‘NYT’ plays shameless propagandist for Israel’s threats to kill Lebanese civilians

US Politics

Israel is preparing for another war that kills masses of civilians– and it’s preparing its propaganda campaign early with the New York Times happy to help.

Today’s Times has a long piece titled, “Israel Says Hezbollah Positions Put Lebanese at Risk,” by Isabel Kershner, containing numerous warnings from Israel that it will strike Lebanese villages and kill civilians in order to get at Hezbollah forces. Some excerpts:

As Israel prepares for what it sees as an almost inevitable next battle with Hezbollah, the Shiite Lebanese organization that fought a monthlong war against Israel in 2006, Israeli military officials and experts are warning that the group has done more than significantly build up its firepower since then…

[T]he Israelis are blunt about the implications: They will not hesitate to strike at those targets, so southern Lebanon will most likely be the scene of widespread destruction.

Effectively, the Israelis are warning that in the event of another conflict with Hezbollah, many Lebanese civilians will probably be killed, and that it should not be considered Israel’s fault.

“The civilians are living in a military compound,” a senior Israeli military official said at military headquarters in Tel Aviv…

Israel says the situation is similar in the Gaza Strip, where, it says, Hamas is using the same tactic of hiding its forces among civilians.

“Historically, armed forces have separated themselves from the population, in uniform,” the senior Israeli military official said. “This is not the case here or in Gaza.” He accused Hezbollah of cynically using civilians…

“At the end of the day, it means that many, many Lebanese will be killed,” said Yaakov Amidror, a former national security adviser now at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv.

First, how can you justify running such an article without mentioning and describing the Dahiya doctrine, a war policy Israel adopted during that 2006 war in which it pulverized an entire neighborhood of Beirut with huge civilian losses because Hezbollah was based there?

The Dahiya doctrine is considered a war crime, as it targets civilian infrastructure in an effort to deter militant attacks by making militants think twice about where they set up operations. Dahiya was implemented in Gaza in 2009, according to the Goldstone Report, and last summer in Gaza, when neighborhoods of Beit Lahiya, Khuza’a, and Shuja’iyeh were obliterated because they were seen as havens for militants, resulting in the loss of hundreds of civilians’ lives.

The Times reporter (whose son entered the Israeli army last year) quotes Amos Yadlin, an Israeli military figure, approving that doctrine without any suggestion that it’s a war crime:

“We already made it clear in 2006 that people in the villages do not have immunity if we have intelligence that they intend to fire at Israel…”

Second, how can the New York Times justify its continuing blackout of the new Israeli soldiers’ report from Breaking the Silence? That report gives the blueprint on the wholesale assault on neighborhoods that Israeli military leaders approve in the Times. From the Times today:

An Israeli expert familiar with military planning said that if Israel attacked Lebanon again, it would probably do so in three phases. First, it would strike without warning at targets that pose the greatest threat, he said; then it would call for civilians to evacuate southern Lebanon. Once a critical mass of people had left, ground troops would move in.

The Breaking the Silence report documents that same procedure in Gaza last summer: Israel declares a neighborhood to be a military stronghold, it leaflets the neighborhood and tells everyone to leave, it waits a little while and then the neighborhood becomes a free-fire zone. Breaking the Silence documented war crimes by showing that this policy was effected with orders to kill anybody that moved, for instance two women talking on cellphones in an orchard– a “mad” policy, according to Breaking the Silence leaders.

The Guardian said, “Israeli soldiers cast doubt on legality of Gaza military tactics. Testimonies of Israeli combatants about last year’s war show apparent disregard for safety of civilians.”

The Times refers to “the inevitable international censure that comes with civilian casualties,” but never says such actions are criminal.

Third, why would the NYT use a Hezbollah-linked person as the main source on Israel’s bombing of civilians in the 2006 war?

A Hezbollah sympathizer in Lebanon who is familiar with the organization’s military activities said… that Israel had killed civilians in Lebanon during past conflicts. He noted cases of Israeli strikes hitting United Nations positions during hostilities, including in Qana in 1996, when more than 100 people were killed in a United Nations shelter.

