Elsewhere today (369)
Aljazeera:
Olmert: No halt to Lebanon offensive
Tuesday 25 July 2006, 17:34 Makka Time, 14:34 GMT
The Israeli prime minister has said Israel is determined to continue its military campaign in Lebanon, as he met with US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice to discuss the conflict.
Ehud Olmert said there would be no stopping in the two-week offensive and that "severe measures" would be taken against Hezbollah.
Speaking in Jerusalem ahead of the meeting he said, "Israel is determined to continue on in the fight against Hezbollah. We will ... stop them.
"We are using the basic elementary right of self-defence."
Rice said a ceasefire was needed in the region, but not at any price.
"A durable solution will be one that strengthens the forces of peace and democracy in the region," Rice said before the talks.
"It is time for a new Middle East. It is time to say to those who do not want a new Middle East that we will prevail," she added.
Ceasefire conditions
Rice told Lebanese leaders on Monday that Hezbollah must return two captured Israeli soldiers and withdraw from Israel's border before there could be a ceasefire, Lebanese politicians said.
"I have no desire to be back in three weeks or three months or six months when once again extremists have decided to use their advantages to destabilise the region," she said.
Washington is arguing that UN resolution 1559 and the Taif Agreement, which ended the Lebanese civil war in 1990, need to be fulfilled.
Both documents call for the Lebanese government to exercise full control over its territory, and the disarmament of militias -including Hezbollah.
Lebanese politicians want an immediate ceasefire before a long term deal, but Israel wants Hezbollah to leave the border area and free the captured soldiers without conditions.
Ground raids and air strikes have failed to stop around 1,200 rockets being fired into northern Israeli towns and cities, where they have killed 17 civilians so far.
Rice left Israel after the talks to meet Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, before she heads to an international conference in Rome on the conflict on Wednesday.
Palestinians' plight
Rice assured Abbas that the US has not forgotten the Palestinians' plight and discussed getting additional aid to the debt-laden Palestinian government.
During the meeting that included about a dozen US and Palestinian officials, Rice and Abbas talked about the state of the Israeli soldier captured last month by Palestinian gunmen.
Rice said she briefed Abbas "on efforts we're making to bring about an urgent but enduring cease-fire in Lebanon, one that can deal with the causes of extremism that began this crisis and that can also lead to the establishment of the sovereignty of the Lebanese government throughout its territory".
Rice vowed that the US would not tire in its attempts to achieve "two states living side by side in peace".
Abbas renewed a call for an Israeli-Palestinian truce, following a month-long Israeli offensive in the Gaza Strip, launched to free a captured Israeli soldier.
"We are exerting all our efforts to release the Israeli soldier," he said, adding that he hoped thousands of Palestinian prisoners would also be freed by Israel.
"Israeli aggression in the West Bank and Gaza Strip must stop immediately so we can strengthen the truce and start a political process that aims to end the occupation," he said.
Ramallah protest
More than 2,000 Palestinians took to the streets of Ramallah before Rice's visit to show support for Hezbollah and protest against US policies.
The protesters walked through the centre of the capital, where most of the shops closed down after calls for a general strike, shouting "Bush is a criminal", "The United States is a terrorist" and "Rice, Rice, you are a crow, what misery you bring with you".
Stone-throwing demonstrators also tried to break into Abbas' headquarters, but were stopped by security forces there.
European and Arab foreign ministers are set to discuss proposals for an international "buffer" force of the border between Israel and Lebanon at the Rome meeting.
Several European Union nations have said they were ready to contribute to the force.
Humanitarian corridor
Amir Peretz, the Israeli defence minister, said on Tuesday that Israel would maintain a security zone until the proposed international force arrives there.
Peretz did not say whether soldiers would stay in Lebanon or would maintain the zone using air strikes and artillery fire.
"There will be a security zone, which will be under the control of our forces if there is not a multinational force," he said. "If there is not a multinational force that will get in to control the fences, a multinational force with an enforcement capability, we will continue to control (Hezbollah) with our fire toward any one who will get close to the defined security zone."
The US backs the idea of a humanitarian corridor in Lebanon to get help to the needy, an idea Israel says it could support.
At least 408 people in Lebanon and 41 Israelis have been killed in the violence which began after Hezbollah seized two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid on July 12.
About 750,000 Lebanese have been displaced.
Israel's offensive in the Gaza Strip is also continuing to try to recover a soldier captured by Palestinian fighters and halt rocket fire.
Israeli forces have killed at least 121 Palestinians in the month since then.
Agencies
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/5DBAC798-23CF-4746-A84E-200073449332.htm
allAfrica:
Country At the Crossroads
By Xolani Xundu
Sunday Times (Johannesburg) NEWS
July 23, 2006
ASKED why Congolese should vote for the Mouvement de Libération du Congo (MLC), Erman Boyile, the federal secretary for youth affairs in Orientale province in the northeast of the Democratic Republic of Congo, said the party had bought radios for the people. "All our candidates know the party and we communicate regularly with the population through the radios we have bought them," said Boyile, with a straight face.
In Congo, money drives politics to a point where organisations like President Joseph Kabila's People's Party for Reconstruction and Development (PPRD) are reportedly paying people 500 francs, the equivalent of $1, to attend marches in support of the elections.
The MLC, headed by Vice-President Jean-Pierre Bemba, a 44-year-old wealthy Belgian-educated businessman who made most of his loot during the civil war as leader of one of the former rebel groups, is known for its generosity on the campaign trail.
It is on the basis of patronage and the ability of candidates to "facilitate", among other things, payments and goods like basic foodstuffs that the Congolese are being asked to make their political choices during next Sunday's presidential and parliamentary elections.
In fact, in Congo there is a price on everything, from asking for directions in the streets of Kinshasa to offering to grade a rural road or level a soccer field for village children. You have to pay Congolese to help them. Otherwise, tough luck.
The elections will be the first multiparty polls since 1965 and are being contested by 33 presidential candidates, more than 9000 candidates for a 500-seat parliament and more than 10000 provincial assembly candidates.
Some of these candidates are highly vocal in the hope of catching the eye of the powerful political parties, who will offer them payments or reward them with positions if they throw their weight behind them.
Vice-President Arthur Za'idi Ngoma, another presidential candidate, summed it up when he said: "Money is lacking and [unlike others] I did not steal. In Congo you cannot do anything without money, but our hope is the people because they love this country."
Those sentiments were shared by Tolega Lumumba, president of the Mouvement National Lumumba, and one of the candidates for the national assembly.
"They stole money during the civil war and now those in power have the means [to put up a good fight in the elections]. The whole process is skewed in their favour," said the son of Congo's first democratically elected Prime Minister, Patrice Lumumba.
Congolese politics relies heavily on personalities, who see themselves as saviours and earthly gods, but is very thin on post-election policies and programmes of government.
For a country that has not known democracy and stability since independence from Belgium in 1960, it would be expected that among the plethora of political parties there would be at least one that would have a vision for social and economic development for the 58 million Congolese.
It is estimated that four million people died in Congo since the start of the civil war in 1996 (officially 1998) as a result of war and its consequences such as disease and malnutrition. More than 1.6 million people are displaced.
The United Nations says that 33000 children, 40% of them girls, are regularly recruited as child soldiers in the east where there are still sporadic outbreaks of fighting between renegade rebel groups.
The mortality rate for children under five is among the highest in the world and most of the population lives on between 20 and 50 US cents a day.
According to the leader of the Union for the Rebuilding of Congo, world-renowned physician Dr Oscar Kashala, Congo will lose 85 to 87 babies out of 1000 born today to preventable diseases.
"If you look at what this represents, you will find that it represents 30 busloads of children being killed. It's a major problem," said Kashala, who is challenging Kabila for the presidency.
Instability in rural areas has led to an almost total breakdown of food security. The United Nations says 42 million Congolese continue to live under these conditions. Only 43% of rural Congolese children go to school, with priority given to boys. In a country blessed with rivers, only 10% to 15% of the population has access to clean drinking water. The Congo River is second only to the Amazon in size and could provide the whole of Africa with hydroelectricity and the whole of the Southern African Development Community with uninterrupted water if properly utilised.
Faced by all these social and economic challenges, one does not get a feeling that the Congolese political class is interested in solving them. There is strong evidence that it is in this for personal enrichment, as some ordinary Congolese are quick to point out.
Congo's ruling class consists almost entirely of people who waged civil war against each other, sponsored by regional and international governments and companies, for control of the country's rich mineral resources, including diamonds, gold, columbite-tantalite (an essential raw material for modern electronics), cobalt, copper, uranium and petroleum.
It is reported that some $6-million in raw cobalt alone -- an element used in super-alloys in the nuclear, chemical, aerospace and defence industries -- leaves Congo daily. Also, heterogenite, a cobalt ore, was leaving the country in 2004 at a rate of 6 000 tons per month, worth about $268-million.
Business Africa magazine says Congo had more than $1-billion of foreign direct investment in 2005, a sixfold increase over previous years, yet people still die from curable diseases because they do not have money to pay for medical care in public hospitals.
One of the candidates for the national assembly, Tambwe Mwamba, said Congolese had the potential to make their country one of the economic giants of Africa.
"Our natural resources must benefit our people," he said.
Congo badly needs peace and good governance for the country to be able to break its basket-case dependency on donor organisations. With these in place, Mwamba believes the economic growth rate could reach 10% as compared to the current 5%.
"It could take us a mere 20 years to reconstruct Congo. A lot of mistakes were committed in the past and we have learnt from those mistakes," he said.
Congo needs to shift the way it does business to put its people first. It cannot afford to run a dole state, where the majority relies on "facilitation fees" for survival.
What the people of the country are calling for is leadership that will take them out of squalor to occupy their rightful place among the family of nations.
These elections provide an opportunity for Congolese politicians to put Congo above self-interest. They have to find a working political formula for the country because there will be no outright winners.
They have to find a way of accommodating each other's political interests because the security situation in the country is still fragile.
The biggest loser of the elections is likely to be Vice-President Azarias Ruberwa of the Congolese Rally for Democracy, which controlled a third of the country until 2003.
He is backed by Rwanda and he currently controls the North and South Kivu provinces in the east. His party will move from being a national player to a regional one, the more so because it is now divided, with one faction refusing to disarm.
The country is at a crossroads and whatever direction local politicians choose will define the direction that Congo, the Southern African Development Community and Africa will take after these historic elections.
"We might have to go for a coalition government because there is no party that will win a clear majority," said Mwamba.
However, it remains to be seen whether the political class, some of whom still own private armies, will accept relinquishing their economic interests or the mines they control for the benefit of Congo.
A resident of Kisangani, Amisi Barwane, asked rather rhetorically: "Can a country go to elections without an army? Will our leaders with private armies accept the outcome of the elections or will they run with their armies?"
Copyright © 2006 Sunday Times. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com).
http://allafrica.com/stories/200607240371.html
Clarín:
Israel sitia la "capital" de Hezbollah
Las fuerzas de infantería israelíes, apoyadas por aviones y blindados lograron clausurar los accesos de Bint Jbeil. De todas maneras, aún no controlan la ciudad. En tanto, la milicia shiíta lanzó una nueva lluvia de misiles sobre Haifa, Galilea, Safed y Nahariya
Clarín.com, 25.07.2006
Las tropas israelíes atacaron por aire y tierra los territorios israelíes mientras que el Hezbollah respondió con una nueva lluvia de misiles sobre varias ciudades de Israel.
Una serie de violentas explosiones se produjeron en la tarde de hoy en el sur de Beirut. Según fuentes policiales, las fuerzas israelí es detonaron al menos diez bombas en la zona de Haret Hriek y Bir al Abed.
Por el momento se desconoce si hay ví°©ctimas mortales ya que el bombardeo ha disuadido a las ambulancias de entrar en la zona. El nuevo ataque desató el pánico en las calles del sur de Beirut.
Por su parte, el ejército israelí continúa con su intento de ocupar Bint Jbeil, ciudad considerada bastión del grupo chiita Hezbollah. Dos militares israelíes murieron hoy en los enfrentamientos armados, informaron diversas fuentes.
El ejército israel informó que la fuerzas de infantería, apoyadas por aviones y blindados, sitiaron la localidad de Bint Jbeil, clausuraron sus accesos y tomaron varias casas de sus suburbios, pero aclararon que los combates continuaban en ese bastión de Hezbollah, por segundo día.
"Hay combates en todas direcciones, incluyendo desde el aire. Estamos golpeando a los terroristas, tomamos varios prisioneros y el enemigo sufrió más que unas pocas víctimas, y ahora estamos estabilizando la situación para tomar por completo la localidad", dijo el coronel israelí Itzik Ronen, a la radio militar israelí.
