Normally, I wouldn't devote enough time for this issue, but what we are witnessing these days is definitely the crux of Israeli aggression, backed by American imperialism, in order to carve a new hole out of the Middle East, thus paving the way for proponents of the "New" or "Greater Middle East" that Condi Rice talked about earlier during the past two weeks. It is sad that many people have been desensitized to feel for the Lebanese and Palestinians suffering from the double-edged Israeli onslaught, all for the sake of a few captured Israeli soldiers. Guess Arab lives aren't worth much as Jewish lives.
But let's get to the point. The moment that Rice talked about those "birth pangs", the moment I knew she and her neoconservative clientele in Israel were up to no good at all, trying to make something positive out of something completely negative. That phrase is very misleading: it is meant to downplay the death and destruction that has befallen upon Lebanon and Palestine over the past few weeks. Therefore, one could say that it's positive mainly for Israel, not for the Lebanese or Palestinians. The destruction would pave the way for more American/Israeli puppets in the region, as has happened during the Lebanese Civil War back in the 80's when Bashir Gemayyel was installed as Lebanese PM, in lieu of the elected Suleiman Franjiyeh (though he's not the same Suleiman Franjiyeh that we see today; that is, in fact, the grandson, or son, of the late the late Lebanese PM).
The latest "birth pang" occurred this morning, and was a grim repetition of history, of what happened in the same place, 10 years back in time: in Qana, southern Lebanon, over 55 civilians lost their lives to an Israeli onslaught on the city; officially, this has become the Second Qana Massacre. While this was not as bloody as the first, this one came in the wake of the morning, and resulted in extensive property damage. When I first heard about it, I lost control: more innocents are dying in this senseless war, and Israel is at the core of the problem. Now, pray tell, how can this be a "birth pang"? The U.N. embassy in Beirut was, deservedly, stormed after the Qana bombing. The U.N. has lost its conscience, as have the American and Israeli officials who are overseeing the death of innocent civilians, and the green light given in Rome only served to add fuel to the fire of Israeli aggression.
Looking over, one can see that the neoconservative Middle East is definitely something to be wary of. Even the Lebanese have dismissed Rice, for she has proven to be nothing but trouble in the area. If anything, that makes her as complicit with Israel's actions as are the brunt of rightwing neocons running amok in America. Even worse, warmongering efforts have not been delayed; throughout the net, I have come across many rightwing sources that encourage attacks on Syria and Iran, and thus implicitly favor the installment of an American puppet. According to the LA Times, it is suggested that Bush's target in Lebanon is not Hizbullah, but its supporter, Iran. Many officials have deemed it "a proxy war", as if it were some Cold War of sorts, just like back in the days of American imperialism, when American puppets were installed in over 20 countries across the globe. I find it ironic: even though Israel has done more destruction and dealt more death, Iran and Syria are to blame for the crisis, even though both support Hizbullah. However, seeing that Hizbullah has confronted Israel and therefore America's interests, Hizbullah and its supporters are being brought to the forefront.
Israel, therefore, has to defeat Hizbullah should this reality be achieved... Hizbullah and anyone who resists American interests, that is. The main assumption taken into account is that Hizbullah is a rogue element, and its elimination doesn't mean much. However, as explained before, Hizbullah has strong support amongst the Lebanese, and its actions have been more resistive than terrorist, though I hate to admit it. As for Syria and Iran, while I despise both regimes in power (especially that of the former), they are not as guilty as the American government, which continued to supply Israel with hi-tech weaponry even after scores of civilians have died.
The aims of the new MidEast are not bright for the Arab people. Looking at Iraq, we can see that sectarianism has created an opportunity for the imperialist Coalition to gain control over most of Iraq's resources. What we're also seeing is a convergence of interests, as explained by VoltaireNet's Theirry Meyssan. According to Meyssan,
Israel itself has damaged American interests by making more enemies, especially these radicals, in the first place. If it were not for Israel's actions, such radicals would not have sprung forth from the ashes of conflict and inflicted such damage on Israelis and the Israeli army. But as for Israel... well, Israel has been pushing itself past the limit. Israel is part of what John Feffer of the International Relations Center calls an "axis of intervention". Furthermore, it is claimed that Israel's goals in Lebanon are more political than "defensive" (which is ludicruous in itself). Hizbullah, apart from being an armed militia, is also a political party in the Lebanese cabinet. Therefore, its elimination would prove useful to America and Israel, who would want to see their own version of democracy installed. Stephen Zunes agrees with me on this. Why?
