Melanie Phillips - Grasp On Reality Continues to Spiral Out of Control

Another classic moment from the Madness of Queen Mel:

Next, there was no ‘massive loss of civilian life’ — quite the contrary. As far as I know, some 1200 people in Lebanon died during the war. Although it is not known how many of them were Hezbollah soldiers since they disguised themselves as civilians, according to the Israelis 500-600 of these fatalities were actually Hezbollah fighters. Only relatively small areas of Beirut were bombed. Given the scale of the bombardment of Israel from Lebanon, with more rockets fired at it in some four weeks than during the Blitz on London during World War Two, the relative restraint and carefully limited nature of the Israeli response (which certainly had many faults) would never have been shown in similar circumstances by any other country. But the British media nevertheless viciously misrepresented the whole thing, inducing a national hysteria and madness — which was what drove Tony Blair from office earlier than he had intended. It was one of the most disgraceful episodes in contemporary British history. Patently false Hezbollah propaganda claims were uncritically regurgitated by the British media as fact, which I commented upon here.

She also quotes an Israeli army captain (entirely impartial of course):

This was perhaps both the most cynical and barbaric disregard for innocent civilian lives of all of Hezballah’s and Iran’s strategic choices. It was also the most successful. It was predicated not on its knowledge of its enemy (Israel) but its true genius lay in its knowledge of the press. The calculus was simple: launch a rocket from within a civilian population; if you kill Jews that’s a victory. If the Jews hit back and in so doing kill Lebanese civilians, that’s a victory. If they don’t hit back because they’re afraid to hit civilians, that’s a victory. Now repeat the process until you kill so many Jews they have to hit back and in so doing kill more Lebanese civilians. That’s the ultimate victory, because they know that in striking just those chords exactly what music the press will play. The awful truth, which the western press was manipulated to ignore or downplay, was that Iran, through its terrorist operational arm Hezballah, had invaded Lebanon from within. Hezballah did not protect Lebanon, they occupied it and they used those Hezballah occupied territories to launch Iran’s offensive in response to the West’s ultimatum to cease development of nuclear weapons.

Of course, this has proved to be an utter fallacy but that will not stop Mad Mel from perpetuating lies to further her own warped, hateful agenda. An independent report by Human Rights Watch has already exposed the truth behind the allegations of fighting from within civilian populations. As my earlier post reported:

Israel was accused yesterday of firing indiscriminately during last year's 34-day war in Lebanon in a report by Human Rights Watch which challenged Israel's claim that the high number of civilian casualties resulted from Hizbullah shielding itself among the Lebanese population.

In a 249-page investigation, the New York-based group said its research showed that even though the militants were also guilty of serious violations of the laws of war, there was no evidence that they systematically fought from among civilians.

Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, dismissed Israel's claim to have killed 600 Hizbullah fighters. He said the best estimate was that there were 250 Hizbullah fighters among the 1,109 Lebanese deaths. About 160 Israeli civilians and soldiers were killed.
See? Bullshit.

Of course, loonies like Mad Mel would claim that Human Rights Watch is full of soft lefties who are hardly impartial. If that is indeed the case, perhaps Mad Mel could shed some light on why she is so keen to utilise HRW reports when they back-up her world-view, yet dismiss them when they challenge her. Look forward to hearing from you Mel (ps a post on Burma might be nice - wouldn't want people to think you support the military junta).

Attack on Syria A 'Dry Run' For Assault on Iran?

That's the question in today's Observer. Despite Israel's refusal to comment on the incursion last week, Peter Beaumont claims that this was a 'major' incursion. According to Beaumont:

Far from being a minor incursion, the Israeli overflight of Syrian airspace through its ally, Turkey, was a far more major affair involving as many as eight aircraft, including Israel's most ultra-modern F-15s and F-16s equipped with Maverick missiles and 500lb bombs. Flying among the Israeli fighters at great height, The Observer can reveal, was an ELINT - an electronic intelligence gathering aircraft.

