Originally Posted @ Voices in the Wilderness
Israel has managed to take its war against the Lebanese people to a new level. The attack on Qana was deplorable and inexcusable and even under these circumstances the United States of America (The supposed impartial broker for peace) still refuses to condemn Israel’s actions even at the most basic level. Israel’s supporters throughout the world continue to use the defense that Hizb’Allah is targeting civilians and to the contrary the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) does not purposely and methodically target civilians. Any government or any world leader who accepts this claim at face value after nearly 20 days of bombing, hundreds of Lebanese civilian death and hundreds of thousands of displaced Lebanese citizens has no right leading a people, period.
What can <u>WE</u> do?
The United States spends in excess of $3 billion (USD) a year in its support of the Israeli government and when Israel uses the American produced and American financed weaponry the United States government for some unexplainable reason feels no personal responsibility for the actions of the Israeli government when they collectively punish a people and more specifically bomb apartment buildings filled with women, children and the elderly; filled with innocent civilians. With that type of support to Isarel’s government the United States, the Bush administration, has a very heavy hand they can use on Israel to force a ceasefire yet the mainstream media continually priaises the administration for their “efforts” to broker a ceasefire when they know as well as any viewer that for the past two weeks there has been an effort by the United States government to ensure that there was no ceasefire until Israel can “root out the Hizb’Allah militia” (a riduclous notion considering how much apart of Lebanon Hizb’Allah truly is).
Thankfully today the Lebanese government has taken a firm stance against the United States’ unapologetic support for Israeli aggression by refusing to allow Secretary of State Condelezza Rice to use their nation and the peoples government as nothing more than another photo opportunity to be used to show the conservative base in America how hard the Bush administration is working to broker a peace when in actuality United States remains the single greatest obstacle to a ceasefire.
Unworkable Ceasefire?
The idea that Hizb’Allah will not hold to the ceasefire may not seem outrageous on the face of the argument but the reality of the matter is that it is a bold faced lie. Firstly, if Hizb’Allah wanted a ceasefire only so that they can re-supply, they certainly wouldn’t be in any hurry for a ceasefire right now nor would they be willing even consider a ceasefire at this time. Unfortunately for the United States the facts on the ground are, as they seem to do a lot to this particular American administration, flying in the face of the United States’ argument. Hizb’Allah has given the Lebanese government full authority to negotiate a ceasefire on behalf of Hizb’Allah and the Lebanese people and they have even gone as far as showing signs of supporting the seven point plan that the Lebanese Prime Minster presented to the international community in Rome. British officials were confident enough in Hizb’Allah’s wiliness to agree to a ceasefire that they suggested earlier in the week that a UN ceasefire resolution could come as early as Monday or Tuesday of this week but these estimations can most likely be written off after these latest attacks on the Lebanese people by Israel (one wonders if that was the plan).
Implementing 1559
It should be understood that in its efforts to help the Lebanese government implement resolution 1559 Hizb’Allah had agreed to target only military outlets and installations and had kept to that policy up to the time that Israel started bombing Beirut.
Hizb’Allah’s actions were unnecessary and irresponsible, though not unprovoked as claimed by Israel and its supporters, but they were in accordance with their policy to attack only military installations inside Israel. While the agreement by Hizb’Allah (prior to the start of this war) may seem to Israel and its supporters as nothing more than the parsing of words it demonstrates two very important facts: Lebanon was trying to implement resolution 1559 and Hizb’Allah is willing to negotiate the implementation of 1559. The problem with the rhetoric by the international community (The United States & Israel in particular) is they have framed the debate of the disarming of Hizb’Allah as Hizb’Allah versus the Lebanese government, further stirring the pot by suggesting even demanding that the Lebanese government order the Lebanese army to disarm Hizb’Allah by force. The obvious conclusion to the debate when it is framed in this manner is that the Lebanese army doesn’t have the resources or the military capability to disarm Hizb’Allah. Israel has used that fact to unilaterally declare itself the implementer of the resolution (not unlike what the United States has done in Iraq). The framing of the debate of the implementation of resolution 1559 as requiring a military solution boxes the Lebanese government into a corner; they either order the army to disarm Hizb’Allah (which will inevitably cause the military to fraction and most probably start a civil war) or they allow foreigners to implement the resolution in the form of Israeli bombardments or an international force with a mandate to kill Lebanese heroes (The Hizb’Allah militia which drove Israel out Lebanon). Consequently the latter solution is a good recipe for a separatist movement to evolve.
It seems as if nothing has been learned from the debacle in Iraq (Military v Militia in a fragile and fractured nations leads to civil war). The Lebanese government was on a much more sensible path to disarm Hizb’Allah than Israel’s unilateral bombardment of all of Lebanon.
State Terrorism
Israel and its supporters have constantly made the distinction between the IDF and Hizb’Allah, Hamas and other like groups by insisting that the latter groups specifically target civilians while the IDF targets only “terrorist” and any civilian death’s are collateral damage which they regret. The reality is that this distinction means absolutely nothing even if it were provable (which it isn’t). Between the bombing of the UN outpost, the bombing of ambulances, buses filled with civilians trying to flee bombardment (after being told by the IDF to flee) and now the bombing of women and children in an apartment building Israel might do better by targeting civilians and having terrorist killed by collateral damage; the numbers would, under these conditions, prove more favorable for both Israel and Lebanese civilians. Israel’s countless apologies and assurances that the Lebanese people are their friends and not their enemies is like a rapist telling his victims how much he loves them while still in the act of raping them. Simply because Israel is telling the world that they are not targeting civilians it doesn’t make it true.
Israel would no doubt want the world to judge them on their words and not their actions but when watching children being buried underground on a daily basis conscionable people have no choice but to condemn Israel; neither is it unjust to call Israel a terrorist state especially since these bombardments of civilians have become the norm rather than the exception.
At the end of the day Israel’s “goodness” has been based more on PR than on facts and that Hizb’Allah unwillingness to negotiate is pure propaganda that the mainstream media has largely bought into. The facts more closely resemble the arguments of those who would say that far from Hizb’Allah being the obstacle to a ceasefire it is the United States of America’s blanket support and the American’s medias championing of Israel’s “restraint” that is truly the biggest obstacle to a ceasefire.
The PR wars continue
May God bless and protect the Lebanese and Israeli civilians who would rather their governments talk than fight
Amen