These civilian attacks are a well known fact, documented and condemned by groups such as Human Rights Watch, which also wrote about the massive use of cluster munitions by Israel. Using Hezbollah as the source and contrasting their claims with those of Israeli officials is an example of “he said, she said” journalism–at best it is lazy and at worst it implies that nothing on this subject can be nailed down and so it becomes a question of which side you choose to believe. Although the NYT does not dispute what the Hezbollah spokesperson said, it also doesn’t dispute the Israeli claims. Human rights violations that have been clearly established should not be relegated to the level of competing propaganda claims by the two sides.

The NYT is in the business of blowing smoke on this subject: there is never a time in the paper when Israel is unambiguously guilty of war crimes.

About Phil Weiss and Donald Johnson

Phil Weiss and Donald Johnson are NY writers and regular contributors to this site

Other posts by .


Posted In:

47 Responses

  1. just
    May 13, 2015, 2:20 pm

    Why no mention of Yaalon’s wholly filthy comments the other day? You know, when he admitted to war crimes and promised that Israel is committed to committing even more!

    “Israeli defense minister Moshe Yaalon on Tuesday said Israel would attack entire civilian neighborhoods during any future assault on Gaza or Lebanon.

    Speaking at a conference in Jerusalem, Yaalon threatened that “we are going to hurt Lebanese civilians to include kids of the family. We went through a very long deep discussion … we did it then, we did it in [the] Gaza Strip, we are going to do it in any round of hostilities in the future.”

    The Israeli official also appeared to threaten to drop a nuclear bomb on Iran, although he said “we are not there yet.”

    In response to a question about Iran, Yaalon said that “in certain cases” when “we feel like we don’t have the answer by surgical operations” Israel might take “certain steps” such as the Americans did in “Nagasaki and Hiroshima, causing at the end the fatalities of 200,000.””…

    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/israeli-defense-minister-promises-kill-more-civilians-and-threatens-nuke-iran

    Richard Silverstein has a good post up on Kershner’s shilling for Israel :

    “NY Times Regurgitates IDF Intelligence Justifying Attacks on Civilians

    Today, the NY Times published what was essentially an unexpurgated series of IDF intelligence reports claiming Hezbollah had taken over a southern Lebanese town and turned it into a fortress bristling with fortifications. The story, written by Isabel Kershner, features photos and descriptions of intelligence data received directly from the army intelligence unit, AMAN.”…

    http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2015/05/13/ny-times-regurgitates-idf-intelligence-justifying-attacks-on-civilians/

    • Philip Weiss
      May 13, 2015, 4:57 pm

      Thanks and hat’s off to Richard Silverstein for a better headline than ours…

    • Boo
      May 15, 2015, 7:58 am

      “’Historically, armed forces have separated themselves from the population, in uniform,’ the senior Israeli military official said. ‘This is not the case here or in Gaza.’ He accused Hezbollah of cynically using civilians…”

      If we’re talking cynicism, let’s also look at the Miluim (IDF reserves). Reserve duty is mandatory for all who served their compulsory term of active duty, and is part of the national ethos. Currently, the statutory age limits are age 40 for male enlisted, age 45 for male officers and 38 for women.

      Thus, essentially every Israeli in the appropriate age range can be considered members of the IDF reserve. And needless to say, they are “quartered among civilians” — intimately so, since they live in civilian homes in the midst of their families, work among civilians, etc.

      Of course, Israel deliberately ignores this obvious fact when it singles out those it considers its enemies and justifies its elective civilian massacres by claiming “their military is embedded among civilians”. Indeed, the typical rationalization for these elective massacres is that Israeli citizens have been attacked without any justification — then the IDF attacks its “enemy’s” civilian neighborhoods while pretending that the situation in Israeli cities and towns is anything but identical.

      This is blatantly both duplicitous and hypocritical.

  2. Krauss
    May 13, 2015, 3:08 pm

    An Israeli expert familiar with military planning said that if Israel attacked Lebanon again, it would probably do so in three phases. First, it would strike without warning at targets that pose the greatest threat

    Well, that entire article is a warning. Yaalon’s recent verbal attacks on Lebanon seem to suggest that the Israeli military are preparing for the inevitable blowback of turning the entire zone of Southern Lebanon into a giant Gaza.

