World War Four: Israel’s “Destructive Enterprise”

[norml]

World War Four: Israel’s “Destructive Enterprise”

Kurt Nimmo

July 13, 2006


How does a small, outlaw nation, unaccustomed to following the norms of civilized behavior and international law, respond to terrorism, or rather resistance to its continual border provocations and occupation of land (the Golan Heights, rightfully known as the Syrian Heights, and Shebaa Farms)?

In predictable fashion—by destroying civilian infrastructure, slaughtering innocent civilians, and thumbing its nose at the world, an admittedly bedazzled and apathetic world that sits idly by on its hands, unable or unwilling to condemn such immense and brazen crimes.

"Israel has reportedly carried out air strikes on approximately 40 sites in southern Lebanon," reports Zaman Online. "Citing the Israeli military radio, reporters said that Israel mounted offensives on 150 targets affiliated with Hezbollah and bombarded the Beirut airport, applying an 'aerial blockade’ over Lebanon."

Of course, the Beirut airport has nothing to do with Hezzbollah, and the legendary resistance organization—that is, legendary in the Middle East, here it is simply another terrorist group—does not have an air force, so an "aerial blockade" over Lebanon is pointless, unless your design is to make the average Lebanese citizen suffer, or at least humiliate him for allowing a resistance to Israeli regional hegemony in his country.

"Israeli warplanes blasted runways at the main army air base in eastern Lebanon near Syria’s border today, police said, an attack that could draw the Lebanese army into Israel’s war with Hezbollah guerrillas," notes Ireland Online. It helps that Syria is a mere four miles away to the west.


snip


http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m24579&l=i&size=1&hd=0

[Erika]

1. Israel's current persecution of Lebanese innocents

is unfathomable. Maybe they are doing a reverse mini holocaust?

[cali]

2. How is this propaganda?

Let me count the ways: the gratuitous labeling of Israel as an outlaw nation, the refusal to admit that Israel is subject to terrorist attacks, blaming Israel in full for those attacks, the description of Israel's actions as being far outside the norm and ignored by the press and the media (Israel's infractions, gross, small and imagined garner far greater attention than Russia's in Chechnya or the gov't of Sudan, for example),and outright falsehood.

I do not support Israel's incursion into Lebanon. It's a huge mistake and it hurts civilians, but it was certainly not unprovoked,and the Lebanese gov't is responsible under a UN resolution for H'zbollah's actions. After all, H'zbollah has significant representation in the Lebanese gov't. (Israel is not the only nation violating UN resolutions)

If you can't see what a piece of nonsense this is, your lens on the whole miserable mess is hopelessly skewed.

[norml]

8. There's laws Israel ignores. The article mentions the resistance.

It doesn't deny the resistance makes attacks. It just doesn't say much about them. Israel's actions are outside the norm, and our press covers for them.

[cali]

9. Now that's what I call a weak

response.

[norml]

14. I'd say it was a quick response.

I had to get to the Terminal Bldg., to do my show.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. Something needs to be pointed out to you...

Stop holding other posters in this forum personally responsible for articles that they post. Just because an article is posted doesn't necessarily mean that a poster is responsible for the views or even agrees with them. Last night I posted a 'pro-Israeli' article that was riddled with propaganda and ignorance, yet I totally disagreed with it and thought it was crap. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x133576

btw, knowing how much you detest propaganda, feel free to drop in and count the ways. I won't hold my breath seeing as how it's an article totally 110% blindly supportive of Israel, though I may get a surprise! ;)

[cali]

20. VioletVioletViolet,

Of course, and you're just the person to do it. How kind of you.

I have every right to comment on any article I please. Surely I shouldn't have to be pointing that out to you. I don't have to stop commenting, anymore than you have to stop commenting on my commenting. So have at it.

Oh, yeah. You may very well be wrong. You so frequently are.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. Try knocking off the patronising crap for once...

I pointed out what should have been a blatantly obvious fact. You can comment on any article you damn well like, and everyone's painfully aware of yr obvious bias in that regard, and I didn't say anything otherwise. What I made very clear was that commenting at the person who posts the article as though they're personally responsible for everything written is a rather stupid tactic to use...

As for being wrong, I'm not immune from occassionally being wrong. The difference is that unlike you, I'm able to admit it :)

[cali]

23. you are certainly

predictable.

[Violet_Crumble]

25. That may be because I'm pointing out the obvious...

And I manage to do it without being condescending, patronising, obnoxious or outright abusive :)

[pelsar]

27. this i find rather funny...

addressed to Cali

everyone's painfully aware of yr obvious bias in that regard....yes everyone is aware that cali prefers to keep to the facts as opposed to hypterbole and making things up.

i did notice something very interesting. In the beginning Cali just commented on the fairytales and hyperbold and was flamed for being "pro israeli"

now, as long as cali adds an addendum that he is against israels....(whatever israel is doing)...he no longer gets the "pro israeli flame"..

seems like if one isnt on the "right side of the line" then flaming is a must (or ignored), irreguardless of the message/facts.....

