British angry, Israel fighting for Sunnis

The Observer is reporting that Britain has “broken ranks” with the Bush administration on Lebanon. Although I think “breaking ranks” is an exaggeration, the comments by British foreign minister Kim Howells are worth quoting here.

Britain has dramatically broken ranks with George Bush over the Lebanon crisis, publicly criticising Israel's military tactics and urging the Americans to 'understand' the price being paid by ordinary Lebanese civilians.

The remarks, made in Beirut today by the Foreign Office Minister, Kim Howells, were the first public criticism of the US voiced by Britain. The Observer can also reveal that Tony Blair urged restraint in a private telephone conversation with the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, last week.

Downing street sources told The Observer they had no quarrel with Howell’s comments, who is on his way to Israel after visiting Lebanon.

Speaking to a BBC reporter before traveling on for talks in Israel, where he will also visit missile-hit areas of Haifa and meet his Israeli opposite-number, Howell said: 'The destruction of the infrastructure, the death of so many children and so many people. These have not been surgical strikes. If they are chasing Hizbollah, then go for Hizbollah. You don't go for the entire Lebanese nation.'

He added: 'I very much hope that the Americans understand what's happening to Lebanon.'

Do they understand what the Israelis are doing? Do the Israelis even understand that they're doing?

Here’s one of Peretz’s advisors talking to the Observer:

An adviser to the Israeli Defence Minister Amir Peretz told The Observer: 'We are finally going to fight Hizbollah on the ground. The Israeli people are ready for this and the Sunni Muslim world also expect us to fight Shia fundamentalism and we are going to deliver.'

So now Israel is fighting Shias on behalf of Sunnis? There might be some truth to this, given the tacit official support of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. But since when is Israel Saudi Arabia's regional SWAT team?

What a crazy world.

Victorino, this one is for you.

Comments

[Steve]

Oh, come on, now. I don't think even Victorino would go THAT far...
sw

[Ghassan Karam]

Many in the US , both in the adminstration and many outside it, are already calling the present war in Lebanon as nothing more than a WWIII or even WWIV depending on how one classifies the Cold War. To the best of my knowledge such an assessment does not yet have many followers in Europe and as a result this different way of looking at the facts results in subscribing to different tactics for resolving the crisis. I do not believe that the difference between the views of the US and the UK is deep enough to cause more than a slight rankle between the two allies. It would be difficult though to argue that the European view will be taken seriously by the current US adminstration who actually dismiss the EU view on such matters as being naieve Kantianism.

The current conflict in Lebanon obviously cannot be understood outside the context of the Palestinian/Arab?Israei conflict. Ever since 1948 , the year that Israel was created, over five wars have been foughtbetween Arab states and Israel. So much death, pain and destruction has been inflicted on both sides and so many resources have been devoted to this on going struggle that many hope that it is time to find a final and comprehensive settlement.What is ironic is that after all of these wars and destroyed lives the solution that might emerge will be so similar to the original plan presented by the UN that many on both sides are questioning openly the futuility of this struggle. As a result many on the Arab side and obviously many on the Palestinian side have concluded that a two state solution is preferable to the continued state of war. It also appears that the majority of the Israelis will accept a Palestinian state as long as their security concerns are taken into consideration. Arab state swith a majority of Sunni populations (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and many of the gulf emirates) have either already signed a formal peace agreement with Israel or have expressed an interest in finding a solution to the conflict. Major opposition to such an arrangement has been funded and led by Iranand its clients in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. When looked upon from the above perspective then the issue of having Israel fight the Sunni war against Shi'ites become logical and clear.

It would be difficult to argue against the Sunni camp in this case because the masses are tired and exhausted from this endless crisis whose appetite for both blood and treasure are endless. This camp is willing to engage the Israelis in finding a solution that will resolve this issue once and for all so that the hundreds the people of the affected countries can devote their energies for more hopeful and constructive endeavours. It is the HA and Hamas , led by the Iranian mullahs and proded by the Syrian Ba'ath, that are still insisting that "the Zionist entity" is nothing more than a Western imperialist outpost that must be eliminated from the Middle East. This view is the one that HA was created to promote and up untill know they sure have served the aims of their masters very well. THis is also why logic and rationality dictate that the radical, uncompromising and even discriminatory view of the Iran camp cannot succeed. They will be defeated in Lebanon and they will be defeated in Palestine. What is ironic is that the "Islamic Resistance of Lebanon" , also known as Hezballah, that claims to be defending the Lebanese against aggression will more likely have caused an effective loss of around one quarter of the area of Lebanon, have been directly responsible for the destruction of billions of $ worth of infrastructure, the loss of hundreds of lives and an economic set back of unbelievable proportions. And yet HA wants the Lebanese, the real stake holders in this case, to believe that they were victorious. I ask you what damage , loss , pain and death could an enemy have inflicted that HA and its activities have failed to deliver?