Por su lado, un portavoz militar israelí afirmó que las tropas de su país dieron muerte a unos 20 partidarios de Hezbollah durante los combates para conquistar Bint Jbeil.
Si bien la radio militar israelí dijo que las tropas y los tanques armados israelíes tomaron el control de esa localidad, Hezbollah comunicó que la ciudad aún no está en manos de las fuerzas israel íes.
Las tropas israelíes penetraron hoy en territorio libanés en la zona de Yarun, pueblo a menos de dos kilómetros de la frontera, dijeron por su parte fuentes de la Fuerza de Naciones Unidas en Líbano (UNIFIL).
Las tropas israelíes, tras ocupar Marun al-Ras, unos tres kilómetros al noreste de Yarun, abrieron ahora un segundo frente en territorio libanés.
Al mismo tiempo, la ciudad israelí de Haifa fue nuevamente bombardeada, dijeron fuentes locales. Según las fuentes, al menos siete misiles explotaron en esa ciudad del norte de israel .
Un anciano habitante de Haifa murió de un infarto tras la explosión de un misil cerca de su casa, informó la radio militar.
También una lluvia de misiles Katiusha lanzados por combatientes de Hezbollah cayó este mediodía sobre Galilea, informaron fuentes israelíes. Algunos misiles cayeron también en Safed y en Nahariya, donde hasta ahora no se reportaron víctimas.
En los 14 días de enfrentamientos, ya son alrededor de 400 los muertos, en su mayoría civiles del Líbano, mientras que el número de heridos duplica esa cifra. Según organizaciones humanitarias, el conflicto, además, provocó el desplazamiento de unas 800.00 personas.
Copyright 1996-2006 Clarín.com - All rights reserved
http://www.clarin.com/diario/2006/07/25/um/m-01240094.htm
Clarín: Fuerzas argentinas en Beirut evacuaron
en helicóptero al premier libanés y parte del gabinete
Fue por pedido del Secretario General de la ONU. Kirchner aprobó la solicitud anoche y se coordinó el operativo a través de los Cascos Azules en Chipre. El embajador argentino en Beirut contó a Clarín.com que el traslado fue totalmente secreto por razones de seguridad.
Clarín.com, 25.07.2006
El Secretario General de Naciones Unidas Kofi Annan, le solicitó ayer al Gobierno argentino -a través de la Misión Permanente en Nueva York-, su aprobación para la utilización de un helicóptero de la Fuerza Aérea Argentina destacado en Nicosia como parte del contingente de nuestro país de Cascos Azules en Chipre.
Este pedido se solicitó para asegurar el traslado de personal y autoridades en la región de Medio Oriente, en razón del recrudecimiento de la situación en el Líbano y para participar de la Conferencia en Roma que se realizará mañana miércoles para analizar el conflicto de Medio Oriente, junto con representantes de distintos países.
El Presidente de la Nación Néstor Kirchner autorizó el pedido de las Naciones Unidas, que el canciller Jorge Taiana implementó en coordinación con su par de Defensa, Nilda Garré. El embajador argentino en Beirut , José Pedro Pico, le dijo a Clarín.com que el traslado se realizó en un total hermetismo por seguridad de la delegación libanesa.
En el helicóptero argentino Bell 212, de dos turbinas y con capacidad para ocho pasajeros, se trasladaron el Primer Ministro del Líbano, D. Fouad Siniora desde Beirut hacia Chipre acompañados por otros miembros de su gabinete. Desde allí, Siniora viajará a Roma, donde participará el miércoles 26 en la Reunión de Ministros de Relaciones Exteriores de los países que participan activamente en el conflicto, con el fin de encontrar una salida a la actual crisis.
A las 12.50 hora argentina (17.50 hora local) el helicóptero argentino aterrizó sin inconvenientes y luego de recorrer un trayecto de 180 kilómetros sobre el mar en Larnaca, Chipre, habiendo cumplido satisfactoriamente con la misión solicitada por las Naciones Unidas.
El canciller Taiana le comunicó inmediatamente al presidente Kirchner el éxito de la misión encomendada por las Naciones Unidas.
Copyright 1996-2006 Clarín.com - All rights reserved
http://www.clarin.com/diario/2006/07/25/um/m-01240160.htm
Clarín: La guerra en los ojos de la Cruz Roja,
desde los dos lados de la frontera
Un profesional español, otro inglés y una mexicana le contaron a Clarín.com cómo es trabajar en medio de los bombardeos. El despliegue de la ayuda humanitaria en Israel y el Líbano, la atención de los heridos y los problemas para llegar hasta los pueblos más castigados.
Mariano Zucchi, 25.07.2006
Juan es un español que trabaja en el Líbano desde hace tres meses. Roland, un inglés que vive en el corazón de Londres y está acostumbrado a dejar su casa cuando estalla un conflicto en alguna parte del mundo. Elena, en cambio, decidió abandonar México para mudarse con todos sus recuerdos a Israel cuando apenas tenía 18 años. Los tres tienen una historia en común: participan de operativos de ayuda humanitaria para la Cruz Roja Internacional, tanto en el lado israelí como en el libanés. Los tres le contaron a Clarín.com cómo es trabajar en medio de una guerra. "Son días de locura", coinciden con angustia.
El documento de Juan Codarque dice que nació hace 39 años en Toronto, Canadá. Pero creció y se educó en Zaragoza, España, donde su mamá María Emilia, inmigrante argentina, le marcó su pasión por los idiomas. "Comencé a trabajar en La Cruz Roja hace ocho años como intérprete de ruso, inglés y francés en los países de la antigua Unión Soviética", recuerda. Luego de asistir a refugiados en la Franja de Gaza, Costa de Marfil, Sudán y el Congo entre otros países, Juan ancló su alma en el Líbano junto a su esposa Monique. Allí trabaja desde hace tres meses como jefe de la delegación de la Cruz Roja en Beirut. La oficina es un piso en el barrio de Hamra sobre Sadat, una calle que recibe el nombre del presidente egipcio asesinado en 1981.
"Anoche -comenta entusiasmado- firmamos un nuevo contrato para alquilar el edificio de al lado. Tiene ocho plantas y en los próximos días tenemos que instalar todo antes de mudarnos". El cambio tiene su explicación: por la escalada del conflicto bélico, la delegación de la Cruz Roja pasó de apenas 12 personas a más de cien, entre extranjeros y libaneses. "Mi trabajo consiste en organizar las partes para poner todo al servicio del personal. Tenemos desde médicos e ingenieros hidráulicos hasta especialistas en lo que llamamos delegados-terreno". Son quienes detectan cuál es el pueblo en mayor estado de emergencia y dónde están los problemas humanitarios, para luego analizar las prioridades y decidir en equipo dónde hay que ir y qué trabajos hay que hacer.
Tras trece días de intensos combates en ambos lados de la frontera, recién el viernes pasado llegó el primer convoy de ayuda humanitaria al sur del Líbano. "Esto significa 28 toneladas de comida y otros artículos de primera necesidad para 600 familias de Tiro", una localidad que está a 80 kilómetros de la capital. Esa zona fue escenario de intensos bombardeos y es muy difícil para las ambulancias llegar hasta los centros poblados porque las rutas están en su mayoría destruidas. "Los únicos que patrullan los pueblos del sur del país son parte de la Cruz Roja libanesa. Ellos conocen las calles a la perfección y evacuan rápido a los heridos. Además asisten a los desplazados y a los pueblos cerca de la frontera que están aislados", explica Juan a Clarín.com.
Aunque no hace falta, aclara que las cosas están peor que antes. "Una parte de la infraestructura del país está fuera de servicio, hay constantes cortes de agua, de luz eléctrica y el combustible escasea. Por eso estamos trayendo las mercaderías por tierra desde Damasco y ahora estamos preparando un acceso por mar. No importa lo que pase, nosotros tenemos que responder a las necesidades humanitarias en Beirut aunque también los problemas se extienden a muchas ciudades israelíes como Haifa".
De esto sabe su amigo Roland Huguenin, uno de los responsables de la Cruz Roja Internacional del otro lado de la frontera, en Jerusalén, junto a Jackelin Brown, coordinadora en la región. El inglés dijo presente en varios conflictos internacionales como la invasión a Irak y la guerra civil en el Líbano. "Estoy muy acostumbrado a esto. Es una pena, pero pasé varias batallas", lamenta. Mañana tomará el vuelo a Chipre y de allí un barco internacional hacia Beirut, donde se reunirá con su colega Juan para analizar juntos la situación en ambos territorios.
"Lo que me molesta mucho es que esta violencia de hoy dejará mañana un odio terrible muy difícil de solucionar. Porque estos territorios como el Líbano, Gaza e Israel son pequeños si se los compara con un país tan grande como la Argentina. Estos pueblos tienen que aprender a convivir, no hay más remedio. Pero por la magnitud de la acción militar, ya hay millones de personas que sufren", le dice a Clarín.com, y subraya una idea: "Ahora me preocupa más el futuro y cómo volverán a vivir el uno con el otro".
A unos pocos kilómetros, en la ciudad de Tel Aviv, está la oficina central de la Estrella Roja israelí. En el edificio de la calle Ygal Alon al 60, Elena Singer, mexicana de 48 años e israelí por adopción, explica con paciencia que la principal tarea de la organización es la evacuación de los vecinos y la distribución de comida en las zonas afectadas. "En Israel, dividimos el territorio en once regiones. En cuatro de ellas, ubicadas en el norte, están trabajando los médicos y voluntarios de la Estrella Roja en dos turnos de doce horas cada uno. Trabajan todo el día evacuando heridos y también transportan a los ancianos hasta la capital", detalla Elena. Y saca a la luz cifras que dan escalofríos: "Desde el 12 de julio, se registraron 47 muertos, 762 heridos, 386 incidentes y 452 personas evacuadas por parte psicológico".
"Es medio extraño saber que estamos en guerra mientras en Tel Aviv sigue todo igual. Acá no es como en Argentina con las distancias que hay entre Buenos Aires y el Perito Moreno", suelta Elena. "Nos separan cerca de 70 kilómetros de Haifa, una de las ciudades más atacadas por los cohetes Katiushkas. A veces parece que vivimos en otro planeta aunque también estamos amenazados. Por ahora no pasó nada y ojalá que siga así".
Elena Singer comenzó a trabajar para la Estrella israelí hace un poco más de cuatro años. Las tareas dentro de la organización de ayuda humanitaria las lleva a cabo en el departamento de búsqueda de familiares separados por conflictos bélicos o catástrofes naturales, para lo cual trabaja con las sociedades de la Cruz Roja en Rusia, Bélgica, Polonia y Alemania. Dice que su trabajo tiene un punto en común con la labor que realizan las Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo en Argentina con la búsqueda de los hijos de desaparecidos en la última dictadura. "De todas maneras -aclara- en este conflicto no creo que haya problemas en eventuales búsquedas porque se publican todos los nombres de las personas desplazadas".
Copyright 1996-2006 Clarín.com - All rights reserved
http://www.clarin.com/diario/2006/07/25/um/m-01240130.htm
Guardian:
The humanitarian urge is morphing into thirst for war
Calls to send troops back into Lebanon beggar belief. We should dispatch the Red Cross, not the aircraft carriers
Simon Jenkins
Tuesday July 25, 2006
Don't do it. Do not pretend, yet again. Western intervention cannot achieve what for half a century it has failed to achieve in the Middle East: a political settlement between Israelis and Palestinians. True, the region was a western responsibility 50 years ago, but so was half the world. That does not mean we can soothe its tears with a liberal soundbite or cure its ills with a gun. We cannot.
I find it near unbelievable that anyone can propose sending foreign troops back into Lebanon, as in 1958, 1976, 1978 and 1982. The penultimate intervention, by the United Nations, was specifically to "restore international peace and security" and assist the Lebanese government in gaining "a monopoly" of authority along the frontier with Israel. It failed because neither side wanted it to succeed. The only settlements in the region have been a result of wars, whether with Jordan, Syria or Egypt. It is local people, the resolution of force on the ground, that will alone resolve the latest conflagration.
It has become a moral axiom of North Atlantic statesmanship that military potency confers a right and a duty to intervene. A subsidiary premise holds that such intervention will always be for the good. Hint that some conflict might be better resolved if the west stayed aloof and the cry goes up, "What would you do, then? You can't just do nothing."
To the feelgood fanatics of London and Washington, leftwing and rightwing alike, they must be the subject of every verb and the world its object. They are the children not so much of Palmerston and Disraeli as of the crusaders, the conquistadors and the Comintern, blessed with massive moral assurance. The idea of leaving wars to resolve themselves, states to find their own leaders and regions to evolve their own equilibrium is to them not just mistaken but immoral.