Beaumont also claims that the action by the Israeli air force was part of an attempt to address neo-conservative foreign policy concerns. Unsurprisingly, certified evil bastard, John Bolton, has been one of the key men pushing the propaganda for this raid. From the same article:

According to an intelligence expert quoted in the Washington Post who spoke to aircrew involved in the raid, the target of the attack, revealed only to the pilots while they were in the air, was a northern Syrian facility that was labelled as an agricultural research centre on the Euphrates river, close to the Turkish border.

According to this version of events, a North Korean ship, officially carrying a cargo of cement, docked three days before the raid in the Syrian port of Tartus. That ship was also alleged to be carrying nuclear equipment.

It is an angle that has been pushed hardest by the neoconservative hawk and former US ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton. But others have entered the fray, among them the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, who, without mentioning Syria by name, suggested to Fox television that the raid was linked to stopping unconventional weapons proliferation.

As time goes on, this story is becoming more and more interesting. It would appear that this was part of a concerted strategy between the White House and Tel Aviv to flex a few muscles and send a warning to Syria (in terms of its activities in Lebanon) as well as Iran. It seems fairly obvious that at some point in the not too distant future, the Israeli airforce will conduct some military operation in Iran. After all, Cheney is already trying to drum up support for military intervention, any claims that this issue will be dealt through official channels (UN/IAEA) is nothing more than fantasy. Military action is clearly the preferred option for the US and her key franchise state in the region. The question is, how do we stop this folly.

What Exactly Were Israeli Fighters Doing in Syria?

The plot thickens. From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 11 — After days of silence from the Israeli government, American officials confirmed Tuesday that Israeli warplanes launched airstrikes inside Syria last week, the first such attack since 2003.

A Defense Department official said Israeli jets had struck at least one target in northeastern Syria last Thursday, but the official said it was still unclear exactly what the jets hit and the extent of the bombing damage.

Syria has lodged a protest at the United Nations in response to the airstrike, accusing Israel of “flagrant violation” of its airspace. But Israel’s government has repeatedly declined to comment on the matter.

Officials in Washington said that the most likely targets of the raid were weapons caches that Israel’s government believes Iran has been sending the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah through Syria. Iran and Syria are Hezbollah’s primary benefactors, and American intelligence officials say a steady flow of munitions from Iran runs through Syria and into Lebanon.

One Bush administration official said Israel had recently carried out reconnaissance flights over Syria, taking pictures of possible nuclear installations that Israeli officials believed might have been supplied with material from North Korea. The administration official said Israeli officials believed that North Korea might be unloading some of its nuclear material on Syria.

“The Israelis think North Korea is selling to Iran and Syria what little they have left,” the official said. He said it was unclear whether the Israeli strike had produced any evidence that might validate that belief.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were discussing a military action by another government.

So they were involved in a military operation after all. And apparently it is all linked to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Clearly, once more, the Israeli government is bending to the will of the US government. Until Israel gives up its aggressive actions against its neighbours, it will continue to be the centre of the region's grievances.

Hezbollah Fighters Did Not Systematically Embed Themselves With Civilians in Lebanon

A little while back, certain commentators were jumping all over a report released by Human Rights Watch (HRW) regarding the war in Lebanon last summer. According to reports:

"Human Rights Watch's report said it found numerous rockets fired by Hezbollah in which there was no apparent legitimate military target, indicating civilians were deliberately attacked.

The report also said Hezbollah's justifications that the rocket attacks were a response to Israeli fire into southern Lebanon and aimed at drawing Israel into a ground war had no legal basis under the rules of war.

"Hezbollah's explanations for why it fired rockets at Israel's civilian population utterly fail to justify these unlawful attacks," said Sarah Leah Whitson, director of Human Rights Watch's Middle East and North Africa division. "Hezbollah, like Israel, must respect the laws of war."

