Dan Gillerman, the Israeli representative to the U.N., when asked whether Israel was "losing world opinion" after the attack in Qana, responded by saying, "There may be a very serious blow to Israeli-to the Israeli public opinion and to world opinion towards Israel this morning, but this is exactly what Hezbollah wanted. I wouldn't be surprised if this was scheduled and targeted exactly to happen while Secretary Rice is there." He reiterated the theme that the difference between Israel and Hezbollah was that, "For us, every dead Lebanese child is a horrible mistake and a tragedy. For them, every dead Israeli child is a victory and a cause for celebration." Moreover, Hezbollah's arms
Somehow, the "dirty work" of slaughtering civilians, as "horrible" and "difficult" as it is, is necessary to save "civilization" itself from the "axis of terror"; the massacre of innocents is "a very high price" to pay for the world to be free of "this danger", but Israel is "doing it for the rest of the world"-no great consolation for the victims of Israeli violence.
According to Human Rights Watch, by early August "More than 500 people have been killed in Lebanon by Israeli fire since fighting began on July 12, most of them civilians."[24] In the same time period, Hezbollah rocket attacks killed 30 Israeli civilians.[25]
Amnesty International reported in mid-September that around 1,000 Lebanese civilians had been killed in the violence, while Hezbollah rocket attacks into Israel had killed 43 Israeli civilians, or around 23 dead Lebanese civilians for every dead Israeli civilian.[26]
Moreover, an investigation by B'Tselem concluded that Israeli soldiers had used Palestinian civilians as human shields during the escalated violence, a not uncommon practice. Despite Geneva Convention prohibitions, "following the outbreak of the second intifada, particularly during Operation Defensive Shield, in April 2002, the IDF systematically used Palestinian civilians as human shields, forcing them to carry out military actions which threatened their lives."[27] On August 5, the group reported that "Since the abduction of Cpl. Gilad Shalit, in late June, until the end of August, Israeli security forces killed 226 Palestinians," more than half of whom were not taking part in the hostilities.[28]
One could readily hear in the U.S. media that
But, instructively, nobody read about Israel's assault on Lebanon in similar terms-the kidnapping of civilians, the raining down of bombs onto cities and towns, the use of cluster bombs, munitions packed with hundreds of bomblets released prior to impact designed to maximize suffering by shredding human flesh; unexploded bomblets effectively becoming landmines that will kill indiscriminately well into the future-part and parcel of the Western imperialist crusade against the rule of law, the very foundation of civilization itself.[30] The reasons for the disparity are perhaps not too surprising: the bombs rained down on Lebanon are U.S.-made bombs, including U.S.-made cluster munitions, dropped from U.S.-made aircraft. And the violence rains down upon Lebanon with full U.S. financial, military, and diplomatic support. These are uncomfortable and inconvenient truths. Hence, the compliant priests of the state religion dutifully perform their task of presenting acceptable alternatives to reality in the mainstream media, whether by design or as the result of self-delusion, impervious to fact. Hypocrisy reigns.
U.S. support for Israel follows a long historical pattern. Many commentators accurately predicted that Israel would point to the U.S.'s "war on terrorism" as granting legitimacy to its own acts of violence and aggression, as well as its ongoing illegal occupation. But there are additional incentives for U.S. support in the case of the most recent crisis, aside from the U.S.-Israeli "special relationship" and the status quo that relationship implies.
A "Middle East expert" told journalist Seymour Hersh that the White House wanted to see Hezbollah disarmed because "if there was to be a military option against Iran's nuclear facilities, it had to get rid of the weapons that Hezbollah could use in a potential retaliation at Israel."[31] This is certainly plausible.
