More on the EU's Hypocrisy, Its Violation of its Own Supposed Values

Links added 2-3-2013

Gerald Steinberg of NGO Monitor continues to reveal the EU's moral corruption, its interference in Israel's internal politics against the rights of Jews and the  security of Jews. The EU funded the so-called Four Mothers movement which demanded Israeli retreat from Lebanon. After PM Ehud Barak succumbed to pressure from 4 Mothers & other groups, some of them also funded by the EU, and retreated from Israel's security zone in Lebanon in 2000, the Hizbullah was empowered as a result to reinforce its control of Lebanon -- and to do one of the things it likes best, attacking  Israel and killing Jewish civilians.  Israel  was  subject after the retreat and up to the end of the 2006 war to frequent terrorist attacks, kidnappings and rocket attacks, no less than before, on the northern front. The 2nd Lebanon War of 2006 saw  nearly 4000 rockets shot at Israel, killing about 135 soldiers and civilians. The previously peaceful city of Haifa was struck by many rockets. Likewise struck were Qiryat Shmonah, 'Akko [Acre], and Nahariyah. This war was due to the retreat from the Security Zone and the consequent strengthening of Hizbullah. By the way, whereas Hizbullah had an estimated 4000 rockets during the 2006 war, it now has an estimated 60,000 rockets or more. Of course there was a UN Security Council resolution supposedly stopping the war in 2006 and telling the Hizb not to bring in more rockets and not to station its murderous militia or its weapons south of the Litani River. But the Hizb violated UN SC res 1701 with impunity.

 Many thanks due to the European Union's "peace" policy for Jewish and Lebanese suffering. Those who strive to bring "peace," often have a forked tongue.

Here are excerpts from Steinberg's op ed in HaAretz:

On 29 September 1999, a small committee of the European Commission met to allocate €5 million for "Middle East Peace Projects" to what are ostensibly non-governmental organizations (NGOs). No protocol or record was published for the public, in contrast to most meetings involving EU allocations. This committee awarded grants to a number of groups, including "The Four Mothers Movement to Leave Lebanon in Peace"(€250,000); and to Peace Now (€400,000) for, as recorded in the protocol, promoting their political agenda among "a social group that traditionally has anti-peace views and votes Likud" and among "immigrants from the former Soviet Union."

The only reason that we have this information is due to a leaked protocol from this single meeting. In the thirteen years that have followed, all documents related to EU funding for dozens of Israeli and Palestinian political NGOs have been labeled top secret - reminiscent of the most highly classified military plans and nuclear weapons designs. As a result, even members of the European Parliament are also denied substantive information.

. . . . .

What can explain this total absence of accountability, and the Court's rubber stamp approval? Perhaps EU officials fear being held responsible for wasting taxpayer funds, particularly during a deep economic crisis. While the EU funds a few political advocacy NGOs in other democracies (three in the U.S., a handful in Canada, for example – and not in secret), there is nothing comparable to the scale of its involvement in Israeli civil society. The total annual amount being channeled from the EU (including the European Instrument for Human Rights and Democracy and other frameworks), and individual governments (EU member states, [plus] Norway and Switzerland) to Israeli political advocacy groups is one of the official secrets.

. . . . .

Indeed, instead of peace, European funding has added to the violence and conflict. In 1999, the Mothers Movement used their EU grant to finance a political campaign that played a central role in the Israeli unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 (in this very limited sense, the EU policy succeeded). But then Hezbollah's attacks increased, eventually leading to the 2006 war. It would not look good for EU officials to be seen as having been even partly responsible (by acting irresponsibly) for these events.

. . . . .

European officials understandably fear public criticism of their role in alienating millions of Israelis who reject the neo-colonialist effort to use groups like Peace Now to manipulate Israeli democracy. €600 million from European taxpayers allows their well-compensated lawyers and public relations firms to flood the courts with frivolous political lawsuits, and to travel around the world campaigning against Israel. This European infringement on Israeli sovereignty has become a hot issue. . . . .

- - - - - - - - - -

See Steinberg's full article here.

Steinberg  responds to a critic of the above article. 

LINKS ADDED 2-3-2013 
Op ed in Jerusalem Post [here]

Report on EU funding by NGO Monitor [here]

A page of links to NGO Monitor issues regarding the EU [here] -- a summary of the

UPDATING 6-9-2013 EU hides its financing for anti-peace "ngos" here.

Charles Malik: The West Is the Problem

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools.

Charles Malik was a former president of the UN General Assembly, a former foreign minister of Lebanon, and a professor of philosophy. He was not only a knowledgeable insider in world politics but had the intellect to understand what was happening in a historical perspective. Malik was deeply disappointed by the West's failure to defend Lebanon as --in part and imperfectly-- an outpost of Western civilization in the Middle East. In 1984 he wrote an op ed in the Wall Street Journal where he stated:

For months now the world has been focusing on Lebanon as a problem. The problem is not Lebanon or the importance of Lebanon. The problem is the West. Indeed, the importance of Lebanon is precisely that it raises the problem of the West. Lebanon would never have been a problem if the West itself were not the problem. And the West is not only the problem but also the solution. That is its singular greatness. And the solution is to be true to the deepest value of the West: the primacyof the spirit and the freedom of the soul. [WSJ 3-28-1984]

To confirm what Malik wrote, Lee Smith points out how US policy [he refers mainly to the Obama administration] has befriended the Syrian Assad regime despite its many many offenses against the United States and against Americans:

To survive, Damascus needs the world to ignore what it is up to. It particularly needs indifference in Washington, where the Obama administration has seemed sadly oblivious to the fact that what a regime does at home is indicative of how it will act abroad—or, in the case of Syria, a state sponsor of terror and ally of Iran, how it has acted over the last 40 years, targeting especially American citizens, interests, and allies.
For all that, the administration just wants the Syria issue, the uprising, the opposition, to go away. It would prefer not to deal with it and thus has come up with all sorts of excuses to do just that.
It was five months, and many thousand dead, into the uprising before Obama called on Assad to step down. Instead of leading, the president tasked Syria policy out to Turkey, then to the Arab League, which sent a monitoring delegation led by a former Sudanese intelligence chief suspected of war crimes in Darfur.

Smith goes farther. He argues that its position on Syria, since it asked Assad to leave office, does not indicate real opposition to Assad but rather reluctance to see the Assad clan's fall. Smith raises the question of where the Obama administration and the State Dept really stand:

Unfortunately, the White House has painted itself into a corner. Because the administration has never really wanted to see Assad fall, it has talked only of stopping the violence . . . , with the unstated provision that once the murders stop, the murderer still rules. . . .

The question of where Obama & Co. really stand arises concerning the Iranian nuke bomb project as well. Bear in mind that Iran's ayatollahs are major supporters of the Assad regime and vice versa:

What’s odd is that the White House has let on, through various media surrogates, that it may come to accept the inevitability of the Iranian nuclear program and move toward a policy of containment and deterrence. . . . In its dithering on Syria, the administration shows a lack of seriousness in dealing with Iran. . . .

Yet the Assad regime, going back to 1983 at least, has a record of killing offcial Americans as well as American troops in both Lebanon and Iraq:

Under Assad the Damascus airport was a jihadist transport hub from which foreign fighters were either bused directly to the Iraqi border to fight U.S. troops, or warehoused in Syrian prisons until they could be put to some use. Washington knew very well that Syrian intelligence was working with al Qaeda because it had evidence of it in the Sinjar documents, showing that 90 percent of the foreign fighters in Iraq were coming through Syria. When a series of suicide bombings killed hundreds of Iraqis in the fall of 2009, the Obama administration hushed Iraqi officials who pointed a finger at Damascus. In other words, al Qaeda’s position in Syria was a problem U.S. officials were content to ignore when, with the help of Assad’s intelligence agents, the organization was killing American troops and Iraqis. But now the fact that al Qaeda elements, which may still be under the control of Syrian intelligence, are targeting regime installations, is a reason not to support the opposition [here Smith is pointing at Obama administration hypocrisy]. . . . The regime in Damascus that has so much Syrian blood on its hands also, along with its allies in Iran and Hezbollah, has killed many thousands of Americans. In Lebanon, U.S. Marines, diplomats, and intelligence officials were slaughtered by Iranian and Syrian assets; in Iraq, the Syrians and Iranians backed both Sunni and Shia fighters in their war against American troops, leaving almost 5,000 dead and many more thousands wounded [The Weekly Standard, 5 March 2012]

So the Assad regime in Syria has been an enemy of the United States and of Americans, including rank and file soldiers plus diplomats and intelligence officials. Yet the Syrian Assad regime was being coddled by the State Dept in the mid-1970s, under Kissinger and since then. The Baker-Hamilton Report drawn up for the Bush 2 administration in about 2006 recommended helping solve all Middle Eastern problems by pressuring Israel to give up the Golan Heights to Assad-ruled Syria. Apparently, Israel's welfare was secondary to Assad regime welfare. Or just how does one explain the situation that Lee Smith describes together with my extending the picture of Washington indulgence of the Assads back to the mid-1970s?