    And of course, the NYT is there every single step of the way, helping them along.

    P.S. Isn’t it wonderful to note how the so-called “leftists” of ZU chose a guy like Amos Yadlin, who approves of attacking civilian territory without any hesitation?

    There can never be any “reform from within”, ever.

  3. Krauss
    May 13, 2015, 3:11 pm

    By the way, just me or is the article something of an obvious plant? That IDF even supplied the photos in the article suggests that the growing extremism of the Times’ Israel coverage is growing to new heights!

    They are now the unofficial IDF’s media relations arm. Well, the Times do hasbara a lot better than the in-house people, that’s for sure, but it is still hasbara at the end of the day. People will see through it, and the Times’ reputation as a pro-Apartheid paper will sink with it.

  4. amigo
    May 13, 2015, 3:17 pm

    Israel is in need of a unifying operation to combat the divisions in Israel.Nothing like a good pounding of Arab civilians to get the zionist spirit back to normal.

    It is the only time Israel,s Jewish community produces a unified stance in the mid 90 percentile.Think op protective edge.

    Your King needs you now . Man the drones and lets bomb the crap out of them and screw those international anti semites.

  5. Scott
    May 13, 2015, 3:50 pm

    It would make sense they would start a war to try to short circuit the Iran diplomacy.

    • Philip Weiss
      May 13, 2015, 4:56 pm

      I agree. And I wish we had included that angle. That’s their big out, and what would the Iranian hardliners do?

      • aiman
        May 14, 2015, 7:12 am

        If that happened the Iranian hardliners would be proved correct.

    • Shingo
      May 13, 2015, 6:04 pm

      The other angle Scott is that Israel may perceive Hezbollah as vulnerable and stretched in Syria, so this might be their best chance of tabling them out.

      • Bornajoo
        May 14, 2015, 3:35 pm

        “The other angle Scott is that Israel may perceive Hezbollah as vulnerable and stretched in Syria, so this might be their best chance of tabling them out.” (Shingo)

        I agree that this is probably the most likely angle. Right now Hezbollah is totally stretched on more than one front. It may well be a calculated move to attack them while they are extremely vulnerable. The only thing missing is the motive for the attack. Hence the propaganda

      • tree
        May 14, 2015, 5:06 pm

        The only thing missing is the motive for the attack.

        To nitpick a bit, the motive is the same as it has always been. What the propaganda is trying to provide is the pretense, since the real motive has never been honorable or defensible.

      • Bornajoo
        May 14, 2015, 6:45 pm

        “To nitpick a bit, the motive is the same as it has always been. What the propaganda is trying to provide is the pretense, since the real motive has never been honorable or defensible.” (Tree)

        That’s good nitpicking! You are absolutely right and thanks for the correction

  6. pabelmont
    May 13, 2015, 3:58 pm

    Is this all a “signal” to Hezb to stop interfering with the war in Syria? To stop helping Iran to aid Shi’a? To stop hurting the Al-Qaeda affiliate that Israel is working with? Or is it just time to test (and demonstrate to the weapons-buying crowd) some very new Israeli weapons which flatten whole towns?

    • just
      May 13, 2015, 4:05 pm

      Now that you mention Syria, I am extremely suspicious of this:

      “Report: Smuggled documents contain war crimes case against Assad

      Papers smuggled out of Syria over three years may be enough to indict president and 24 members of his regime for 2011 crackdown that triggered civil war, the Guardian report

      Documents smuggled out Syria contain enough evidence to indict Syrian President Bashar Assad and 24 senior members of the regime for possible war crimes, the Guardian reported on Tuesday.

      According to the report, hundreds of thousands of documents – smuggled out of Syria over three years by a team of 60 investigators – form the basis of cases compiled against the regime by the Commission for International Justice and Accountability (CIJA).

      The cases center on Assad’s crackdown on protesters in 2011 that triggered the country’s civil war. The cases allege tens of thousands of people were detained, tortured and killed by the regime.

