THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.

Monday, May 26, 2008


The election of General Michel Suleiman to the Lebanese presidency will likely be further cause for Israel to consider another attempt at attacking Lebanon and Hezbollah. Suleiman’s election strengthens Hezbollah’s hand immensely. He is an ally of Hezbollah – indeed, he is only President because he is acceptable to Hezbollah – and in the deal that was struck to elect Suleiman, Hezbollah has ended up with veto powers over all government decisions. This is likely to be totally unacceptable to Israel who are itching for any excuse to attack Hezbollah.

Israel’s Military Intelligence chief, Major General Amos Yadlin, said after Hezbollah had demonstrated earlier this month it’s fighting capabilities, “Hezbollah proved that it was the strongest power in Lebanon... stronger than the Lebanese Army…” implying that all of Lebanon would now be a legitimate target for any future war against Hezbollah since Hezbollah now all but governs the country.

Factor in the other rhetoric and propaganda emanating from the US and Israel as they try to buy a little time by attempting to wedge Syria about Iran’s support of Hezbollah and Hamas and we have a recipe for imminent disaster yet again in the Middle East.

1 comment:

michael said...

Remember how after 60yrs Palestine is now 21% of what was left after Israel was established ? There were `negotiations` all those years with the deadliest of intent - to take the land, all of it, and now there is only 21% left to take; and no question that there are different sets of plans under lock and key being constantly reviewed and updated.

Any time some agreement was near, an Israeli bus conveniently exploded, killing migrant workers but media inferred as being Israelis, the cry went up, `You can't negotiate with terrorists`, and negotiations were cancelled.

Or for years, moderate Palestinian leaders were the target of a Israeli bullet or bomb, so as to then leave hardliners as the object of media denunciations of, `You can't negotiate with terrorists`, as indeed the intent was to leave alive those Palestinians who refused to make concessions, and then later shoot or bomb them just like the moderates.

To recap, shoot (or bomb) the moderates who naively had thought that if they try and address Israeli concerns they would have nothing to fear from them, and so that anyone then left to talk to is then designated a terrorist for being inflexible in their negotiating position, and then shoot (or bomb) them for allegedly being a terrorist.

That's Israel - and we're not as stupid out here as they would like us to be.

By this means anyone with any leadership potential, whether moderate or hardline, was equally marked for destruction by Israel, but with a time delay for the hardliner.

The same has been happening in Iraq these last 5yrs from Israeli death squads, as is my belief, and now also when Tzipi Livni says that Syria must cut ties to Hamas and Hezbollah and Iran before negotiations can happen, us reading this are not supposed to remember Israel's track record on `negotiations` after calling for them, or other deadly activities these last 60 yrs.

I hadn't forgotten that your piece was about Lebanon, and so i started to remember all of the above in the context of Lebanon 1975-91, 1982, 1996 and 2006. Always Israel in there, directly or not. Israel's reasons for being involved overtly or not in attacking Lebanon are always the same - Eretz Israel (Greater Israel), but the pretexts keep ever changing to keep us confused into somehow blaming the victim, so as not to ever identify with their innocence. And they are that.

Anyone doubting any of this need only think on the meaning of the 6 pointed star and the two blue parallel lines on their flag - between the Nile and the Euphrates is Greater Israel.