[naja]

Abu Kais, I don't know if you read the article linked by Across the Bay (you've posted it in the blogosphere section, so I guess you have) - "Nasrallah's delusion". It is quite possibly the most lucid analysis of the current situation. The man who wrote it, Fouad Ajami, had once coined the phrase "the narcotic of anti-zionism" so he's already in my good guys book. I think he should get a medal; his article should be published in schoolbooks for generations to come. Check it out, folks. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008681

[Vox]

I think that the UK's position on this crisis is very different from Washington's, but they won't risk damaging their alliance with the US for Lebanon, which is not an important country for them (or for anybody for that matter).

The comment is no more than a good cop bad cop game that is being played to placate the government. I give it the exact weight I give to Asad's expression of solidarity with the Lebanese people bla bla bla...

[Ramzi S]

"The Israeli people are ready for this and the Sunni Muslim world also expect us to fight Shia fundamentalism and we are going to deliver."

What a joke. That has got to be the craziest thing I have heard. It looks like that the politics in the MidEast are so complex only the intelectuals get it and the Politicians in Israel and the Arab world really have no clue. It's not because they are evil its because they are stupid.. now I get it..

[The Perpetual Refugee]

Vox, I have to disagree with you on one point.

Lebanon is important...to me and many others.

[Globular Cluster]

Israel fights the Palestinian terrorists and the Palestinians are Sunnis. So no, Israel does not fight "for the Sunnis". If Hizballah were Sunni the IDF would be fighting Sunnis in Lebanon.

Tragically, 32 Shiites were murdered today in Iraq. I can't believe there aren't worldwide protests against this Muslim-perpetrated mass-murder:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/23/iraq.main/index.html

Terrible....

[Drifter]

At this particular moment, i wouldn't think arab nations (and mind u, not governoments) would really care if it is shiites or sunnis who are fighting back the israelii agression.

Israel says this is a small scale operation, i wonder what a large scale operation would be like!!!!!

[hmmm]

Ghassan's comments are insightful. but also problematic.

If Israel does have a conscious (or sub-concious) alignment with Sunni's in the area, I would expect more direct involvement. That is, wouldn't a sunni peace-keeping buffer in Lebanon be a reasonable method to 'move the rockets back'?

If Israel believes this is a particular terrorist organization and not a regional issue, they would achieve a lot of credibility in the world view for allowing and promoting an Arab peace-keeping force along the border.

[yanni]

Britain has to put aside its anti-Semitic leaning and permit Israel to defend its right to exist. The death toll is NOTHING compared to what Britain extracted on Germany during WWII on civilians. Israel has been more than respectful of “civilian” lives. The Bush administration is handling this problem extremely well.

hamas is sunni...they're also being cruched by israel...on behalf of the shi3a??? israel is doing the job 4 the usa.they want to destroy the whole middle east and the muslim nations by provocations,terrorist attacks,insults,confusion,sectarian divisions...

don't listen to those who fill their mouths with the words sunni and shi3a...their mission is clear and the lebanese have to be careful.don't listen to the israelis or jews who call themselves friends of lebanon and say they are trying to free lebanon from the terrorists.whenever you hear this just take a look at the pics of the dead children on the roads and crushed under the buildings.u will realise someone is playing with you.
defend your country and stay united,all f you,regardless of faith or ethnic group.they're trying to turn lebanon into another iraq.don't let the jews achieve.that's their only goal and the effects of every bomb they drop is well calculated.fight the jews.they are turning your country into rubble.and they won't stop until they destroy u,r push u to destroy yourselves.

"But since when is Israel Saudi Arabia's regional SWAT team?"

Since the Saudi's figured it out . . .

http://www.suntimes.com/cgi-bin/print.cgi?getReferrer=http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn23.html

[Vox P:]

PR, I said that Lebanon is not important for them, not for us.

[hmmm]

Americans don't want the destruction of the middle east. That is both inflammatory and silly.

It is true most Americans support Israel in this specific engagement on their northern border. And it is probably true that most Americans are more disposed to Israel defending itself than not. But that is a *HUGE* difference than claiming that Americans are somehow the enemy of the arab middle east.

Why is everything so polarized over there - why do you assume we 'hate' you when e disagree with you?

It sounds crazy unless the whole aim of this is to create the equivalent of the Iraqi situation in Lebanon. This would be the best way to gradually insinuate it into existence. The Lebanonization of Iraq followed by the Iraqization of Lebanon. Another one for Victorino.

[someone]

Britain is supporting the US whatever they are doing ,and US are supporting "israel" whatever they are doing.

"israel" dont care if an arab country have declared war on it or not.Since this country is not attacking ,so it is declared peaceful,but it is not the case in real.

Lebanon is in war with "israel" ,this doesnt mean something for "israel",because Lebanon is considered peaceful,when it cant attack it.

But when Lebanon attacks it (current situation),"israel" say that they wanted peace with this country,but this country began the attack,and dont deserve peace ,and then it should defend itself and attack back Lebanon,neglecting the previous declaration of war of Lebanon on it,and neglectiong the causes of this declaration of war.

So neglecting that there is a conflict that should be solved,and declaring one-sided peace,and close the subject,is not a solution.

This is the same situation in Gaza,retreating from Gaza,and build a wall,and declaring one-sided peace threaty ,then when attacked by the palestinians ,attack back as legitime defense ,is not a solution either.

[Roger]

The Lebanese really blame Hezbollah
Michael Young - The Spectator (UK) 22 July 2006
www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/23873/the-lebanese-really-blame-hezbollah.thtml

Beirut

The smoke from the countless fires burning in Beirut's southern suburbs have
turned the city's skies battleship grey. It makes mid-July seem almost
autumnal and saps Beirut of what remains of its spirit. Even the busiest
high streets are largely empty now, and most shops close quickly at midday,
not wanting to release their employees too late.

Outside central Beirut, the effect of Israel's attacks is more dramatic.
Many of the country's roads are pocked with craters, the damage to the
infrastructure could take years to repair, 235 are dead so far - most of
them civilians - and buildings burn. On Wednesday morning, Israeli troops
crossed into southern Lebanon to carry out what they call 'pinpoint attacks'.

The Lebanese Prime Minister, Faoud Siniora, has said that 'the gates of hell
have been opened up in Lebanon' - and it's difficult to disagree. But what
has not been so widely reported is that while officials will blame Israel
for the misery and chaos, a substantial number of Lebanese - in some cases,
ironically, the officials themselves - have a more nuanced view.

Of course
the people here are angry and anxious about the possibility of a widening of
the Israeli attacks, but their rage, as they see the country being taken
apart, is often directed against Hezbollah.

The Lebanese people have watched as Hezbollah has built up a heavily armed
state-within-a-state that has now carried the country into a devastating
conflict it cannot win and many are fed up.

Sunni Muslims, Christians and
the Druze have no desire to pay for the martial vanity of the Hezbollah
leader, Hassan Nasrallah. Nor will they take kindly to his transforming the
devastation into a political victory.

Some even welcome Israel's intervention. As one Lebanese politician said to
me in private (but would never dare say in public) Israel must not stop now.
It sounds cynical, he said, but 'for things to get better in Lebanon,
Nasrallah must be weakened further'.

Even some Shiites are beginning to have doubts about Nasrallah.

If interviewed on television they will praise Hezbollah, but when the cameras
are off, there are those who will suddenly become more critical. Many have
had to flee, leaving behind their homes and possessions with no hope of
recovering anything of any worth.

One evening this week I looked out of my apartment window in the Christian
neighbourhood of Ashrafieh and saw an Israeli shell exploding on top of the
grain silo at Beirut port.

The colossal concrete silo got the better of that
exchange, but in the Shia quarters of southern Beirut the bombs have won
outright. Hezbollah's so-called 'security perimeter' - the party's sanctum
sanctorum, where Nasrallah and his officials lived and worked - has been
reduced to a smouldering wasteland. Displaced Shia families have moved into
Beirut proper, taking refuge in schools, public facilities and empty
apartments.

Here in Beirut, Nasrallah is also blamed for the suffering in southern
Lebanon which, under heavy fire from Israeli cannons, has suffered in the
same way as the southern half of the city.

On Tuesday, a family of nine died
after air strikes in Aitaroun; another family was killed in Tyre. It's
difficult for journalists to gain access to the south since the Israelis
have bombed all the roads and bridges, but local television crews on the
ground record an exodus of refugees northwards. Now that Israel has started
targeting transport trucks - in the hope of preventing the movement of
weapons to Hezbollah - it is becoming increasingly difficult for even UN aid
to get through.

It is quite understandable, then, that those who can have fled or are
fleeing the country. Nearly 400 people left on an Italian navy vessel on
Monday night, and a ferry chartered by France took 1,200 Europeans to
Cyprus.

On Tuesday the first Royal Navy warship, HMS Gloucester, took 180
Britons to safety, with a further 4,750 waiting on the dock, hoping to
follow by the end of the week. An American cruise ship is on its way to
Lebanon to collect many of the reportedly 25,000 US citizens here, followed
by planes and ships from countries as far away as Chile. Even the UN has let
its non-essential staff go.