This was given as evidence, by the usual suspects (ie USS Neverdock), that Hezbollah was the only guilty party in the conduct of the war. Amongst the many other accusations of bloggers such as these, were claims that the reporting of civilian casualties in Lebanon was grossly exaggerated. Marc at USS Neverdock has gone so far as to call these claims 'lies'. Now a new report by HRW has exposed these counter-claims as lies themselves. According to The Guardian:

Israel was accused yesterday of firing indiscriminately during last year's 34-day war in Lebanon in a report by Human Rights Watch which challenged Israel's claim that the high number of civilian casualties resulted from Hizbullah shielding itself among the Lebanese population.

In a 249-page investigation, the New York-based group said its research showed that even though the militants were also guilty of serious violations of the laws of war, there was no evidence that they systematically fought from among civilians.

Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, dismissed Israel's claim to have killed 600 Hizbullah fighters. He said the best estimate was that there were 250 Hizbullah fighters among the 1,109 Lebanese deaths. About 160 Israeli civilians and soldiers were killed.

So, the levels of civilian deaths would appear to be accurate after all. Not only that, it would appear that the oft-repeated claims of elements of the mainstream media (that embedding themselves within the civilian population was part of a systematic policy) was entirely fabricated in order to support Israeli bombing raids. This report was itself buried on page 8 of the international edition of The Guardian (I would be interested to know where it was placed in the domestic edition).

Of course, we shouldn't expect this report to make an appearance on right-wing blogs, unless they attempt to discredit it. This is the problem with many right-wing commentators when they use human rights organisations' reports to support their arguments. They spend too often discrediting them, it seems hard to believe that they would then take the report as gospel just because it 'supports' their tenuous arguments. There will, no doubt, be further attacks on HRW on blogs like USS Neverdock which rather undermines their arguments when they use them as evidence. Who decides when a report by a human rights organisation is worthy or not? You either support their findings in their entirety, or you do not. You cannot pick and choose which ones are valid based on political prejudice. Those that do, can never be taken seriously as a political commentator. But then I guess these bloggers have no intention of being treated as serious commentators, they are merely interested in spreading one-sided propaganda.

Iran's Strength Has Grown - I Wonder Why?

Following on from the news that the US administration is aiming to increase military aid in the Middle East, Condoleeza Rice has been in the region meeting America's allies. The whole thing is entirely laughable, were it not for the fact that some in the administration are after another war. According to the BBC:

The US will help its allies in the Middle East meet their security needs and counter the growing power of Iran, the US secretary of state has said.

Condoleezza Rice met key Arab allies a day after announcing arms deals worth $63bn (£31bn) for a host of Middle Eastern states.

There are two questions one must ask in response to this. Firstly, why has Iran grown in power in recent years? The answer is found in recent US foreign policy. Iran has grown in power because the US has eliminated its main adversary in the region. The removal of Saddam coupled with the ongoing chaos, has meant that Iran no longer needs to worry about a hostile entity on its border. With its main rival out of the picture, Iran has been able to grow in confidence and flex its muscle across the region. Which leads me neatly on to the second reason for Iran's strength. Israel's assault on Lebanon last year left only one real winner. Iran. As we know, Hezbollah has ties with the Iranian regime and its victory last summer has shown many across the Middle East that Iran is a key player in the region. The defeat also did much to undermine whatever strength the US had in the region (given that Israel was acting as America's proxy). Little wonder Iran's confidence is soaring. Almost makes you wonder if the current administration had planned for this particular outcome in preparation of a new wave of tub-thumping. But then I wouldn't want to put forward any world conspiracy theories. Still, it makes you wonder.......

The other question one must ask is why is the US funding Sunni regimes? It was Sunni Muslims behind the attacks on the US on September 11th, 2001. I don't recall Shia Muslims being implicated in any way. So the question remains, why is the US funding increased militarisation of nations who have far closer ties to those attacks than Iran? Isn't it the Sunni Muslim countries that we should be worried about?? Guess not if you want to foment a new war in the region and shift the balance of power in your favour.

Israel/Lebanon: War crimes without accountability

A year on from the start of the 34-day war between Hizbullah and Israel, Amnesty International today condemned the complete absence of any steps in the two countries affected or internationally to prosecute those responsible for war crimes and other grave violations committed during last summer's conflict.

