Robert Fisk: Why should Europeans protect Israel?

[Briar]

Why should Europeans protect Israel?

The enlarged Nato/Unifil force is not going to preserve 'peace'

By Robert Fisk

"The Independent" -- --

...

So a big Ho-Ho-Ho from the world of reality. The enlarged Nato/Unifil force is not going to preserve "peace". It is going to maintain a " buffer" zone to protect Israel after the latter's dismal failure to destroy, disarm and liquidate the Iranian-armed Hizbollah guerrilla army over the past seven weeks. The UN may deny that it is a buffer zone for the Israelis - but if it was a buffer zone to protect Lebanese (the numerically higher victims of this latest war), it would be based, surely, inside the Israeli frontier. But no, it is there to protect Israel.

Note how the Arabs have accepted this. Note how we have accepted this - how we have sublimely gone along with the idea that Israel's security and happiness are more important than the security and happiness of the millions of Muslims also living in this region. Our soldiers are to be deployed to protect Israel. Do we really think that the Arabs don't realise this? And do we think that our western governments don't realise this when they huff and puff over whether to send soldiers to the Middle East?

Needless to say, the Americans and the British want no part of this mess. After Iraq and Afghanistan, they have no stomach to defend Israel, let alone Lebanon. Their job is to push the European masses into the bog they have created by their injustice and cowardice in the Middle East. President Bush promises "intelligence" assistance to the Unifil force - which means Israeli "intelligence", and we all know how good that is - while Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara offers not a single hero to give his life, which is as well after his outrageous sacrifice of British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But while Europe's other political masters dithered this week, BBC World Service laid down a familiar narrative for its listeners. "It seems," said their man on The World Today, that the Europeans - how I hate these cheap clichés - "are prepared to talk the talk but not walk the walk." In other words, those bloody Wops and Frogs and Boche, not to mention the Dagos and the ungrateful Finns and Norwegians, were gutless little chicken shit when it came to standing by their European principles.

...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14708.htm

[SweetLeftFoot]

1. Exactly

Israel tried to take out Hezbollah, couldn't do it, and now whines that the French aren't falling over themselves to do the job.

Unlike the arrogant Israelis, who thought that 20 years of shooting rock throwing kids from the safety of APCs meant the IDF was still hard, the French haven't forgotten the lessons of what Hezbollah did to them last time they were in Lebanon.

[Retired AF Dem]

5. Israel could of taken out Hezbollah

but got tired of all the whining. Europe should really keep their forces at home to protect themselves against the peaceful Islamic people.
]



]

[Lindacooks]

17. Whining???

You think that the Lebanese burying hundreds of dead children is WHINING?

Good God, what's wrong with you?

On second thought, don't answer that - I know what's wrong.

[SweetLeftFoot]

22. Er

Ah, I love this line - 'Israel could have beaten them'. As we would say in my native land, you're talking out your arse mate.

israel used every weapon in its arsenal bar nukes - and Hezbollah still fought them to a standstill.

Only way israel was winning was with mushroom clouds.

[tocqueville]

6. it has more to do with Bosnia than the Hizbollah bombing

The French and other countries were VERY frustrated about the fact that they had to break the UN mandate to finally stop the war in Bosnia. There is a sense of guilt regarding the Srebrenicza massacre.

But somewhere the Europeans are pissed at the fact that they have to send their troops in a possible quagmire because of the US/Isreali "blixtkrieg" experiments in the region, which after all is our backyard. At the same time there is a growing expectation that the EU will show its military might and succeed in its mission, thus sending a signal to teh US : you have to count with us.

I think that the French Chiracian manoeuver of forcing the UN to give a strong military mandate to the force and the Italian enthusiasm are positive.

[Surya Gayatri]

7. Bull's eye, Sweet...

The wise & wily French are trying to force a clarification of the UN

mission--they're not going to commit more than the minimum, if the

safety of UNIFIL forces cannot be guaranteed. This time, though, I think

they are more concerned about being in the Israelis' line of fire than

Hizb'allah's, given the IDF's crazed penchant for attacking anything that

moves. SG

[FlavaKreemSnak]

2. I guess because Europe has to do what we say like everybody else

I mean, I can understand that there will be some people there who will say why should we have to make these sacrifices and get our soldiers killed and why doesn't America send its own troops to protect the Israeli soldiers and help with the occupation.

