AUSTRALIANS AT WAR

AUSTRALIANS AT WAR
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.

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

A SUBTLE CHANGE IN ISRAELI RHETORIC ON HOW TWO SOLDIERS WERE CAPTURED MAY REVEAL THE TRUTH.

There has been a very subtle change in the rhetoric as the time approaches for the two Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah to be returned to Israel. The capture of the two conscripts was the Israeli stated casus belli for the attack on Lebanon in July 2006. The Israelis claimed that the two were captured after a skirmish between Hezbollah fighters and an Israeli patrol on the Israeli side of the border with Lebanon. However, initial reports even in the Western mainstream media said that the two soldiers were captured just inside the Lebanese border at Aitaa al-Chaab. Israel then insisted that they were captured on the Israeli side of the border and the compliant western media quickly went along with the Israeli version of events ignoring entirely their earlier reports as though it never happened the way they first reported it, and hoping no one would notice.

Now that the time has approached where it is likely that the two will be returned to Israel, there has been some speculation that Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, will give a speech celebrating the release of Hezbollah prisoners from Israel and the bodies of the many Hezbollah fighters taken by the Israelis during the war. It has been further speculated that, in this speech, Nasrallah may give some explanation of how the two were captured. In anticipation of this the Israelis are now slightly adjusting the rhetoric of their version of events. Whereas before they were saying the two were ‘kidnapped’ from inside Israel, the ‘Jerusalem Post’ is now saying that the two were taken on the border.

‘Ha’aretz’, meanwhile, in a report on the upcoming exchange said: “…a prisoner swap which would see the return of two Israel Defense Forces reservists whose abduction by Hezbollah sparked the Second Lebanon War in 2006.” It’s what the report subtly didn’t say that is important here; no mention is made of where they were captured, only that they were ‘abducted’.

The Israelis are still not conceding that the two soldiers were captured inside Lebanon but ‘on the border’ and just plain ‘abducted’ is a step removed from ‘inside Israel’ which they had originally insisted on and used to justify their attack on the Lebanese people.

Whether or not Nasrallah does allude to how the two Israeli soldiers were captured remains to be seen but it certainly looks as though the Israelis are preparing their propaganda and rhetoric in advance of a possible revelation of the truth.

3 comments:

hANOVER fIST said...

Oh, sure...just like they told the absolute truth in regards to the U.S.S. Liberty.

Hold on...let me get three explanations of why the U.S.S. Liberty was attacked, and 34 of its crewmen MURDERED.

1. I know of two possible scenarios for the Liberty. One is that it was an honest mistake as stated. The first question was what the hell that vessel was doing there in the war zone. Everyone is so outraged about Jonathan Pollard, as if Israel is not crawling with American spies, but I digress. The second question is why the USA under LBJ acepted Israel’s explanation of a mistake. Because the of the reptilian extraterrestrial Zionist overlords of the universe? OK. The tapes of the Israeli lead pilot have been released supporting that. As he said, “Sorry about that but what the hell were they doing in a combat zone?”

2. The second scenario is as per John Loftus of the Justice Department. The USS LIberty was on loan to the politically compromised NSA, feeding Israeli military forward positions to the Egyptian government in time of war, basically betraying an ally to an enemy for weasel purposes. The operational staff complement would not have been informed of this/ According to this scenario Israel exceuted a surgical strike on the communication capability of the ship, and thatwould also explain the American government’s response to the attack (embarrassment).

3. In response to your naive challenge to me regarding the USS Liberty, I merely presented the two plausible scenarios that thoroughly make sense of the incident, one mainstream and one (mutually) subrosa, incidentally proving that I know more about it than you do. Which is OK, since your only goal is to try to smear the Jewish State, speaking of intellectual dishonesty.

What these scenarios have in common is:
One; there is nothing ‘false-flag’ about them, other than the false flag of your intellectual incompetence.
Two; they portary Israel as guily of nothing at all.

Well, I looked up Captain Ward Boston. He’s easy to find, with articles in every radical communist and anarchist, neo-Nazi and Islamic Jihad website. Haven’t been into daivdduke.com in some time, thanks for the opportunity.

As you said, WHO BENEFITS? And what is plausible? His brilliant conclusion is that Israel attacked a cute little unarmed US government ship of its major ally and sponsor and partner state, minding its own business in a free-fire combat zone, with the purpose of murdering its crew and sinking it, which they were unsuccessful in doing for an hour or two in spite of using air and sea missiles and bombs. The pilot of the Israel mission has stated - if he wanted to sink the ship it would have been sunk within minutes.


So...seeing a pattern here? Just remember..gentiles have NO laws that they need to respect.

Anonymous said...

1.) Guys, the Jerusalem Post is not the Israeli government. What it reports is not state opinion. Unlike, say, Iranian, Syrian or even Hezbollah’s Al-Manar media.

Benefits of a free press.

2.) They were indeed captured on the Israeli side of the border, just over the fence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zar'it-Shtula_incident#The_incident

The border fence is in sight.

3.) In fact, not even Nasrallah himself claims that they were taken from the Lebanese side of the border:

http://web.archive.org/web/20061230184520
/http://www.upc.org.uk/hasann12jul06.html

4.) In about 2 days, after the swap, Nasrallah is going to release all the details of this unprovoked attack across the international Blue Line. When their account of this kidnapping is released, detailing in all its glory how Hezbollah crossed the Blue Line and snatched the infidel troops … (they usually boast about these things, not cover up like their Western apologists) ... we'll put another conspiracy to bed.

Damian Lataan said...

Anonymous, the right-wing Zionist-supporting ‘Jerusalem Post’ generally reflects the right-wing Zionist government’s position.

Wikipedia, while being a useful starting point for students of all disciplines, is not a primary source of evidence and its credibility has often been questioned. One should never hang ones academic credibility on a Wikipedia source

Contrary to your assertion that Nasrallah has not claimed that the Israelis soldiers were captured inside Lebanon, he says – and this from the article you link to – that the skirmish the two were involved in was inside Lebanon:

“The resistance announced the capture of two Israeli soldiers. As usual, we give details at the right time. Details on when, how, and where will not be discussed now. The Israelis also admitted that two of their soldiers were captured. It seems that in the first confrontation a number of the occupation soldiers were killed. They were three. Talk now is about seven dead because after the operation there was an advance some news media said the Israeli forces advanced into the Lebanese territories. The one who hears the news media would think they reached Beirut without him knowing about it. This is not true. There was no advance except at one point. An Israeli tank advanced from the Al-Rahib position west of Ayta al-Sha'b and it was destroyed and its crewmen were killed or wounded.”

Apart from the debate over where the soldiers were when they were captured, there is also the question of Israel’s unprovoked attack against the Lebanese people. Contrary to Israel’s claim that their attack on the Lebanese people was in response to the capture of their soldiers, it turns out that the attack had been well planned in advance with Israel having stockpiled weapons and having ordered jet fuel ready to launch the attack. Since jet fuel has a relatively short shelf life if it is to used while at its best, the Israelis knew exactly when they were going to launch their attack – and that was well before the two soldiers went missing. Therein lies the real conspiracy.