      CIJA is made up of experts who have worked with past war crimes tribunals such as the International Criminal Court and the war crimes tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. The commission is funded by the U.S. and European states.”…

      http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.656293?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

      I smell a rat. Oddly enough, CIJA also stands for Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

      • oldgeezer
        May 13, 2015, 4:10 pm

        Well considering Iraq there are certainly valid questions. It’s a stretch for me to believe Assad actually has clean hands though.

      • just
        May 13, 2015, 4:18 pm

        When I tried to find out more about this “Commission”, I found this from 2014:

        “Prosecution cases primed for Syria trial, despite lack of court

        A Canadian ex-soldier who once advised the defence in the trial of Saddam Hussein is leading an effort to prepare prosecution-ready dossiers of evidence against individuals responsible for crimes in Syria’s war. But so far, no court will hear the case.

        William Wiley leads the Commission for International Justice and Accountability (CIJA), a team funded by the United States and a handful of European governments. CIJA has been quietly building three cases against a range of Syrian government officials.

        “We believe that by the end of this year those three cases will be as good as any cases we’ve ever done in our careers because of the strength of the documentation,” said Wiley, 50, a veteran of the Rwanda and Yugoslavia war crimes tribunals.”…

        http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/10/30/uk-mideast-crisis-syria-investigator-idUKKBN0IJ1WB20141030

  7. just
    May 13, 2015, 4:56 pm

    More from Asa Winstanley @ EI:

    “Allow Israel to kill more civilians, says British colonel

    Former British army officer Colonel Richard Kemp was described by a leading anti-Palestinian lawyer as “one of the Jewish state’s greatest allies” at a conference in Jerusalem last week.

    At that conference, Kemp argued for Israeli impunity from war crimes accusations. He also descried himself as a “thug” who liked to fight and had disobeyed army rules of engagement.

    He argued that the laws of wars and the rules of engagement for “democratic armies” should be loosened to allow “maximum possible freedom of action.”

    “As a former commander myself, I liked nothing better than to be given no orders, so I could carry out the mission any way I liked,” he said, speaking at a panel on 5 May.

    He said that “rules of engagement are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools … on many occasions, I have – I say on many, on some occasions – I have disobeyed the rules of engagement.”

    Kemp seemed a star of the show during the two-day “Towards a new law of war” conference. He used his ample platform to advocate for Israel, the US and the UK to be given more freedom to inflict “collateral damage” – a euphemism for killing civilians.

    Nitsana Darshan-Leitner – the anti-Palestinian lawyer who introduced Kemp’s keynote speech – leads the Mossad-linked group which organized the conference, Shurat HaDin. …

    Human shields calumny

    Throughout the conference, particularly during Kemp’s contributions, the constant justification for Israel’s long record of killing Palestinian civilians was that they were “human shields” who were in many cases forced by Palestinian resistance factions, such as Hamas, into playing that role.

    In fact, despite the constant refrains of “human shields” used by anti-Palestinian propagandists, there has never been any evidence of Palestinian human shields (something The Electronic Intifada has reported on many occasions and with which Amnesty International concurs).

    With one exception: Israel uses Palestinians, including children, as human shields to protect their soldiers. This is a war crime, and its practice by Israel has been documented by groups including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. …

    “Civilian casualties will ensue”

    He argued for a “more modern definition of proportionality” which would give greater scope “undesirable though it may be – but for inflicting collateral damage, because it [the new definition of proportionality] refers to ‘clearly excessive’ in relation to the concrete and overall military advantage.”

    “I don’t advocate the callous butchery of civilians,” he repeated, “but on the real battlefield, often … civilian casualties will ensue.”

    But later, during another panel, on the rules of engagement for militaries, Kemp specified some concrete ways ways that soldiers in Afghanistan had decided who they were allowed to shoot and kill. …

    Christian Zionist

    Colonel Richard Kemp was a British army commander in Afghanistan, based in Kabul, in 2003. He retired from army life in 2006. Since then he has been a UK government adviser, an author and a public speaker.

    But his most prolific role in the last few years has been as a leading propagandist for Israeli war crimes.

