...who gets to define who the terrorist is in the Lebanese-Israeli and Palestinian-Israeli conflicts? We'll consider at most the first one. What we're witnessing these days is both groups attacking each other and each other's cities and towns, with the Lebanese side more damaged in the process, and more civilians dead. All we hear is posh-talk about Syria and Iran being involved, and that they supply the weapons to Hizbullah, even though a large bulk of weaponry supplied to Israel comes from the United States. What we're witnessing is testimony to the American government's blind, unwavering support of Israel just for its own interests. Israel, to the American government, is a satellite nation: it has no other purpose than to serve for America's interests in the MidEast; in return, it is supported blindly by the U.S., even though it remains a leech, sucking at the U.S. Federal Reserve.
But let's cut the support aside and focus on the 2 sides actually duking it out in an open arena between Northern Palestine and Lebanon. Mortar artillery, aircraft missiles and tank shells pound Lebanon from one side, while Katyusha rockets bombard Israel (as in, Israeli towns) from the other. It's just that witnessing what you see on the news makes you think that the case involved a Hizbullah "spontaneous action" and a disproportionate Israeli reaction. In that case, we have Israel acting "out of self-defense" and Hizbullah attacking "like terrorists". Recall Bolton's half-assed claim about "no moral equivalence" between Hizbullah killing civilians and Israel doing the same thing; suddenly, because Hizbullah is a terrorist organization, all the civilian casualties it inflicts are from "terrorist attacks", and Israel's casualties are just "out of defense".
Putting all propaganda aside and looking at the current invasion as it is (AN INVASION), we can see that Israel is invading a sovereign country, indiscriminately killing civilians and destroying civilian infrastrucure. Hizbullah responds by firing Katyushas at Israeli towns, attacking Israeli gunboats, and defending against Israeli ground forces. But the issue remains: is Hizbullah leading a resistance, or a terrorist attack? Remember that the premises of a terrorist attack is one that causes fear, in that itself the action causes terror amongst the civilian population. Remember also that a terrorist attack, like all attacks, may be provoked or unprovoked. Focusing on the issue here, we have to take into account the political climate of the region. Israel has been keeping a certain area in Lebanon occupied, most notably the Shebaa Farms, a disputed region. A report in the San Francisco Chronicle outlines some of the key issues at play here. The case of prisoners, land mines and violations of air/land/sea space/sovereignity has been raised here:
But that aside as well, let's focus on what is happening, as well as the death toll. The Lebanese civilian death toll so far is at least 438-450 Lebanese, of which 367 are civilians. That is well above 50% of the total casualties of Lebanese civilians, and well over 50% of the overall death count. As for the Israelis, there are more than 50 Israeli deaths, and more than 27 of them are soldiers. That, too, is above or equal to 50% of Israeli casualties. However, more than 750,000 Lebanese have fled their homes, about the same amount of Palestinians that were kicked out during the 1948 War of Conquest. There is also the civilian damage done: while Israel has suffered minor property damage, Lebanon had entire city blocks levelled and aid supplies, etc. cut off. Looking that over, it would be ludicruous to claim that Israel is acting "out of self defense". If it did, it would only attack Hizbullah, not the entire Lebanese populace and what they own.
What's even tastier is the sweet inner core of the onion: there has been a good support base for Hizbullah ever since the beginning of this aggression, and not only from Shi'ite Muslims. On the Israeli side, support has grown as well, to well over 60% of the population, for the onslaught on an almost defenseless nation. Even worse, the Israeli Justice Minister gave the I"D"F the all-clear to kill every civilian in South Lebanon! Can you believe that?! Face it: no one can blame the samidun (those who stay) for staying in their homes. Israel's motives, it seems, are expansionist. This is not what the Lebanese are hoping for. Another thing: Israel is too polarized in its view to understand others, and goes for the "end justifies the means" approach, which I have denounced over again. However, looking at the casualty and damage stats, it seems that Hizbullah, according to Israeli logic, is dealing a justified resistance against the Israeli Tsahal (army).