The Jerusalem Post reported that "According to a well-worn script that Israel has grown accustomed to over the years, the arrival of the US secretary of state during wartime means an end to Israeli military advances. But this time the script is different." Rice, it was recognized "is not expected to dictate a cease-fire to Israel" because "Bush is keen on providing Israel more time to pound Hizbullah because while this serves Israel's interests, it also serves America's goals," in part because "a defeated Hizbullah is a blow to Iran."[32] The Israeli paper Ha'aretz similarly reported that "On the eve of U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's visit to Jerusalem, senior officials believe Israel has received American approval to continue operations against Hezbollah at least until next Sunday."[33]
Meeting with Rice on July 25, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert assured the world that Israel was "conscious of the humanitarian difficulties that are a part of the life in Lebanon these days"-as a result of the Israeli bombardment.[34] (Just how "conscious" the Israeli government was of the "humanitarian difficulties" was illustrated by an event that occurred the same day of Olmert's meeting with Rice. The day before, a senior air force officer told army radio that "Army chief of Staff Dan Halutz has given the order to the air force to destroy 10 multi-storey buildings in the Dahaya district (of Beirut) in response to every rocket fired on Haifa."[35] The next day, as Olmert was meeting with Rice, "IAF fighter jets bombarded Beirut," The Jerusalem Post reported. "The IDF confirmed it had destroyed 10 buildings in the Lebanese capital...."[36] Halutz had earlier threatened to target Lebanon's infrastructure and "turn back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years"-a goal Israel made no small steps towards achieving.[37] This clear and loud statement in the form of state terrorism passed without comment in the U.S. press as it reported on Rice's visit to Israel.)
"The real problem," Max Boot wrote in The Los Angeles Time, "is that Israel's response has been all too proportional," since it "has only gone after Hamas and Hezbollah" (he adds that "Some collateral damage is inevitable because these groups hide among civilians"). Israel "is showing superhuman restraint by not, at the very least, 'accidentally' bombing the Syrian and Iranian embassies in Beirut" (he adds that "It's hard to know what accounts for this Israeli restraint, for which, of course, it gets no thanks"). "Iran may be too far away for much Israeli retaliation beyond a single strike on its nuclear weapons complex" (he adds that "Now wouldn't be a bad time" for such a strike). "But Syria is weak and next door." Israel "needs to hit the 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."[38]
And if there was any doubt that this was the official policy of the Bush administration, those doubts could be laid to rest by a fact sheet issued by the White House in response to criticism that conservatives don't stand behind the President's policies. To demonstrate that this was false, the fact sheet cited Boot's article as an example of conservative support for White House policy, quoting selectively: "Our Best Is Exactly What Bush Has Done So Far - Reject Premature Calls For A Cease-Fire And Let Israel Finish The Job."[39]
William Kristol argued in favor of "countering this act of Iranian aggression" (that is, the abduction of Israeli soldiers and firing of rockets into Israel by Hezbollah) with "a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities." "Why wait?" he asks, apparently coming up with no good reason, and adding, "This is our war, too."[40]
come from the two main sponsors of terror in the world, from Iran and Syria, who, together with the Hezbollah, form the world's most horrible, ominous, lethal axis of terror. And I think that even on this horrible, horrible difficult day, most of the world, including some of our neighbors, who have to say what they're saying today, deep down inside realize that we are fighting this war not just for ourselves, but for them. We may be doing the dirty work and paying a very high price, but we're doing it for the rest of the world, to rid it of this danger directed from Tehran and from Damascus, not just at the hearts of our children and our citizens, but at the heart of civilization as we know it.[23]
Somehow, the "dirty work" of slaughtering civilians, as "horrible" and "difficult" as it is, is necessary to save "civilization" itself from the "axis of terror"; the massacre of innocents is "a very high price" to pay for the world to be free of "this danger", but Israel is "doing it for the rest of the world"-no great consolation for the victims of Israeli violence.
According to Human Rights Watch, by early August "More than 500 people have been killed in Lebanon by Israeli fire since fighting began on July 12, most of them civilians."[24] In the same time period, Hezbollah rocket attacks killed 30 Israeli civilians.[25]
Moreover, an investigation by B'Tselem concluded that Israeli soldiers had used Palestinian civilians as human shields during the escalated violence, a not uncommon practice. Despite Geneva Convention prohibitions, "following the outbreak of the second intifada, particularly during Operation Defensive Shield, in April 2002, the IDF systematically used Palestinian civilians as human shields, forcing them to carry out military actions which threatened their lives."[27] On August 5, the group reported that "Since the abduction of Cpl. Gilad Shalit, in late June, until the end of August, Israeli security forces killed 226 Palestinians," more than half of whom were not taking part in the hostilities.[28]
One could readily hear in the U.S. media that
Hezbollah's barbaric assault on Israel - kidnapping soldiers who weren't engaged in hostilities, firing waves of missiles into cities and towns, packing rockets with ball bearings designed to maximize suffering by shredding human flesh - is part and parcel of the radical Islamist jihad against the free world.[29]
But, instructively, nobody read about Israel's assault on Lebanon in similar terms-the kidnapping of civilians, the raining down of bombs onto cities and towns, the use of cluster bombs, munitions packed with hundreds of bomblets released prior to impact designed to maximize suffering by shredding human flesh; unexploded bomblets effectively becoming landmines that will kill indiscriminately well into the future-part and parcel of the Western imperialist crusade against the rule of law, the very foundation of civilization itself.[30] The reasons for the disparity are perhaps not too surprising: the bombs rained down on Lebanon are U.S.-made bombs, including U.S.-made cluster munitions, dropped from U.S.-made aircraft. And the violence rains down upon Lebanon with full U.S. financial, military, and diplomatic support. These are uncomfortable and inconvenient truths. Hence, the compliant priests of the state religion dutifully perform their task of presenting acceptable alternatives to reality in the mainstream media, whether by design or as the result of self-delusion, impervious to fact. Hypocrisy reigns.
