[lit-ideas] Washington's Latest Middle East War
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 11:06:23 -0700 (PDT)
The Israeli war against Lebanon and Palestine,
euphemistically depicted as "self-defense" against
Hezbollah and Hamas, is simultaneously an Israeli war
for domination, and a regional war to "remap" the
contemporary Middle East. In this context it is as
much a US as an Israeli war. The immediate trigger has
its roots in the extraordinarily hypocritical US-led
boycott and international sanctions against the
Palestinians that started after the democratic
election of the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority
government in January 2006. And beyond the specific
trigger, this new war was set in motion by the example
presented in Washington's Iraq-centered efforts at
militarized regional transformation in the guise of
"democratization."
It must be stated unequivocally that this is a war
against civilians -- there is nothing "collateral"
about it. And Israel is responsible for this war.
Hezbollah's July 12 raid across the Israeli border may
have violated the 1949 armistice agreement between the
newly created state of Israel and Lebanon, but it was
limited to a military target. The only Israelis killed
or captured were soldiers. Given the human devastation
of the predictable Israeli response, the raid may have
been what French Foreign Minister Philippe
Douste-Blazy called it, an "irresponsible act." But it
did not violate international law. According to Human
Rights Watch, "the targeting and capture of enemy
soldiers is allowed under international humanitarian
law." It was Israel's response, on the other hand,
that escalated to a full-scale attack on civilians and
civilian infrastructure starting with the bombing of
the Beirut international airport. That act was what
Douste-Blazy, distinguishing it from Hezbollah's raid,
called "a disproportionate act of war." The Israeli
attack stands in stark violation of the Geneva
Conventions prohibitions against collective
punishment, targeting civilians, destruction of
civilian infrastructure and more. The attack was --
and remains -- a war crime.
The distinction is important. The Hezbollah attack on
the Israeli army post and the failed Israeli attempt
to grab back the captured soldiers, constituted a
border skirmish. Such cross-border clashes happen
around the world on a daily basis; certainly the
Israeli-Lebanon border itself has seen more than its
share. But a border skirmish is not a war -- it's a
border skirmish. It only becomes a war if one or the
other party wants it to escalate. In this case, there
is no question that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert
and his government wanted a war. The San Francisco
Chronicle and other mainstream media have highlighted
the fact that Israel had had this strategic plan in
place since at least 2004, perhaps having started it
as early as 2000 when Israeli troops pulled out of
Lebanon. Israel was waiting for an appropriate time --
or an appropriate pretext -- to launch it. This
moment, this pretext, they deemed, was the time.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=10678
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Washington's Latest Middle East War