It looks like there's no hope for Israel to ever gain my understanding. Even after those racist comments by the Justice Minister, Bush still supported the onslaught, and went so far as to send more weapons to the Zionist state, so it may continue its massacre. Even worse is that Israel has seen the Rome conference as "an implicit approval" to continue its assault on Lebanon, despite the fact that most representatives at the Rome conference fiercely opposed the Israeli invasion. Israel, however, justifies its stance by saying that a victory for Hizbullah means, in the words of Justice Minister Haim Ramon, a "victory for international terrorism"... So, suddenly, resistance means terrorism? Well, if you oppose Israel's policies and that of the U.S., you're essentially a racist, anti-Semitic, anti-American baddy terrorist and have to be eliminated. What else? Oh, yeah... they refused all U.N. demands for a ceasefire and an allowance for aid to flow between Lebanese cities, and the damage done to the Lebanese coastline is also irreparable. What else can make it worse for the Lebanese? Their situation is as worse if not worse than that of the Palestinians.
But what about the other Arab countries? Well, I'll admit that they did do something good: they sent aid to the Lebanese people. Aid? Why don't they arm the Lebanese? While I'm no fan of any political party, Hizbullah included, I support the resistance to this onslaught. I believe that this war should end with defeat for Israel, victory for the Lebanese and adult-minded negotiations with all parties involved, excluding Western nations and including Israel and even Hizbullah. Furthermore, negotiations should based on the same premises discussed before: return of Shebaa farms, stop to all violations of Lebanese sovereignity, release of Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners, removal of all land mines, etc. These aren't demands from Hizbullah only, but also from all Lebanese.
Whatever it is, Israel has to face it: if it were to live in peace with its neighbors, it has to concede not only territorially, but also politically and physically. And America, playing a double-edged sword by promising freedom on one hand and helping instigate chaos and destruction in the region on the other, should mind its own business for a change. It's time to move past the Israeli propaganda and the past altogether, and work together should a peaceful resolution be achieved.
Salaam, from
Saracen
But let's cut the support aside and focus on the 2 sides actually duking it out in an open arena between Northern Palestine and Lebanon. Mortar artillery, aircraft missiles and tank shells pound Lebanon from one side, while Katyusha rockets bombard Israel (as in, Israeli towns) from the other. It's just that witnessing what you see on the news makes you think that the case involved a Hizbullah "spontaneous action" and a disproportionate Israeli reaction. In that case, we have Israel acting "out of self-defense" and Hizbullah attacking "like terrorists". Recall Bolton's half-assed claim about "no moral equivalence" between Hizbullah killing civilians and Israel doing the same thing; suddenly, because Hizbullah is a terrorist organization, all the civilian casualties it inflicts are from "terrorist attacks", and Israel's casualties are just "out of defense".
Putting all propaganda aside and looking at the current invasion as it is (AN INVASION), we can see that Israel is invading a sovereign country, indiscriminately killing civilians and destroying civilian infrastrucure. Hizbullah responds by firing Katyushas at Israeli towns, attacking Israeli gunboats, and defending against Israeli ground forces. But the issue remains: is Hizbullah leading a resistance, or a terrorist attack? Remember that the premises of a terrorist attack is one that causes fear, in that itself the action causes terror amongst the civilian population. Remember also that a terrorist attack, like all attacks, may be provoked or unprovoked. Focusing on the issue here, we have to take into account the political climate of the region. Israel has been keeping a certain area in Lebanon occupied, most notably the Shebaa Farms, a disputed region. A report in the San Francisco Chronicle outlines some of the key issues at play here. The case of prisoners, land mines and violations of air/land/sea space/sovereignity has been raised here:
The Lebanese government has now adopted four Hezbollah conditions for a settlement as its own: giving the small disputed slice of border territory known as Shebaa Farms to Lebanon; the return of three Lebanese prisoners held by Israel; an end to Israeli flyovers into Lebanese air space; and a map showing the location of Israeli land mines in southern Lebanon. The issue of Shebaa Farms has been the public rationale for allowing Hezbollah, alone among civil-war-era militias, to keep its arms: That it was resisting continued Israeli occupation.Note the last point: if it weren't for the Lebanese Civil War, Hizbullah wouldn't have been created, and there would be no contest over Shebaa farms. Moreover, the previous points have been continuously demanded against Israel on part of Hizbullah, and Israel, ever in its stubbornness, refused to fill in to the demands of a "terrorist organization". But what Israel is assuming that because Hizbullah is a terrorist organization, it does not have to fill in to its demands and its refusal to do so would not result in any reaction on part of Hizbullah. Well, it happened with the capture of the 2 Israeli soldiers. It pisses me off to no extent that Israel does not accept responsibility for its own actions.
