this is evidence that Hezbollah “shows a
flexibility to negotiate.” Whose interpretation makes more sense: Israel’s or
the LA Times’? I think Israel’s interpretation is the sensible one. Contrary to what the Los Angeles Times says,
Hezbollah is not a “militia,” it is a terrorist army created to destroy
Israel by the Iranians, who say in public that they would like to exterminate
the Jewish people (see here).[2]
This may be difficult for a lot of people to notice because the mainstream
media often tells a completely different story, claiming that the Lebanese
Hezbollah is supposedly fighting for a minuscule piece of land called Shebaa
Farms. For example, in the article we are considering, the Los Angeles
Times states that “Lebanon…has always insisted that a disputed area known
as Shebaa Farms, at the border of Israel, Syria and Lebanon, be turned over
to its control.” This, however, is simply false. Lebanon first claimed the
Shebaa Farms (which is in the formerly Syrian Golan Heights) in 2000, because
this is the year that Israel completely withdrew from Lebanon, so in order to
continue killing innocent Jews across the border, Hezbollah needed a new
excuse, as HIR has shown.[3] I
have not been able to find a Lebanese claim to the Shebaa Farms before this
date in any newspaper or wire. What does this mean? In my view, given that
Hezbollah’s political goal is to kill as many Jews as possible, it means that
if Hezbollah were not worried about its long-term position, it would simply
go on happily killing Jews rather than sue for a ceasefire with its
protectors in the ‘international community.’ Other evidence is consistent with this view. The LA
Times reports that, “[UN Secretary
General Kofi] Annan and the U.N. humanitarian chief, Jan Egeland, expressed
impatience over the international community's inability to agree more quickly
on a strategy to stop the fighting.” Kofi Annan is a co-architect of the destruction of
Yugoslavia and the total implosion of Kosovo.[7]
That was done with the help of Norwegian diplomats in their forward
deployment as NATO front men posing as neutral peacekeepers, a strategy born
in the mind of Jan Egeland himself, and which also produced the disastrous
Oslo process which has almost completed the destruction of Israel.[8] It
is in no small measure thanks to Jan Egeland that Gaza and the West Bank have
become terrorist proto-states dedicated to the annihilation of the Jewish
people. As pointed out in the previous HIR
piece on the US position, Norwegians have also been
deployed in southern Lebanon to protect the antisemitic terrorists of
Hezbollah.[6] In this context,
and in the absence of a comparably urgent response by Annan and Egeland to
much greater civilian catastrophes elsewhere in the world (e.g. Sudan), the
anxiety and impatience of these two men to deploy a UN force in southern
Lebanon is consistent with the view that their true concern is protecting
Hezbollah. Again consistent with this general picture, as
argued by HIR, is the US
and Arab
initial responses, which strongly suggest that Hezbollah was not supposed to
attack just now, and has generated problems for itself and for its masters.[4] If
“four major Muslim countries joined Iran’s call for a cease-fire,”[5]
instead of joining the attack on Israel, this suggests that they were not
ready to attack and are worried about the damage now being sustained by
Hezbollah. But one does not get this impression from reading
the LA Times, because this newspaper says that, “As diplomacy
appeared to gain pace Friday, President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony
Blair, meeting at the White House, announced that they would push for a
United Nations resolution next week to send an international force to
southern Lebanon. But both leaders again refused to press for a cease-fire
until Hezbollah was disarmed.”[9] Since no further analysis of this diplomacy is
offered, the refusal by US and British officials to demand a cease-fire will
look to many people as support for Israel, but it is important to remember
that ruling elites need to keep certain appearances that will not offend
their citizens, and there is still much support for Israel among ordinary US citizens,