Hizbullah Hiding Weapons under Buildings in South Lebanon

The Hizbullah hides weapons and ammunition underneath homes in south Lebanon. This was one of the reasons for Hizbullah's relative success against Israel in the 2006 Lebanon war. Israel warned residents of south Lebanon to evacuate the area in view of coming Israeli attacks in an effort to win the release of Israeli soldiers taken captive by the Hizb and to destroy as much as possible of the Hizb's weapons stores. Most residents did evacuate and a number of houses were struck by Israel, with resulting secondary explosions indicating the presence of ammunition/weapons stores. However, the evidence of such stores was widely denied, especially by the anti-Israel media in the West and by "leftist" groups --sometimes in the guise of "human rights" & "peace"-- and by a number of Western governments. Neither Israel's assertions of weapons stored in homes illegally according to international law, nor the photos and other evidence provided by Israel could convince those who fanatically wanted to believe in Israel's inherent evil. To be frank, all this international criticism, albeit ignorant, unjust and hypocritical, does have a restraining effect on Israel's exercise of military power, which obviously helped Hizbullah in the 2006 war. Now a report in Il Sole-24 Ore tells us that again today the Hizb is illegally storing weapons in buildings in southern Lebanon.

The UN Security Council assigned the UNIFIL [UN interim Force in Lebanon] to supervise the cease-fire after the Lebanon War of the summer of 2006. This was in addition to previous assignments, in all of which UNIFIL had failed.

Following the July/August 2006 crisis, the Council enhanced the Force and decided that in addition to the original mandate, it would, among other things, monitor the cessation of hostilities; accompany and support the Lebanese armed forces as they deploy throughout the south of Lebanon; and extend its assistance to help ensure humanitarian access to civilian populations and the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons. [here. This official UN site links to Sec. Council res 1701; in it see paragraphs 8, 11,14,15]

UNIFIL was also supposed [paragraphs 11b, 11e, 14] to help the Lebanese army take control of southern Lebanon --an area under Hizbullah control before 2006-- and to help it prevent weapons not authorized by the Lebanese govt from entering the country. In fact, the Lebanese army does not go into south Lebanon [south of the Litani River] without Hizb permission, nor does UNIFIL travel freely in the country. Nor has the Lebanese army or UNIFIL been effective in keeping Hizbullah from bringing weapons into the country. These weapons, including long distance rockets that can strike anywhere in Israel, have been brought in and many of them are stored in southern Lebanon south of the Litani, despite the assurances of SC res 1701. Again, weapons heavy and light have been stored under civilian buildings, as occurred up to and including the 2006 war. The fact that weapons are being stored under buildings now supports Israel's charge of the same during the 2006 war.

. . . in a country in which the police and regular army are in part connected with Hizbullah and Syrian secret services, there is no doubt that --especially in the southern region between the Litani River and the Israeli border (an area where the [UN] blue helmets are stationed) not even the al-Qaeda cells present in a couple of Palestinian refugee camps near Tyre could succeed in carrying out attacks and moving through the territory without the Shiite militias [Hizbullah] and Damascus' agents being informed of it. The relations between UNIFIL and Hizbullah have progressively worsened in recent years due to the numerous weapons and explosives depositories hidden by the militiamen under the buildings, which have sometimes exploded because they were stored in a faulty manner or due to sabotage attributed to the Israelis. The latest episode took place in November in the sector assigned to the Italian contingent, bringing back to the forefront the substantial failure of UNIFIL which --based on Resolution 1701-- was supposed to disarm Hizbullah.

This disarmament was never performed even if the command [of UNIFIL] at Naqoura attributes that task to the Lebanese forces that, in order to perform it, could ask for support from the blue helmets. In practice, no one has ever tried to take away weapons from the Hizbullah which --on the other hand-- has been reinforced [since 2006], restoring its rocket arsenals and even acquiring Iranian missiles capable of striking all Israeli territory, not only the Galilee. Two weeks ago, visiting Beirut, UN secretary-general Ban-Ki Moon, confirmed the need to disarm Hizbullah, asking all militias to give up their arsenals and saying that he was "concerned" by the Lebanese situation. [Il Sole-24 Ore, 28 January 2012, Gianandrea Gaiani]

In the original

. . . in un Paese nel quale polizia ed esercito regolari sono in parte legati a Hezbollah e servizi segreti siriani non c'è dubbio che, soprattutto nella regione meridionale tra il Fiume Litani e il confine israeliano (area di schieramento dei caschi blu) neppure le cellule di al Qaeda presenti in un paio di campi profughi palestinesi vicino a Tiro riuscirebbero a compiere attentati e a muoversi sul territorio senza che i miliziani sciiti e gli agenti di Damasco ne siano informati. I rapporti tra Unifil ed Hezbollah sono peggiorati progressivamente negli ultimi anni a causa dei numerosi depositi di armi ed esplosivi occultati dai miliziani sotto gli edifici, che a volte sono esplosi perché stoccati in modo errato o a causa di sabotaggi attribuiti agli israeliani. L'ultimo episodio è accaduto in novembre nel settore assegnato al contingente italiano riportando alla ribalta il sostanziale fallimento di Unifil che in base alla Risoluzione 1701 avrebbe dovuto disarmare Hezbollah.

Un disarmo mai attuato anche se il comando di Naqoura attribuisce tale compito alle forze libanesi che per espletarlo potrebbero chiedere il supporto ai caschi blu. Nella pratica nessuno ha mai cercato di sottrarre armi agli Hezbollah che invece si sono rafforzati ripristinando gli arsenali di razzi e acquisendo persino missili iraniani in grado di colpire tutto il territorio israeliano e non solo la Galilea. Due settimane or sono, in visita a Beirut, il Segretario generale dell'Onu Banki-moon ha ribadito la necessità di disarmare Hezbollah chiedendo a tutte le milizie di rinunciare al loro arsenale e dicendosi ''preoccupato'' per la situazione libanese.[Il Sole-24 Ore, 28 Gennaio 2012, Gianandrea Gaiani]

This article tells us several things:
1) The Hizbullah hides weapons and explosives in civilian buildings thereby endangering civilians --non-combatants-- and in violation of the laws of war. This supports charges that Israel made against Hizbullah during the 2006 war;
2) the Hizb has rearmed since the 2006 war, in fact with more weapons than before that war. The border with Syria has been porous since the cease fire in August 2006, enabling Iran to ship heavy weapons through Syria to the Hizb;
3) Neither the Lebanese army nor UNIFIL ever tried to disarm Hizbullah, although SC res 1701 called for disarmament of militias in Lebanon.
4) foreign states have shipped weapons, including heavy weapons into Lebanon since 2006, although this violates UN SC res. 1701. These states have principally been Iran and Syria;
5) UN Security Council res. 1701 has failed.
The Lebanese army was obviously not capable of performing such disarmament as called for, nor did it ask for help from UNIFIL for this purpose. Of course you probably knew all this but now it is confirmed by a serious journalist. Moreover, Ban-Ki Moon is "concerned." Sheikh Nasrallah, head of the Hizb, responded sarcastically, "This concern reassures us and pleases us." UN SC res. 1701 failed to stop Hizb rearmament, failed to protect Lebanese sovereignty and independence against Hizbullah and Syria, and failed to keep bring peace or advance peace between Israel and Lebanon.
Moreover, since US diplomacy [through Condoleezza Rice] was a major force in negotiating 1701, this was also a failure for US diplomacy, unless US diplomacy really wanted the results that have eventuated.

One more point. Nasrallah asserts: "We confirm that our choice is the way of resistance and the weapons of resistance." ["Confermiamo che la nostra scelta sono la via della resistenza e le armi della resistenza'']. This begs the question: What is Resistance anyway? Is Nasrallah's resistance, the Hizb's resistance, the same as that of the French Maquis in WW2 and of its leaders, such as Jean Moulin? In fact, Hizbullah opposes the independence of its own country, Lebanon, acting to assert Iranian domination over Lebanon. Furthermore, can anyone imagine Jean Moulin taking pride in murdering German civilians, including children, as Hizbullah [and Fatah and Hamas, etc] take pride in murdering Jews and Jewish children, as the Nazis did? Here we have a case of semantic subversion in which these Arab/Muslim terrorists try to steal the favorable Western view of the anti-Nazi resistance in WW2 in behalf of murderous, well-armed organizations essentially different in character from the WW2 Resistance and for purposes that are kindred to Nazi purposes.
- - - - - - -
Quotes from Moon and Nasrallah found in the Il Sole article cited above.

