Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 35 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
Exclusive to OpEd News:
OpEdNews Op Eds   

President Bush Uncut

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)   No comments
Message Joshua Frank
Become a Fan
  (1 fan)
It was a candid moment. President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair were chatting over lunch at the Group of Eight summit in St. Petersburg on Monday when a Russian microphone sitting in front of Bush was unknowingly live. After almost three minutes of Bush/Blair uncut (we saw Bush eating with his mouth open and found out he prefers Diet Coke), the focal point of their conversation took a turn toward the Israel/Lebanon conflict.

Bush confided in Blair that getting Syria to intervene would end the conflict immediately. "See, the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hizbullah to stop doing this sh*t and it's over." And how's he going to do that? By threatening Syria I'm sure.

Hearing Bush tell it, one would think that the latest bloodshed in the Middle East is the result of Hizbullah's barbaric habits, not Israel's. But the entire reason Hizbullah even exists is because of Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982. As Lebanon based writer Bilal El-Amine writes in the forthcoming print edition of Left Turn:

"An amalgam of political party, armed resistance and social movement, Hizbullah ("Party of God") was born of a perfect storm that saw the convergence of several factors in the early 1980s: 1) the long-term changes inside the Shia community, described at length above, 2) the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran, and 3) the 1982 Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon. Although Iranian support was certainly critical to the emergence of the party, the Israeli invasion appears to have been the decisive factor."

Hizbullah has remained a popular organization throughout Lebanon and much of the Middle East. Putting resistance before radical Islamic beliefs, Hizbullah has garnered great support from diverse sects in the region, which is quite rare among radical Islamic movements. After fending off Israel's invasion of Southern Lebanon in the early 1980s, Hizbullah again grew in popularity when Israel's military aggression in April of 1996 resulted in the massacre in the village of Qana where 108 innocent civilians were mutilated.

Bush's off-the-cuff remark to Tony Blair in St. Petersburg deliberately ignored the deep history of Hizbullah, which is deemed a terrorist organization by the state of Israel and the US State Department. And lest you forgot, it was Israel who first marched forces into Lebanon in the 1990s, not the other way around. Hizbullah came about as a result of Israeli's invasion. Since then, Hizbullah has tightened their relationship with Palestine, which likely has struck fear in the Israeli government. The latest chapter of this saga came about when two Israeli soldiers were captured by Hizbullah inside Israel last week. But of course only Israel has the right to defend themselves. Israel has imprisoned thousands of Hamas and Hizbullah members.

Unfortunately, there aren't any leading Democrats standing up to Bush's unapprised diplomacy. Senator Hillary Clinton says she'll support "whatever steps are necessary" for Israel to prevail. I wonder if she'll support another slaughter like that in Qana?

Rep. Nancy Pelosi took Clinton's remarks a bit further, clarifying the Democrats' position, "The House Democratic leadership strongly condemns the seizure of Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah terrorists operating from Lebanon ... Israel has an inherent right to defend itself, and the United States supports our ally." Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid also chimed in, "Hezbollah must be dismantled, and all nations have an obligation to cease any and all assistance to this terrorist organization. Israel has a right to live in peace and security, and the United States will stand by our ally in this difficult time."

One would expect such perverse language from the neocons, but sadly the Democrats are just as heinous when it comes to supporting Israel aggression. How are these clowns going to end the war in Iraq if they continue to support hostility that is only escalating the tension between the West and Arab countries?

If the Bush administration and their Democratic enablers were truly serious about ending the violence in the Middle East, the first honest step would be for the US to cut off all funding to Israel. But I think we are more likely to see Syria step in than for that to happen.
Rate It | View Ratings

Joshua Frank Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Joshua Frank is co-editor of Dissident Voice and author of Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush (Common Courage Press, 2005), and along with Jeffrey St. Clair, the editor of the brand new book Red State (more...)
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

An Interview with Max Blumenthal -- Inside Israel's Apartheid State

Targeting Pelosi and the War Machine: An Interview with Cindy Sheehan

Clinton, Edwards and Obama: Strike Iran

Al Gore the Environmental Titan?

Debating Barack Obama's Cash Flow

Jon Tester's Neopopulism

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend