Fresh analysis from my new correspondent AC, who declines even to reveal his nationality, but he's smart and interesting:
About that international community. Never such a fictive group did exist
- there is no international community when interests of powerful states
are involved. Israel-Lebanon 2006, the "international community" was
astoundingly in favor of a cease-fire, except of course Israel and
America. Some community. Although it must be said that it is rather
mellifluous. And so, silent, sterile, concerned with protocol and security
council sessions and press statements and the wording thereof – in
short, complicit – this [rockets from Lebanon on Israel] was bound to happen. Israel
knew it, America knew it. People all over were expecting it.
I was
speaking with a foreign correspondent a while back, well known, lots of
experience, good sources. He said he was sure Israel would not accept
its defeat in 2006. Indeed, Israel has been provoking this ever since the war of 2006 with repeated violations of the ceasefire in the form of sonic booms, ground incursions,
Israeli jets and unmanned aerial drones violating Lebanese airspace -
the most recent of which were reported one day after the Gaza
aggression, Dec. 28, and on Jan. 7. -, and even kidnappings of civilians. "The
United Nations has called on Israel to stop violating Lebanese
airspace. It says the overflights undermine the credibility of UN
peacekeepers stationed in southern Lebanon," reports AFP.
Now,
Israel will naturally attempt to justify these violations on the basis
that Hezbollah is rearming in southern Lebanon. But UNIFIL, the
international peacekeeping/monitoring force whose very function is to
know such things, categorically denies it. Regarding
the disarmament of the group, the Lebanese government and
Hezbollah have been treating the matter as an exclusively internal one,
and the former has practically recognized
the latter as a de facto defense force for southern Lebanon (the
Lebanese army is a joke, despite attempts to arm it by the U.S.) and a
resistance movement for the liberation of land occupied by Israel,
perhaps endowing it with a legitimate means to supply itself.
But all these violations by Israel are more or less common and
not sufficient, typically, to elicit a response on their own. The war
on Gaza, however, might be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
had Hezbollah consistently violated Israeli airspace, conducted land
invasions, and, yes, kidnapped Israeli soldiers, let alone civilians.
Hezbollah denied involvement in the recent attack. The perpetrators
were probably a Palestinian militant faction (e.g. PFLP-GC) acting in
outrage and defense of their co-nationalists in Gaza in the face of
international inaction. It's entirely possible that such attacks will
recur so long as the war on Gaza continues and in all likelihood might
be used as a pretext for war by Israel, numerous Israeli violations notwithstanding.
It's worth remembering that when Hezbollah captured the two Israeli soldiers on the Lebanon border in 2006, it was during another particularly brutal Israeli attack on Gaza. Chomsky and others suggested the events were related:
But the real reason, I think it’s generally agreed by analysts, is that — I’ll read from the Financial Times, which happens to be right in front of me: “The timing and scale of its attack suggest it was partly intended to reduce the pressure on Palestinians by forcing Israel to fight on two fronts simultaneously.” David Hearst, who knows this area well, describes it, I think this morning, as a display of solidarity with suffering people, the clinching impulse.
One year ago today this debate took place:
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: "But the problem is, if you look at the international consensus for resolving the conflict, the burden of responsibility for the failure to resolve the conflict falls on the side of Israel and the United States. Carter is very clear on that—in my opinion, entirely accurate. He says the main problem is Israel refuses to recognize international law. The law is absolutely clear. It’s inadmissible to acquire territory by war. Israel acquired the West Bank and Gaza in the course of the 1967 War. The International Court of Justice said, under the UN Charter, Article 2, it’s inadmissible to acquire territory by war. Israel has to withdraw to its internationally recognized June ‘67 borders. It refuses. That’s the obstacle.
A simple illustration. Every year, the United Nations General Assembly votes on a resolution entitled "Peaceful resolution of the Palestine conflict." Every year, the vote is the same. The whole world on one side—the whole world on one side—and on the other side, the United States, Israel, and usually Palau, Nauru, Tuvalu, the Marshall Islands and Micronesia. It’s usually six dissenting votes. And that’s it. The problem, I think, is not that the world is—not that the coverage is biased. The problem is, the reality is biased."
Democracy Now! – Norman Finkelstein vs. Gil Troy On Jimmy Carter’s Controversial Book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid"
Hezbollah is attempting to acquire territory in internationally recognized Israel, by war.
Please don't be naive.
There is nothing inevitable. CHOICES were made.
That same logic excuses Israeli choices, as much as it excuses Hezbollah or Hamas choices.
Just when I thought I'd seen the entire Hasbara playbook…
There's a zionist calling Hezbollah expansionist! With a straight face!
Next thing he knows, they might be invading Poland!
MM – Get out your "180 Rule" decoder ring. Translations can be had by flipping statements 180 degrees.
It is straight out of the "Mein Kampf" playbook. Accuse others of crimes you're commiting.
Oh my G-sh LanceThruster, you're right! Let's review the "conventional Witsdom":
Hamas is shelling civilians–ah ha!
Palestinians can't accept the other–CHECK!
Hamas wants no borders–I seeeee!
Anti-Zionism is racism–YESSSSSSS!
Anti-Zionism as a fixation is a form of racism.
Criticism of policies is just criticism, and rational.
Anti-racism as a fixation is a form of racism.
Wah??
Witty is once again, stretching logic to bolster his argument.s
What about AntiSemitism, moron?
Antisemitism as a fixation is a form of paranoia.
Paranoia is being generous.
Am I the first to wonder if Richard Witty is entirely sane?
Too sane if you ask me. Sane or sanitized. I mix them up.