Why Did Obama Harshly Scold Mubarak, Demanding that He Leave, while Coddling Bashar Assad?

UPDATING 4-23&24&26&27&5-7-2011See at bottom

Many have noticed that Obama and Hilary were rough with Mubarak, telling him to leave office just a few days into the mass demonstrations in Egypt, whereas it took them two or three weeks to tell Qaddafi to get out, and whereas Washington --Obama, Hilary, the State Dept-- are still coddling Bashar [Basher] Assad. What explains this differential treatment? Many competent commentators have taken a stab at the question. Lee Smith wrote a fine article on the subject. Just this afternoon [4-22-2011, Israel Channel 1], Eyal Zisser of Tel Aviv University, pointed out that Hilary called Basher a "reformer" just a few weeks ago, albeit to widespread contempt. Zisser, like Smith, discussed the differential treatment for Mubarak who was not exceptionally bad or cruel, as Arab rulers go, and for Bashar, who --Zisser pointed out-- is being protected or coddled or treated leniently by the Washington mob. But Zisser did not claim to have an answer.

Why this differential treatment? In fact, there is one and the same answer for Obama wanting to get rid of Mubarak while keeping Assad in power. Obama and his evil advisors and mentors, like Zbig Brzezinski and Lee Hamilton, want Israel to be encircled by enemies. So Obama encourages Turkey against Israel, scoffing at the Armenian-Americans who naively supported him on account of his promise to acknowledge the Armenian genocide. He encouraged the Code Pink and Free Gaza campaigners who teamed up with the Turkish jihadists on last May's convoy to Gaza. Lee Hamilton's Woodrow Wilson Center even gave Turkish FM Davutoglu the Woodrow Wilson award a few weeks after the Mavi Marmara incident. No doubt as a reward for embarassing Israel in world public opinion.

Syria is a very hostile state on Israel's northeast which supports the equally hostile Hizbullah on Israel's north in Lebanon. Both, by the way, are clearly Judeophobic, not merely "critical" of Israel. The Hizbullah, well-armed by Iran and Syria, could not exist in Lebanon as a state within a state --as the hegemonic body in the state-- without Syrian support. Iran which is farther away threatens Israel with the Bomb and with long-distance rockets. Obama was counting on a strong, stable anti-Israel front on Israel's north and northeast to threaten and pressure Israel, joining with Western diplomatic pressure from the US, UK, EU, etc. The protest movement in Syria threatens that strong, stable anti-Israel front.

Mubarak on the other hand was cooperating with Israel on security matters, especially in regard to Hamas and Iran. To be sure, he was violating the 1979 treaty with Israel in regard to anti-Israel agitation and propaganda in the Egyptian media, schools, etc. But he was cooperating, if only minimally, on security, especially in regard to Hamas. Hamas is an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, a sworn enemy of Mubarak, and of course a bitter enemy of Israel and the Jews based on medieval Islamic teaching. Obama wanted to much increase MB influence over Egyptian policy towards Israel, if not to bring the MB into the govt. Recall that a US official said --before Mubarak's ouster-- that "non-secular" factors in Egyptian society and politics should be brought into the govt for the sake of "democracy." "Non-secular" factors was a clear reference to the MB. And now, the post-Mubarak regime is giving in to various MB demands, warning of renegotiating the agreement for purchase of Egyptian natural gas. The two serious candidates for president of Egypt, `Amr Musa --head of the Arab League-- and the repulsive Muhammad al-Barada`i who helped along the Iranian Bomb Project, are talking against Israel, warning of intervening against any Israeli attack on the Hamas and demanding reopening of the 1979 treaty besides the gas purchase agreement. Obama's endeavors to encircle Israel with a more hostile power on the south [more hostile, less amenable to peace with Israel than Mubarak was] have borne fruit. That has happened. Note that democracy was never Obama's real concern. Demonstrators have been shot since Mubarak's ouster. Dissidents like Maikel Nabil Sanad are now in jail. Ten or more Copts were killed in clashes with MB thugs. The army damaged Coptic monasteries. Moreover, the people in Egypt are poorer and less secure economically than before the ouster, albeit things were bad then too.

So here Obama succeeded in having a more anti-Israeli front set up on the south. Yet, the northern anti-Israel front is being shaken by pesky demonstrators in Syria who demand freedom for their country and improvement in their situation. The Syrian demonstrations are a blow to Obama's encirclement strategy. So after more than a month of anti-regime protests in Syria, Obama and his Washington gang have not demanded that Assad get out. The criticisms from the State Department are relatively mild. Of course, the Assad regime is immensely more bloodthirsty than Mubarak ever was. Obama's concern is not with decency or democracy but with encircling Israel with very hostile powers. Hence, the answer to the question asked by Lee Smith and Eyal Zisser is one and the same. Obama wants to encircle and besiege Israel. Assad serves that purpose much better than Mubarak.

Also consider why Obama has been soft on Iran, friendly to Erdogan's Turkey and Pakistan [another Muslim fanatic state].

Lastly, consider the role of the so-called "left" and the so-called "human rights" organizations. These bodies, insofar as they focus their hatred on Israel, serve the anti-Israel policy of the EU, UK, and the old hatred for Jews of the US State Department. The self-styled "human rights" outfits like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch hate Israel more than they love or believe or serve the cause of human rights. The anti-Israel "Left" cares much less about exploited, ill-treated workers --in Abu Dhabi or Dubai, let us say-- or about the vast capital concentrated in the hands of the Arab oil billionaires than they do about harming Jews in Israel. They are unwitting tools at best of the UK, EU, & US State Department.

