archive.stlimc.org : http://archive.stlimc.org
archive.stlimc.org

Re: Who attacked who in Lebanon?

[excerpt]

merav yudilovitch: Do you see the world media partialy responsible for not insisting of linking between what's going on in the Occupied Territories and Lebanon([search])?

noam chomsky: Yes, but that is the least of the charges that should be levelled against the world media, and the intellectual communities generally. One of many far more severe charges is brought up in the opening paragraph of the Berger letter. Recall the facts. On June 25, Cpl. Gilad Shalit was captured at an army post near Gaza([search]), eliciting huge cries of outrage worldwide, continuing daily at a high pitch, and a sharp escalation in Israeli attacks in Gaza. The escalation was supported on the grounds that capture of a soldier is a grave crime for which the population must be punished. One day before, on June 24, Israeli forces kidnapped two Gaza civilians, Osama and Mustafa Muamar, by any standards a far more severe crime than capture of a soldier. The Muamar kidnappings were certainly known to the major world media. They were reported at once in the English-language Israeli press (Jerusalem Post, Ha'aretz English edition, June 25), basically IDF handouts. And there were indeed a few brief, scattered and dismissive reports in several newspapers around the US; the only serious news report in English that day was in the Turkish press. Very revealingly, there was no comment, no follow-up, no call for military or terrorist attacks against Israel([search]). A google search will quickly reveal the relative significance in the West of the kidnapping of civilians by the IDF and the capture of an Israeli soldier a day later.

The paired events, a day apart, demonstrate with bitter clarity that the show of outrage over the Shalit kidnapping was cynical fraud. They reveal that by Western moral standards, kidnapping of civilians is just fine if it is done by "our side," but capture of a soldier on "our side" a day later is a despicable crime that requires severe punishment of the population. As Gideon Levy accurately wrote in Ha'aretz, the IDF kidnapping of civilians the day before the capture of Cpl. Shalit strips away any "legitimate basis for the IDF's operation," and, we may add, any legitimate basis for support for these operations. The same assessment carries over to the July 12 kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers near the Lebanon border, heightened, in this case, by the (null) reaction to the regular Israeli practice for many years of abducting Lebanese and holding many as hostages for long periods, and of course killing many Lebanese. No one ever argued that these crimes justified bombing and shelling of Israel, invasion and destruction of much of the country, or terrorist actions within it. The conclusions are stark, clear, and entirely unambiguous.

All of this is, obviously, of extraordinary importance in the present case, particularly given the dramatic timing. That is, I suppose, why the major media chose to avoid the crucial facts, apart from a very few scattered and dismissive phrases.

Apologists for state crimes claim that the kidnapping of the Gaza civilians is justified by IDF claims that they are "Hamas militants" or were planning crimes. By their logic, they should therefore be lauding the capture of Gilad Shalit, a soldier in an army that was (uncontroversially) shelling and bombing Gaza. These performances are truly disgraceful.

[/excerpt]
full interview @ www.counterpunch.org/chomsky08162006.html

the early reports did state that the soldiers were captured after the idf crossed over the border, but then the capitalist (or "corporate", same difference) media drowned out the facts w/ political propaganda in servitude to psych warfare designed to justify the ethnic cleansing being perpetrated by the USis govts. he who pays the piper calls the tune, they say.

there are some rpts that hez was aware of a planned october front - the now-revealed israeli plans for a slice-and-dice ground assault to capture all lands south of the litani river in their desire to both secure that fresh water source and wipe the hez armed division off the map (or is it 'pages of history'?) - and used this opp to preempt that move, catching the idf off schedule.

there are also rpts that hez used the opp to provoke the idf into a two-front attack, alleviating some of the direct assault on the peeps in gaza.

there are also rpts that hez wanted to use the captured soldiers for a bargaining chip in more prisoner exchanges, an established protocol for getting some civilized response out of the israeli govt who has kidnapped a significant # of civies - something definately outside the dictates of int'l law.

and there are other accounts of hez's agenda which, no doubt, may seem plausible, though we should not overlook the forest while sizing up a tree or two. as chomsky points out, "no one ever argued that" israel's long-standing practice of kidnapping & murdering lebanese civies "justified bombing and shelling of Israel, invasion and destruction of much of the country, or terrorist actions within it."

hez is a resistance org. the idf - despite the volume of brainwash-inducing cries of "self-defense, self-defense, self-defense, wahhhh!!" saturating the mediasphere - is not; they are aggressors, as clearly evidenced by a look at their territorial holdings & expansionist objectives.
 

Account Login

Media Centers

Quote-of-the-Moment

An inglorious peace is better than a dishonorable war.
-- Mark Twain
Source: "Glances at History" (suppressed)
 

This site made manifest by dadaIMC software