[pelsar]

26. thats "pro israeli propanganda?

where? how?...which statesments are "propaganda? it is in fact a israeli article criticizing the IDF

[TomClash]

16. Here are a few facts you forgot to count

1. Israel has violated numerous UN resolutions - the only reason there aren't more is that the US repeatedly vetoes Security Council resolutions requiring Israel to take action. Israel continues to violate 242 and 338, requiring departure from the West Bank and Gaza. Strange acts for a country that only exists because the UN created it. Now it is also engaging in collective punishment in violation of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Other UN violations include 252 and 267 regarding Jerusalem and 1402 which requires withdrawal from Palestinian cities.

2. Israel is subject to terrorist attacks because it refuses to leave the West Bank and Gaza completely and instead has built and continues to build numerous settlements, particularly in the suburbs ringing Arab East Jerusalem. It is readily acknowledged that these were not built for security purposes.

3. The disproportionate media attention given to Israel occurs, in small part, because its actions and existence are of interest to many prominent people in government, entertainment and journalism and, in large part, because its actions are in the oil-soaked ME and could ignite WWIII. Russia could kill hundreds of thousands and it wouldn't start World War III.

4. Israel has had border clashes with Hezbollah for years. The US brokered several cease-fires, most notably in 1993 and 1996. Does the capture of one soldier in Palestine and a few soldiers on the Lebanese border justify this response?

5. You are right about Hezbollah - it is violating international law by not complying with UN Resolution 1559 through its failure to disarm. But Israel has morphed Hezbollah into the Lebanese Government to justify its attack. Hezbollah has two cabinet seats and it is not the Lebanese government.

[Violet_Crumble]

17. Excellent post, Tom!

Especially the bit about Hezbollah having two cabinet seats. I saw a claim that because they won 23 seats, they ARE the Lebanese govt. That sort of simpleminded guff shows a complete ignorance of how political systems work and where the power lies, which is within the Cabinet...

[TomClash]

18. Thanks

If I recall correctly the Lebanese Parliament consists of 128 seats and Hezbollah has 23. That works out to about 17%.

[cali]

22. No.

I was addressing the article directly, and pointing out why it's nothing but propaganda. A well written article, one penned in a manner similar to yours, wouldn't have drawn a reaction from me. I largely agree with you- Except:


2)It's impossible to know whether Israel would be subject to attacks if it hadn't say, built settlements. It's certain, though, that not having left the West Bank and settlements are a significant motivating factor.


3) media attention. I always find it strange that people attribute motives to people are entities, without having anyway of knowing what those motives actually are. In any case, US media is not world media.

4) No of course, the killing of eight soldiers, the abduction of two, and firing a couple of dozen rockets into Israeli towns doesn't justify invading Lebanon. Though, let's be clear, as I understand it, Israel has the right, under International Law, to do so. I don't support such action because Lebanon is a fragile nation, civilians are being killed and hurt, and because I think it's counter productive.


5)H'zbollah holds 23 seats in the Parliament in addition to the ministry positions and controls Lebanon's border with Israel.

Of course, none of this has the slightest thing to do with what I was addressing. You must know that.

[TomClash]

29. That's ironic

Take a look at your post. I basically addressed it point by point. While the article has flaws, you cannot crticize an article as propaganda and then pen Israeli talking points. That would just make you . . . Behind . . . oh, never mind. :)

[cali]

30. It would help if you were specific

What Israeli talking points have I penned? Seeing as I've roundly condemned Israel's attacks on both Gaza and Lebanon, repeatedly written that Israel should pull out of the West Bank and should stop mistreating the Palestinians, I find the irony that I should be accused of Israeli talking points, rather rich.

What have I written that isn't factual? (Oh, and in case you didn't get it, it's the use of language as well as the slanting of material, that makes an article propaganda)

[TomClash]

32. Oh, how cute

These aren't Israeli talking points?

How is this propaganda? Let me count the ways: the gratuitous labeling of Israel as an outlaw nation, the refusal to admit that Israel is subject to terrorist attacks, blaming Israel in full for those attacks, the description of Israel's actions as being far outside the norm and ignored by the press and the media (Israel's infractions, gross, small and imagined garner far greater attention than Russia's in Chechnya or the gov't of Sudan, for example),and outright falsehood.

You could have fooled me.

By the way, Israel is in violation of at least 91 UN Security Council resolutions. That's outside the norm, I think. And your implication that the press and media in the US are anti-Israeli is, frankly, laughable.

Thanks for the propaganda definition - coming from an expert like you, I'm sure it is quite right in every way. :)

[cali]

33. No

They aren't. You're demonstrating your ignorance of rhetoric and propaganda. And I did not implicate that the press in the US is anti-Israel. I think no such thing- quite the opposite in fact. And if I'm not an expert, rhetoric and propaganda are indeed subjects that I've studied. I could even recommend some basic texts for you.

[TomClash]

34. No thanks

I've got quite enough to read. I'm no scholar but somehow, in spite of my ignorance, I learned a little bit about rhetoric and propaganda along the way.