    His web site states that he is a board member of the Friends of Israel Initiative and NGO Monitor, a propaganda group well-known for its anti-Palestinian advocacy.

    Kemp’s virulent propagandizing for Israel seems to be motivated in part by religious extremism. In 2013, I reported on a speech he made at the Christians United For Israel annual summit. There, he described the late British occupation army officer Orde Wingate as “the greatest Christian Zionist in Britain.”

    Wingate infamously led the Special Night Squad, a sectarian militia used to crush Palestinian rebels who fought against the British occupation in the 1930s.

    The Shurat HaDin conference where Kemp spoke was closed by a speech in which Israeli defense minister Moshe Yaalon threatened to kill more Palestinian and Lebanese civilians “in any round of hostilities in the future,” and implied Israel might nuke Iran “in certain cases” when “we feel like we don’t have the answer by surgical operations.””

    All the rest, including link to conference video @ http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/allow-israel-kill-more-civilians-says-british-colonel

  8. just
    May 13, 2015, 5:29 pm

    “Israel sells its story on a new Lebanon war, and the ‘Times’ bites

    If you’re going to publish ominous warnings portending the killing of scores of civilians, shouldn’t you verify the grounds and ask why?…

    …It certainly seems that Israel learned the wrong lesson from the most recent Gaza war. Instead of reexamining its rules of engagement, which turn civilians into fair game, it has chosen the tack of trying to preempt criticism of future carnage. “We told you this would happen,” they’ll be able to say.

    With Israel’s war drums only getting steadier, that’s not so surprising. But is it the job of a New York Times journalist to give them her platform?”

    http://www.972mag.com/israel-sells-its-story-on-a-new-lebanon-war-and-the-times-bites/106694/

  9. John O
    May 13, 2015, 6:12 pm

    I seem to remember that Israel’s attack on Hezbollah in 2006 didn’t go very well. Sounds like they want to try the same thing again, expecting a different result. And we all know what that means.

    • a blah chick
      May 13, 2015, 9:19 pm

      I mean, if they couldn’t take Gaza, Gaza for God’s sake, what makes them think things will go better in Lebanon?

      I’ve said before, we’re in a very dangerous era with Israel. After Gaza they know that there is nothing their supporters will not allow.

  10. Walker
    May 13, 2015, 6:37 pm

    This story is accompanied by a flood of virulently pro-Israel, reader-recommended comments. This is in vivid contrast to many recent stories about Israel where comments critical of Israel predominated. Is this a coincidence, or are the comments also part of a campaign to preempt criticism of coming Israeli attacks on civilian areas? It’s possible I’m mistaken, but I suspect the latter.

    It’s not so funny to reflect that Israel also has been accused of deliberately positioning military installations near Arab civilian areas . Except in this case it was their own Arab citizens.

    • Don
      May 13, 2015, 8:23 pm

      This IS funny…

      The civilians are living in a military compound,” a senior Israeli military official said at military headquarters in Tel Aviv…

      Military headquarters in…Tel Aviv?

      • Anon y Mouse
        May 14, 2015, 1:06 pm

        This is funny, but also important to remember:

        The NYT noticed no hypocrisy when a military official in a military compound in Tel Aviv, located in the midst of civilians, complained about military compounds in Lebanon located in the midst of civilians.

        By Israeli logic, is Tel Aviv a legitimate military target?

      • oldgeezer
        May 14, 2015, 1:15 pm

        By Israeli logic just about every city, town and settlement is a target. During their latest vicious rampage and slaughter they designated the homes of known Hamas members as targets. Therefore homes of any idf or Israeli public servant is an equally valid target. What’s good for the goose
        (Neither are valid targets of course)

      • eljay
        May 14, 2015, 1:27 pm

        || Anon y Mouse: … The NYT noticed no hypocrisy when a military official in a military compound in Tel Aviv, located in the midst of civilians, complained about military compounds in Lebanon located in the midst of civilians. By Israeli logic, is Tel Aviv a legitimate military target? ||

        It would seem so. The same would apply to Ashkelon, home to Ashot Ashkelon Industries, a subsidiary of Israel Military Industries that produces military equipment and weapons – including cluster munitions – for the Israeli military.