U.S. support for Israel follows a long historical pattern. Many commentators accurately predicted that Israel would point to the U.S.'s "war on terrorism" as granting legitimacy to its own acts of violence and aggression, as well as its ongoing illegal occupation. But there are additional incentives for U.S. support in the case of the most recent crisis, aside from the U.S.-Israeli "special relationship" and the status quo that relationship implies.
A "Middle East expert" told journalist Seymour Hersh that the White House wanted to see Hezbollah disarmed because "if there was to be a military option against Iran's nuclear facilities, it had to get rid of the weapons that Hezbollah could use in a potential retaliation at Israel."[31] This is certainly plausible.
The Jerusalem Post reported that "According to a well-worn script that Israel has grown accustomed to over the years, the arrival of the US secretary of state during wartime means an end to Israeli military advances. But this time the script is different." Rice, it was recognized "is not expected to dictate a cease-fire to Israel" because "Bush is keen on providing Israel more time to pound Hizbullah because while this serves Israel's interests, it also serves America's goals," in part because "a defeated Hizbullah is a blow to Iran."[32] The Israeli paper Ha'aretz similarly reported that "On the eve of U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's visit to Jerusalem, senior officials believe Israel has received American approval to continue operations against Hezbollah at least until next Sunday."[33]
Meeting with Rice on July 25, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert assured the world that Israel was "conscious of the humanitarian difficulties that are a part of the life in Lebanon these days"-as a result of the Israeli bombardment.[34] (Just how "conscious" the Israeli government was of the "humanitarian difficulties" was illustrated by an event that occurred the same day of Olmert's meeting with Rice. The day before, a senior air force officer told army radio that "Army chief of Staff Dan Halutz has given the order to the air force to destroy 10 multi-storey buildings in the Dahaya district (of Beirut) in response to every rocket fired on Haifa."[35] The next day, as Olmert was meeting with Rice, "IAF fighter jets bombarded Beirut," The Jerusalem Post reported. "The IDF confirmed it had destroyed 10 buildings in the Lebanese capital...."[36] Halutz had earlier threatened to target Lebanon's infrastructure and "turn back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years"-a goal Israel made no small steps towards achieving.[37] This clear and loud statement in the form of state terrorism passed without comment in the U.S. press as it reported on Rice's visit to Israel.)
"The real problem," Max Boot wrote in The Los Angeles Time, "is that Israel's response has been all too proportional," since it "has only gone after Hamas and Hezbollah" (he adds that "Some collateral damage is inevitable because these groups hide among civilians"). Israel "is showing superhuman restraint by not, at the very least, 'accidentally' bombing the Syrian and Iranian embassies in Beirut" (he adds that "It's hard to know what accounts for this Israeli restraint, for which, of course, it gets no thanks"). "Iran may be too far away for much Israeli retaliation beyond a single strike on its nuclear weapons complex" (he adds that "Now wouldn't be a bad time" for such a strike). "But Syria is weak and next door." Israel "needs to hit the 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."[38]
And if there was any doubt that this was the official policy of the Bush administration, those doubts could be laid to rest by a fact sheet issued by the White House in response to criticism that conservatives don't stand behind the President's policies. To demonstrate that this was false, the fact sheet cited Boot's article as an example of conservative support for White House policy, quoting selectively: "Our Best Is Exactly What Bush Has Done So Far - Reject Premature Calls For A Cease-Fire And Let Israel Finish The Job."[39]
William Kristol argued in favor of "countering this act of Iranian aggression" (that is, the abduction of Israeli soldiers and firing of rockets into Israel by Hezbollah) with "a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities." "Why wait?" he asks, apparently coming up with no good reason, and adding, "This is our war, too."[40]
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