I once made a vow never to write about the Middle East. I had visited Israel and Jordan and was in Beirut in 1983 during an agony of foreign intervention comparable only to the miseries of modern Baghdad. I watched the cynicism with which western armies arrived after the televised horror of the Sabra and Shatila massacres. I watched the cynicism with which they left when the going got hot. My last image was of an American battleship lobbing shells into Chouf mountain villages to provide media "cover" for the US marines' retreat.
I realised that there was no way of calibrating comment on this subject that might inform debate rather than merely stir prejudice. Each side wanted not intelligence but support or condemnation. A sickening feature of every crisis was the eagerness of statesmen to "get engaged", as if the Middle East were a gymnasium in which to practise diplomatic exercises. Harold Wilson thought he could pacify the region. Lord Carrington was seeking a Middle East peace deal in 1982 while Argentina was invading the Falklands. Tony Blair naively traded "Middle East peace" for joining Bush in Iraq. Britain has claimed a role in every Oslo accord, every road map, every two-state solution, as if the Levant were somewhere in Northern Ireland.
Last week, Blair hamfistedly pleaded with George Bush to be allowed to play once more. The Commons chorus demanded visits, statements, exhortations. Sir Menzies Campbell called for "action to stop the escalating conflagration", as if peace on Earth could be ordered with club soda. We can all read Amos Oz, writing last week, and sympathise with his exasperation at peace moves by Israel being met with the shelling of settlements and the kidnapping of soldiers. We can all see the destruction of Beirut and killing of civilians and feel an equal and opposite sympathy. The terrorising of innocents is nowadays the small change of limited war. Yet how unfit for purpose is the language of sympathy. The morality of "something must be done" is weakened by being intransitive.
There are two strands to the current debate on intervention. One simply states a humanitarian obligation to show concern for those in pain, whatever the reason and whoever is to blame. From the foundation of the Red Cross on the battlefield of Solferino in 1859 to the aid effort expended on Ethiopia in the 1980s, citizens of rich countries have felt a duty towards those in distress.
Only since the end of the cold war has this duty been polluted by politics. In 1992, the Washington Post rewrote the UN charter to justify America's invasion of Somalia since the latter's government had "improperly treated" its own people and thereby sacrificed its territorial integrity. Intervention was converted into a moral duty by Blair's 1999 "humanitarian crusade" speech in Chicago. "We cannot turn our backs on conflicts and the violation of human rights ... if we want to be secure." Blair's confusion of humanity and security has bedevilled debate ever since. After 9/11 it opened the gate for generals and the military/ industrial complex to seize the initiative, with results that can be seen on the streets of Iraq today.
The idea that Britain (or any other country) enjoys a unique legitimacy in intervening in the affairs of sovereign states is legally doubtful and racially repugnant. Blair's thesis that any state that is not democratic is somehow a threat to Britain is absurd, as is the implication that a love of freedom cannot speak for itself but must be imposed by force of arms. Quite apart from the madness of this imperialism, the west cannot implement it. It can hold in thrall such puny neo-colonies as Kosovo, East Timor and Sierra Leone. But in Iraq it has failed and in Afghanistan it is failing. The idea of bringing similar bounty to Iran beggars the imagination.
Intervention has brought not peace but violence to these poor peoples. The mendacity of the neocons in claiming gains from intervention is equalled only by the enthusiasm of liberal supremacists to "finish the job". The humanitarian urge is time-honoured. It "does something" about human distress through charities and NGOs rather than governments and armies. Yet its steady morphing into the paranoid warmongering of western politicians is an international catastrophe. It is fuelling anti-west extremism and negating any humanitarian motive. What democratic cause can justify 1,000 deaths a week from "nation-building" in Iraq?
Of course something must be done about the agonies suffered by the people of the Middle East. Humanity demands it. I would sail the first Red Cross ship into Beirut harbour. But I would sink the first aircraft carrier.
simon.jenkins@guardian.co.uk
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1828081,00.html
Guardian:
Israel plans to keep strip of Lebanon
James Sturcke and agencies
Tuesday July 25, 2006
The Israeli military will remain in southern Lebanon until a multinational peacekeeping force is deployed in the area, the country's defence minister said today.
Amir Peretz said Israel would control the zone by firing at anyone who enters it.
"We have no other option ... We will have to build a new security strip, a security strip that will be a cover for our forces until international forces arrive," he told reporters.
Israeli government sources suggested the zone could be up to three miles wide, though western diplomats said they had been briefed that the zone's depth could reach up to six miles.
The announcement came ahead of crisis talks between senior European, US and Arab officials tomorrow in Rome.
The focus of the conference, according to the Italian prime minister, Romano Prodi, will be an attempt to reach a ceasefire agreement. He today told reporters that improving the humanitarian situation and holding talks on an international force "to provide a basic level of security" were his second and third priorities.
Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, who is visiting the Middle East, today reiterated the US refusal to back calls for an immediate ceasefire.
"We need to ensure that we will not return to the previous situation," she said. "We need to begin to really lay the groundwork for an enduring peace in this region."
At a White House news conference, the visiting Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, publicly repeated his call for an immediate ceasefire while standing alongside the US president, George Bush. Mr Bush said he and Mr Maliki had held "frank discussions" about Lebanon and the president voiced his support for a "sustainable ceasefire".
The US is understood to favour the deployment of the Lebanese army along the southern border with Israel - backed up by an international force - to stop Hizbullah rocket attacks. Among proposals for an international force are an EU or Nato deployment, with a clear UN mandate.
The Lebanese government insists there must be a truce before a long-term deal is worked out. But the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, today vowed there would be no let-up in the military campaign against Hizbullah and threatened "severe measures" against the Shia Muslim guerrillas.
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia later warned that Israel risked triggering a wider Middle East war if it did not seek a peaceful way out of the Lebanese conflict.
In quotes broadcast by Saudi state television, the king said: "No one can predict what will happen if things get out of control."
He warned: "If the peace option fails because of Israeli arrogance, there will be no other option but war."
His warning of a wider war was accompanied by a reiteration of the Arab peace initiative, proposed by Saudi Arabia and adopted at a 2002 Arab summit. The plan offered Israel a comprehensive peace, in return for Arab land it seized in the 1967 six-day war.
"The Arabs have declared peace as a strategic choice ... and put forward a clear and fair proposal of land for peace and have ignored extremist calls opposing the peace proposal ... but patience cannot last forever."
At least 390 people in Lebanon and 41 Israelis have been killed in the conflict triggered by Hizbullah's capture of two Israeli soldiers on July 12.
Fighting continued today as Israeli troops tightened their grip on the southern Lebanese town of Bint Jbail and Hizbullah fired at least 70 rockets into northern Israel.
In Haifa, a volley of more than a dozen missiles hit a bus and a house. Five people were injured, one seriously, and one man died of a heart attack after a missile landed near his home. A Lebanese family of seven was reported killed in an Israeli air strike.
Mr Olmert today acknowledged that the Israeli offensive had caused humanitarian problems and said he would work with the US to try to alleviate them. Up to a fifth of the Lebanese population is thought to have been displaced by the past two weeks' fighting.
"We are aware of the state of humanitarian affairs of the population of Lebanon as a result of the brutality of Hizbullah," he said in a press conference with Ms Rice.
"I think I can say in complete sincerity, that Lebanon and Israel are both victims of this brutal terrorist, murderous organisation."
King Abdullah also decreed donations totalling $1.5bn (£810m) be made to Lebanon. Saudi Arabia has assigned $500m for the reconstruction of Lebanon, and $1bn to be deposited in Lebanon's central bank to support the economy. The king also ordered a grant of $250m to the Palestinians.
Ms Rice later held talks in the West Bank city of Ramallah with the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas. Afterwards, she said she had no doubt that certain groups wished "to strangle a democratic and sovereign Lebanon in its crib".
"It is time for a new Middle East," she said. "It is time to say to those that don't want a different kind of Middle East that we will prevail. They will not."
In Gaza, Palestinian militants fired homemade rockets at the southern Israeli town of Ami-Oz, wounding one person.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
http://www.guardian.co.uk/syria/story/0,,1828406,00.html
Guardian:
Scale of the human crisis emerges
Brian Whitaker in Beirut
Tuesday July 25, 2006
The people of Lebanon are facing their "hour of greatest need", the UN said yesterday in launching an emergency appeal for $150m (£81m) to help an estimated 800,000 civilians whose lives have been disrupted by Israeli bombing of Lebanon.
The relief plan would focus on providing food, water, healthcare and other essential services, Jan Egeland, the UN emergency relief coordinator, said.
The situation in Lebanon is "very bad, and deteriorating by the day", said Mr Egeland. On Sunday he described the bombing of south Beirut as "a violation of humanitarian law".
But last night he had harsh words for Hizbullah as well, rebuking the Shi'ite group for cravenly using civilians as human shields. "Hizbullah must stop this cowardly blending ... among women and children," Mr Egeland said.
A UN report accompanying the appeal highlighted the scale of the devastation during 12 days of warfare, saying:
· The ongoing [Israeli] military operation has caused enormous damage to residential areas and key civilian infrastructure such as power plants, seaports and fuel depots.
· Hundreds of bridges and virtually all road networks have been systematically destroyed, leaving entire communities in the south inaccessible.
· Skyrocketing prices for basic goods (eg: the price of sugar has risen by 600% and cooking gas by 400%) further deplete the coping mechanisms of the Lebanese.
· The longer the hostilities last, the more dramatic the humanitarian situation will become. Food, water, health, fuel, and other basic needs will increase; so will the number of internally displaced persons.
· Reports indicate that there is a lack of essential goods, with needs particularly acute in villages along the Israeli-Lebanese border, which have been isolated by the conflict. There are reports that food supplies in some villages have been exhausted.
· The widespread destruction of public infrastructure ... as well as the targeting of commercial trucks, has seriously hampered relief operations.
· As many as 800 persons live in a school designed for 200 to 300 children. School water systems cannot cope with the extent of needs. Neither can sanitary facilities ... a resurgence of diarrhoea cases has been noted in some centres.
In addition to this list, Mr Egeland said there was one school housing 1,000 people which had only six toilets. He warned that fuel was becoming critical in many areas and power failure would affect water supplies and sewage, bringing increased health risks. Calling for an immediate ceasefire, he said: "Only cessation of hostilities can really make it safe for us [to deliver aid]." Failing that, the UN was hoping to arrange a "notification scheme" which would allow safe passage for humanitarian goods.
The UN already had 100 trucks contracted or on their way to deliver aid within Lebanon, Mr Egeland said. The first convoy could head south from Beirut to Sidon and Tyre as early as tomorrow, and the UN was working on details with the Israeli military, he said.
The UN is asking Israel for safe passage through three Lebanese ports. Initially, it hopes to have two ships ferrying supplies into Beirut from Cyprus, with the ports of Tripoli, in the north, and Tyre, in the south, to be added later.
It has also asked Israel to grant safe passage for convoys from Syria. Mr Egeland said the plan was to set up a staging area on the border to receive aid and prioritise it for distribution. "We are hopeful that in the course of this week you will see a real difference on the ground. By next week we will have a major operation really started," he said.
The White House said yesterday that George Bush had ordered helicopters and ships to Lebanon to give humanitarian aid. "Humanitarian supplies will start arriving in Lebanon tomorrow by helicopter and by ship," said White House spokesman Tony Snow. "We are working with Israel and Lebanon to open up humanitarian corridors." He described the move as "a significant US commitment".
Mr Bush still opposed the idea of an immediate ceasefire, he added, saying there was no reason to believe it would stop violence in the Middle East; instead the world should confront Hizbullah and its practice of using the Lebanese people as "human shields".
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1828153,00.html
Harper's Magazine:
Weekly Review
Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006. By Theodore Ross.