        And yet Zio-supremacists (and the NYT) never fail to condemn the Palestinians whenever rockets are launched in the direction of this legitimate military target.

        Why does Israel insist on placing its military manufacturing operations in civilian areas, effectively using Israeli civilians as human shields?

  11. JLewisDickerson
    May 13, 2015, 7:53 pm

    RE: “Today’s Times has a long piece titled, ‘Israel Says Hezbollah Positions Put Lebanese at Risk’, by Isabel Kershner, containing numerous warnings from Israel that it will strike Lebanese villages and kill civilians in order to get at Hezbollah forces.” ~ Phil Weiss and Donald Johnson

    MY COMMENT: Israel is determined to attack Lebanon to neutralize Hezbollah in preparation for bombing Iran.

    FROM LAST SUMMER:

    DICKERSON3870 August 7, 2014, 5:32 pm
    RE: “Does it make sense to sacrifice 64 Israelis, and to bomb densely populated civilian areas for four weeks, 24 hours a day, to gain three or five years of ‘quiet’ from pesky, but ineffectual rockets. Not peace, but quiet. Feiglin doesn’t think so, and in that, surely, he is right.” ~ Roland Nikles

    HOW ‘OPERATION PROTECTIVE EDGE’ MIGHT MAKE SENSE:
    I’m a bit surprised that no one anywhere seems to have raised the possibility that Operation Protective Edge might actually be the first op of an operational trilogy. Israel’s second op would be neutralizing Hezbollah in Lebanon.
    After these two prerequisite ops have been completed, and Hezbollah and Hamas have been deemed sufficiently neutralized, the third op (i.e., the Grand Finale) would be Israel eliminating Iran’s nuclear program.

    P.S. Put another way, I wonder whether the Obama administration had to sign off on Israel’s Operation Protective Edge in order to keep Netanyahu from raising a stink about the talks with Iran being extended.

    SOURCE – http://mondoweiss.net/2014/08/feiglins-liberating-palestinians#comment-699270

    • just
      May 13, 2015, 8:40 pm

      ;-( Thanks, JLD.

    • JLewisDickerson
      May 14, 2015, 1:59 am

      P.P.S. FROM RICHARD SILVERSTEIN (5/13/15):

      [EXCERPT] . . . Further, [Moshe] Yaalon made another strange aside in answering an audience question. He implied that in certain strategic circumstances in which the IDF “did not have the answer through surgical operations” against an enemy (presumably Iran), it might use WMD (around 18:00). Though he added “we’re not there yet.” Lunatics like Sheldon Adelson, John Hagee, and even Benny Morris, have advocated nuking Iran, but I’ve never before heard this officially discussed by such a senior Israeli figure. It indicates another red-line has been crossed; and that this government is by far the most reckless and dangerous in Israeli history. . .

      SOURCE – http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2015/05/13/ny-times-regurgitates-idf-intelligence-justifying-attacks-on-civilians/

      • just
        May 14, 2015, 8:45 am

        I haven’t heard anyone in any government commenting, much less condemning, his criminal pronouncements. Has anyone?

        And btw, he’s keeping his position as “Defense Minister”. Sounds and acts like the Offense Minister to me.

  12. lonely rico
    May 13, 2015, 9:40 pm

    Hezbollah, the Shiite Lebanese organization that fought a monthlong war against Israel in 2006

    Not mentioned of course –

    Israel LOST

    the month long war against Hezbollah in 2006 –

    The civilians are living in a military compound, a senior Israeli military official said …
    Historically, armed forces have separated themselves from the population …

    Isn’t that a pretty accurate description of the zionist state ?

    Armed forces living in a military compound (with heavily armed militias mixing freely with the civilian population).

    He accused Hezbollah of cynically using civilians !?

    … in the event or another conflict with Hezbollah, many Lebanese civilians will probably be killed, and that it should not be considered Israel’s fault.

    In the event of another conflict, I will not consider the deaths in Israel the fault of the Lebanese resistance.
    Rather the fault of the cruel bellicosity of the state of Israel.