Whatever it is, the "New Middle East" does not bode well for those who resist America's anti-reformist stance. This new Middle East won't be a good sign for the Arabs who are dying every day... in the name of "democracy" and "freedom". These "birth pangs" have proven themselves to be death pangs. They sound a more imperialist and interventionist stance, an installation of puppet regimes subservient to America and Israel, and an elimination of all resistance, even though that resistance is directed against American and Zionist aggression. This plan must be set aside, and a reformation of the Middle East by Arabs should take the place of such farcical intervention. This war that we're witnessing... how can it be war? War is at most proportionate, for what we are witnessing, people, is a massacre, much less a disproportionate attack. What Israel is committing are war crimes against humanity, and are utterly defenseless. And then again, for every bad state, there will come a time when that state will be brought to justice. God, I hope You hear my prayers, and the prayers of those who wish an end to this senseless violence, and justice be slewed upon criminals like Amir Paretz, Kundaraleezza Rice, and John Bolton, and freedom for both Lebanon and Palestine... and the Middle East... from the grasp of Israel and America.
Salaam, from
Saracen
But let's get to the point. The moment that Rice talked about those "birth pangs", the moment I knew she and her neoconservative clientele in Israel were up to no good at all, trying to make something positive out of something completely negative. That phrase is very misleading: it is meant to downplay the death and destruction that has befallen upon Lebanon and Palestine over the past few weeks. Therefore, one could say that it's positive mainly for Israel, not for the Lebanese or Palestinians. The destruction would pave the way for more American/Israeli puppets in the region, as has happened during the Lebanese Civil War back in the 80's when Bashir Gemayyel was installed as Lebanese PM, in lieu of the elected Suleiman Franjiyeh (though he's not the same Suleiman Franjiyeh that we see today; that is, in fact, the grandson, or son, of the late the late Lebanese PM).
The latest "birth pang" occurred this morning, and was a grim repetition of history, of what happened in the same place, 10 years back in time: in Qana, southern Lebanon, over 55 civilians lost their lives to an Israeli onslaught on the city; officially, this has become the Second Qana Massacre. While this was not as bloody as the first, this one came in the wake of the morning, and resulted in extensive property damage. When I first heard about it, I lost control: more innocents are dying in this senseless war, and Israel is at the core of the problem. Now, pray tell, how can this be a "birth pang"? The U.N. embassy in Beirut was, deservedly, stormed after the Qana bombing. The U.N. has lost its conscience, as have the American and Israeli officials who are overseeing the death of innocent civilians, and the green light given in Rome only served to add fuel to the fire of Israeli aggression.
Looking over, one can see that the neoconservative Middle East is definitely something to be wary of. Even the Lebanese have dismissed Rice, for she has proven to be nothing but trouble in the area. If anything, that makes her as complicit with Israel's actions as are the brunt of rightwing neocons running amok in America. Even worse, warmongering efforts have not been delayed; throughout the net, I have come across many rightwing sources that encourage attacks on Syria and Iran, and thus implicitly favor the installment of an American puppet. According to the LA Times, it is suggested that Bush's target in Lebanon is not Hizbullah, but its supporter, Iran. Many officials have deemed it "a proxy war", as if it were some Cold War of sorts, just like back in the days of American imperialism, when American puppets were installed in over 20 countries across the globe. I find it ironic: even though Israel has done more destruction and dealt more death, Iran and Syria are to blame for the crisis, even though both support Hizbullah. However, seeing that Hizbullah has confronted Israel and therefore America's interests, Hizbullah and its supporters are being brought to the forefront.
Israel, therefore, has to defeat Hizbullah should this reality be achieved... Hizbullah and anyone who resists American interests, that is. The main assumption taken into account is that Hizbullah is a rogue element, and its elimination doesn't mean much. However, as explained before, Hizbullah has strong support amongst the Lebanese, and its actions have been more resistive than terrorist, though I hate to admit it. As for Syria and Iran, while I despise both regimes in power (especially that of the former), they are not as guilty as the American government, which continued to supply Israel with hi-tech weaponry even after scores of civilians have died.