But for a long time there have been articles about how we don't think that other countries are doing enough to help us with the war on terror so maybe this time we gave them an ultimatum or something.

And I don't agree with the author that NATO won't go to war against Islam, they are already doing some things to help and they will have to do more if we tell them to because I don't think there are any countries that really want to make us mad because they can see what happens to countries that do. The thing is that the European countries have a lot of Muslims living there and then it will be Europe telling us OK look we can't afford to pay for the clampdowns do you will have to help us with it because we are making these sacrifices to help with the occupation, and it is going to mean a big increase in our other countries clampdown budget and be very expensive.

[tocqueville]

8. there are a lot of misconceptions about NATO

for the first NATO has nothing to do with the UNIFIL. If "somebody" has been left out in this process, it's NATO.
NATO was impossible in this context ssen by the Arabs as the the "arm" of the US.

for the second NATO is only the sum of the nations that make it. And days are over when the US could say "send NATO". NATO had a role in the Bosnian/Kosovo war because there was no alternative. But for NATO to act, a broad consensus is needed between the US/EU and there no real consensus today, except in Afghanistan and maybe Darfur. NATO is to 90% financed by the European countries (it's a myth that the US is paying for NATO). So if the Europeans disagree (like Iraq) NATO doesn't work.

NATO had somewhat of an advantage which is its projection capacities due to the US logistics specially regarding transport and air cover. But this is changing too, the EU has now several forces with rapid projection capacities.

Another thing that many Americans don't realize is that the European forces are already engaged in many places in the world, mostly in Bosnia/Kosovo (80 000 men), Africa and Afghanistan but in other places as well.

[FlavaKreemSnak]

21. So it sounds like NATO will need budget help too

And some of the countries in Europe might not like it and maybe they can make statements, etc but if we tell them to they will have to do it or we will say they are defying America. But they can also say well we can't afford to, you will have to contribute more, so that will be one more expensive thing.

[LARED]

3. He's right, it is a buffer zone for the Israelis

Hizbollah doesn't need to to be protected from Israel. For peace all Hizollah has to do is nothing.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

4. The Lebanese need to be protected...

...from Israel and for peace, Israel needs to bring itself into compliance with the 1967 U.N. resolution and withdraw from ALL occupied territories, as well as cease the intentional provocations they commit in order to get the predictable responses they always get, which they then use as the pretext for continued militarism.

Israel is committing war crimes and has been for years and we've sponsored it.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=RQyrAVufPhs

[Surya Gayatri]

9. Right you are, Mr Jeff,

If only US policy makers could make at least a pretense of maintaining a

"fair & balanced" position. By returning to the most important UN

Resolution of 1967 and recognizing that it has been systematically spat

upon by the Israelis for the last 40 years, the US could go a long way in

reestablishing its role as honest arbiter in the region. SG

[Marrak]

19. You know,..

...we have the power in the U.S.A. to do this! The political will is another matter, but you are dead on target. We could make this happen. We got ta get back to competence and build some international credibility.:kick:

[kenny blankenship]

11. I just wonder what the role of this force is to be

If Israel decides to send an amored column up Lebanon's way are these peacekeepers really going to repel it with antitank missiles? I have a hard time seeing that. But if not repelling invaders what are they there to do? Meanwhile are they going to be conducting search and destroy missions to remove Hezbollah from the declared buffer zone? If I were French or Italian I wouldn't want my country's troops dying in place of Israeli ones for that mission. Whenever US and Euro forces have visited Lebanon to "keep peace" before, as in the 1980s, they quickly revealed that they were there to wage war against Muslims. That may not be the conscious objective behind sending a "peace keeping" force to Lebanon this time, but if they begin acting as though they control southern Lebanon while Hezbollah, now more than ever no doubt, sees itself as the legitimate government of that area if not all Lebanon, there's going to be a repeat of the disaster that befell foreign troops in the 1980s. I can't imagine that this possibility isn't worrying Chirac at nights.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

12. If the "peacekeeping" forces ...

...come under the direction of an Israeli controlled puppet and start trying to muscle Hezbollah there will be a repeat of the disaster of the '80s. This, of course, is what Israel wants and will be trying to make happen. Hopefully, the international community will be a bit smarter this time and take the necessary steps to see that it doesn't.