Israel insisted it had no immediate plans for a large-scale ground invasion of Lebanon, although it seized two Lebanese towns, called up 10,000 troops to the border, and called thousands of reservists to active duty. Almost 400 people (362 Lebanese, 37 Israelis) have been killed so far in the conflict. European governments debated the proportionality of these deaths, and Syrian president Bashar Assad told the international community to stop procrastinating and broker a ceasefire.[NY Times and The Australian] President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran predicted that Israel had “pushed the button of its own destruction.”[The Australian][NY Times][The Australian][The Australian][NY Times][National Post][The Australian] Ehud Olmert, prime minister of Israel, said Hezbollah's war on Israel was a ruse to divert attention from Iran's nuclear weapons program. Kayhan, an Iranian news daily, replied that it only “wish[ed] Israel's lies were true.”[BBC] One thousand Americans were evacuated from Beirut aboard a 38-year-old cruise ship named the Orient Queen.[BBC via Google News][Washington Post and Cruises.about.com] A 950-foot luxury sea liner unexpectedly listed off Port Canaveral, Florida,[EITB24.com via Google News] and a tractor-trailer carrying a Tomahawk missile overturned in New York City.[NY Times] Fifty-three Iraqis died when a car bomb exploded in the Shiite city of Kufa, and 48 lost their lives to Sunni Arab gunmen in Mahmudiya.[NY Times] Violence was forcing Shiite-owned bakeries in Baghdad's Sunni neighborhoods to close their doors,[NY Times] and Saddam Hussein was being force-fed through a tube.[NY Times][BBC] Ethiopia denied reports that it had attacked Somalia,[BBC] and Somalia declared an “all out holy war” on Ethiopia.[Somalinet.com via Google News] India was gagging blogs.[The Hindu] The president of Vietnam told reporters to “stick to their principles” and to “do their utmost in the fight against wrong-doing and crime.”[Vietnam News] The Chinese government announced that it would begin issuing identity numbers to fresh vegetables.[Reuters]
U.S. Representative Phil Gingrey of Georgia claimed that God supported a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. “I think,” he said, “God has spoken very clearly on this issue.” “It's part of God's plan,” said Texas Congressman John Carter, “for the future of mankind.” “We best not,” said Colorado Representative Bob Beauprez, “be messing with His plan.”[Washington Post] President George W. Bush issued his first executive veto, striking down a bill that would have expanded federal research involving embryonic stem cells.[NY Times] Prosecuting attorneys in California and New York were trying to limit “gay panic” defenses in criminal trials, [CNN.com] advisers at federally funded “pregnancy resource centers” were telling women that abortions increase the risk of cancer, infertility, and mental illness,[Reuters via Yahoo News] and a doctor and two nurses at the Memorial Medical Center in New Orleans were charged with the murder of four patients during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.[BBC] Hillary Clinton warned that advertisers may attempt to place mind-controlling computer chips in the brains of children.[Daily News via Google News] Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales testified to the Senate that President Bush personally blocked an investigation of the administration's warrantless eavesdropping program,[NY Times] and the National Enquirer admitted that Britney Spears's marriage was stable, despite reports to the contrary.[CNN.com] Scientists learned that Britain's wealthy neighborhoods may cause cancer in children,[Washington Post and Cruises.about.com] and that one third of the country's river fish are undergoing sex changes.[EITB24.com via Google News] Scientists in Austria recommended that men sleep alone to better safeguard their brainpower. [BBC]
The United States and Russia agreed to set quotas for how many polar bears they would kill each year,[Washington Post] and British stage actor Frank Harrison, 70, was fined $919 for lightly spanking an actress. “All pretty little girls,” said Harrison, “deserve to be spanked once a day.”[BBC] Research revealed that giant thermonuclear explosions detected in the constellation Ophiuchus were caused by a Red Giant star dumping gas onto a White Dwarf star,[CNN.com] and that Canadian high-rise hotels may be to blame for a 200 percent increase in mist levels at Niagara Falls.[NY Times] The United States agreed to buy a 29-foot-tall cross located on a hilltop in San Diego,[NY Times] sheriff's deputies in Arizona stumbled upon 100 Mexican immigrants wandering in the desert west of Phoenix,[NY Times] and a study conducted at the University of Pennsylvania discovered a positive correlation between education and sunburn.[Washington Post] A taxidermist from Lake County, Florida, was arrested after urinating on $500 worth of frozen food,[Local 6.com] and thieves stole a 14-foot inflatable sheep from a store in Rochester, Minnesota.[WCCO.com] Wolf-dogs attacked and killed a woman in Greensburg, Pennsylvania.[Local 6.com]
This is Weekly Review by Theodore Ross, published Tuesday, July 25, 2006. It is part of Weekly Review for 2006, which is part of Weekly Review, which is part of Harpers.org.
Written By
Ross, Theodore
Permanent URL
http://harpers.org/WeeklyReview2006-07-25.html
Harper's Magazine:
Up the River with (Howard) Kurtz
Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006. By Ken Silverstein.
“Since Israel has inflicted far more damage on Lebanon than it has sustained,” Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz wrote today, “a heavy focus on the more than 300 civilian victims in that war-ravaged country could help tilt public opinion against the Jewish state. But that would overlook two key facts: that Israel retaliated only after Hezbollah crossed a U.N.-sanctioned border to kill and capture several Israeli soldiers, and that Hezbollah fighters hide—and hide their weapons—among civilians to make counterattacks more difficult.”
Both of these “key facts” are pretty ridiculous. Lets look at the first one. It appears that Kurtz is suggesting that because Hezbollah acted “first,” any Israeli reaction is justified. Thus, Hezbollah is made responsible for the Lebanese civilians killed in the conflict.
Beyond that, the Arab–Israeli conflict did not start when Hezbollah (however recklessly and stupidly) captured and killed those Israeli soldiers a few weeks ago, any more than the Cold War started when the Soviets entered Afghanistan. There is no defined beginning or end to the hostilities, and indeed there have been numerous occasions in the past when Israeli military action triggered retaliatory attacks from Hezbollah.
Yet imagine that an Israeli cross-border strike on Hezbollah fighters had brought about a massive attack on Tel Aviv that had killed hundreds and destroyed a good chunk of the city. Would Kurtz have written: “Hezbollah has inflicted far more damage on Israel than it has sustained, but that overlooks the fact that Hezbollah only retaliated after Israel crossed a U.N.-sanctioned border to kill and capture several of its soldiers”? Somehow, I doubt we'd be reading the same justification from Kurtz for such heavy civilian deaths and damage to infrastructure.
As to Kurtz's second “key fact”—that Hezbollah hides among civilians. I've heard this parroted in the media, but no one as far as I know has provided any actual evidence of Hezbollah's use of civilians as human shields. The idea is more likely a rhetorical ploy that Israeli spokesmen are using to justify a policy that was, in a recent interview on this website, summarized thusly by Middle East expert Wayne White:
Israel's civilian and military leadership appears to believe that it can destroy Hezbollah, not only by attacking Hezbollah itself, but also by showing the government and people of Lebanon what the price will be for allowing Hezbollah to operate on Lebanese territory.
The other major problem with Kurtz's second point is that there's no sign that any of the Lebanese civilians killed so far—like the family fleeing Tyre in their car yesterday, as told so well in Kurtz's Washington Post—are dead because they were willing or unwilling human shields. Nor is there evidence, based on the news reports I've seen, that many (if any) of the victims were even in the same immediate vicinity as Hezbollah fighters. Most appear to be “collateral damage” of large-scale bombing by Israel.
It's inexcusable for Hezbollah to lob rockets into Haifa when civilians are likely to be killed. It's inexcusable for Israel to bomb recklessly and level Beirut. And it's also inexcusable for Kurtz to use loaded “key facts” and weak logic to justify the deaths of so many Lebanese civilians.
* * *
This is Up the River with (Howard) Kurtz by Ken Silverstein, published Monday, July 24, 2006. It is part of Washington Babylon, which is part of Harpers.org.
Written By
Silverstein, Ken
Permanent URL
http://harpers.org/sb-up-the-river-with-kurtz-1153774340.html
Mother Jones: War in the Middle East
A Selective Roundup of News Stories on the Conflict. Updated Daily.
Mother Jones Washington Bureau
July 24 , 2006
Monday, July 24, 2006
Rice in Lebanon
U.S. Strategy: A Necon Method Behind the Apparent Madness
Hope for a ceasefire and possible international border force is tied to U.S. neoconservative policy aimed at forcing change in Syria and Iran. (LINK)
Rice lands in Beirut amidst fierce fighting in the south (LINK)
Rice: "What we're seeing here ... are the birth pangs of a new Middle East and whatever we do, we have to be certain that we are pushing forward to the new Middle East, not going back to the old one." (LINK)
The Wider Region
Al-Sadr's Shiite militia reportedly prepares to join the fight in Lebanon
The Washington Times, in a report based on an interview in Baghdad, says Sadr’s vicious militia is forming a 1500 member unit to fight in Lebanon. If true, this will be taken in Washington as evidence of ties among Shiites across the Middle East--a key element in the neoconservative dream scenario in widening the war for regime change in both Syria and Iran. (LINK)
Israeli Plans
Israel set plans for invasion more than a year ago.
The San Francisco Chronicle reports, "Israel's military response by air, land and sea to what it considered a provocation last week by Hezbollah militants is unfolding according to a plan finalized more than a year ago." (LINK)
The Humanitarian Crisis
Fleeing refugees inundate Syria.
Lebanon's border crossings with Syria to the north and east have been inundated with people, with up to a million Lebanese seeking refuge, according to state-run Syria TV. (LINK)
Hezbollah
Hezbollah adopting Viet Cong-Style Tactics.
Jane’s Defense Weekly says Hezbollah is proving a tough opponent for Israel because of its Viet Cong-style network of tunnels in southern Lebanon. (LINK)
This article has been made possible by the Foundation for National Progress, the Investigative Fund of Mother Jones, and gifts from generous readers like you.
© 2006 The Foundation for National Progress
http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2006/07/war_in_the_middle_east.html
Mother Jones:
Gaza and Lebanon: Connecting the Dots
Perhaps the United States and Israel should try examining policy from the viewpoint of those who do not have overwhelming military firepower.
Col. Daniel Smith, U.S. Army (Ret.)
July 24 , 2006
Article created by Foreign Policy in Focus.
Nero allegedly fiddled while Rome burned—and then took advantage of the conflagration to build a new palace. Today, in the eastern Mediterranean, George Bush appears to be watching Gaza and Lebanon burn, hoping to rid the area of two surrogates of Iran and Syria and thus create “space” for his great project: a democratic Middle East.
Events caught fire on June 28 as Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) re-entered Gaza in strength to find a soldier captured three days earlier by the military arm of the Hamas resistance. Two weeks after the start of that incursion, another Palestinian resistance group, Hezbollah, captured two more IDF soldiers. A brief IDF attempt to locate and free these soldiers ended when a tank hit a mine, killing four Israelis. Reacting more quickly than in the Gaza incident, IDF airplanes began what has become an ever-widening bombardment, hitting the Beirut airport, key infrastructure in the north of Lebanon, and at least one power plant in southern Lebanon. From the sea, IDF forces began shelling coastal areas of the country. For its part, Hezbollah has been firing dozens of extended-range Katyusha rockets daily into towns and villages in northern Israel, striking further than ever before, from Haifa on the coast to settlements on the Sea of Galilee.
The crisis erupted just before the start of the annual Group of 8 (G-8) heads-of-state meeting in St. Petersburg. After lengthy discussions, the G-8 called for Hamas and Hezbollah to release the three Israeli soldiers and to stop firing mortars and rockets at Israeli cities, and for Israel to cease military operations against Gaza and Lebanon, to withdraw all forces back inside Israel, and release Palestinian government officials arrested in early July.
The United States says that the “intent” behind the G-8 demands is for Hamas and Hezbollah to return the soldiers and cease shelling first, after which Israel would halt its operations. Since the written version of the conditions does not specify a sequence, the remaining summit participants—other than Britain—apparently do not endorse the U.S. interpretation. Nonetheless, the statement avoids dwelling on history and emphasizes the goal of halting the fighting before more people die, more vital infrastructure is destroyed, and the violence becomes self-perpetuating and contagious. Already, more than 250 Palestinians, Lebanese, Israelis, and foreigners are dead, hundreds are wounded, and the three IDF soldiers remain captive—their whereabouts unknown.
Whenever killing flares in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, all sides—and there always are more than two—blame others for the new crisis and selectively recall the history of past conflicts and oppression to “justify” their use of violence. In this case, the current crisis stems not only from past violence but also from persistent weakness, particularly that of the Lebanese army and the Palestinian National Authority (PNA).
A Tale of Two Weaknesses
In 2000, Israel announced a withdrawal from southern Lebanon. The announcement came after eighteen years of Israeli forces, along with a proxy “Southern Lebanon Army,” maintaining a buffer zone along the Israeli-Lebanese border. In the vacuum created by the withdrawal of Israeli forces, Lebanese police and some army units moved south. But these Lebanese forces were incapable of patrolling the border. The 2,000-member United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), created in 1978, continued to report incursions and shelling across the border by Israeli forces and armed militias in Lebanon. And Hezbollah, better armed and more cohesive than the Lebanese army, assumed control of the Lebanese side of the border.
Fast forward to August 2005 when Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon implemented another unilateral plan: abandoning Israeli settlements and most Israeli military posts in Gaza. Sharon's initiative, while eliminating some flash points between Israelis and Palestinians, was part of a larger unilateral Israeli plan to build a “separation wall” enclosing and cutting off Gaza from other parts of the putative Palestinian state. As with the pullout of the IDF from southern Lebanon in 2000, the Gaza evacuation was poorly coordinated. It created—predictably—a governance and security vacuum that an economically constrained Palestinian National Authority simply was and still is unprepared to fill.
