This is one very hot article folks

All in a day's work for America's ally

This is one very hot article folks. The [deleted] run TPMCAFE spiked it. For the finest in CENSORSHIP visit http://www.tpmcafe.com/.
--
If you can't see the photos, click the link below them and click back.
---
Monday, July 17, 2006

'Disproportionate'



"[W]hat would happen if the powerless Lebanese government had actually unleashed air attacks across Israel the last time Israel's troops crossed into Lebanon? What if the Lebanese air force then killed 73 Israeli civilians in bombing raids in Ashkelon, Tel Aviv and Israeli West Jerusalem? What if a Lebanese fighter aircraft bombed Ben Gurion airport? What if a Lebanese plane destroyed 26 road bridges across Israel? Would it not be called 'terrorism'? I rather think it would. But if Israel was the victim, it would also probably be Word War Three."

So wondered Robert Fisk, as he drove through the bombed-out landscape of Lebanon. I wondered this too, albeit in much less dangerous surroundings. In every defense of Israel's aggression I've read or heard in the past few days, the question (doubtless rhetorical) is always put: What is Israel supposed to do? The question presupposes that Israel is usually tame, quiet, peaceful, helpful; and if it wasn't for bloodthirsty Muslim fanatics, forcing it to violently respond, Israel would never act this way toward Arabs or an Arab state. I mean, you do know that there are Arabs in the Knesset, yes? Well, all right then.

Of course, it takes very little for Israel to unleash its vast arsenal, as anyone with any knowledge of the region could tell you, like the Lebanese population, for example. (Then there's Israel's history of arming and backing violent regimes like apartheid-era South Africa and Guatemala's military junta, but let's focus on the present for now.) But those who back this fresh round of bloodshed will not or cannot concede this easily-demonstrated point, for in their heads, Israel is always the victim, always on the defensive, always killing for peace. At best they'll admit that perhaps the bombing is "disproportionate" to Hezbollah's original provocation -- not wrong, wrongheaded, much less criminal, but a bit over-the-top. And those are usually the liberals.

Let's expand on Fisk's counter-example here.

Let's say that not only was Lebanon bombing the holy ******* bejesus out of Israel, targeting its infrastructure, hitting civilian convoys fleeing the carnage, but that Lebanon had a history of doing this. Not only that, but that Lebanon occupied a chunk of northern Israel for 18 years, in violation of international law, UN resolutions, etc., and brutally repressed the Jewish population there, herding them into camps, torturing suspected "terrorists" and Zionist "militants," and were assisted in this criminal venture by a Palestinian Muslim army who used this opening to further repress their religious enemies, engaging in random murder and overall humiliation of the domestic population. Then let's say that after 18 years of this, the Lebanese army and its Palestinian clients were finally forced by the Israeli resistance to end their occupation and return to the other side of a still-disputed border area. Both sides remained tense and on-guard, with border skirmishes a common occurrence. Then, a few years later, Israeli militia members capture two Lebanese soldiers and kill several more in this disputed area, and take their prisoners back into Israel. The Lebanese Prime Minister calls this an act of war while some of his military officers openly talk about bombing Israel back to 1948, if not further. ("We'll bomb them back to Herzl," brags an unnamed Lebanese general.) The Israeli government has no control over the northern militia, which came into being as a response to the repressive Lebanese occupation. No matter -- the superior Lebanese air force begins bombing Ashkelon, Tel Aviv and Israeli West Jerusalem, among other targets, killing mostly Jewish civilians, many of whom have no love for the ultra-Zionist militia that gave Lebanon the pretext to attack. The United States, which gives billions in annual aid, military included, to the Lebanese state, sits back and does nothing, save to denounce the Zionist militia for its terrorism and say that Lebanon has "a right to defend herself." Meanwhile, the bombs keep falling all over Israel, while some Zionist militia rockets hit Lebanese targets, killing and wounding civilians as well, but not to the degree that Israel is enduring. And as of this writing, that's where the situation stands.

Now, what would you think of those Lebanese apologists in the US who, while supporting the terror bombing of Israel, quipped that perhaps it was "disproportionate"?

There's been a lot of pious talk from Israeli apologists about UN Security Council Resolution 1559, which mandated that Hezbollah be disarmed. Of course, some of these same people rejected or downplayed Israel's many violations of UN Resolutions over the decades, to the degree that they even recognized what the UN demanded of their Holy State (Israel sure didn't). Still, hypocrisy aside, does that mean that Hezbollah should honor 1559, a resolution crafted by the US and the French? All things being equal, yes, if one has any interest in sustaining what international law exists. But all things are not equal, as we currently see. And if Israel and its US supporters truly desire a disarmed Hezbollah, then pounding Lebanon with F-16s, Apache helicopters and mobile artillery units is a novel method of persuasion. Or to employ the accepted
parlance, a "disproportionate" method of persuasion.

posted by Dennis Perrin

http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/10348252.html

Photos you will not see on US TV