- - - - - - - - - -
UPDATING 4-23-2011 Can it be true that goody goody "peace groups", like CodePink for instance, can be considered "tools" of wealthy and powerful Establishment forces? Alana Goodman thinks so. She wondered why "the anti-war movement has pretty much evaporated under President Obama". She concludes that "the anti-war movement was little more than a partisan anti-Bush movement. Obama has continued most of Bush’s counterterrorism tactics, increased AfPak [Afghanistan-Pakistan] drone strikes, kept open Guantanamo Bay, sent the U.S. into a war in Libya and tinkered with Miranda rights for terrorists. And yet no massive anti-war protests greet him in California, nobody burns him in effigy, nobody chants that he’s 'the real terrorist.'" [here]
Simon Tisdall admits that Western govts are soft on Assad the Basher, some --such as the US & UK-- wanting to keep him in office supposedly for the sake of "Israel-Palestine peace efforts." The so-called "peace efforts" & "peace process" are thinly disguised efforts to weaken Israel and thereby give the Arabs a chance to finish Hitler's work. As I say above, the Obama gang wants to maintain a strong, stable anti-Israel front on Israel's northern & northeastern borders. [Tisdall here]
Walter Russell Mead points out that the reasons given for US intervention in Libya are present "in spades" in Syria. Mead also reminds us that, "For decades now, Syria has been a principal state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East. Hezbollah and Hamas would not exist in their present forms without Syrian protection and support. On its own behalf, and as Iran’s closest strategic ally in the Arab world, Syria has a long record of arming, training and sheltering terrorists." [here]
Washington Times editorial 4-23-2011 [here] supports Alana Goodman's premise that the "anti-war movement" dried up under Obama and her conclusion that the "anti-war movement" under Bush was mainly a partisan movement cynically manipulated by Democrats [here].
4-24-2011 Elliott Abrams notes the disrepancy in Obama's positions toward Mubarak and Assad respectively. Abrams calls for stronger US action.
William Harris says that Bashar the Basher is committing war crimes. Further, Harris does not think very highly of Obama's Syria policy: "It is difficult to think of anything more obstinately counter-intuitive than Barack Obama's reluctance to give up on the Syrian dictatorship and the bankrupt policy of "engagement" [with Assad]. Morality, strategic interest, and simple good sense together demand an end to the nonsense about reforming what cannot be reformed; if it survives, the dictatorship will be so blood-soaked that no decent person could "engage" its leadership. On the other hand, a new Syria will mean a new Middle East, with the Iranian theocracy's capability in the Levant dealt a stunning reverse and new prospects for a real Arab-Israeli peace process. " [see here]
Carlo Panella has written several pieces about Syria: "Assad First Slaughters the Demonstrators, Then He Calls Them Martyrs"[in Italiano qui] e "Nazi Repression in Syria. . ." [qui] e "Assad's Opponents" qui.
Wall Street Journal on the Syria lobby in Washington [here].
4-27-2011 Aaron David Miller, ex-State Dept, informs us that "the Assads hold a special place in the schemes and dreams of U.S. policymakers." But, but. They're bloodthirsty bastards, aren't they? How could Washington possibly like them? [here]
Lee Smith asks "Why Is Obama Protecting Assad?" [here]. He quotes Michael Doran who writes that Obama was counting on Assad's Syria to be part of a general, comprehensive "peace" agreement between Israel and the Arab states. Doran writes: “the Obama administration has made the Arab-Israeli peace process the organizing principle of its Middle East policy.” Getting rid of Assad would somehow thwart that purpose. Doran implies that Assad staying in power in Syria is essential to this "peace" strategy. Doran doesn't explain why a Syrian govt without the Assad clan could not also make "peace" or even peace with Israel. Or be just as likely or just as unlikely to do so.
Lee Smith concludes: "the Obama White House’s Syria policy is not pragmatic and cautious. Rather, it is adventurist and ideological. The administration is sheltering Damascus in order to salvage its own bankrupt Middle East policy. If he loses Assad, Obama is lost in the region and the administration will be forced, obviously against its will, to recalibrate. The question is, how much will U.S. interests suffer in the meantime?" [here]. What Lee Smith and Doran say fits in with what Aaron David Miller wrote: "the Assads hold a special place in the schemes and dreams of U.S. policymakers."
Syrian oppositionist Farid Ghadry asks where the West is in Syria's time of travail. He especially wants to know why Erdogan of Turkey wants to send a "freedom flotilla" to Hamas-ruled Gaza but is not interested in sending a similar "freedom flotilla" to the Syrian people [here].
Elliott Abrams on Obama's Syria policy [here]
Julian Borger on British Syria policy since Junior Basher rose to power in 2000 [here]
St Andrews University in Britain said to be embarassed over Syrian funding for a "Syrian Studies" center [here]. A pimp of the pen like Patrick Seale, a toady for the Syrian regime, is an advisor to the center.
Washington Times editorial scolding Obama's policy ["The Nobama Doctrine"] & calling for intervention to save the Syrian people [here]
Lee Smith has more on why Obama & Company are soft on the Assads [here]: ". . . in place of a rational intellect and a moral center, all the White House has is an imaginary peace process, a pipe dream that requires the “reform-minded” Bashar al-Assad to come to his senses and engage with Washington."
4-30-2011 James Traub gives reasons why he thinks that Western powers were so fond of Syria and Bashar the Basher [here]
Elliott Abrams complains about the soft Obama adminstration response to Syrian govt physical abuse of an American diplomat [here]
Jonathan Spyer takes on the Israeli fools [Uri Sagi, Alon Liel, etc] who want a "deal" with Assad's Syria and need the West to prop him up until that will o'the wisp eventuality [here]
Barry Rubin points out that Assad's Syria has never been a real partner for peace for Israel despite what the Obama and previous US administrations have "believed" or pretended to believe. This should have been known and understood in the West as far back as the 1960s. [I believe that it probably was understood in the West]. He goes on to point out the danger of surrendering Israel's natural defense of the Golan Heights to Syria. How can we know in advance that the Assad gang or any succeeding regime in Syria will keep a peace treaty with Israel if it controls the strategic advantage of the Golan Heights? [here]
Barry Rubin points out that everybody --every Western govt, in particular-- should have [& could have] known just how bad the Syrian regime was many years ago. But up till the recent revolt, the Western govts were playing dumb about Junior Assad, Bashar the Basher [here].
Another piece by Barry Rubin, if combined with his two articles linked to above on Syria, supports my argument that Obama and his gang want Israel to be surrounded by hostile powers. Barry might not agree explicitly with my sound inferences from his analyses.
5-7-2011 Barry Rubin despairs over any decent response to the Syria crisis emerging from Washington's Foggy Bottom [and Foggy Top][here]

Academic Slug Fawns over Junior Assad -- Maybe Because Hitler Isn't around anymore

UPDATING 4-3&5&12&21&24-2011 See at bottom

If you want to measure the slimy creepiness of much of American academia, take a look at David Lesch of Trinity University in Texas. He entitled a fawning biography of Bashar al-Assad, The New Lion of Damascus [Yale U Press 2005]. Wouldn't it be nice to have someone describe you as a lion. I would be flattered. Now if I could only convince my wife. Anyhow, Lesch, who teaches Middle East history, apparently knows enough Arabic to know that the word assad means lion. Isn't that cute? His name means lion so we can be cute and call the swine a lion.

Lesch published a semi-moronic op ed in the NYTimes today in which he strains to tell us that Assad isn't really like that real bad guy, Qaddafi. Actually, Assad is likely much worse which we may see in coming days. But Lesch is full of regret that Assad didn't do what Middle East expert David Lesch thought that he ought to do. Who says there's no humor in the academic world? Lesch does a great parody. Here he describes Junior Assad:

. . . he had begun to equate his well-being with that of his country, and the sycophants around him reinforced the notion.

See, what Junior did wrong was really the fault of the sycophants around him. Lesch is très adroit at identifying sycophants. I guess it takes one to know one. Let's let Lesch let loose his toadying nature:

I believed he had good intentions, if awkwardly expressed at times.

See, Junior Bashar [or Basher?] had "good intentions." Who would doubt it? At least our expert from Trinity U "believed" it. Maybe Hitler probably had "good intentions" too, or at least the David Lesches of that time would have believed it.
This is what passes for political understanding in American academia, in Washington and at the NYTimes.

Martin Kramer wrote that Lesch was "fawning" toward Assad in his book. That's the word for it. A commenter on Kramer's facebook page [where I found the links תודה רבה] went further with that.

Fawning . . . couldn't be more accurate. Lesch states in his preface "I find the story of [Asad's] rise to power as president of Syria a compelling one". Being the son of a dictator does not make for a compelling story about a "rise" to "presidency" no matter how you characterize it. It's nepotism and despotism through and through. One day people will question how these "liberal" writers came to fall in love with dictators. [Ryan Kashfian - kudos to you from Eliyahu]

So we have reached a state where commenters on facebook have more insight and common sense than profs of Middle Eastern history and NYT op ed authors. Bear in mind that when Muslim Brotherhood enemies of Assad Junior's father, Hafiz, were using the city of Hama as a center for terrorism against the Syrian state and against members of Assad's own Alawi sect [1982], Senior Assad had his artillery pound the city for several days. The usual estimates of dead in Hama run from 10,000 to 30,000, with most estimates around 20,000. Yet Lesch fawned over the son as if he were different. More recently, in early 2005, Junior had Rafiq Hariri, the former prime minister of Lebanon, assassinated by a massive truck bomb in Beirut. Yet Hariri had been an obedient pawn of Senior and Junior Assad for years. When Hariri showed signs of disobedience, he was eliminated. Most Lebanese and most knowledgeable outside observers blamed Junior for the murder. But Lesch doesn't so much as mention Hariri in the NYT op ed, let alone how he departed this Vale of Tears. Since Lesch's biog of Junior was published in 2005, the same year as the assassination, I wonder if it was maybe mentioned in the book. On the other hand, Lesch does mention Lebanon in the op ed but in such a way as to make Junior Assad seem like an anti-imperialist while acting as an imperialist himself:

Contrary to American interests, he [Assad] firmly believes Lebanon should be within Syria’s sphere of influence.

Can you contain your admiration for Junior's defiance of America and his overflowing Syrian patriotism? So much for Junior Assad whom we will be hearing a lot more about in coming days I trust. Now, let's think about his chic and elegant wife, Asma. She used to be a banker at J P Morgan, Lesch tells us. And, he unfortunately fails to mention, Asma was the recent subject of a flattering photo feature in the ultra-fashionable Vogue [search for it on google. I didn't save the link]. With an ophthalmologist husband and her own pre-marriage career as a banker, Asma is about as good a safe, decent, trustworthy, civilized bourgeoise matron as you could want.
- - - - - - - -
Jeff Jacoby about Junior Assad & his admirer, Barack Obama.
British & American academic pimps working for Mu`ammar Qaddafi [here]. A useful listing of Harvard and LSE denizens working to polish the image of the author of The Green Book Qaddafi's attempt to imitate Mao Tse Tung.
4-9-2011 William Harris describes the situation in Syria [here]. But the Syrian problem is not only in Syria. Harris tells us, that ". . . Western governments . . . have always had a soft spot for the Syrian dictatorship . . . identifying Bashar as a 'reformer.'"

Lesch's testimony before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee [2007]. Here are some gems:
"Bashar has a progressive and modernizing outlook" --
"I have seen him grown into the position with more confidence and more of a comfort level since I've been meeting with him.
"He has been on the upswing politically, domestically and even regionally, since surviving the intense pressure of the . . . investigation into the Hariri assassination, in part by default, because of mounting U.S. problems in the region and also partly due to his own maneuvering. I think the makeup of the February 2006 cabinet reshuffling in Damascus was a clear reflection of this upswing."
Lesch told the Senate Committee that his hero was on "the upswing."
More gems from David Louche [Lesch?].