Under Yasser Arafat and his Fatah party, the PNA was chronically crippled by internal political divisions, cronyism, corruption, and a complete failure to gain control of the instruments of violence that a functioning, effective government needs to survive. (Israel's systematic destruction of the PNA's police forces and the crushing of the security infrastructure exacerbated this problem.) Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, confronted by the military wing of Hamas on one side and Israeli reprisal air attacks that killed innocent bystanders on the other, has been unable to give the 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza what they want most: physical security.
Inevitably, this turned the January 2006 parliamentary elections into a referendum on Fatah's performance. In what was judged a free and fair election, Palestinians rejected the status quo, electing 76 Hamas members or supporters to the 132-seat legislature. The new government, installed in late March, immediately faced a cut-off of foreign aid from the United States and the European Union and the withholding of Palestinian tax revenue collected by Israel and normally passed to the PNA. In effect, Hamas inherited an endemically weak political structure from Fatah.
According to Israel, the PNA is fully responsible for Gaza and for anything that emanates from Gaza toward Israel. But Tel Aviv has made it virtually impossible for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to counter the appeal and influence of Hamas and other militant groups that have become integral parts of the Palestinian social fabric. Abbas and the Hamas-dominated government elected in January may not have to contend with physical occupation by the IDF, but they remain effectively contained and constrained by Israel's continued control of the Gaza airport, shoreline, border crossings, and revenue stream. In addition, economic hardship in Gaza has worsened. “People are witnessing the first rationing of bread in living memory,” reports Isdud Al Najjar of Mercy Corp Gaza. Eighty thousand families in Gaza are “hardship social cases … About a third of these receive food from the World Food Program. For the rest, there is no longer a safety net.”
Escalating Violence
After his Kadina party won the March 2006 Israeli election, Ehud Olmert faced his first crisis with the deaths of two IDF soldiers and the capture of Corporal Gilad Shalit on June 25 by Hamas militants. That the first direct test for the Olmert government was a paramilitary rocket attack may have contributed to Israel's decision to try to destroy Hamas and Hezbollah. Since Olmert and his defense minister, Amir Peretz, are the first Israeli leaders without experience at senior military command levels, to apply anything less than maximum military power might leave them open to accusations of being “soft on terrorism”—especially if they turn to negotiations to gain the release of the three Israeli soldiers.
Olmert chose to hold Hezbollah responsible for an act of war rather than act of terrorism. He also chose to hold the Lebanese government responsible for failing to implement UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1559 (2004). Passed on September 2, 2004, UNSC 1559 called for “strict respect of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and political independence of Lebanon,” the complete withdrawal of all foreign forces, and the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias.
Given the precarious internal “balance of power” among the many political factions in Lebanon, the UN resolution was poorly devised. It threw the entire burden of providing physical security in southern Lebanon and along the Lebanese-Israeli border on a fragile, confessional-based Lebanese government that simply did not have the power to disarm and disband Hezbollah militia forces. In fact, Hezbollah had become so entrenched in the social fabric of the country that the Lebanese prime minister had felt compelled to include two Hezbollah supporters in his cabinet.
All this played out against another backdrop: the departure of Syrian military forces from Lebanon in 2005. Originally, Syrian forces had been seen as stabilizing Lebanon as it emerged from a fifteen-year civil war in 1990. But by 2005, Syrian interference in Lebanese affairs became onerous. The United States and its European allies accused Syria of sponsoring a terrorist organization by serving as a conduit for money and equipment for Hezbollah and Hamas from their chief sponsor—Iran, the second of George Bush's triple “axis of evil.”
Washington and Tel Aviv see the hand of Iran in both the war in Iraq and the Israeli-Palestine conflict, with Syria as a conduit for fighters, weapons, and money in two directions. Syria now finds itself effectively “surrounded” by Israel on one side and the United States in Iraq on the other, making it susceptible to a “squeeze play.”
The United States and Israel share a similar approach to security. Both have emphasized unilateral, overpowering force or the threat of such force to try to establish absolute security from attack or even intimidation from others. Thus, Washington attacked Iraq because of a presumption that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction threatened the United States. Thus, Israel's “separation wall” policy combined Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and southern Lebanon along with the “right” to initiate military action against either area.
Since David Ben-Gurion proclaimed Israel's creation as an independent state in 1948, the United States has invariably supported Israel's right to defend itself. The occasional U.S. criticism focuses on Israel's need to take “proportionate responses” to armed attacks by others. But, as Israeli novelist David Grossman has observed, the modern state of Israel has yet to come to grips with the reality of its overwhelming military power. Its response to any provocation is the application of maximum force, a practice that has never brought it the one thing it craves: peace and security.
The “Bush Doctrine” of preventive war is the expansive, superpower corollary to Grossman's observation about Israel's misuse of military might. And like Israel, the Bush doctrine has failed to make the United States more secure in the world just as it has made the world more insecure from the United States The greater irony finds the United States proclaiming it is creating democracy in the Middle East while its surrogate, Israel, is attacking nascent democracies in Lebanon and Palestine.
Perhaps the United States and Israel should try something that neither country is very good at: examining policy from the viewpoint of those who do not have overwhelming military firepower. Looking at the world “upside down” can bring not only a different perspective but a different result as well. It might be too much to expect long-term peace and security right away, but is it too much to ask that the fires be extinguished?
Dan Smith is a military affairs analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus, a retired U.S. Army colonel, and a senior fellow on military affairs at the Friends Committee on National Legislation. Email at dan@fcnl.org or blog “The Quakers' Colonel.”
This article has been made possible by the Foundation for National Progress, the Investigative Fund of Mother Jones, and gifts from generous readers like you.
© 2006 The Foundation for National Progress
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2006/07/gaza_and_lebanon.html
Página/12:
El tanguero fusilado por Franco
LA OLVIDADA HISTORIA DE ANTONIO SEOANE, A 70 AÑOS DE LA GUERRA CIVIL ESPAÑOLA
Llegó a Buenos Aires a los cinco años. Trabajó en el diario La Prensa, fue directivo de la Federación de Sociedades Gallegas y bailarín de tango. Volvió a su país como jefe de la guerrilla de Galicia. Aquí, la historia del vecino de San Telmo, fusilado por republicano en el ’49. Y el testimonio de su hijo Jorge, ahora de 75 años.
Por Susana Viau
Martes, 25 de Julio de 2006
A las ocho y media de la noche del 10 de julio de 1948, Eduardo Alfonso Cruz, jefe el Servicio de Información de la 140 Comandancia de la Guardia Civil, se sentó como un parroquiano cualquiera en una de las mesas del Barlovento, el bar más concurrido de La Coruña. Tenía la esperanza de ser quien atrapara a “Julián”, el jefe de la guerrilla gallega o, como escribió en el parte, de las “partidas de bandoleros que actúan en esta región”. Al cabo de un rato, una pareja se aproximó al local. El hombre respondía a las características físicas de “Julián”. En un abrir y cerrar de ojos, los efectivos de la “benemérita” que vigilaban en las inmediaciones rodearon a los dos clandestinos. Comenzaba así un proceso absurdo que iba a culminar en las primeras horas del 6 de noviembre, cuando en el Campo de las Dormideras “Julián” fue colocado frente al pelotón de fusilamiento. “Julián” era en realidad Antonio Seoane Sánchez, un español llegado a los cinco años a la Argentina, trabajador del diario La Prensa, directivo de la Federación de Sociedades Gallegas, bailarín de tango, habitué de un café de Defensa y Estados Unidos, vecino de San Telmo. Tenía 43 años. Las firmas, las movilizaciones realizadas en Buenos Aires pidiendo la conmutación de la pena no habían servido de nada.
No fue la única condena a muerte: con él murió José Gómez Gayoso, alias “López”, ex comisario político de los ejércitos republicanos y regresado para asumir la secretaría general del ilegalizado Partido Comunista de Galicia, dirección política de la guerrilla. La joven apresada con “Julián” en el Barlovento era su nuevo amor, Josefina González Cudeiro, Fina para sus familiares. Ella permaneció quince años detenida en las cárceles de Alcalá de Henares, Burgos y Segovia. Antes, igual que su amante, había sido brutalmente torturada, colgada de las manos y quemada con ácido en los genitales, quizá porque así castigaba la España de la cruz y la espada a la muchacha de izquierdas que acababa de hacerse un aborto con una comadrona de Madrid y practicaba el amor libre.
Fue la hermana de Fina la que a su pedido mandó una carta a la madre de Antonio, a Buenos Aires, avisándole de su detención. También le recomendaba que golpeara todas las puertas, que movilizara todo lo movilizable porque el final del proceso se avecinaba y quedaban pocas esperanzas. Asunción, la madre de Antonio, una gallega que se había afincado en San Telmo y alquilaba habitaciones para ayudar a los escuálidos ingresos del marido, carpintero y dueño de una carbonería que estaba frente al cine Cecil, siguió al pie de la letra las indicaciones que le llegaron del otro lado del mar. “Pidió incluso una audiencia con Eva Perón para rogarle que intercediera, pero la señora no la recibió –recuerda ahora Jorge, el hijo de Antonio–. Mi abuela era una vieja heroica, que a pesar de su pobreza les dio de comer a muchos compañeros que llegaban de España muertos de hambre.”
Jorge cree que la única depositaria del secreto que rodeó el viaje de Antonio a España fue su abuela Anunciación. De él, en cambio, se despidió un día que no alcanza a determinar, con un abrazo y la promesa de mandarlo a buscar muy pronto; tal vez no fuera una mentira, puede que Antonio Seoane pensara, como muchos republicanos entonces, que el final de la Segunda Guerra iba a ser también el fin de la dictadura franquista.
Lo cierto es que Jorge no imaginó que ése sería el último contacto entre ambos. Tenía ideas imprecisas acerca de la causa que impulsaba a su padre y a los hombres y mujeres con quienes Antonio se reunía en el local de la Federación de Sociedades Gallegas. Y le llevaría un tiempo descubrir que había sido recién en 1939 cuando resolvió afiliarse al Partido Comunista de España, una decisión tardía pero no inesperada: estaba inscripta en la atmósfera familiar y en el contacto con los exiliados republicanos.
El expediente que hace unos años le enviaron desde Galicia le permitió reconstruir un tramo de aquel viaje: tras fallarles los contactos establecidos en Pamplona y en Barcelona, Antonio pidió instrucciones a Buenos Aires y le ordenaron dirigirse a Madrid. Desde entonces utilizó un documento extendido a nombre de Aureliano Barral, ciudadano argentino; su seudónimo en el Ejército Guerrillero de Galicia, adonde arribó en el ’45, fue “Julián”. La comunicación con la familia se cortó. El silencio estaba impuesto por la cerrada clandestinidad y por los aires políticos gubernamentales que, en la Argentina de los ’30, los ’40 y los ’50 no soplaban en favor de la República. La prosa fascista del atestado instruido por la Guardia Civil describiría el periplo de manera diferente: “El procesado, que vivía en la Argentina, se afilió al Partido Comunista Español al llegar a la Nación hermana los refugiados huidos de la zona roja”.
Cuestión de honor
Hoy, Jorge admite que el matrimonio de sus padres estaba roto desde hacía mucho, pero que pese a todo Saladina Cruz, su madre, comprendía y apoyaba el sacrificio del marido. Era una obrera esclarecida, delegada de la Fábrica Argentina de Alpargatas, “en la época en que iban a trabajar con sombrero”. Y gallega. Fue a ella a quien Antonio le dirigió las cartas fechadas en la “Prisión Provincial, Primera Galería, Celda 6”. En una de ellas, le advirtió: “Fui detenido el 10 de julio, acusado de ser el jefe guerillero de Galicia. Ya te puedes imaginar lo que esto supone en un Consejo de Guerra sumarísimo. Tenía noticias de que este Consejo se llevaría a cabo el 7 del corriente, pero hace unos días nos enteramos de que había sido aplazado para mediados de este mes. No sé a qué obedece este aplazamiento. De todas formas, para mí esto significa unos días más de vida. Aunque sobre esto no tengo seguridad ninguna. Perdóname la crudeza, pero es que debemos ser realistas. En cuanto a mi estado de ánimo, es perfectamente normal, porque esto no me ha tomado de sorpresa y en los últimos momentos, no te quepa duda alguna, sabré comportarme como lo que siempre creo haber sido. No digo más...”.