"Without a full, impartial UN-led inquiry that includes provision for reparations to the victims, there is a real danger of history repeating itself. The total lack of political will to hold to account those responsible for the indiscriminate killing of civilians, more than one thousand of whom lost their lives, is both a gross betrayal of the victims and a recipe for possible further civilian bloodshed with impunity," said Malcolm Smart, Director of Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa programme.

During and after the war Amnesty International investigated violations of international humanitarian law – including war crimes - committed by both Israeli forces and Hizbullah fighters and published its findings in three reports last year. In the face of the patent unwillingness by all concerned parties to investigate the violations, the organization called on the UN to establish a comprehensive, impartial and independent inquiry empowered to investigate the evidence of violations of international law by both Hizbullah and Israel, and to make provision for reparation for the victims. However, the international community has lacked the political will to take the necessary steps to set up such an inquiry.

Partisan politics and selectivity in bodies such as the UN Security Council - the main body with the authority to decide such matters without the agreement of the concerned parties - has effectively left the Lebanese, Israeli and other victims without recourse to justice.

By contrast, the Security Council's decision to establish a tribunal to prosecute those accused of responsibility for the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and other political murders shows that where there is political will the mechanisms for establishing the truth can be created despite the opposition of some of the concerned parties. Amnesty International welcomes the establishment of the tribunal but continues to stress the urgent need for a comprehensive strategy to address past war crimes and human rights abuses in Lebanon, including those committed during the war in July-August last year.

In Israel the investigation carried out into the conduct of Israeli forces into the war was limited to military strategy and made no attempt to investigate violations of international humanitarian law, including war crimes committed by Israeli forces, or to establish a mechanism to bring to account those responsible for such violations. In Lebanon, no official investigation at all has been carried out. An inquiry appointed by the UN Human Rights Council was given a one-sided mandate, focusing only on evidence of violations by Israeli forces.

Israel, Lebanon and all other countries in a position to do so should investigate and prosecute those suspected of war crimes.

Although the conflict ended following a UN-brokered ceasefire agreed on 11 August 2006, its repercussions continue to weigh on the civilian population.

Scores of people have been killed or injured in south Lebanon as a result of cluster bombs, launched by Israeli forces mostly in the last 72 hours of the conflict after the ceasefire had been agreed but before it took effect. The United Nations Mine Action Coordination Centre (UN-MACC) has identified 922 sites over which unexploded but still lethal remnants of cluster bombs and other ordnance are scattered and estimates that the clearing will take a year or more. According to UN-MACC, from the time of the ceasefire up until 20 June 2007, 32 people - 24 civilians and eight de-miners - were killed and 210 people were injured in south Lebanon as a result of unexploded cluster munitions.

"Amnesty International repeats its call on Israel to hand over maps detailing the areas its forces targeted with cluster bombs. These are vital to assist bomb clearance and avoid further casualties," said Malcolm Smart.

The organization also calls on the Israeli government to impose a moratorium on the use of all cluster weapons and to provide maps of the locations of the land-mines its forces laid in south Lebanon in past years.

"The Security Council should declare and enforce an arms embargo on both Israel and Hizbullah until effective mechanisms are in place to ensure that weapons will not be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law," said Malcolm Smart.

Amnesty International continues to urge Hizbullah to provide information about the two Israeli soldiers its fighters captured on 12 July 2006 and allow them immediate access to the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Note to editors

For previous Amnesty International documents on the Israel/Hizbollah conflict, please see:
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/lebanonisrael-documents-eng

You may repost this message onto other sources provided the main text is not altered in any way and both the header crediting Amnesty International and this footer remain intact. Only the list subscription message may be removed.
*****************************************************************
Past and current Amnesty news services can be found at
http://www.amnesty.org/news. Visit http://www.amnesty.org/
for information about Amnesty International and for other AI publications. Contact amnestyis@amnesty.org if you need to get in touch with the International Secretariat of Amnesty International.