Now, about Lesch himself. Could he be related somehow to Ann Mosely Lesch, also a sort of Middle East expert who worked or "served" for some time as an American Friends Service Committee field rep in the Land of Israel in the mid-1970s?
- - - - - - - -
4-11-2011 Ramesh Thakur tries to explain why universities go for corrupting cash from Arab dictators and other unsavory types. He is too soft on the univs. They have been corrupt for decades.
4-12-2011 Harvard profs pimp for Qaddafi [here]. Martin Kramer comments on the same issue. A live interview with a Harvard prof critical of pimping for Libya in Harvard's name.
4-14-2011 Tony Badran's take on the babboonish Syria watchers, like Lesch [here]
4-2-2011 Fiamma Nirenstein rightly complains that Washington pretends that Syria is democratic [qui in Italiano].
5-24-2011 Martin Kramer reports on another thrust of brilliant wit, another priceless bon mot from the silver tongue of David Lesch, Professorus Most Respectibus [hic], doctor honestissimus et decensissimus. Certe, this good, simple and decent man tells of his bonding with Junior Assad --known in these parts as Bashar the Basher-- as a fellow father concerned with his kiddies. Junior told honestissimus that he sang "The Itsy Bitsy Spider" with his bright and beaming children. Martin Kramer, awestruck at all this Damascene decency, as I am too, I confess, commented: "Ah a good man at heart." Dearest darling, bring me another hankie, please.

Lebanese Speak Out against Ahmadinejad & Hizbullah

UPDATING 10-15 & 11-30-2010 at bottom

A group of prominent Lebanese have spoken out against Ahmadinejad, who is now visiting Lebanon as if to signal that he has completed the takeover of the country. Lebanese and people in various Arab states need to realize that Israelophobia was used as a means and/or pretext for building up Hizbullah's power in the state so that it overshadowed all other forces in the country, including the state itself. In many Arab countries Israelophobia and Judeophobia are political tools and pretexts for armed groups and tyrants to control the state and limit the freedom of the population. After Syria, with the help of US secretary of state James Baker, had suppressed the last holdout of Lebanese independence, General Aoun, in 1990, it was agreed at a "peace" conference under pan-Arab auspices [Taif] that all Lebanese militias would be disarmed, except for the Hizbullah. As the AFP article below says, Hizbullah & Syria claimed that the Hizb ought not divest itself of its weapons, "arguing they were needed to defend the country against Israeli aggression." And with those weapons supposedly for use against Israel --and with all other militias disarmed-- Hizbullah helped Syria control the country --occupied by Syria up to 2005.

It also seems that the Hizb helped Syria murder former Lebanese prime minister, Rafiq Hariri, in 2005. This is one lesson among many of how Israelophobia became a political weapon used by Arab tyrants and the power hungry against other Arabs. Unfortunately, former Lebanese PM Fuad Siniora did not comprehend this when in August 2006 he urged the great powers dominating the UN Security Council to pass a war-ending resolution that had little teeth to prevent Hizbullah from rearming and receiving weapons from Syria. The Hizb rearmed to the point where it predominates over the whole Lebanese political/military system, even without direct Syrian intervention except to supply weapons across the Lebanon-Syria border that barely exists now in reality. That disastrous UN SC resolution, 1701, has led to the current pathetic situation of joint Syrian-Iranian-Hizbullah domination of the country and Hizb threats of a renewed civil war if the UN Tribunal to investigate the Hariri murder identifies prime suspects in the murder, naming names. UN SC res. 1701 has also led to A-jad's triumphal visit to Lebanon, whereas he has called southern Lebanon, "Iran's border with Israel." To conclude, let's not forget the shameful role in promoting 1701 of Israel's moronic then foreign minister, Tsipi Livni, still today bleating stupid admonitions at PM Netanyahu, and Israel's crooked prime minister at that time, Ehud Olmert, now on trial and also admonishing Netanyahu, not overlooking Condoleezza Rice then secretary of state under George Bush II and the governments of Britain and France. And let's again cite Fuad Siniora for doing so much to bring Lebanon down to its present state.

Ahmadinejad accused of meddling in Lebanon's affairs

By blade 12/10/2010 - 23:17

AFP - Lebanese politicians and members of civil society issued an open letter to Iran's president on Tuesday, accusing him on the eve of his official visit to Lebanon of meddling in the country's affairs.

The letter was signed by some 250 people, among them former MPs close to the Western-backed parliamentary majority, doctors, teachers and journalists. It lashed out at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over Iran's support of Lebanon's Shiite militant group Hezbollah.

"One group in Lebanon draws its power from you ... and has wielded it over another group and the state," said the letter, a copy of which was obtained by AFP.

"You are repeating what others have done before you by interfering in our internal affairs," the letter added, referring to Tehran's financial and military backing of Hezbollah, considered a proxy of Iran.

Hezbollah, far the most powerful military and political force in Lebanon, has been locked in a standoff with Western- and Saudi-backed Prime Minister Saad Hariri over a probe into the 2005 murder of his father, ex-premier Rafiq Hariri.

Tensions have been mounting between the two sides over unconfirmed reports that a UN-backed tribunal is set to indict Hezbollah members over the murder, a scenario the militant group has openly rejected.

Hezbollah is the only party in Lebanon that refused to surrender its weapons after the end of the 1975-1990 civil war, arguing they were needed to defend the country against Israeli aggression.

The letter, signed by former MPs Fares Souaid, Samir Frangieh and Elias Atallah, criticized Ahmadinejad for declaring support for the Lebanese state while simultaneously providing Hezbollah with financial and military backing.

"Your support of the state is negated by your parallel financial and military support to one party in Lebanon," the letter said, referring to Hezbollah.

"Your talk of 'changing the face of the region starting with Lebanon' ... and 'wiping Israel off the map through the force of the Islamic resistance in Lebanon' ... gives the impression that your visit is that of a high commander to his front line," it added.

The letter also urged Ahmadinejad to convince Hezbollah during a two-day visit starting Wednesday to exist within the confines of the state.

Ahmadinejad is set to meet with his Lebanese counterpart Michel Sleiman as well as Hariri and other politicians during his trip, which will be his first to Lebanon since his election in 2005.

However, the highlight of the visit will be a tour of Lebanon's volatile border with his arch-enemy Israel.

[see AFP article here] [also see our previous blogs on Lebanon here & here]

UPDATING 10-15-2010 Jonathan Tobin on A-jad's tour of his domain[here]
11-30-2010 Carlo Panella describes the horrid situation in Lebanon with the opponents of Hizbullah and its Iranian & Syrian sponsors fearing for their lives and lying through their teeth to protect their skins, knowing that the pro-Syrian Obama cabal in Washington will do nothing to help them [qui]. Sa`ad Hariri, whose own father was murdered by a massive car bomb or truck bomb in 2005 planted by Hizbullah operating on Syria's behalf, now speaks sweet platitudes to Syrian & Iranian leaders. The UN-sponsored Special Tribunal on Lebanon is about to announce indictments of Hizbullah gangsters for the Hariri murder, although it may be dissuaded by the fears of Saad Hariri & other opponents of Syrian-Iranian hegemony in Lebanon who see no way out of their trap at present.

Ahmadinejad's Visit to Lebanon -- Trumpeting War Hysteria against Israel

UPDATING 10-7&8-2010

The "peace" in the "peace process"
refers to peace of mind for antisemites

"Southern Lebanon is Iran's border with Israel," quoth the bloodthirsty Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the loudest of the Iranian warmongers. Like the academic big liar, Edward Said, A-jad is not only coming to Lebanon [on 13 October] but will come to the Israeli border at the Fatima Gate and will throw a stone or stones at Israel. Could his intentions toward Israel be made clearer than through this symbolic gesture?? Of course, stoning Jews is a customary practice in Arab-Muslim lands, usually left, however, to schoolboys and urchins. A-jad well knows that stoning Israeli territory from Lebanon is a symbolic act of war. Carlo Panella has already explained that for most purposes Lebanon is now dominated by Hizbullah, backed by Syria and Iran. Hizbullah head Nasrollah proclaims that he is the delegate in Lebanon of the Guide of the [Islamic] Revolution, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It is this pro-Iranian hegemony in Lebanon that makes possible the A-jad visit.

JEDyer reports that A-jad will be greeted by Iranian flags and other happy news -- for him.

Hezbollah has flown Iranian flags in southern Lebanon for some time. The terrorists operate an Iran-sponsored fiefdom there; UNIFIL has been unable for months to conduct patrols in towns denied to it by Hezbollah, a pattern repeated this past weekend when the UN force sought to investigate a Hezbollah weapons cache in its patrol zone.