En la siguiente, casi en capilla, Antonio explicaba a su mujer: “Los tres (él, Gómez Gayoso y un tercer combatiente, José Bartrina) estamos ya aislados, en régimen de condenados a muerte, salimos una hora al patio, bajo la vigilancia de un oficial; no permiten que nos envíen comida de la calle y nos han retirado el papel, pluma, lápiz, etc. El desenlace no es posible preverlo, ya que pudieran existir determinados factores que modifiquen la sentencia. No nos hacemos ilusiones y sin infundados pesimismos prevemos que habrá ejecuciones. ¿Cuántas? Lo que está claro es que los altos jefes de la Guardia Civil presionan ferozmente y que han hecho de nuestra ejecución cuestión de honor. La presión del exterior puede decidir el desenlace de una forma u otra. Sobre esto no creo necesario insistiros. La Argentina, por las relaciones que mantiene con el régimen de Franco, puede decidir muchísimo. Tenemos confianza absoluta en lo que nuestro P. (partido) y los P. hermanos hagan para movilizar a la opinión democrática mundial en nuestro favor. Aunque aislados, conocemos el volumen de la campaña de solidaridad”.
La muerte, sin embargo, no conseguía hegemonizar el texto; el condenado la ponía a raya con una vuelta sistemática a la vida cotidiana: “Y ahora algo de lo nuestro –escribía–. Estoy asombrado con las fotos que me mandáis. Francamente te confieso que al verlas me sentí viejo y hasta ahora presumía de no serlo. ¿Pero es posible que ya tenga nuera? ¡Vamos, esto sí que es para caerse de espaldas! ¡Y qué guapa Elsita! Cuando me contestes dime de qué barrio es y cuál es su apellido”. La correspondencia, el único vínculo del reo Antonio Seoane con el mundo exterior, era el producto de un balance solitario. Lo dice de manera explícita en la nota que le dirige a Roberto Gastelú, su jefe en la sección distribución de La Prensa: “Usted sabe que aunque me he criado en la Argentina, a la que amo como mi segunda patria, en la que reposan los restos de mi padre y residen mi anciana madre, mi esposa y mi hijo, yo he nacido en España (...). Al hacer mentalmente un recuento de los seres por quienes he tenido siempre gran cariño y respeto no podía olvidarme de usted, que me ha conocido siendo casi un pibe”.
A fines de octubre, el Consejo de Guerra presidido por el teniente coronel de Ingenieros Ramón Rivas Martínez dictó para Seoane y Gómez Gayoso (a) “López” la pena capital por el delito de “actividades comunistas”. El defensor militar, más piadoso o más realista, no había solicitado el sobreseimiento sino 30 años de prisión mayor. El 5 de noviembre, el ministro de Ejército confirmó las sentencias; el 6 se dispuso el envío de un médico que constatara las muertes, dos ataúdes, los permisos del cementerio para el entierro, requiriéndose, además, la presencia del defensor militar, capitán de artillería José Lago Vizoso. Se ordenó, asimismo, que los condenados fuesen entregados a la Guardia Civil, que se haría cargo de ejecutar la sentencia. A las cuatro de la mañana, luego de leérseles la resolución, “Julián” y “López” fueron colocados en capilla. Ambos se habían negado a firmar la notificación. Una nueva cédula dejó constancia de que “a las ocho del día de hoy ha sido ejecutada por fusilamiento la pena de muerte en las personas de los reos José Gómez Gayoso y Antonio Seoane Sánchez en el Campo de Dormideras de esta Plaza”.
El 8 de febrero de 1949, el defensor militar hizo entrega de las pertenencias de Antonio Seoane que, por todo concepto, consistían en una pluma estilográfica “Parker”, un mechero de metal blanco, un reloj de caballero “Omega” con su pulsera, un alfiler de corbata de oro con tres perlas y un sujetador de cuello dorado. Como se ve, ni las medidas excepcionales ni la pena capital estaban reñidas con la burocracia.
El ejército había dejado un registro formalmente perfecto de cada uno de los pasos cumplidos, incluso de las parcelas del camposanto en que serían depositados los cuerpos. Un pequeño olvido les hizo omitir que Seoane tenía los pies y las manos destrozados y había adelgazado veinte kilos; que a Gómez Gayoso le habían vaciado un ojo y su cuerpo había sufrido innumerables ultrajes. Fina le comunicó a Asunción la muerte de su hijo, Antonio Seoane. En la breve esquela y con enorme dignidad le pedía que la perdonara si la confesión de la “intimidad” que la había unido al jefe guerrillero la molestaba y le aseguraba que a través de “Julián” había aprendido a quererlos a todos. Con los años, Fina le entregaría en propia mano a Jorge la estilográfica y el encendedor que habían pertenecido a su padre. También le legó el retrato que, a lápiz, le había dibujado uno de sus camaradas en la prisión. “Ella y los suyos son nuestra familia ahora”, dice Jorge Seoane a Página/12.
La figura del tanguero Antonio Seoane, jefe máximo del Ejército Guerrillero Gallego, quintaesencia del sacrificio militante, fue olvidada por los argentinos. No se mencionan siquiera los versos que le dedicó Rafael Alberti: “¿A quién nombraré primero?/Nadie es segundo en mi lengua/ cuando es de acero el acero/ Si uno es glorioso, en glorioso/ al otro no hay quien le gane/ Si digo Gómez Gayoso,/ya estoy diciendo Seoane (...) ¡Sangre de Gómez Gayoso/ sangre pura, sangre brava/ sangre de Antonio Seoane (...)/¡Mar de sangre derramada!”. Y si se prefiere un homenaje más porteño, están los versos de Raúl González Tuñón: “Le prendieron al alba de la lucha/junto a Seoane, el frente de su pueblo,/hijos de la esperanza, honor de España/camaradas del día. Guerrilleros (...) Si cae Gayoso, si Seoane cae,/sus compañeros y sus compañeras,/no doblarán a muerte las campañas/ni le pondremos luto a la bandera”. En su departamento de Almagro, Jorge Seoane, el hijo que hoy tiene 75 años, no reclama homenajes. Su deseo es tan modesto como incumplible: “No me perdono no haber estado con él durante el Consejo de Guerra”. Quizá, por esas cosas, no haya reparado en que Antonio Seoane, además de “Julián” y “Aureliano Barral”, se había rebautizado con un tercer nombre, “Jorge”, el suyo.
© 2000-2006 www.pagina12.com.ar|República Argentina|Todos los Derechos Reservados
http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/sociedad/3-70430-2006-07-25.html
Página/12:
Y en eso, Rice condicionó un alto el fuego
EE.UU APOYA UN CESE DE HOSTILIDADES SI SE ACABA CON HEZBOLA EN EL LIBANO
La jefa de la Cancillería de Bush aterrizó en Beirut y dijo estar “preocupada por la situación humanitaria”, consecuencia de trece días de bombardeos contra el sur libanés. Israel continuó extendiendo su ofensiva en un bastión de la guerrilla, el poblado Bint Jbeil.
Por Angeles Espinosa*
Desde Beirut; Martes, 25 de Julio de 2006
La secretaria de Estado norteamericana, Condoleezza Rice, mostró ayer su preocupación por la situación humanitaria en Líbano durante una breve escala en Beirut de camino a Israel. Su visita fue un gesto de apoyo al gobierno de Fuad Siniora, el primero que no está apadrinado por Siria desde el fin de la guerra civil, en 1990. No obstante, su insistencia en que se cumplan ciertas condiciones antes del alto el fuego sólo puede alienar más a los libaneses después de trece días de bombardeos israelíes, que han desplazado a cientos de miles de sus casas y destruido las infraestructuras del país. La propia Rice tuvo que aterrizar en Chipre y volar hacia Beirut en helicóptero porque el aeropuerto internacional ha quedado inutilizado.
La ciudad estaba tranquila cuando su aparato se posó en el patio de la Embajada de Estados Unidos, pero el ejército israelí seguía castigando el sur de Líbano. “Estoy profundamente preocupada por la situación de los libaneses y lo que están sufriendo. Y evidentemente me preocupa la situación humanitaria”, declaró Rice tras entrevistarse con el primer ministro libanés, Fuad Siniora, durante más dos horas. La secretaria de Estado alabó “el coraje y la firmeza” de Siniora, que la recibió con los tres besos en la mejilla habituales en Líbano.
Pero la cordialidad de la cita no pudo ocultar la gravedad de la situación en la que se producía. Con más de medio millón de desplazados internos y medio país destruido por las bombas, los libaneses ven en Estados Unidos el único poder capaz de parar la ofensiva israelí. Y sin duda el primer ministro debió transmitirle su deseo de un alto el fuego inmediato. Durante el viaje desde Washington, Rice había manifestado sin embargo a los periodistas que la acompañan que quiere un “alto el fuego urgente, pero sostenible”.
“Es importante que se den las condiciones para que (el alto el fuego) sea viable”, declaró. La administración norteamericana defiende que el cese de las hostilidades no durará si no se abordan las causas profundas del conflicto. Eso, para Rice, significa acabar con la presencia de la milicia de Hezbolá en el sur de Líbano, tal como exige la resolución 1559 del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU. El gobierno de George W. Bush ve al movimiento chiíta exclusivamente como un grupo terrorista, un enfoque que limita su capacidad de contribuir a una solución que no sea puramente militar. “Cualquiera que osa oponerse a la política israelí de ocupación y anexión es inmediatamente calificado de terrorista y desacreditado”, lamentó el embajador sirio en Washington, en declaraciones a una cadena de televisión norteamericana. Esta perspectiva impide a Estados Unidos percibir los objetivos nacionalistas de Hezbolá –al igual que los del grupo palestino Hamas– y cierra la puerta a la cooperación con Siria. Washington ha desestimado una oferta del gobierno de Damasco en ese sentido porque no ve ningún beneficio y le exige pura y llanamente que deje de apoyar al grupo chiíta libanés. Sin embargo, la mayoría de los analistas en la zona estiman que, “guste o no, Siria es clave para garantizar la paz regional”.
Las diferencias quedaron claras cuando la secretaria de Estado se reunió con el presidente del Parlamento, el chiíta Nabih Berri. Aunque Berri lidera un grupo político distinto de Hezbolá, y hasta hace pocos años rival, ahora es aliado de esa formación, que está en el objetivo de la ofensiva israelí y en los últimos días parece haber actuado como enlace entre éste y el gobierno libanés. Aunque no se informó del contenido de la entrevista, una fuente libanesa comentó a los medios locales que Rice había dicho a Berri que “la situación en la frontera no puede volver a como estaba antes del 12 de julio”, en referencia a la fecha en la que Hezbolá capturó a los dos soldados israelíes. Rice también dijo, según la misma fuente, que no habrá alto el fuego hasta que la milicia chiíta no libere a ambos de forma incondicional y se retire a 20 kilómetros de la frontera. El tono tenso de la cita se percibió también en la calle, donde medio centenar de manifestantes recibió la llegada de Rice al domicilio de Berri con pancartas en las que podía leerse: “Acabe con el bloqueo” o “Cuatro millones de libaneses rehenes”. La mayoría de los libaneses se ha sentido abandonada por la comunidad internacional porque no se ha exigido un alto el fuego incondicional. De Beirut, Rice viajó a Jerusalén, donde hoy se entrevistará con el primer ministro israelí, Ehud Olmert, y mañana tiene previsto trasladarse a Roma para asistir a la conferencia internacional convocada para tratar de poner fin al conflicto.
* De El País de Madrid. Especial para Página/12.
© 2000-2006 www.pagina12.com.ar|República Argentina|Todos los Derechos Reservados
http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elmundo/4-70447-2006-07-25.html
Página/12:
La muerte la única verdad
Por Washington Uranga
Martes, 25 de Julio de 2006
Irak, Afganistán, Kuwait, Colombia, hoy Gaza, Israel, Líbano, el Africa de norte a sur y de este a oeste, tantos otros lugares. Las razones y los argumentos son diferentes, para matar o para dejar morir. Para condenar a la muerte por explotación irracional de los bienes naturales, por balas, por morteros, por armas letales o por hambre, desnutrición, miseria o enfermedades que podrían atenderse con otra actitud y otra voluntad para destinar recursos en bien de la vida. Los discursos no bastan cuando las balas hablan y la vida se presenta como una víctima indefensa ante tanto atropello. Los argumentos son siempre insuficientes, en primer lugar para las víctimas de cualquier bando o para tantos mártires inocentes no involucrados en los conflictos. Poco saben los niños por qué mueren sus padres y a los padres les resulta imposible entender las razones de quienes deciden la guerra y envían a la muerte a jóvenes casi niños. Los derechos de los pueblos y de las comunidades son irrenunciables, porque también son parte de la vida. Pero necesitan de espacios de diálogo basados en la sensatez, la cordura y la pericia de los dirigentes para construir caminos de encuentro y de negociación. Pericia que, si existe, la mayoría de los dirigentes sólo invierten en imaginar y diseñar maquinarias de guerra. No se trata de renunciar a los derechos ni de resignar causas que se consideran legítimas. Pero nada puede justificar una siembra de muerte indiscriminada con el argumento de imponer al otro las razones que la razón no entiende. Menos por los imperios que construyen florecientes industrias bélicas que consumen sus aliados menores en el frente de batalla. Los principales responsables son quienes, con la justificación de imponer sus propias reglas al mundo para “civilizarlo”, hacen gala de su poder ofensivo y devastador. Son los mismos que ayer actuaron, mataron y asesinaron y hoy le piden “cordura” a otros o condenan acciones similares a las que ellos protagonizaron. ¿Tiene memoria Mr. Bush? Son los que justifican la muerte por hambre o por epidemia por razones de ignorancia o incapacidad de pueblos a los que se ha sometido por la fuerza de las armas o por la violencia de la economía durante siglos. ¿Todos conocemos la historia de Africa? El terrorismo, que algunos pretenden ver de un solo lado, está instalado como práctica en la historia política contemporánea. Los terroristas no son sólo fanáticos irregulares. Son también los Estados y los sistemas. Ambos producen muerte. Cuando sólo hay guerra y la muerte impera, se matan las esperanzas de los pueblos de construir su propio destino. Cuando la vida es derrotada, la muerte es la única verdad y los argumentos sobran.