Privacy policy: http://web.amnesty.org/pages/aboutai-privacy-eng

Change in the Air???

Encouraging signs have been emanating from the Middle East. Indications suggest that two of the destabilising forces in the region could be on the verge of losing their leaders. It would appear that the pressure is really starting to grow on both Olmert and Ahmadinejad from within their own countries. In Olmert's case it is hard to see how he can continue to hold on to power much longer. Already embroiled in corruption scandals, he has now been accused of incompetence in the Winograd Report. For Ahmadinejad, the forces of the opposition are starting to gain momentum and his disastrous policies look likely to seal his fate.

The Winograd Report, put together by a government appointed committee looking into the second Lebanon war, has been scathing of Olmert's handling of the crisis. The partial report accuses Olmert of "severe failure" in exercising judgment, responsibility and caution during the outset of the war. According to the report, Olmert acted hastily in leading Israel to war without a comprehensive plan. He was also criticised for failing to consult military experts before rushing into war. From Haaretz:

"The prime minister made up his mind hastily, despite the fact that no detailed military plan was submitted to him and without asking for one," the report said. "He made his decision without systematic consultation with others, especially outside the IDF, despite not having experience in external-political and military affairs."

Olmert was also censured for failing to "adapt his plans once it became clear that the assumptions and expectations of Israel's actions were not realistic and were not materializing."

"All of these," the report said, "add up to a serious failure in exercising judgment, responsibility and prudence." [my emphasis]

Despite the strong criticisms levelled at Olmert, he is refusing to stand down. In a live television address, he said:

"It would not be correct to resign and I have no intention of resigning."

Luckily, Olmert has some friends in very high places. In response to the report, Tony Snow claimed that George W Bush:

"works very closely with Prime Minister Olmert, and thinks that he's essential in working toward a two-state solution. The president remains committed to it."

Of course, the war with Lebanon had the full backing of Bush and Blair, who refused to call for a ceasefire as innocent people were killed in the ongoing conflict.

Despite this backing, it seems clear that the pressure is going to mount on Olmert until the inevitable occurs. The families of those who died will clearly need some serious questions answered by Olmert. What with this report, and the ongoing corruption scandals, it looks like time is running out for Ehud Olmert.

As for Ahlmadinejad, it also looks like the end is near for the West's favourite bogey man. According to a report in today's Guardian:

A grand coalition of anti-government forces is planning a second Iranian revolution via the ballot box to deny President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad another term in office and break the grip of what they call the "militia state" on public life and personal freedom.

It would appear that opposition forces are coming together to ensure that his reign collapses sooner rather than later. Centred on the former president, Mohammad Khatami , the opposition intends to capitalise on the President's growing unpopularity to win control of the Majlis in the upcoming general elections. According to opposition spokesmen, the goal is to:

bring down the fundamentalist regime by democratic means, transform Iran into a "normal country", and obviate the need for any military or other US and western intervention.

And that is the key. The change that is necessary can be achieved without intervention from the West. In fact, it is very likely that any moves by the West will lead to a very hostile response by the Iranian people and a subsequent rise in support for Ahmadinejad's hardline policies. Given the West's background in the region, through support of the Shah, the Iranian people are very wary of Western influence and any attempts to influence the country should be resisted at all costs. Despite the eagerness of Bush and Blair to see another bombing campaign in which hundreds of thousands of people will die, the best solution is to allow the natural progression of Iranian politics to bring about a softening in rhetoric. Intervention is not the answer to the problem.

With the growth of opposition movements in Israel and Iran, there is hope that the end of days is coming for two leaders who have done much to damage their countries in the eyes of the world. It is hard to be optimistic in this part of the world, but maybe there is a glimmer of optimism amongst the darkness.

Further information: The main findings of the Winograd partial report on the Second Lebanon War, Inside the struggle for Iran and Reformists prepare to take on Ahmadinejad and his militias.