Carlo Panella points out that, thanks to the Hizb, southern Lebanon has become a Mediterranean province of Iran, like Gaza thanks to Hamas, another hungry and ill-treated band of misunderstood progressives. He says that Western fantasies of "detaching" Syria from Iran have proven illusory, which does not mean that Europe or the US will give them up. France, Italy & other Western states sent troops to UNIFIL in southern Lebanon ostensibly in order, among other things, to enforce UN Security Council res. 1701, which --also ostensibly-- calls for the disarmament of the Hizbullah militia. But Lebanon's govt and army want to build up the army, rather than disarm the Hizbullah militia, which happens to be the strongest armed force in the country. So if the Euros and the US wanted to disarm the Hizb, they have failed, their resolution 1701 has failed, and they can go back to blaming Israel for all problems in the Middle East, in the larger Muslim world, and worldwide, as Bill Clinton did in so many words the other day.

On Assad's recent visit to Teheran, he was awarded a "medal of honor" for aiding the "resistance" against "the threats of the Zionist regime" [here Khamenei was projecting. He is more liberal with threats than Israel is]. He also asserted:

"The United States has failed in its attempts to break the Iran-Syria axis of resistance in the Middle East." [Il Foglio, 5 October 2010]

“Gli Stati Uniti falliranno nei loro tentativi di rompere l’asse della resistenza in medio oriente tra Iran e Siria”. [Il Foglio, 5 Ottobre 2010]

So Khamenei and his govt spit in Obama's face and Obama's says that it's rain. "We are going to keep on working to have a dialogue with Teheran," Obama says in so many words over and over, whenever the Iranians rebuff him and make him out to be a fool.

In the ever so chummy relationship between the two tyrannies, Iran & Syria, and with the permissive signals from Washington, Assad took advantage of the warm climate to issue arrest warrants for 33 persons for allegedly giving "false" testimony as to the major Syrian role in the assassination of Rafiq Hariri [February 2005]. He also attacked the first chief investigator of the International Tribunal to investigate the Hariri murder, Detlev Mehlis. Assad can get away with those sorts of provocations but Israel cannot.

JEDyer helpfully adds that the international media neglect of southern Lebanon [to be sure, a military zone controlled by Hizbullah aided by the Lebanese army] allows the Hizb to build up its forces quietly without interference, although the A-jad visit to the zone may indicate that the work is basically finished and may herald many more provocations against Israel from the Hizb from now on. Dyer also points out that a British diplomat in UN garb, one "Michael Williams, met with an Iranian envoy last week to discuss the visit by Ahmadinejad and approved it as a 'significant event.' He went on to hail 'Tehran’s balanced approach and inclusive relations with all political and religious parties in' "[Lebanon]. The British do have a flair for warmongering by means of all sorts of ooey-gooey, sticky sweet words.

Lee Smith describes Hizbullah as an Iranian propaganda tool [here]
J E Dyer basically concurs with Panella [here]. See Panella [qui] and our summary of Panella's previous article on Lebanon [here]
UPDATING 10-7-2010 Max Boot supplies some data on Hizbullah weaponry [quoted from the NYTimes]. Boot wonders why the Obambi adminstration is more concerned about Jews building houses where Obama & Co. don't want them to be built than about the threat of war from Hizbullah [here].
UPDATING 10-8-2010 Caroline Glick lists US Govt actions or failures to act that delivered Lebanon into Hizbullah-Syrian-Iranian hands [here]

Bad News from Lebanon -- Thanx to You, Ehud Barak & Barack Obama

UPDATING 10-6-2010

The peace in the "peace process"
means peace of mind for antisemites.

More bad news from Lebanon. Thanx mucho to Ehud Barak, who gave up Israel's security zone in Lebanon in 2000, betraying Israel's Lebanese friends, leaving the ground free for the taking to the Hizbullah, and encouraging yasser arafat to start another terrorism war against us, called the Oslo War or the Second Intifada. Also thanx mucho to Barack Hussein Obama whose shameful pro-Assad diplomacy regarding Syria, amounted to toadying to mass murderers, Judeophobes, thugs, and big liars. The Hizbullah basically completed its takeover of Lebanon early last summer when the elected majority, belonging to the anti-Syrian hegemony March 14 movement, did not get backing from Washington for resisting the Hizbullah's takeover drive.

Now, Carlo Panella reports that the violent verbal attack by Lebanon's president, Michel Suleiman on the pro-Hizbullah UNIFIL [UN interim force in Lebanon] as being pro-Israel & on the international tribunal investigating the Hariri murder indicate that Hizbullah now "exercises full political hegemony over Lebanon's armed forces and institutions," that Lebanon is now aligned with the extremist positions of Teheran & Damascus, and that war with Israel may be imminent. He adds that these developments "confirm the total failure of the opening to Syria by the USA, France & the EU. . . " [qui -- in Il Foglio, 9-30-2010]. Panella concludes that the way is now open for more attacks and provocations against Israel from Lebanese territory. [qui]
Another victory for 21st century cruelty and barbarism thanx to The One, the Apostle of Hope & Change.

- - - - - - - - -
Jennifer Rubin thinks that Obama's Syria policy is "in shambles" [here]. Isn't she being too polite to Obama?? Maybe he has obtained the results that he and his advisors wanted. She points out that Syria has facilitated Hizbullah's rearmament -- which has gone beyond what the Hizb had before the 2006 war-- and that Syria and Iran are "chummier than ever." Maybe Obama has done the job that he was assigned to accomplish. Don't forget that Zbig B is Obama's mentor.
J E Dyer on Ahmadinejad's upcoming visit to Lebanon as an announcement of war against Israel [here].

Lebanese "village" where the Attack Took Place Is a Shooting Platform

UPDATING 10-4-2010

Uri Flam, who has escorted and lectured to groups visiting Israel's northern border at Kibbutz Misgav Am points out that the Lebanese "village" of Adeissa across the valley, across the border from Misgav Am is not a populated village but a military stronghold of the Hizbullah. Here is what Uri Flam observed:

"I have taken dozens of groups to look over at the Lebanese border from kibbutz Misgav Am, which has been the the target of many terror attacks, and most recently of rocket attacks from Lebanon. Across the valley is the Lebanese village of Addaiseh. From a lookout at the edge of the kibbutz it is easy to spot the Hezbollah flags, bunkers and personnel, even a big poster featuring the Iranian Ayatollah alongside Ahmedinejad. It is also clear that the village is not really a village at all, but an elaborate system of bunkers and shooting platforms designed to look like houses. There are no villagers, tractors, or agricultural activities. No fires burning, kids going to school or trucks unloading goods at a local store."[here]
. . . . . .

"The soldiers were clearing trees and bushes that were obscuring the technical fence. While the Israelis crossed the fence, they. . . stayed well south of the Lebanese border (Blue line) inside Israel. And prior to the operation, the IDF updated UNIFIL (United Nations) forces and the Lebanese army. This is why the Lebanese knew in advance to invite the media.

"From one of those roof top platforms the Lebanese opened accurate sniper fire on the Israelis, killing 45-year-old Dov Harari, a reservist battalion commander. It was supposed to be his last reserve tour of duty. In the Israeli response three Lebanese soldiers and a reporter were killed.

"As the preparations for the attack took place, the UNIFIL forces stood waving blue UN flags. Pictures show they were literally centimetres away from Lebanese army soldiers carrying RPGs, machine guns and other weapons. They saw and witnessed the attack unfolding within arms length.

"And what did UNFIL do?

"They stood, shouted and waved flags.

A UNIFIL peacekeeper, right, waves as a Lebanese soldier, center, carries an RPG in front of Israeli troops patrolling the border fence in the southern border village of Adaisseh, Lebanon, Tuesday, Aug. 3, 2010. (AP Photo/Lutfallah Daher)

"Addaiseh is a Hezbollah stronghold. Could the press have been invited without Hezbollah's approval? No. The Lebanese battalion involved in this incident is Shiite. Hezbollah is the Shiite arm of the Iranian Shiite regime. Is there a connection?"
- - - - - - -end of Uri Flam's observations- - - - - -

Everyone will reach his own conclusion. Note however that our previous post pointed out that one of the Lebanese killed in the Israeli retaliation was a reporter for a Hizbullah newspaper, al-Akhbar. Also note that one of the Lebanese wounded was a journalist with al-Manar, the Hizbullah TV broadcasting network.

Uri Flam is an Israeli educational tour guide and lecturer on history. His biography is here.