  13. Shingo
    May 14, 2015, 12:20 am

    I’ve said before, we’re in a very dangerous era with Israel. After Gaza they know that there is nothing their supporters will not allow.

    There is.

    1. A high death count for the IDF
    2. A barrage of rocket attacks of the scale they have never experienced

    Both are inevitable. Hezbollah have 50,000 rockets ready and once the ground invasion begins, the IDF will be chewed up and spat out as before.

  14. brenda at fol
    May 14, 2015, 4:46 am

    Many thanks for pointing out the unethical nature of this NYT report. And glad you mentioned the Dahiya Doctrine. As you note, Hezbollah is based there, but it should be underscored that the excuse of self-defence is painfully thin given that the rockets bemoaned by the Israelis were clearly not being fired from Dahiya—which is nearly twice the distance of the average range of a rocket to the border.
    We should also bear in mind that between 1968 and mid-1982–WELL BEFORE THE CREATION OF HEZBOLLAH–there were 28 UN Security Council Resolutions denouncing Israeli hostilities against Lebanon and 143 Complaints to the UN detailing Israeli aggressions and lethal land, air and naval attacks on Lebanon. The Lebanese tried to resolve this belligerence through diplomacy. When those efforts proved futile, resistance was the only option.
    For anyone interested in these topics, please see the recently published book “Hezbollah: An Outsider’s Inside View,” details at insidehezbollah dot com.

  15. brenda at fol
    May 14, 2015, 5:06 am

    Readers may be interested in my 2009 article “Challenging the Dahiyeh Doctrine: the Samouni Family and the Goldstone Report,” which discusses this Israeli policy in more detail. http://pulsemedia.org/2009/10/19/unhrc-acts-on-goldstone/

  16. ivri
    May 14, 2015, 5:51 am

    Relevant comments:
    Right now Hezbollah is bogged down too deeply in Syria where the party it is supporting, Assad, has entered a losing streak. So the last thing it may want to do is to start another serious front.
    Hezbollah in fact violated its promise in the aftermath of the previous war and rearmed itself.
    Better warn and avoid bloodshed. Hezbollah bases its calculations on the asymmetry that they can bomb civilian targets in Israel and Israel will not do that – deterred by the “international community” outcry. But they are extremely vulnerable to that given that they population stronghold is merely a neighborhood of Beirut. Indeed, there is no real need for Israel need to have civilians killed – just hitting the supplies infrastructure can paralyze a neighborhood (and people all will need to flee from there).
    It took the Shia a long time to get ahead socio-economically in Lebanon – they used to be at the bottom of that ladder there. Why on earth should they risk all that for a fight that they cannot win (just cause damage to Israel)? That is still so even if that is what the Iranians might expect in return for the billions they invested there but in.

    • a blah chick
      May 14, 2015, 11:15 am

      Whoa boy…

      “Hezbollah in fact violated its promise in the aftermath of the previous war and rearmed itself.”

      Who are you or Israel to tell Lebanese people how they should defend themselves? BTW what about Israel daily violations of the “truce” in Gaza?

      “Better warn and avoid bloodshed” We saw how that worked in Gaza, people fled and still got killed. Again why does Israel have the right to tell Lebanese what they can or cannot do?

      “Hezbollah bases its calculations on the asymmetry that they can bomb civilian targets in Israel and Israel will not do that – deterred by the “international community” outcry” I’l let this absurdity stand on its own.

      “Why on earth should they risk all that for a fight that they cannot win (just cause damage to Israel)?” Because there is an army invading their country?

      This is the current Zionist position: allow Israel to do whatever it wants to whomever it wants.

    • amigo
      May 14, 2015, 11:34 am

      “Indeed, there is no real need for Israel need to have civilians killed – just hitting the supplies infrastructure can paralyze a neighborhood (and people all will need to flee from there). ” ivri

      Like the people of Gaza were allowed to flee.Sure ivri.

      • Kris
        May 14, 2015, 11:47 am

        @amigo: “Like the people of Gaza were allowed to flee.Sure ivri.”