© 2000-2006 www.pagina12.com.ar|República Argentina|Todos los Derechos Reservados
http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elmundo/subnotas/70447-22887-2006-07-25.html
Página/12:
Notas desde el Zócalo
Por Sergio Pitol y Carlos Monsiváis*
Martes, 25 de Julio de 2006
La Gente. Desde hace tiempo, y aún más notoriamente ahora, cada vez que alguien se refiere a La Gente eleva su generalización: “La Gente está contenta, la Gente está indignada, la Gente anda muy triste, la Gente no se va a dejar”. De hecho, el o la que describe está hablando siempre en primera persona. Hoy, la Gente es sinónimo del Yo y esta operación donde lo colectivo apenas enmascara lo individual es propia del tiempo en el que el egoísmo a ultranza no funciona y la tradición insiste en el egoísmo.
Por eso, hoy, aquí, quienes desean expresar sus sentimientos y sus pensamientos se los atribuyen a la Gente. Nosotros, por ejemplo, advertimos que la Gente está indignada, alegre, informada y muy decidida.
Ellos –y en pos de la ruta lógica de don Vicente Fox, cuando decimos ellos no nos referimos a nosotros– se han autorretratado a la perfección en su campaña desde el odio en favor del miedo y sus rasgos delatan la ideología ampliada por la mercadotecnia y centrada en el abuso de poder, el conservadurismo y la proclamación de lo muy necesario de la desigualdad.
Las causas que funcionan sólo a corto plazo son apenas y en rigor promociones publicitarias o desahogos emotivos. La batalla por la democracia es una causa permanente que en este caso pasa por la defensa del voto y de los votantes, de todos los que acudimos el 2 de julio sin excepción. Nuestra causa a corto, mediano y largo plazos es la construcción de la democracia, de la que forman parte esta marcha y esta concentración.
Los patrocinadores del fraude hormiga, los que desataron –y a nombre de la libertad de expresión, nada menos– la campaña de “López Obrador, un peligro para México” exhiben también su mentalidad clasista: si un candidato presidencial es “un peligro para México”, lo son también los que deciden votar por él en números tan elevados. Se ha recurrido al desprecio como técnica de entendimiento del país y, al declararse implícita y explícitamente a un gran sector “peligro para México”, se ha promovido o “inaugurado” la polarización. No obstante, más que de un país dividido debe hablarse de una mayoría en los alrededores de la concentración extrema de la riqueza.
Por eso el proceso electoral se ha encarecido en forma tan desproporcionada, y por eso la derecha festejaría si coloca la democracia en la Bolsa de Valores. Esta es la gran disputa: democracia al alcance de todos o democracia (o como quiera llamársele) a precio de oro, con maniobre o incansable adjunto. Al respecto, una propuesta utópica: que en un futuro próximo el salario mínimo de cada trabajador en México sea el sueldo actual del presidente del Instituto Federal Electoral, Luis Carlos Ugalde.
En política, lo contrario del odio no es el amor, sentimiento nobilísimo que, fuera de las fechas sagradas del consumismo, no encuentra su sitio en el mercado. Lo contrario del odio es el ejercicio sistemático de la razón. También, el desgaste del adversario es siempre un arma de dos filos. El que tiene el poder en sus manos dirige todas sus acciones hacia ese fin. El desgaste del adversario suele producirse, pero el manipulador pierde en la esfera la oportunidad de gobernar. Es un cazador (con todo el tiempo mental invertido en su propósito) y no un gobernante.
Cuando decimos “la derecha” no calificamos de modo alguno a todos los votantes de Felipe Calderón ni los equiparamos con los devotos de El Yunque y agrupaciones similares, así, en su forma más beligerante, esta derecha haya sido el núcleo activador y el club de campaña. No nos toca indagar las razones del voto de los adversarios y sí respetarlas, y estamisma actitud percibimos en los votantes de Andrés Manuel López Obrador y la coalición Por el Bien de Todos.
Por eso sorprende la agresividad enorme de la andanada poselectoral del sector de Calderón que, en Internet, el Agora de la República, no sólo y previsiblemente se obstina en el linchamiento del candidato, sino también menosprecia con gran alborozo a muchos millones de mexicanos y sus exigencias justas.
¿De veras creen que el choteo barato y la difamación disipan las dudas sobre el recuento de votos?
No queremos, no necesitamos, no le concedemos un sitio a la violencia. En 2005, con el intento patético del desafuero y, en 2006, con la exigencia de la rendición de López Obrador, la violencia ha sido la actitud y el instrumento de la derecha, una violencia ideológica, de mentiras y compra de voluntades, y calumnias y mentiras grotescas, y difamaciones y fraudes hormiga. De este lado hay respuestas críticas, a veces ideológicamente desmesuradas o francamente necias, pero que en su conjunto no equivalen en virulencia y alcances mediáticos al menos oído o visto de los spots radiofónicos y televisivos del PAN y el empresariado.
Cientos o miles de millones de pesos invertidos en retener oprobiosamente el poder exhiben la violencia del gran capital sobre la ciudadanía.
Si el dinero a raudales decide quién gobierna, el gobierno que llega obedecerá al dinero a raudales. Si así han querido ganar, así inevitablemente querrán gobernar. Tanto gastan, tanto han de recuperar con creces. Mentir para imponerse es ignorar en definitiva la ubicación de la verdad.
¿Tiene sentido separar legalidad de legitimidad? Si esto se discute ahora, es porque la legalidad está usurpada o programada por computadora, y porque la legitimidad es el gran espacio de confirmación de los valores de la República laica.
Señala el día de hoy en un brillante artículo Rolando Cordera Campos:
Fortalecer las instituciones sin pensar ni registrar la existencia del pueblo y su necesidad ingente de organización es bordar en el vacío, hacer de la política juego de salón, y del poder coto privado de los herederos de una riqueza nunca bien habida.
La emergencia de estos días obliga, en primer lugar, a la defensa del voto y los votantes. A partir de allí, sectores vastos de la sociedad mexicana –y ésta no es profecía sino comprobación diaria– seguirán en la movilización crítica si quieren que su acción contestataria perdure. La campaña de 2006 no admitió o no permitió el debate sobre los problemas y las tragedias ecológicas, las catástrofes educativas, las posibilidades del empleo, la inseguridad social, el racismo antiindígena, el sexismo, la condición salarial en el país, la intolerancia religiosa, la homofobia, la impunidad de la clase política y del gran capital. Esto no se pospone indefinidamente, pero sí se jerarquiza porque hoy lo que corresponde es “voto por voto, casilla por casilla”.
Si esta causa fuese únicamente política, su significado sería localizable en demasía, pero las movilizaciones provienen también de una certeza ética y moral y esto explica su continuidad razonada y pacífica. No minimizamos ni magnificamos los errores de nuestro proceso, pero –hoy, 16 de julio de 2006– esta presencia multitudinaria, que representa a millones de votantes, surge de la necesidad de cambios profundos que correspondan al desarrollo civilizatorio que merecemos. No presumimos del monopolio de la verdad, pero sí ratificamos las demandas jurídicas y la argumentación moral. Por lo demás, se atestigua a diario el aforismo de Jerzy Lec: “La dispensación de la injusticia está siempre en las manos adecuadas”. No abandonemos nuestros votos en la fosa común de la resignación o la apatía. Voto por voto y casilla por casilla.
* Leído en el Zócalo de México, en la segunda asamblea informativa de la coalición Por el Bien de Todos, para denunciar fraude electoral contra el candidato del centroizquierda Andrés Manuel López Obrador.
© 2000-2006 www.pagina12.com.ar|República Argentina|Todos los Derechos Reservados
http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/contratapa/13-70435-2006-07-25.html
ZNet | Mideast
Conversations with refugees in Baysour, Mount Lebanon
by Malak Khaled; July 23, 2006
Baysour is a small village in Mount Lebanon. Its area is around 6 square-km, just 20 km away from Beirut. The village is not considered to be touristic, but this July, unusually, it is over loaded with 2000 visitors. Yet, this number is not of tourists, it is of the refugees coming from the South and the southern suburb of Beirut.
The village has only 1800 houses for its 9000 dwellers, and it has opened all its doors to host the refugees that increase daily. The secondary school of the village, the center of the popular cultural and sportive committee of Baysour, and another newly opened center have all opened to absorb the growing number of refugees. The municipality itself is a center to register the refugees and distribute them into hosting homes. A very touching decision was made since the first day of the Israeli attack on Lebanon: No one in the village is allowed to rent their property to the refugees. All the refugees shall be hosted, and none will pay a penny. The head of the municipality, Amin Mlaayeb tells us, “We are not blackmailing our people; we are supporting their sommoud (fortitude) in the way we can.”
But this is not the only way this municipality is helping. Daily, 200 bread packages are being bought from “el Mrayjieh” and water is distributed to the three refugees centers in the village.
“Just today,” said Esmat Mlaayeb, a member in the municipality, “200 mattresses were bought to be distributed among the refugees.” He explains to us that the municipality is cooperating with the Communist Party, the Syrian Nationalist Social Party, and the Progressive Socialists Party to provide the refugees with their essential needs. A medical committee has been established to check on the refugees’ medical needs, especially the ones with chronic diseases. All cleaning materials are brought to them daily to prevent the spread of diseases.
As we leave the municipality building, a vehicle filled with mattresses stops at the entrance to begin the distribution to the needed families.
Fifty-five refugees are in the center of the popular cultural and sportive committee of Baysour. We visit them. At the door, we see an old woman, Nayfee Hassoun from the southern suburb of Beirut, sitting and crying. We ask her about her house.
“Before you ask me of my house, ask me about my family. I know nothing about my family. I had been visiting my brother’s house when the Israeli attack started. They had to leave and took me with them. Since then, I know nothing about the safety of my children and family.”
Halima Younes from Kfar Hatta in the south tells us that she came with her husband, her two sons and their families. She still has 4 children with their families living in the southern suburb of Beirut, in the area that has been totally destroyed by the Israeli bombings in the last five days.
Halima says she wouldn’t be so sad if her children were killed. “I know they would be martyrs for the freedom of our country.” But the mother’s heart overcomes her belief, and she starts crying loudly.
Her husband interferes with a tear in his eye. “We want Hezbollah to go on. We have no more to lose but our dignity, and this is something we won’t let anyone take from us.”
Their grand daughter, Marwa, looks at us with sad eyes.
“Why are you sad,” I ask her.
“I want to go home.”
“Why aren’t you home?”
“Israel is bombing a lot.”
“What do you feel when you hear the bombing,” I ask her.
“I feel so afraid. The sound is very very very loud.”
“And what do you do when you feel afraid?
“I cry, and I go to Mama”
“Do you feel afraid here?”
“No. Here, I am not afraid, but I was afraid at home.”
“You know, there are kids being bombed in Israel now, you know who bombs at them?
“Yes, the moqawamee (the national resistance)”
“Do you want the moqawamee to stop? They might be feeling afraid too?
“I want Israel to stop bombing at us first”
“You don’t want their kids to feel afraid like you?”
“No, being afraid is so bad. I feel like my heart is so big that it is coming out of my mouth. I don’t want anyone to feel this wary. Fear is bad, so bad, tell them to stop making us afraid.”
“Whom do you want me to tell?”
“Tell Israel, if they bomb at us. HezbAllah will defend us by attacking them. If Israel stops, HezbAllah stops, right?”
I don’t know what to answer this purity of logic, of viewing things with such accuracy from this 8 year-old girl.
I run to another question
“What shall you do first when you go back home?”
“I want to help mama, and I want to go back to school”
We go into the center. The rooms there are divided by pieces of clothes. Approximately 12 families are there. They are all using one bathroom.