But that aside as well, let's focus on what is happening, as well as the death toll. The Lebanese civilian death toll so far is at least 438-450 Lebanese, of which 367 are civilians. That is well above 50% of the total casualties of Lebanese civilians, and well over 50% of the overall death count. As for the Israelis, there are more than 50 Israeli deaths, and more than 27 of them are soldiers. That, too, is above or equal to 50% of Israeli casualties. However, more than 750,000 Lebanese have fled their homes, about the same amount of Palestinians that were kicked out during the 1948 War of Conquest. There is also the civilian damage done: while Israel has suffered minor property damage, Lebanon had entire city blocks levelled and aid supplies, etc. cut off. Looking that over, it would be ludicruous to claim that Israel is acting "out of self defense". If it did, it would only attack Hizbullah, not the entire Lebanese populace and what they own.
What's even tastier is the sweet inner core of the onion: there has been a good support base for Hizbullah ever since the beginning of this aggression, and not only from Shi'ite Muslims. On the Israeli side, support has grown as well, to well over 60% of the population, for the onslaught on an almost defenseless nation. Even worse, the Israeli Justice Minister gave the I"D"F the all-clear to kill every civilian in South Lebanon! Can you believe that?! Face it: no one can blame the samidun (those who stay) for staying in their homes. Israel's motives, it seems, are expansionist. This is not what the Lebanese are hoping for. Another thing: Israel is too polarized in its view to understand others, and goes for the "end justifies the means" approach, which I have denounced over again. However, looking at the casualty and damage stats, it seems that Hizbullah, according to Israeli logic, is dealing a justified resistance against the Israeli Tsahal (army).
It looks like there's no hope for Israel to ever gain my understanding. Even after those racist comments by the Justice Minister, Bush still supported the onslaught, and went so far as to send more weapons to the Zionist state, so it may continue its massacre. Even worse is that Israel has seen the Rome conference as "an implicit approval" to continue its assault on Lebanon, despite the fact that most representatives at the Rome conference fiercely opposed the Israeli invasion. Israel, however, justifies its stance by saying that a victory for Hizbullah means, in the words of Justice Minister Haim Ramon, a "victory for international terrorism"... So, suddenly, resistance means terrorism? Well, if you oppose Israel's policies and that of the U.S., you're essentially a racist, anti-Semitic, anti-American baddy terrorist and have to be eliminated. What else? Oh, yeah... they refused all U.N. demands for a ceasefire and an allowance for aid to flow between Lebanese cities, and the damage done to the Lebanese coastline is also irreparable. What else can make it worse for the Lebanese? Their situation is as worse if not worse than that of the Palestinians.
But what about the other Arab countries? Well, I'll admit that they did do something good: they sent aid to the Lebanese people. Aid? Why don't they arm the Lebanese? While I'm no fan of any political party, Hizbullah included, I support the resistance to this onslaught. I believe that this war should end with defeat for Israel, victory for the Lebanese and adult-minded negotiations with all parties involved, excluding Western nations and including Israel and even Hizbullah. Furthermore, negotiations should based on the same premises discussed before: return of Shebaa farms, stop to all violations of Lebanese sovereignity, release of Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners, removal of all land mines, etc. These aren't demands from Hizbullah only, but also from all Lebanese.
Whatever it is, Israel has to face it: if it were to live in peace with its neighbors, it has to concede not only territorially, but also politically and physically. And America, playing a double-edged sword by promising freedom on one hand and helping instigate chaos and destruction in the region on the other, should mind its own business for a change. It's time to move past the Israeli propaganda and the past altogether, and work together should a peaceful resolution be achieved.
Salaam, from
Saracen
Comments
Post a Comment