        Or the Palestinian refugees in the Sabra and Shatilla camps. https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/content/sabra-and-shatilla

        Israel does not spare Palestinian lives.

      • a blah chick
        May 14, 2015, 11:51 am

        Ivri seems to believe in a hierarchy of humanity, that the superior races have the right to tell the inferior races what they can or cannot do.

    • Shingo
      May 15, 2015, 7:02 am

      Hezbollah in fact violated its promise in the aftermath of the previous war and rearmed itself.

      What a load of rubbish!! What promises has it violated? Did it enter your thick skull that UNIFIL has documented about 3,000 ceasefire violations by Israel?

      Hezbollah bases its calculations on the asymmetry that they can bomb civilian targets in Israel and Israel will not do that

      Israel HAVE done that. They bombed and murdered 1,300 civilians in 2006 and even bombed those fleeing their homes, so how can Hezbollah believe Israel will not do that when they have already?

      But they are extremely vulnerable to that given that they population stronghold is merely a neighborhood of Beirut.

      Wrong again. Thanks to Israel’s stupidity when they bombed the Christians to the North, Israel has driven the Maronite Christians and Hezbollah together.

      Why on earth should they risk all that for a fight that they cannot win

      What are you babbling about? Hezbollah kicked IDF butt in 2006.

  17. oldgeezer
    May 14, 2015, 10:23 am

    In my opinion Israel has no intention of not attacking Lebanon regardless of what Hezbollah does or doesn’t do short of the Lebanese granting southern Lebanon to Israel. Israel has always coveted the Litani river as a water source.

    Under Sharon, Israel threatened to attack Lebanon over plans to divert 7% of the Litani to agriculture purposes. 10% is permissible under international law for transnational water sources. As usual Israeli belligerence was given a free pass.

    It is no coinicidence that Israeli invasions frequently stop at the Litani and it’s also no coincidence that they are using things such as cluster munitions to cleanse the area of habitation.

    http://defence.pk/threads/israel-wants-the-litani-river-water-and-farmlands.2030/

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1021/p08s01-wome.html

    http://www.lebanonwire.com/0408/04081301OBG.asp

    • Walid
      May 14, 2015, 9:57 pm

      Oldgeezer, there is nothing in international law that Israel can do about the Litani since it originates in Lebanon, travels southward inside Lebanon then veers off westward and empties into the Med about 10 miles from the Israeli border. It’s of little use to anybody these days because it’s almost thoroughly polluted. The diversion you read about concerned another river, the Hasbani, which originates in Lebanon but runs south through Israel and this one is covered by international laws.

      • oldgeezer
        May 15, 2015, 12:31 am

        @Walid

        I disagree. We will see what the future brings.

        “there is nothing in international law that Israel can do about the Litani since it originates in Lebanon, travels southward inside Lebanon then veers off westward and empties into the Med – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/recent-comments#sthash.YuwLRF3h.dpuf

        Since when has international law been something that stops Israel from doing what it wants to do. While I disagree on the rest of your post that particular point is just out to lunch. Given history they will fabricate a reason and take it.

  18. Kay24
    May 14, 2015, 1:10 pm

    Is it time for Israel to try out their latest manufactured weapons again? Now that they cannot attack Gaza, are the poor Lebanese the next victims of their violence? Perhaps the new government, like vampires are salivating to shed more goyim blood so they turn to their neighbors again.

    Going by the Israeli narrative, any party engaged in war with Israel has the right to send rockets/bombs whatever they use, into Tel Aviv too, after all that is where some Israeli forces are. If there is the usual outrage about civilian casualties, they should shrug it off like Israel does, and say they are defending themselves.

    • Walid
      May 14, 2015, 10:02 pm

      “Is it time for Israel to try out their latest manufactured weapons again? ” (Kay)

      Hizbullah also has a wide range of new weapons that it’s anxious to try out. Other than high-pitched rhetoric between both sides, don’t expect anything much to happen.

      • Kay24
        May 15, 2015, 10:09 am

        Oh good. It is time the playing field was leveled. Of course with the US backing, it will never be a fair fight.

Leave a Reply