UPDATING 8-8-2010 Melanie Phillips has commented on this situation [here]
--More recent reports from Lebanon assert that only two --not three-- Lebanese soldiers were killed in the skirmish.
8-9-2010 A video on the Hizbullah Potemkin village [here]
Jonathan Tobin [here] & Michael Rosen [here] on what US policy should be toward the Lebanese army, especially stopping US aid to it.
Carlo Panella reports that the violent attack by Lebanon's presidnet, Michel Suleiman on the pro-Hizbullah UNIFIL [UN interim force in Lebanon] as being pro-Israel & on the international tribunal investigating the Hariri murder indicate that Hizbullah now "exercises full political hegemony over Lebanon's armed forces and institutions," that Lebanon is now aligned with the extremist positions of Teheran & Damascus, and that war with Israel may be imminent. He adds that these developments "confirm the total failure of the opening to Syria by the USA, France & the EU. . . " [qui -- in Il Foglio, 9-30-2010]. Panella concludes that the way is now open for more attacks and provocations against Israel from Lebanese territory.

Fighting on Israel's Northern Border, An Apparent Hizbullah Provocation

UPDATING 8-4,5&6-2010

The peace process means peace of mind for antisemites

Snipers working for Hizbullah or for the Lebanese army which is highly infiltrated by Hizbullah and subservient to it, shot at Israeli officers overlooking a rather routine operation of clearing vegetation from the border area. The soldiers doing the brush-clearing work, perhaps also removing a tree, were on the Israeli side of the border. For much of the northern border, the border fence is well within Israeli sovereign territory. The fence was built within Israeli territory precisely to allow such brush-clearing operations without needing to cross the UN-designated blue line border into Lebanon.

The sniper did not shoot at the soldiers doing the work but at Israeli officers overseeing the operation. Hence, the object was to kill "high value" Israeli targets. In fact, an Israeli Lieutenant Colonel was killed, and a captain was wounded. Three Lebanese soldiers or, more likely, Hizbullah gunmen, were killed plus one Lebanese journalist.

The operation had been announced ahead of time to UNIFIL, the UN truce-supervisory force in southern Lebanon, by the Israeli army. In some of the photos, UNIFIL troops are seen close to Israeli troops. Why do I say that Hizbullah was directly involved??

For two reasons:
1) the "Lebanese soldiers" hit in the Israeli retaliation are heavier, and older-looking than the ordinary Lebanese conscripts. Those in the photo look like they are in their mid-thirties, maybe over forty. The man on the ground is clearly balding [is, that is, if he was not already dead in the photo]. The standing man wearing combat pants and an army T-shirt is obviously heavy.


[photo from Il Giornale 8-3-2010; vedere qui]

This can be explained by the fact that the Hizbullah is a fairly good source of income, a livelihood, for some Lebanese Shiites. And a family man wants a livelihood of course. So Hizbullah paramilitary-cum-terrorist service becomes a career. Lee Smith, author of The Strong Horse, has also pointed out that Hizbullah gunmen are older and noticeably heavier than the Lebanese army draftees. Given the cooperation between the Hizb and the Lebanese army, getting army uniforms for Hizb gunmen would be no problem.

2) The next reason to believe that the ambush was a Hizbullah operation, not merely a Lebanese army action --bearing in mind that the two bodies can and do often collaborate-- is that a pro-Hizbullah journalist was killed in the incident by Israeli retaliation. Corriere della Sera gives not only the name of his paper, al-Akhbar, but identifies it as being close to the positions of the Hizbullah. Corriere also gives the journalist's name, Assaf Abu Rahhal [qui]. The editor of al-Akhbar, Ibrahim al-Amin, is generally considered a Hizbullah mouthpiece by people who have experience in Lebanon.

IL REPORTER - Tra le vittime, c'è anche il giornalista libanese Assaf Abu Rahhal, del quotidiano al Akhbar, vicino alle posizioni del movimento sciita libanese Hezbollah. Il reporter era stato ricoverato nel vicino ospedale di Marjuyun, ma è deceduto in seguito alle ferite riportate dopo - sembra - essere stato colpito da schegge di un proiettile di mortaio. [qui]

Why was the journalist there at that time and place?

It seems that Israeli retaliation came fairly quickly, thus it seems likely that the journalist was killed in an Israeli retaliation not long after the initial attack. Hence, it seems that the journalist was there, was assigned there, sent there, knowing that "action" was coming.


Additional links:

Dead, wounded in massive skirmish on Lebanon border

and here & here & 39-page report on Lebanon/Hizbullah military situation here [by The Israel Project] & Israel Foreign Ministry statement here.

UPDATING 8-4-2010 Lebanese army admits shooting first in yesterday's skirmish

L'armée libanaise reconnait avoir ouvert le feu la première hier à la frontière nord
Un porte-parole de l'armée libanaise a confirmé ce matin l'affirmation israélienne selon laquelle, elle était la première a avoir ouvert le feu sur les soldats de Tsahal. Dans un communiqué transmis hier à l'agence de presse française et repris ce matin par le quotidien libanais ''Anahar'', celui-ci indique que ''l'armée libanaise a bien ouvert le feu en premier sur les soldats israéliens'' soulignant ''son droit absolu d'agir ainsi'' devant, selon le communiqué, ''la violation israélienne de la souveraineté du Liban''.
[source: Guysen News]
Nasrallah accuses Israel of killing Hariri: [here & here & here]. Nasrallah's own Hizbullah has been targeted by many accusations, including leaks from the International Tribunal set up to investigate the Hariri murder in 2005, that Hizbullah executed the murder. At the time, Syria was widely accused of the murder. There is no necessary contradiction here. It is quite likely that Syria used Hizbullah, which is subordinate to Syria anyway, to get rid of Hariri whose desire to act independently most likely annoyed Junior Assad, now ruling in Damascus. Hariri was a billionaire building contractor who presided as Lebanon's prime minister under Syrian sponsorship. In late 2004 or early 2005, he met Junior Assad in Damascus and apparently conveyed some intentions displeasing to Junior.
Reports from The Guardian, Ynet, & Haaretz reporting that the tree was in Israeli territory. And UNIFIL admits it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/04/lebanon-israel-tree-border-clash

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/lebanon-we-fired-first-at-idf-unit-near-israel-border-1.305929

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3929835,00.html

Hizbullah accuses Israel of hitting journalists in order to "hide its crimes." This is rather rich. Hizbullah has terrorized the majority of Lebanon's population, including journalists, publishers, and broadcasters. The Hizb's patron Syria has had several Lebanese journalists attacked with the purpose of murder. Gebran Ghassan Tueini [Tweyni], Samir Kassir [Qassir], and May Shedyak were all attacked. Ms Sheadyak was the only one of the three to survive, albeit losing a leg. There may have been more journalist victims in Lebanon, although I can't think of more names. The killing of a Hizbullah journalist in the fighting yesterday --provoked by the Hizb-- is called a Zionist crime "against freedom of expression." Knowing the Hizb's background, that's rich. In psychology that is called projection. That is, the Hizb accuses the other side of its own crimes.

22:36

Hezbollah : Israël a touché des journalistes pour ''cacher ses crimes'' (Guysen.International.News) Le Hezbollah a dénoncé ''l'atteinte aux journalistes'' par Israël ce mardi lors de l'accrochage avec les forces libanaises. ''Cet évènement s'inscrit dans le cadre des crimes sionistes contre la liberté d'expression. L'objectif est de faire taire les voix qui viennent révéler au public les crimes sionistes à l'opinion publique mondiale et la face de l'ennemi criminel et raciste'', a ajouté la milice chiite libanaise.

Yosef Bodansky's rather detailed report [here]
Fiamma Nirenstein's view [qui]
Here is a BBC eulogy to Tueini:
Gebran Ghassan Tuéni Martyr to the Cause of Freedom and Liberty
In the months prior to his assassination, he was pushing publicly and loudly for international scrutiny into mass graves found near the Syrian headquarters in the Bekaa during their occupation. In his last editorial just four days before his death, Tuéni accused Syria of committing 'crimes against Lebanon. [see original]
Comment by Eliyahu: So much for Hizbullah's claim that Israel is the enemy of freedom of the press in Lebanon.
8-6-2010 Hizbullah's "al-Manar television quoted an unnamed Lebanese army source involved in Wednesday night’s meeting between UNIFIL and the Israel and Lebanese armies as saying that the order to open fire in Tuesday’s border skirmish had 'come directly from the [army] command.'"[here]
8-9-2010 J E Dyer on the threat of a reckless Hizbullized (to coin a word) Lebanese army [here]

Ignoramus Western Journalists and Commentators View Hizbullah Romantically as the "Real" Lebanon

Western observers both living inside and outside of Lebanon often delight in seeing Hizbullah as the real, the authentic, the truly Third Worldish Lebanon, a land of austerity, hatred of the West, incorruptible hatred of Israel and Jews, swift and sure punishment of religious backsliders, enemies of bourgeois Western civilization, etc. This Authentic Lebanon is contrasted with the Lebanon of bourgeois prosperity & luxury, adoption of features of Western culture, insufficient hatred of Israel, free market economy, and the like. Michael Young perceptively complains about the wilful blindness about Lebanon so often compulsively demonstrated and deployed by Western observers, journalists, commentators, diplomats, policy analysts, politicians, etc.