despite the barrage of anti-Israeli propaganda in the Western media. Thus, in
order to figure out whether the US and Britain are trying to help Israel (which would
contradict the entire history of US and British policy toward Israel),
we must ask: Will this “international force” that the US and Britain are
proposing in fact achieve the result of keeping the peace? Or will it allow
Syria and Iran to reconstruct the Hezbollah in order to resume the charge to
destroy Israel? The best way to address this question is to ask what
the current multinational force in Lebanon, which has been there for a while,
has done. This force is called UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in
Lebanon), and its purpose is supposedly to “restore the international peace
and security, and help the Lebanese Government restore its effective
authority in the area.”[10] This appears
identical to what the proposed multinational force would supposedly be sent
to do. TIME magazine states that, “So far
UNIFIL, which has been in Lebanon since 1978, when Israel launched its first
major incursion into Lebanon, and today numbers around 2,000 peacekeepers,
has found itself almost powerless to intercede.”[11] The translation of this is that UNIFIL has not
“restore[d]...international peace and security” (because Hezbollah has
continued attacking Israel all the time that UNIFIL has been there), and that
neither has UNIFIL “help[ed] the Lebanese Government restore its effective
authority in the area” (because what has happened is that Hezbollah has taken
over the Lebanese government, as opposed to a Hezbollah-free Lebanese
government reasserting its control over southern Lebanon). Since the LA Times says that the
just-proposed US-British plan “recommends beefing up the existing but largely
ineffective 2,000-member U.N. force [UNIFIL] already in place in the south,”
what we have is perfect consistency: 1) In 1978,
Israel invaded southern Lebanon in order to end PLO terrorist attacks against
Israeli civilians. The US forced the Israelis to withdraw, and then UNIFIL
was plunked in southern Lebanon.[12]
The terrorist attacks continued and even increased. 2) In 1982,
the Israelis again invaded southern Lebanon to halt the terrorist attacks.
The US again intervened to protect the terrorists, prevented Israel from
destroying the PLO, and provided the PLO with a US military escort to its new
home in Tunis.[13] 3) In 1996,
when Hezbollah -- the terrorist force created to replace the PLO in southern
Lebanon -- forced the Israelis to counterattack, the US moved with blinding
speed to produce an Orwellian ‘ceasefire’ that prevented Israel from crossing
to destroy Hezbollah, and which allowed Hezbollah to keep firing at the
Israelis.[14] 4) And now, in
2006, the ‘solution’ to the latest escalation of Hezbollah violence against
Israeli civilians, which forced even Ehud Olmert’s government to retaliate,
is more of the same: more UNIFIL, the force that has allowed Iran and Syria’s
Hezbollah to grow and take over Lebanon, while firing at Israeli civilians
the whole time.
Will it happen once again? Yes, unless the Israeli
citizens actively demand that their government protect their lives. Israel
National News reported on Sunday that, “Following an
almost two-hour meeting in his Jerusalem residence with US Secretary of State
Dr. Condoleezza Rice on Saturday night, the [Israeli] prime minister [Ehud Olmert]
agreed to the US plan, calling for the deployment of a multinational force
between Israel and Lebanon and Syria. It was announced that France and
Lebanon would take part in the force, but other details have yet to be
decided upon.”[15] So, France, the country that rushed with the US to
protect the PLO terrorists in southern Lebanon from the Israelis in 1982-83,[16]
and Lebanon, which is already owned by Hezbollah, which is to say by Syria
and Iran,[17] “would take
part in the force.” They would? Why not drop the charade, then, and add the
Syrians and Iranians to the 'peacekeeping' force?
_____________________________________________________ Footnotes and Further Reading [1] WARFARE IN THE
MIDDLE EAST; Israel Rejects Peace Offer; Hezbollah signs on to Lebanon's
proposal for a cease-fire and prisoner swap, but disarmament is not included.