Perhaps you were using rhetoric and/or propaganda when you wrote, "the description of Israel's actions as being far outside the norm and ignored by the press and the media (Israel's infractions, gross, small and imagined garner far greater attention than Russia's in Chechnya or the gov't of Sudan, for example),and outright falsehood." Wouldn't that mean that Israel was being treated unfairly in the press? That would seem to me to be a reasonable interpretation of your statement. Otherwise, I think it's a peculiar use of the language.

Speaking of language, I think the word you intended to use is "imply" not "implicate."

Ok, you get the last word. :hi:

[pelsar]

28. hey tom ...can you please explain this?

Israel is subject to terrorist attacks because it refuses to leave the West Bank and Gaza completely

so there were no terrorists attacks pre 67?


Does the capture of one soldier in Palestine and a few soldiers on the Lebanese border justify this response?

well maybe they shouldnt cross intl borders and attack us.....and maybe we actually care about our soldiers and want them to know that we dont leave them behind

[malaise]

31. Facts are useless

when Israelis see all atrocities against others as self protection. They are the world's best practitioners of 'victims for ever syndrome'.

The attacks on Lebanon are outrageous and violate international law.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[norml]

4. And if it was "official propaganda from Hezbollah" how would posting it be

un-democratic?

It's what a lot of people think.

I agree with it.

It's information for the debate.

If it's non-sense, refute it, if you can.

[Jacob K.]

5. I meant Democratic

as in Democratic Party.

And propaganda like this doesn't add anything to the debate.

And, I believe the poster above me already refuted it. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x134289#134291

[cali]

7. Please

address my post refuting the propaganda you posted.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. Maybe if you asked politely for a change?

n/t

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DELUSIONAL]

6. Interesting reading -- it takes awhile to slough through the

rhetoric -- and this writer has a biased view.

But there is a history lesson that we shouldn't forget.

The US marines were sitting targets in Beirut -- RayGun put them there in support of Israel.

This seems to be a continuation of the first Israel 1982 offensive against Lebanon which ended only recently -- in 2000.

I had forgotten most of the history of that very long conflict.

All the the players are old foes --

There are old scores to settle -- and America should NOT in any way be involved.

This is NOT our battle -- and yet there are factions within the US political scene who want the US to join this battle -- perhaps bomb Iran??

Anyway -- this article is worth reading -- just skim the jargon phrases and learn about both sides.

Ultimately it will be US taxpayer who foot the bill for this war -- so we might as well find out where our money is going and the motives for each side.

[heidler1]

10. We are in a OIL war. For some reason most of the remaining

oil is in the hands of the bad guys. We're trying to screw them out of their oil. They know it. The Shia want to screw the Sunni out of their share of the oil, so no Government. The Sunni are fighting for their lives. Who ever controls the Iraqi oil will have a grand life style. We want a puppet government so we can continue our grand life style.

Iran knows that the world needs their oil. Without the oil everything grinds to a halt. The Iranians can see that when there isn't enough oil to go around they are apt to be invaded by somebody, like Iraq. They want Nukes to keep it from happening. Saddam saw this so he lied about having WMD.

The problem with Bush's goals, in Iraq, is they won't work.

[DELUSIONAL]

11. That is short and oily -- but probably as close as any explanation

also don't forget WATER.

It wasn't until someone posted a map of the Middle East with water resources that I really begun to understand the death grip that Israel has on that section of the "desert". They don't have oil -- but they have managed to control the major water resources.

I'll bet that the area of Southern Lebanon also has water rich resources -- the "final"battle may just be over water.

Rather than put limited resources into R & D of alternative energy -- and the resulting new industry -- the unimaginative bush gang will fight for the oil resource.

I don't believe that the bush gang is at all terribly smart or creative -- they keep on playing the same primitive mind games -- divert attention -- fear -- fear -- fear -- fear. They are fearful that oil will lose it's importance because they can only understand a world of oil.

At the same time I believe that Israel is focused on water -- they know that they can't exist without water and they are hell bent on securing water resources.

In a way I believe that each group has different agendas -- and all want daddy war-bucks to finance their war games.

[Sherman A1]

13. Well Said

Water is a key factor in anything that happens in this area. Oil of course plays a huge role as well - you put it right!

[AnOhioan]

19. Thank you for bringing this up.

I can remember getting some strange looks from friends/family when I mentioned the possibility of wars being fought over water. It is a natural resource, just like oil. And, just like oil, there are those in government and industry who want to privatize it.

Not just the the delivery/filtration systems but the resource itself.

Iraq..holds a good percentage of the worlds oil reserves. Iraq also is home to the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Major sources of H20.

In 20-30 years you may see western US states go beyond squabbling over access to water.

When you think about it, water is even more important than oil. Society's can function, albeit at a much lowered level of industry/commerce if the oil is interrupted.

If water is withheld, people (and countries) can either bankrupt themselves buying it, or just cease to exist.

[Lithos]

35. Locking

Inappropriate sources.

Lithos
DU Moderator