[Jim Sagle]

10. Fisk is an Israeli-hating loon.

I could just as well ask HIM why the whole world should hyperventilate over Palestinians.

[mulsh]

13. or like Fisk you could observe first hand

for over a quarter of a century the destruction of the middle east. As least Fisk has the courage to live and travel in the area and report as accurately as he can what he sees.

[Moochy]

16. and you are a name calling DU'er

Are you channelling Bob Bolderang or is his hand someplace naughty and felt covered?

[Matilda]

20. Fisk is no lover of Israel,

but then he lives in Lebanon, and he saw Sabra and Shatila first hand.

[SweetLeftFoot]

23. Right

The world should hyperventilate over Palestinians because they are being held in a giant outdoor prison by an apartheid gangster state.

[Igel]

14. It's neither to protect Israel nor to protect the Lebanese.

It's to stop the fighting. Pure and simple.

If the Europeans don't want to take steps to stop the fighting, they can leave and the fighting can resume. But if they want to preach that the fighting must stop--it's too horrible to contemplate the lack of peace--then they should step up to the plate and take a swing at it.

Eventually Lebanon is going to have to come to grips with Hezb; two groups exerting de facto sovereignty over the same area, or one group exerting defacto sovereignty while the other 'exerts' mere de jure sovereignty, isn't a stable situation. It's precisely what we saw happen in July and August: Nasrallah acted without even telling the Hezbollah party members in the government, and since they acted on sovereign Lebanese territory the possessor of sovereignty paid the price.

[Porcupine]

15. It's all a face saving move to allow Israel to pull out.

If anybody really expects the Hezbollah to to hand over their weapons they're dreaming. The hope is that the "UN forces" take over and buffer the IDF retreat. After that there will be some show patrols by the UN and finall they will leave ignoring Hezbollah digging new bunker compounds as they drive by.

The IDF is screwed. They are surrounded and their enemies now know how to make missiles that can be launched from practically anywhere. The US cannot any longer be relied upon to pull their fat from the fire. Look at a map of Israel and tell me they can protect themselves from rockets coming over all of that borderland.

[SweetLeftFoot]

24. Easily

Look at a map of Israel and tell me they can protect themselves from rockets coming over all of that borderland.

They can do it easily. They can stop the Hamas rockets by recognising the democratically elected Hamas government, releasing the prisoners and entering into meaningul and honest negotiations about a palestinian state.

They can stop the Hezbollah rockets by giving back the She'baa farms, stopping its overflights of sovereign Lebanese territory and releasing the thousands of Lebanese prisoners they still hold without trial.

I think what you mean is 'How can israel hold onto its illegal plunder and still ignore every international and moral norm and avoid the inevitable conseuqences from the people whose land they have stolen and are now attempting to steal more of?'

[Briar]

26. The fact that international law

is being broken daily by Israel isn't just an Israeli issue. It's an international one. How come so many countries are giving Israel tacit permission to break these laws? What puts Israel above the law?

[SweetLeftFoot]

27. AIPAC

What puts Israel above the law?

The fact that a ruthless rabidly-Zionist pressure group has a strangehold on your Congress.

When you make the law, you are, in effect, above it.

[bemildred]

18. "Can the Europeans protect Israel?" is a better question.

What evidence do we have that that is in the Europeans power? If Israel cannot protect itself, how the hell is France going to do it?

[Briar]

25. I suppose

Israel would rather have French troops killed than Israeli troops. Then Israel could pile in with more blitzes and claim to be protecting the UN force.

I want to know whether the UN forces will challenge the Israeli ones still in the South of Lebanon. So far it seems that they aren't.