The pace of diplomacy quickens., Los Angeles Times, July 29, 2006
Saturday, Home Edition, MAIN NEWS; Foreign Desk; Part A; Pg. 1, 1604
words, Rone Tempest and Laura King, Times Staff Writers, BEIRUT [2] “WHAT IS
HEZBOLLAH? Is this a 'militia' or a terrorist army of extermination?”; Historical
and Investigative Research; 22 July 2006; by Francisco Gil-White. [3] “WHO ATTACKED
ISRAEL?: Hezbollah has a master”; Historical and Investigative Research ; 21
July 2006; by Francisco Gil-White. [4]
“UNDERSTANDING THE US POSITION: Why does the US propose a NATO
intervention?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 24 July 2006; by
Francisco Gil-White “THE ARAB REACTION, AND WHAT IT MEANS: Get ready for
the rebirth of the PLO”; Historical and Investigative Research; 25 July 2006;
by Francisco Gil-White [5] In Mideast
tumult, Iran's clout rises, Christian Science Monitor, July 31, 2006,
Monday, USA; Pg. 1, 1071 words, Howard LaFranchiStaff writer of The Christian
Science Monitor, WASHINGTON [6]
“UNDERSTANDING THE US POSITION: Why does the US propose a NATO
intervention?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 24 July 2006; by
Francisco Gil-White [7] TO SEE WHERE
ISRAEL IS HEADED, VISIT KOSOVO; Historical and Investigative Research; 8 July
2006; by Francisco Gil-White. [8] NORWEGIAN
INTERNATIONAL "MEDIATION": HOW DOES IT WORK?; from “The Oslo War
Process”; Historical and Investigative Research; 29 October 2005; by
Francisco Gil-White [9] WARFARE IN
THE MIDDLE EAST; Israel Rejects Peace Offer; Hezbollah signs on to Lebanon's
proposal for a cease-fire and prisoner swap, but disarmament is not included.
The pace of diplomacy quickens., Los Angeles Times, July 29, 2006
Saturday, Home Edition, MAIN NEWS; Foreign Desk; Part A; Pg. 1, 1604
words, Rone Tempest and Laura King, Times Staff Writers, BEIRUT [10] United
Nations Interim Force in Lebanon | From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. [11] “CAN THE
PEACEKEEPERS HELP?: Despite calls for an international force in South Lebanon,
the 2,000 U.N. peacekeepers already there seem largely powerless”; TIME; 19
July 2006; By NICHOLAS BLANFORD TYRE, SOUTH LEBANON. [12] “The United
Nations Interim Force In Lebanon, or UNIFIL, was created by the United
Nations, with the adoption of Security Council Resolution 425 and 426 on 19
March 1978, to confirm Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.”
“In June 1978, Prime Minister [Menachem] Begin,
under intense American pressure, withdrew Israel's Litani River Operation
forces from southern Lebanon… The withdrawal of Israeli troops without having
removed the PLO from its bases in southern Lebanon became a major
embarrassment to the Begin government…”
[13] 1982-1983 --
The US rushed to protect the PLO in southern Lebanon from the Israelis; from
“IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL? A Chronological look at the evidence”;
Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White. [14] “For 10 days,
Warren Christopher, then the secretary of state, bounced between Damascus,
Beirut and Jerusalem until he finally was able to get the 1996 cease-fire
arrangement that restricted Israel and Hezbollah to fighting each other
without terrorizing civilian populations.”
In other words, a decade ago, the United States went
out of its way 1) to restrain Israel from crossing over and destroying
Hezbollah; and 2) to guarantee Hezbollah’s ability to attack Israel, even
though Hezbollah’s ideology, as HIR has shown,
is simply to destroy the Jewish state through genocide! [15] “PM Olmert
Agrees to a Multinational Force Along Northern Border”; Israel National News;
09:30 Jul 30, '06 / 5 Av 5766; by Yechiel Spira. [16] 1982-1983 --
The US rushed to protect the PLO in southern Lebanon from the Israelis; from
“IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL? A Chronological look at the evidence”;
Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White. [17] On the Syrian
control of Hezbollah, see:
On the Iranian control of Hezbollah, see:
|
UN flag.
Notify me of new HIR pieces!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Hezbollah
Hizbollah Hizbu'llah Hizb'allah
What is
Hezbollah?
What is
Hizbollah?
What is
Hizbu'llah?
What is
Hizb'allah?
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hezbollah.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hezbollah2.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hezbollah3.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hezbollah4.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hezbollah4_2.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hezbollah5.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hezbollah6.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hezbollah6_2.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hezbollah7.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hezbollah7_2.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hezbollah8.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/us_russia.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/us_russia.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/about_face.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov2.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov3.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/eichmann.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/subtle.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/leaders1.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/leaders2.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/left_right2.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/mearsheimer_walt.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/seeds.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/mprot1.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/aipac.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/defense.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/ford.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/save.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/left_right1.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/deir-yassin.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/yugo/ranta.htm