The aims of the new MidEast are not bright for the Arab people. Looking at Iraq, we can see that sectarianism has created an opportunity for the imperialist Coalition to gain control over most of Iraq's resources. What we're also seeing is a convergence of interests, as explained by VoltaireNet's Theirry Meyssan. According to Meyssan,
Seen from Washington, what is happening today in Lebanon has no relation whatsoever with the recovering of soldiers captured by the Hezbollah. What is at stake is the carrying out of the long nurtured theory of « constructive chaos ». According to the adepts of philosopher Leo Strauss, whose media branch is better known under the name of « neo-conservatives », real power cannot be exerted from if one remains in the status quo, but only, quite the contrary, in the act of destroying all forms of resistance.What Meyssan is trying to say is that in order for America to gain a strong foothold in the MidEast, all those who resist their interests must be eliminated, and the resistance has come in the form of Hizbullah, Hamas, and others who are against neoconservative aims. Meyssan also argues that Israel's aims are more than just for dismantling Hizbullah; he argues for the creation of a Maronite state in Lebanon, and such would be advantageous as the Maronites are one of the most vocal allies of Israel in the region (in the form of the Phalange). Meyssan further wrote a point that intrigued me:
More precisely, the project for destroying Lebanon was presented by Tsahal to the Bush administration a little more than a year ago, as the San Francisco Chronicle reported it. It was at the center of political discussions at the yearly World Forum organized by the American Entreprise Institute, on June 2006 17th ad 18th at Beaver Creek. Benjamin Netanyahu and Dick Cheney met at length along with Richard Perle and Nathan Sharansky. The green light by the White House was given a few days after.While I don't agree with all of his points, Meyssan's strongest are the only ones I displayed. This is suggestive of the same notion that Bush planned for the Iraq war even before 9-11. But what can else can you expect from neoconservatives? The thing is, while the U.N. stays silent over the whole matter, and the U.S. cheers on the Israeli onslaught on Lebanon, things aren't looking that bright for those who want to live in a Middle East free from a third party meddling in their affairs. Then, there is the falsehood of American democracy. As I have stated before regarding Arab reform, Arabs should do it without outside meddling. The American intervention is a sign that America has interests in the region.
Israel itself has damaged American interests by making more enemies, especially these radicals, in the first place. If it were not for Israel's actions, such radicals would not have sprung forth from the ashes of conflict and inflicted such damage on Israelis and the Israeli army. But as for Israel... well, Israel has been pushing itself past the limit. Israel is part of what John Feffer of the International Relations Center calls an "axis of intervention". Furthermore, it is claimed that Israel's goals in Lebanon are more political than "defensive" (which is ludicruous in itself). Hizbullah, apart from being an armed militia, is also a political party in the Lebanese cabinet. Therefore, its elimination would prove useful to America and Israel, who would want to see their own version of democracy installed. Stephen Zunes agrees with me on this. Why?
First of all, UN Security Council resolution 1559 does not call for Hezbollah or any other Lebanese political party to be disbanded, only for their armed militias to be disbanded.This resolution is a farce: it gave Israel a green light to carry on with the process. Furthermore, the Christian Right (thanks, SpartanPhalanx) have continuously undermind any sort of chance for the State Department to gain a conscience. This manipulation is nothing new: it's what helped veto all resolutions against Israel in the first place. However, there is more to this story than meets the eye. A report published by Reinoud Leenders of the Middle East Research and Information Project claims that Hizbullah's disbandment would mean an impedement on Lebanese political reform (the whole war itself is, really). This means that pro-American parties run at the forefront of the elections, while reformist parties are pushed aside. Moreover, with the aid grants that would go to such a government, this means that reform is delayed, and Israel stays ahead of the game.
Second, the only extent to which Hezbollah has been “integrated … into the Lebanese government” is in naming Hezbollah member Mohammed Fneish to the power and hydraulic resources ministry, one of 24 cabinet posts. Representatives of all Lebanese parties that receive more than a handful of seats in parliamentary elections traditionally get at least one seat in the cabinet.
Third, in a UN Security Council meeting this past January that considered a report on the implementation of resolution 1559, the United States and the other members approved a statement that “notes with concern the report's suggestion that there have been movements of arms … into Lebanese territory and, in this context, commends the Government of Lebanon for undertaking measures against such movements.” In other words, the Lebanese government has not “allowed” Hezbollah to amass new weaponry; the problem is that their small and weak security forces—now weakened further by Israeli attacks—have simply been unable to prevent it.
This clause in the Congressional resolution therefore appears to be designed to try to justify Israel's decision to attack not just the Hezbollah militia, but Lebanon as a whole.
Whatever it is, the "New Middle East" does not bode well for those who resist America's anti-reformist stance. This new Middle East won't be a good sign for the Arabs who are dying every day... in the name of "democracy" and "freedom". These "birth pangs" have proven themselves to be death pangs. They sound a more imperialist and interventionist stance, an installation of puppet regimes subservient to America and Israel, and an elimination of all resistance, even though that resistance is directed against American and Zionist aggression. This plan must be set aside, and a reformation of the Middle East by Arabs should take the place of such farcical intervention. This war that we're witnessing... how can it be war? War is at most proportionate, for what we are witnessing, people, is a massacre, much less a disproportionate attack. What Israel is committing are war crimes against humanity, and are utterly defenseless. And then again, for every bad state, there will come a time when that state will be brought to justice. God, I hope You hear my prayers, and the prayers of those who wish an end to this senseless violence, and justice be slewed upon criminals like Amir Paretz, Kundaraleezza Rice, and John Bolton, and freedom for both Lebanon and Palestine... and the Middle East... from the grasp of Israel and America.
Salaam, from
Saracen
Comments
Post a Comment