Hizbullah also benefits from the underlying contempt among many Westerners for the baroque Lebanese system itself, all nods and winks and clandestine compromises. Here is a party that can build institutions, that means what it says and says what it means, and that in many respects defines itself against the duplicity of the traditional politicians. More interestingly, it speaks for a once marginalized community, so that it presents several ingredients to spur Western sympathy and appreciation: a social cause, methodicalness in the pursuit of its objectives, an institutional structure transcending the narrow retail politics of most Lebanese leaders, rhetorical precision, and purported honesty.

And then there is authenticity. Hizbullah is widely seen as representing a truer Lebanon than the Lebanon of confused identities lying outside the party's realm. Remember how the media in 2005 translated the emancipation movement against Syria. For three weeks after the assassination of Rafik Hariri, the story was that of a liberal Lebanon revolting against an illiberal Syria and its Lebanese peons, a rare occasion during the post-Civil War period when that narrative dominated. However, its fragility was highlighted on March 8, when Hizbullah organized its mass demonstration at Riad al-Solh square. Suddenly, interpretations shifted. The "real Lebanon" had spoken, observers said, and it had spoken with verve, so that the anti-Syrian demonstrators of the weeks before, with their Occidental pretensions and designer clothes, were now dismissed as creations of the Western media. Then March 14 came, confusing the observers further and resurrecting the liberal plot line, if not for very long.

The irony is that the very attributes that make many Westerners so belittle the
Lebanese political and social order in Hizbullah's favor are actually present in Hizbullah in more concentrated ways. The Lebanese system is archaic, undemocratic and sectarian? Well then what do you call a Shiite Leninist organization, led by a leader who will probably remain in office for life, that calls itself the Party of God? And what reaction do one's Western liberal instincts provoke when that centralized religious party glorifies violent self-sacrifice and makes permanent armed struggle a centerpiece of its ideological mindset, mainly on behalf of an autocratic clerical regime in Iran, its Lebanese authenticity notwithstanding? As for corruption, those who see Hizbullah as spotless should learn a trifle more about the party's illicit networks, or those of individuals close to the party. In that regard, we can say that Hizbullah is as Lebanese as anyone else.
[Beirut Daily Star, 4-16 -2009].

Of course, the notion of Hizbullah as being opposed to Western policy is false and always has been. The Hizb was set up by the Khomeini regime in Iran which was helped to take power precisely by the US Carter Administration of cursed memory זכרונו לקללה . It must be said that "leftist" politicians in the West are usually the readiest to praise and sympathize with the Hizb. But essentially, "leftists" like Massimo d'Alema do not necessarily oppose the mainstream policy of the UK, US, & EU regarding Lebanon --or that regarding Iran for that matter [on d'Alema (former Communist foreign minister of Italy under Prodi), vedere qui & qui] .

Consider that if reports on Lebanon are falsified, whether out of prejudice which cannot or does not want to understand or perceive the reality of the country, or out of conscious lying in order to suit a newspaper's or magazine's or TV network's or government's political prejudices, then reports about Israel can be falsified for the same reasons. And even more so --a fortiori-- on account of traditional Western Judeophobia.

Just by the way, all this loving misunderstanding of Hizbullah is adding up to Western recognition of the Hizb's rightful rule over Lebanon. Who would have thought?

Lebanon: The West is ready to deal and negotiate with Hizbullah, in case it wins the parliamentary elections in June, according to the Hizbullah number 2, Shaykh Na`im Kassem. Hassan Nasrallah's right hand man stated that "the Western countries are falling all over each other to talk to us and will do it more so in the future." He insisted that his party did not fear being boycotted by the international community as was the case with Hamas in 2006.[GuysenNews 4-16-2009]

Liban : l'Occident est prêt à traiter avec le Hezbollah, en cas de victoire aux législatives de juin, selon son n°2, le cheikh Naïm Kassem. Le bras droit de Hassan Nasrallah a déclaré que ''les pays occidentaux se bousculent pour nous parler et le feront davantage à l'avenir''. Il a insisté sur le fait que son parti ne craignait pas d'être
boycotté par la communauté internationale comme ce fut le cas avec le Hamas en 2006. [GuysenNews 4-16-2009]

Now isn't this just heartwarming news? The Western powers are going to be oh so liberal, kind, democratic, generous and peace-loving as to work with the Hizbullah IslamoNazis!! It seems that they have come a long way since their 1938 negotiations with Hitler that brought about World War 2 only because Hitler had misunderstood his peace accord with that nice Mr Chamberlain!!

Jim Baker Makes Things Worse in the Middle East -- He's an Old Hand at Creating Chaos & Befriending Oppression

Condi Rice, US secretary of state, is a follower of the Bakerite religion which came back into vogue in Washington in 2006. She recently testified to a congressional committee that many problems in the Middle East were because of Israel's presence in the region, although she was not specific. This is the position of many in Washington and has long been a theme heard there, especially from oil industry defenders, pro-Arab lobbyists, and some of those who call themselves "realists," not to mention most of what is called the "Left." By blaming Israel, they exemplify what in psychology is called projection. That means projecting on someone else what you yourself are doing or want to do. So they blame Israel for causing problems.

Baker himself is an old hand at Middle Eastern troublemaking. Many of the corpses littering the Middle Eastern landscape can be attributed --in part at least-- to Baker's policies. To this day, Baker's "realism" or cynical hatred for people causes problems. Some of his earlier doings as secretary of state have caused enduring trouble. Let's take Lebanon as a case in point. Lebanon has been bedevilled for years by Syrian hegemony, up to 2005, and since then by Syrian efforts to return and retake control of the Land of the Cedars. Here is Michel Gurfinkiel on Baker's illustrious accomplishments in and for Lebanon:

. . . in August 1990, Saddam Hussein's Iraq invaded and annexed Kuwait. The Americans knew several months before that such an operation was being prepared, but did not react as vigorously as one might have expected. For Baker, there was a dilemma between interest and interest. Kuwait, like the other Gulf monarchies, was situated at the heart of the American-Arab petroleum partnership. But Iraq too was a first rank oil producer and seemed to form moreover, in the 1980s, a rampart of those same monarchies against Khomeiniist Iran [bear in mind here that Baker's forerunner as a "realist" US foreign minster, Zbig Brzezinski, had helped Khomeini take over Iran]. What is more, Baker had "advised" --in a personal capacity-- both of those countries [Kuwait & Iraq]. In the end, the secretary of state [Baker] adopted the worst possible attitude. On his instructions, the American ambassador April Glaspie let Saddam Hussein understand in July 1990 that "the United States did not have an opinion on the border conflict between Iraq and Kuwait." The Iraqi dictator interpreted this as an implicit approval of his planned invasion.

For several weeks, Baker tried to dissuade George H W Bush from freeing Kuwait by force. The American president only made a final decision in that direction on the recommendations of British prime minister Margaret Thatcher. Then Baker made a strategic and diplomatic "reverse shift." He won over another Baathist dictatorship, Syria, to the anti-Iraqi operation by allowing it to occupy Lebanon in its entirety, including the last Christian bastions. In other words, the United States authorized one Arab country [Syria] to subjugate another [Lebanon] in order to prevent a third [Iraq] from absorbing a fourth [Kuwait]. It might well be, obviously, that Baker wanted to create --through a Syrian protectorate over Lebanon-- a precedent applicable to Kuwait, as long as Saddam Hussein renounced formal annexation [of Kuwait]. Up to 9 January 1991, the American secretary of state was negotiating with the Iraqi minister of foreign affairs, Tariq Aziz, in the hope of finding a compromise [allowing Iraq to keep on occupying Kuwait without formal annexation].
[Michel Gurfinkiel, "Rapport sur Baker" France-Israel Information (Oct-Nov-Dec 2006), p 25]

Here is Gurfinkiel's key phrase above in the original.

En d'autres termes, les Etats-Unis autorisent un pays arabe a` en subjuguer un autre afin d'interdire a` un troisie`me d'en absorber un quatrie`me.

Baker boggles the mind. He is quite a troublemaker all by himself. Can we find anybody to equal his skill at wreck and ruin? The cartoonist Al Capp who drew the Li'l Abner comic strip had a character named Joe Btspflk. Joe always had a cloud over his head wherever he went and wherever he went there was trouble. Joe Btspflk was the artistic representation of James Baker before his time.
- - - - - - - -
Coming: Jews in Jerusalem and Hebron, peace follies, propaganda, more on Jim Baker versus Israel, etc.