Who's to Blame for the Middle East Crisis?
[Opinion] John Horvath asks if Israeli soldiers are 'kidnapped' or 'captured'. OhmyNews International
For those in the West following the war in Lebanon via the mainstream media, it's quite clear who is to blame and why war broke out in the first place. The Palestinian raid that captured an Israeli soldier is seen by most as an inexplicable provocation. The U.S. and its sidekicks (including countries such as Hungary) are subsequently able to justify Israel's overreaction by claiming that it has "the right to defend itself" and by noting that all this happened in the wake of Israel's withdrawal from the area. Hence, the responsibility for this latest escalation in violence rests squarely with Hamas; an Israeli military response was "inevitable."
This faulty line of reasoning is based on the erroneous assumption that Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip last year somehow ended the conflict in that area, as if there was some sort of de facto peace agreement in place. The withdrawal, however, was nothing of the sort; it was simply a tactical redeployment. The state of siege in the Gaza Strip remained, as subsequent events prove. Over the past year (since the pullout and before the recent escalation of violence), at least 144 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed by Israeli forces, often by helicopter gunships, according to an Israeli human rights group. Only 31 percent of the people killed were engaged in hostile actions at the time of their deaths, and 25 percent of all those killed were minors. During this same period, meanwhile, no Israelis were killed by violence emanating from Gaza.
Aside from the captured soldiers, both in Gaza and south Lebanon, another reason for the military action by Israel is the supposed desire to stop the Palestinians and Hezbollah from attacking Israel with rockets. Yet in the past year, although Palestinian militants launched some 1,000 crude Qassam missiles from Gaza into Israel, not one fatality resulted. At the same time, however, Israel fired 7,000 to 9,000 heavy artillery shells into Gaza, killing and wounding scores of people.
In fact, just two weeks before the Hamas raid that killed two Israeli soldiers and captured a third, an apparent Israeli missile strike killed seven members of a Palestinian family picnicking on a Gaza beach, which prompted Hamas to end its 16-month-old informal ceasefire with Israel. Hamas has repeatedly pointed to the Gaza beach incident as one of the central events that prompted its cross-border raid. Hamas also points to the capture of some of its leaders by Israel as the provocation for its raid.
None of this is to say that Hamas does not share the blame for the current crisis. But to view Israel as a peace-loving neighbor until the soldier's capture is to ignore all that has been going on in the Gaza Strip and elsewhere over the past year.
Aside from the willful rewriting of very recent history, Western mainstream media outlets have also manipulated the semantics of what has happened. The missing soldiers are often referred to as being "kidnapped" as opposed to being captured. The former carries with it a hint of criminality while the latter is often seen as a more neutral act, which is common in conflict areas. Moreover, while much mention has been made of the capture of the three Israeli soldiers, no mention has been made of the capture or "kidnappings" of the more than 9,000 Palestinians currently held by Israel -- including 342 juveniles and over 700 who are being held without trial.
Yet all this still doesn't fully explain why Israel would launch such a massive military operation against Lebanon. Diplomatic efforts were barely attempted; indeed, the quick mobilization of the Israeli army was such that it appeared the military operation had already been planned well in advance. Given the geopolitical importance of the region to U.S. President George W. Bush's war on terror, the notion that the Israeli attack against Lebanon is actually part of a much larger operation -- one that extends beyond Lebanon to include Syria and possibly Iran -- is not as far-fetched of an idea as it may seem.
It's no secret that after Iraq, Syria was next on the list of White House targets for their grand reordering of the Middle East. The only problem is that victory in Iraq has been elusive, and without a stable Iraq (not to mention the lack of public support for these military adventures), further military operations in the area were out of the question.
Nevertheless, there's still a lot of hostility in the U.S. against Syria. As far as the White House is concerned, Syria is seen as the remaining linchpin of terrorism that has to be fixed one way or the other. For the White House, this means Syria has to either change its conduct promptly or the U.S. will have to do something about it, either through diplomacy or economics -- even war, if necessary.
The Syria Accountability Act of 2003 was a first step in this direction. As the preamble to the bill clearly spelled out, it intends to "halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon, stop its development of weapons of mass destruction, cease its illegal importation of Iraqi oil, and hold Syria accountable for its role in the Middle East," among other things.
In retrospect, the piecemeal implementation of this congressional bill over the years can be clearly seen. Shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein, the U.S. cut a pipeline to Syria which delivered some 200,000 barrels of oil a day. The cost in lost oil revenue is estimated at $500 million to $1 billion annually.