We enter one “room.” The family is eating potato and bread. A woman, from Bourj Al Barajnee, a neighborhood within the southern suburb of Beirut, says, “We are ten here. We came on Thursday [a week ago]. We don’t know anything about our homes. We can’t call anyone to know. Ever since we came, [the volunteers] are trying to provide us everything we need, may God bless them, but we want to go back. We are most welcomed here, but a person doesn’t feel relief except at home.”
We leave her wishing that these bad times will end soon.
The refugees tell us that Ali, a 9-year old boy, from Bent Jbeil in the South has just stopped crying.
I ask Ali, “why were you crying?”
“I wanted to go with my dad.”
“Where is your dad?”
“He went to Sour [Tyre] to bring my uncle’s wife and her kids.”
“Are you afraid, ya Ali?”
“Yes. I don’t want my dad to die. They are killing people on the roads.”
“Were you afraid when you were at home?”
“No, I wasn’t. I used to go up the roof to see where the planes go to bomb and then we would see the fire, but dad was with us.”
“Do you want to go home?”
“Yes, I want to go home with my dad. I won’t be afraid from the bombing when he is with us.”
“Do you know why there is so much bombing?”
“Yes, Israel is crazy for its two soldiers that Hassan Nasrallah [secretary general of Hizballah] took to exchange them with our prisoners in Israel.”
I look at Ali in the eye. I tell him that I came from Sour yesterday. The road will be long, but your dad will come back, I promised.
His grandmother heard this, and she started asking about the road: how long it would take? Is it dangerous? Is there any bombing?
Later that night, I was told Ali’s Dad was back, safe and sound with the rest of his family.
There are also refugees from Sryfa, the village to the east of Sour, a village that was bombed severely and in which a new massacre was committed by the Israeli Army this morning. Almost 35 people from one family in this village are in Baysour’s secondary school with almost another 350 people from other villages in the south.
A member of the Sayed family speaks the words between her tears: “We have been thrown back 20 years. We see the bombing on our homes and we don’t know if there will be a ceiling to shelter us when we go back home. We have left every thing behind: our planting is gone this year; we don’t eat if we don’t sell the seasonal harvest.”
She stops to release her tears. She suddenly stops crying and sends her regards to Hassan Nasrallah. “Don’t stop the resistance until you get to all you want. We have lost so much and we don’t have much anymore.”
A lot of the people around make supportive gestures. A man asks me if I believe the “Sayed” and I can’t but agree with them that Hassan Nasrallah is a person whose word is trusted.
Fatima is from Kaferkella, the village just across the “blue line” that marks the borders with occupied Palestine. She speaks to us with a very sure tone: “We weren’t able to visit our village for more than 20 years, but the moqawamee made it possible for us to go back. Now Israel wants to take our lands back, but the moqawamee won’t let that happen.”
Her whole family came on Thursday, but they know nothing about her brother who lives in the southern suburb of Beirut.
As we go on to interview more people, we hear the refugees talking about the political solution. We come closer to them to listen. They ask for our opinion, but we prefer to listen, telling them we are interested to know their points of view to tell the world.
“We can’t accept the disarming of the moqawamee. It defends us against Israel. It is our dignity and our freedom. We can’t think of ourselves without the moqawamee”
“Even if Israel left [the occupied Sheba’a Farms] and released all our prisoners, we would still want the moqawamee because Israel doesn’t stick to any word or decision; only the moqawamee frightens Israel and stops it from interfering in Lebanon.”
“This war is no more about the two soldiers that the strongest army in the Middle East couldn’t protect, though Nasrallah had always been threatening to kidnap from this army to exchange with the rest of our prisoners still in Israel. It is about the glory of this coward army and all the lies of the state of Israel.”
As we leave, a young man comes by to tell us: “Tell the world. We are here because we want to be here, not because we are out of choices. I just came from Germany for the summer vacation and all this started.” I ask if he has the German nationality. He says he does and he could have left, but neither he, nor his German wife want to leave this country that they love in such circumstances. His voice was so proud when he told us that he asked his wife to leave to her country, but she refused preferring to stay with “our family in Lebanon that is now my country too”
We great them and say goodbye, hoping that the next time we see them will be in their villages in the free, strong Lebanon.
Bio: Malak Khaled, 24, is a Lebanese activist on social justice and Palestinian civil rights. She was recently forced to leave her hometown of Sour (Tyre) due to the intense Israeli bombardment. She can be reached at malak20_20@hotmail.com
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=10632
ZNet | Israel/Palestine
Israel's Air and Artillery War Against Hezbollah
Something Old, Something New, Everything Hopeless
by Daniel Douek; July 23, 2006
The current mini-war between Israel and Hezbollah inspires a serious case of deja vu. It bears striking similarities to the Israel Defense Forces' spring 1996 "Operation Grapes of Wrath," and carrying important lessons for today. The 1996 operation, while ostensibly aiming to paralyze Hezbollah's operational capacity, claimed hundreds of Lebanese civilian lives while gaining precious little relief for Israel's beleagured northern population, which was then, as now, the target of incessant Hezbollah rocket attacks. Today, of course, the major difference is that Hezbollah is bolder and possesses an array of new long-range rocketry capable of hitting more distant and populous Israeli targets, as well as guided missiles of the sort used to hit a state-of-the-art Israeli corvette-class missile boat last week, killing four sailors and striking perhaps the greatest blow to Israel's image of military supremacy since Hezbollah ambushed an Israeli commando raiding team on the Lebanese coast in 1998, killing fifteen. As Israel invests ever-greater military resources in its pursuit of Hezbollah, the potential for unprecedented escalation grows ever greater. Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah has warned of "new surprises" awaiting Israel; the IDF, meanwhile, has destroyed his home and headquarters in Beirut and has made public its intention to kill him, while bombing targets throughout Lebanon, including along the Syrian border. Yet the most striking parallel of all between the current episode and the 1996 mini-war is that Israel, for all its military might, cannot "win," where victory is defined as a serious crippling of Hezbollah's striking capacity, and an emerging regional context in which Hezbollah and Islamic extremism as a whole are marginalized.
Of course, two general rules of modern warfare have already stacked the odds against Israel's success: first, escalating violence against religious extremism tends to beget more extremism, especially when massive (and seemingly avoidable) civilian casualties are inflicted. Second, a conventional army has rarely been able to dislodge a highly motivated and well-equipped guerilla army, with Israel's 1982 ill-fated Lebanese invasion serving as a prime example. But there are deeper reasons why this operation may well serve to weaken Israel's position vis-a-vis Hezbollah, and for these I turn again to the lessons of 1996.
Living in on Kibbutz Grofit in southern Israel at the time, I happened to become close with the family of then-Major General Moshe Ya'alon, at the time the chief of Israeli military intelligence (he would later be appointed chief of staff, to be replaced last year by the current chief of staff, Dan Halutz). The general would come home most Friday nights to spend some time with his family before departing the following day for headquarters. During these visits we spoke repeatedly about political and military matters, and in the midst of the 1996 bombing campaign I asked him why, despite Israel's stated goal of crippling Hezbollah, the IDF avoided hitting its top leadership, going so far as to strike Hezbollah offices on the fourth floor of a Beirut high-rise at 7 AM, when the Israelis knew the offices would be empty. He replied that on previous occasions when Israel had struck serious blows at Hezbollah- a 1992 aerial attack on a training camp in which dozens of guerillas were killed, and the 1994 assassination of commander Sheikh Abbas Musawi by Israeli helicopters- Hezbollah had retaliated with strikes against Israeli and Jewish targets abroad. These were the 1992 bombing of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, killing over thirty, and the 1994 bombing of the Buenos Aires Jewish community centre, in which 85 were killed. Both these bombings, the general told me, were assisted by the Iranian secret services. Escalation against Hezbollah, Israel had learned, could carry a terrible price.
Thus evolved the Israeli strategy of holding the Lebanese government- and by extension, Syria- accountable for Hezbollah attacks by bombing Lebanese civilian infrastructure, a form of collective punishment on a grand scale that forces all Lebanese to suffer for Hezbollah's actions. Indeed, a 1993 bombing campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon was codenamed "Operation Accountability." Since its inception, this policy has been a charade; Israel knows full well that the Lebanese government is unable- and Syria unwilling- to rein in Hezbollah. Instead of turning Lebanese public opinion against Hezbollah, these policies tend chiefly to embitter Lebanese civilians against Israel, quite understandably. Presumably, then, the strategy is calibrated to satisfy Israeli public opinion, which tends to demand some form of retaliation for strikes by Hamas, Hezbollah, or other guerilla/terrorist organizations. It does little if anything to weaken the organizations responsible for attacking Israel, and serves to greatly tarnish Israel's international standing (the fallout from the deaths of seven vacationing Canadians in an Israeli airstrike yesterday in Aitaroun has yet to reach its crescendo).
Indeed, the 1996 operation came in the wake of the assassination by a Jewish extremist of Israel's popular PM Yitzhak Rabin and his replacement by perennial political loser Shimon Peres, who sought to shore up his military credentials with elections looming; he lost anyways to the right-wing Likud candidate, Bibi Netanyahu. Today, an unproven coalition of politicians with no military background- Israeli PM Ehud Olmert and defense minister Amir Peretz- similarly need to prove themselves to the security-craving Israeli public, although the response of previous PM and former general Ariel Sharon to a similar crisis would hardly have been less severe. My point here is not to insinuate that Israeli politicians have launched this campaign against Hezbollah primarily for personal political gain, but simply to underscore that the strategy they have adopted makes little strategic sense, has never succeeded in weakening Hezbollah in the past, and is unlikely to succeed now. Even when Israel has devoted considerable military resources to hunting Hezbollah operatives by air throughout Lebanon, as it eventually did in 1996, it has not succeeded in substantially reducing the number of rockets fired across the border. The guerillas and their rockets are too numerous, too mobile, and too difficult to detect from the air. Meanwhile, the cost of an Israeli ground assault would be prohibitive, as illustrated last week at the outset of the fighting when an Israeli tank in pursuit of Hezbollah attackers struck a mine, killing five Israeli soldiers. For all its technological sophistication, then, Israel's hands are tied.
Ironically, if any government could truly be held accountable for aiding and abbetting Hezbollah, it would not be hapless and fragmented Lebanon but rather Hezbollah's ideological and material benefactor, the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran's emergent nuclear weapons program and increasingly sophisticated military, however, guarantee against Israeli strikes while enabling its leadership to taunt Israel with impunity. Meanwhile, if past history is any indication, the "surprises" promised by Hezbollah chief Nasrallah may well come in the form of new strikes against Israeli and/or Jewish targets around the world, which Israel would be relatively powerless to prevent. Other possiblities involve the deployment of weaponry as yet unseen in the history of the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, such as Iranian-made rockets capable of hitting the outskirts of Tel Aviv, rockets that, unlike larger SCUDs or cruise missiles, cannot be shot down be Israel's antimissile missile systems, and already exist in Hezbollah arsenals. In the absence of a negotiated settlement, Hezbollah is also likely to deploy more Iranian-made guided missiles of the sort already used to hit the Israeli naval ship, and may also acquire antiaircraft missiles to defend against Israeli warplanes- the loss of even one or two Israeli aircraft would represent another psychological blow to Israel, if not a tactical one, and would also represent a victory for Iran and the hundred or so military advisors from the elite Republican Guard that Israel insists are guiding Hezbollah's moves from Lebanon (Iran denies any such presence). Meanwhile Hezbollah's rockets have already claimed a toll in Israeli lives significantly greater than any previous rocket barrage, and have demonstrated a brand-new ability to strike deep into Israeli territory with a boldness seldom seen even in the midst of conventional Arab-Israeli wars.
For its part, in order to strike a substantive blow to Hezbollah, Israel must either kill Hassan Nasrallah and several of his chief advisors, which it has vowed to do, or kill a number of Hezbollah's Iranian advisors. Both options dramatically increase the likelihood of escalation by Hezbollah and Iran, especially including strikes against Israeli and Jewish targets abroad, and neither threatens to significantly weaken Hezbollah's political or military capacity. First, these leaders could easily be replaced; second, any such blows would be compensated for by a tremendous surge in Hezbollah popularity and recruitment, and likely a stronger military link with Iran. Like in 1996, Israel, for all its might, cannot protect its citizens against Hezbollah rockets- this time an even more abundant supply of longer-range rockets with larger warheads. Meanwhile, the world is made to understand yet again the power of religiously-driven, low-tech, well-organized militant organizations against states and their standing armies, and the ability of the Arab-Israeli conflict to unite unlikely allies- this time, Sunni Hamas and Shi'a Hezbollah- against their common Jewish enemy.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=10627
posted by attilav at 21:51
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home