Mad Mel Continues Her Deceit

Two astonishing comments by Muslim hating Mad Mel on her website yesterday. Firstly:

But in the twisted world of BBC values, it appears, Israel has no right to defend itself. Because when Stourton says the US and UK refused to call for a ceasefire, that’s not quite correct. They actually called upon Hezbollah from the start to stop its aggression. What Stourton — and the UK media and Labour party — found so unacceptable was that Bush and Blair didn’t insist that Israel should stop defending itself. In other words, that they did not insist that Israel surrender. And surrender, what’s more, to an army of Iran which has declared not only its intention to wipe Israel off the map but also to destroy the west and conquer the Arab world too.

Doesn't it require pressure on both parties to achieve a ceasefire? Shouldn't pressure have been put on Hezbollah and Israel? Not in the twisted mind of Mad Mel. She clearly believes that he deaths of over a thousand civilians was not enough. Anything less than a continuation was 'surrender'. Besides which, hasn't the short-sighted attack on Lebanon actually increased the standing of Iran in the region? If, as Mad Mel suggests in her 'article', the goal was to reduce the power of Iran in the region, this action was always going to fail. And that is the fundamental point, she doesn't understand how this plays out in the region as a whole. It was in Israel's best interests to halt the attacks as they were never going to win due to the people of Lebanon rallying round Hezbollah.

As for the Iranian remark about Israel, this is becoming a standard line from Mad Mel and yet the truth is that this has been debunked several times over. Despite being a quite stupid thing to say, and open to mis-interpretation, that remark was never made.

The full quote translated directly to English:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

Word by word translation:

Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

Not quite the same, eh? Once more, Mad Mel proves just how mad she really is.

Attack on Lebanon Pre-Planned

According to Olmert's testimony to the Winograd Commission. From The Guardian:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Israel began planning for war in Lebanon months before last summer's conflict against Hezbollah guerrillas, countering criticism that he was caught off guard and acted too hastily in launching the military operation, Israeli media reported.

Haaretz has more.

The Folly Unfolds......

Thousands of people went out in force on the streets of Beirut to protest against the US backed government in the Lebanon. The protests were called for by the Hezbollah led opposition. As a result of these protests, the pressure is mounting for fresh elections. Elections that are bound to alarm some in the West.

This is not the situation Bush and Blair would want at the moment. The likelihood is that, if elections were called, Hezbollah would be the most likely benefactors. This, in turn, would lead to Iran increasing it's influence in the region. An influence already growing as a result of the invasion of Iraq and the execution of Saddam Hussein. Meanwhile, the influence of the West will further diminish as the balance of power shifts away from Downing Street and the White House. There's just one tiny problem. This is all of our making.

We stood by silently whilst Israel went to war with Lebanon. Our leaders said nothing, hoping that the tactics employed by Israel would weaken the Lebanese opposition. The opposite has turned out to be true. Hezbollah were the undoubted winners of the conflict and they have turned this to their advantage. The attacks by Israel have weakened the Lebanese government to such an extent, it is on the brink of collapse. A bizarre tactic for a country that feels threatened by Iran and Syria. Of course, the Israeli government, as well as the people, are well aware of the damage that has been caused leading to heads rolling. It has also led to Olmert becoming one of the most unpopular leaders in recent history by his people. It is clear who the winner really is.

Of course, you will also read many comments in other blogs and in the media, that it is radical Muslims behind this so-called coup attempt. It is not. The opposition movement also includes many Christians. The BBC has already erased this fact from it's reporting (although I didn't much to get a screen grab before they did - you'll have to take my word for it). The balance of power is certainly shifting in the region, but not the way Bush and Blair had hoped. The folly magnifies day by day.

Poll Results

Thanks to everyone who voted in the poll in my sidebar. The results pretty much mirrored my own views on 2006. The Israeli attack on Lebanon (33%) was a highly significant moment. It has a massive impact upon the Middle East, further strengthening Iran's position in the region, as well as further highlighting the moral degradation in the West. It has also served to increase the popularity of Hezbollah as well as expose the incompetence of Olmert and the Israeli government. The events of that terrible attack upon Lebanon will be felt well beyond 2006.