More recently, the assassination of former prime minister Rafik Hariri seemed to achieve the objective of forcing Syria to leave Lebanon. The culprit behind Hariri's assassination is still somewhat in dispute. Although most countries point to Syrian officials, some point the finger at the U.S. and Israel. There is no doubt that the instability that resulted from the assassination helped to put pressure on Syria to leave Lebanon. Yet even here media manipulation was the key element in formulating world opinion.
Although images of demonstrations against Syria in Lebanon were beamed around the world, much larger demonstrations in support of Syria were either downplayed or not covered at all. This is not to say that it would not be a good thing if all foreign troops left Lebanon and let the country rebuild in peace. But the way in which peace and democracy -- American style -- is being imposed on the region and abroad (i.e., in Iraq and Afghanistan) is clearly counterproductive.
Since the death of Hariri, Syria has been careful not to fall into any traps that could be used by the U.S. as an excuse for war. What has also helped Syria to avoid conflict so far is the fact that the war in Iraq hasn't been going as planned. Another war on false pretenses is something that the American public and even the American military is unwilling to support.
Thus, it appears that the focus of this latest conflict isn't so much on Lebanon as it is on Syria, with the hope that the latter will somehow become entangled in the conflict. Many pundits are already trying to anticipate Syria's response, wondering whether it will move back into Lebanon. For the war hawks in Washington, the ideal situation would be for Syria to move back into Lebanon in order to come to the defense of Hezbollah. This, in turn, would then involve the U.S. on the side of Israel and give Bush an excuse for regime change, instigated by Washington, naturally.
The likelihood of this happening, however, is small. Syria is most probably aware of such machinations, and has no desire to start a war with Israel. Nor is it in a position to do so. This could all change, however, if Israel for some reason attacks Syria.
What will most likely happen is that after a few failed attempts to cripple Hezbollah, and with Syria staying within its own borders, Israel will ultimately retreat to its own side of the border. Ultimately, there will be a deal involving an exchange of prisoners, akin to what happened in 2004. In that exchange, Israel surrendered hundreds of prisoners for one living Israeli soldier and the remains of three others. With over 9,000 prisoners at its disposal, Israel has something to bargain with.
For those in the West following the war in Lebanon via the mainstream media, it's quite clear who is to blame and why war broke out in the first place. The Palestinian raid that captured an Israeli soldier is seen by most as an inexplicable provocation. The U.S. and its sidekicks (including countries such as Hungary) are subsequently able to justify Israel's overreaction by claiming that it has "the right to defend itself" and by noting that all this happened in the wake of Israel's withdrawal from the area. Hence, the responsibility for this latest escalation in violence rests squarely with Hamas; an Israeli military response was "inevitable."
This faulty line of reasoning is based on the erroneous assumption that Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip last year somehow ended the conflict in that area, as if there was some sort of de facto peace agreement in place. The withdrawal, however, was nothing of the sort; it was simply a tactical redeployment. The state of siege in the Gaza Strip remained, as subsequent events prove. Over the past year (since the pullout and before the recent escalation of violence), at least 144 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed by Israeli forces, often by helicopter gunships, according to an Israeli human rights group. Only 31 percent of the people killed were engaged in hostile actions at the time of their deaths, and 25 percent of all those killed were minors. During this same period, meanwhile, no Israelis were killed by violence emanating from Gaza.
Aside from the captured soldiers, both in Gaza and south Lebanon, another reason for the military action by Israel is the supposed desire to stop the Palestinians and Hezbollah from attacking Israel with rockets. Yet in the past year, although Palestinian militants launched some 1,000 crude Qassam missiles from Gaza into Israel, not one fatality resulted. At the same time, however, Israel fired 7,000 to 9,000 heavy artillery shells into Gaza, killing and wounding scores of people.
In fact, just two weeks before the Hamas raid that killed two Israeli soldiers and captured a third, an apparent Israeli missile strike killed seven members of a Palestinian family picnicking on a Gaza beach, which prompted Hamas to end its 16-month-old informal ceasefire with Israel. Hamas has repeatedly pointed to the Gaza beach incident as one of the central events that prompted its cross-border raid. Hamas also points to the capture of some of its leaders by Israel as the provocation for its raid.
None of this is to say that Hamas does not share the blame for the current crisis. But to view Israel as a peace-loving neighbor until the soldier's capture is to ignore all that has been going on in the Gaza Strip and elsewhere over the past year.
Aside from the willful rewriting of very recent history, Western mainstream media outlets have also manipulated the semantics of what has happened. The missing soldiers are often referred to as being "kidnapped" as opposed to being captured. The former carries with it a hint of criminality while the latter is often seen as a more neutral act, which is common in conflict areas. Moreover, while much mention has been made of the capture of the three Israeli soldiers, no mention has been made of the capture or "kidnappings" of the more than 9,000 Palestinians currently held by Israel -- including 342 juveniles and over 700 who are being held without trial.
Yet all this still doesn't fully explain why Israel would launch such a massive military operation against Lebanon. Diplomatic efforts were barely attempted; indeed, the quick mobilization of the Israeli army was such that it appeared the military operation had already been planned well in advance. Given the geopolitical importance of the region to U.S. President George W. Bush's war on terror, the notion that the Israeli attack against Lebanon is actually part of a much larger operation -- one that extends beyond Lebanon to include Syria and possibly Iran -- is not as far-fetched of an idea as it may seem.
It's no secret that after Iraq, Syria was next on the list of White House targets for their grand reordering of the Middle East. The only problem is that victory in Iraq has been elusive, and without a stable Iraq (not to mention the lack of public support for these military adventures), further military operations in the area were out of the question.
Nevertheless, there's still a lot of hostility in the U.S. against Syria. As far as the White House is concerned, Syria is seen as the remaining linchpin of terrorism that has to be fixed one way or the other. For the White House, this means Syria has to either change its conduct promptly or the U.S. will have to do something about it, either through diplomacy or economics -- even war, if necessary.
The Syria Accountability Act of 2003 was a first step in this direction. As the preamble to the bill clearly spelled out, it intends to "halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon, stop its development of weapons of mass destruction, cease its illegal importation of Iraqi oil, and hold Syria accountable for its role in the Middle East," among other things.
In retrospect, the piecemeal implementation of this congressional bill over the years can be clearly seen. Shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein, the U.S. cut a pipeline to Syria which delivered some 200,000 barrels of oil a day. The cost in lost oil revenue is estimated at $500 million to $1 billion annually.
More recently, the assassination of former prime minister Rafik Hariri seemed to achieve the objective of forcing Syria to leave Lebanon. The culprit behind Hariri's assassination is still somewhat in dispute. Although most countries point to Syrian officials, some point the finger at the U.S. and Israel. There is no doubt that the instability that resulted from the assassination helped to put pressure on Syria to leave Lebanon. Yet even here media manipulation was the key element in formulating world opinion.
Although images of demonstrations against Syria in Lebanon were beamed around the world, much larger demonstrations in support of Syria were either downplayed or not covered at all. This is not to say that it would not be a good thing if all foreign troops left Lebanon and let the country rebuild in peace. But the way in which peace and democracy -- American style -- is being imposed on the region and abroad (i.e., in Iraq and Afghanistan) is clearly counterproductive.
Since the death of Hariri, Syria has been careful not to fall into any traps that could be used by the U.S. as an excuse for war. What has also helped Syria to avoid conflict so far is the fact that the war in Iraq hasn't been going as planned. Another war on false pretenses is something that the American public and even the American military is unwilling to support.
Thus, it appears that the focus of this latest conflict isn't so much on Lebanon as it is on Syria, with the hope that the latter will somehow become entangled in the conflict. Many pundits are already trying to anticipate Syria's response, wondering whether it will move back into Lebanon. For the war hawks in Washington, the ideal situation would be for Syria to move back into Lebanon in order to come to the defense of Hezbollah. This, in turn, would then involve the U.S. on the side of Israel and give Bush an excuse for regime change, instigated by Washington, naturally.
The likelihood of this happening, however, is small. Syria is most probably aware of such machinations, and has no desire to start a war with Israel. Nor is it in a position to do so. This could all change, however, if Israel for some reason attacks Syria.
What will most likely happen is that after a few failed attempts to cripple Hezbollah, and with Syria staying within its own borders, Israel will ultimately retreat to its own side of the border. Ultimately, there will be a deal involving an exchange of prisoners, akin to what happened in 2004. In that exchange, Israel surrendered hundreds of prisoners for one living Israeli soldier and the remains of three others. With over 9,000 prisoners at its disposal, Israel has something to bargain with.
posted by ltf ha at 4:16 AM