For the rest of us, stuck here in Beirut, the real question is how long the
electricity, the water and the telephone network will last.

Israel has not yet resorted to its usual tactic of hitting the power grid, and the
electricity remains on in most regions outside the south; however, it seems
inevitable that if Hezbollah bombs Tel Aviv, Israel will retaliate with an
attack on the power supply.

Even without a direct hit, if Israel pursues its
blockade shortages will become acute - this could return us to the Israeli
siege of Beirut in 1982, when we lived for three grinding months without
electricity, water, fresh food or telephones.

The difficulties of doing without food and fuel are obvious, but what people
forget is that when the electricity goes, so does the television. All the
main stations have special programmes on the conflict which means extended
news broadcasts with reports from around the country and interviews with
analysts - dismally protracted to fill up a 24-hour schedule. It's
exhausting but the coverage can also be life-saving. It provides an early
warning system for us here, allowing us to gauge where the danger zones are.

If the TV goes, so does Al-Manar, Hezbollah's television station which is
still transmitting from a remote location (though the Israelis have
demolished its headquarters in the southern suburbs).

Al-Manar is all rousing propaganda, stock footage of successful raids on Israeli positions,
of intimidating militiamen marching through the southern suburbs, of poor
Shiites throwing rice on party members celebrating the Israeli withdrawal in
May 2000 - the party's moment of absolute triumph. Interminable interviews
with guests praise 'the brave resistance' - a phrase which even to Shiite
ears sounds increasingly hollow.
===========
Michael Young is opinion editor of the Daily Star newspaper in Lebanon and a
contributing editor to Reason magazine in the United States.
Law and war by Louis Rene Beres - on Israel in Today's THE WASHINGTON TIMES


http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060724-083916-7870r.htm

Law and war
TODAY'S COLUMNIST
By Louis Rene Beres
July 25, 2006

International law is not a suicide pact. When Iran's president calls repeatedly for Israel's annihilation -- "Israel must be wiped off the map" -- he demands nothing less than genocide. In clear violation of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call is quite literally illegal. Not surprisingly, in view of Iran's support of Hezbollah and its unwillingness to abide by its codified obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, it is also a stark affront to the U.N. Charter.
Iran is now finalizing construction of nuclear weapons. Iran openly views nuclear weapons as acceptable implements to create "a world without Zionism." As for any sort of reconciliation with Israel, Iran's president has declared menacingly, "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury; any Islamic leader who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world."

Israel's leaders will soon have to make vitally important decisions on launching defensive first strikes. Faced with an unambiguously genocidal regime in Tehran, these Israeli leaders cannot be expected to sit back and wait for Tehran to fire lethal volleys of atomic weapons. Less than half the size of a county in California, Israel's wiggle room in matters of strategic survival is less than limited.

Although Israel has never threatened Iran with pre-emption, the Islamic republic has somehow managed to extrapolate such a threat from an awareness of its own aggressive intentions. Knowing that Israel has much to fear from Iran's dangerous nuclear program, Iran's leaders now merely assert that the "Zionist entity" is preparing for a pre-emptive strike. Despite the complete absence of any threats from Israel, Iran now openly states its intention to strike first. Iran now threatens, somewhat caricaturely, to pre-empt an unplanned pre-emption.
Soon, Israel could have little choice but to strike first itself. Such a preemption, assuredly non-nuclear, would be mandated by an Iranian-induced escalatory spiral of strategic ambiguities. Although it is likely that Israel's impressive Arrow ballistic missile defense would afford some substantial protection from incoming nuclear warheads, this system would also have some leakage. But when dealing with nuclear weapons, no leakage could ever be tolerable.
The Jewish state, facing full-blown Arab attacks in June 1967, correctly opted to strike first itself. From the standpoint of international law, this preemption against military targets was a textbook example of "anticipatory self-defense." What about the future?
"International custom" is one of several sources of international law listed at Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Where it is understood as "anticipatory self-defense," the customary right to preempt has its modern origins in "the Caroline incident." During the unsuccessful rebellion against British rule in 1837 in Upper Canada, it was established that the serious threat of armed attack may justify militarily defensive action.
In an exchange of diplomatic notes between the governments of the United States and Great Britain, U.S. Secretary of State Daniel Webster outlined a framework for self-defense which did not require a prior attack. Military response to a threat was judged permissible so long as the danger posed was "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment of deliberation."
Strategic circumstances and the consequences of strategic surprise have changed a great deal since the Caroline. Today, in an age of chemical, biological and nuclear weaponry, the time available to a vulnerable state could be only a matter of minutes. From the standpoint of Israel, now facing a genocidal Iran armed with nuclear weapons, an appropriately hard-target resort to anticipatory self-defense would be both lawful and law-enforcing.
Some legal scholars argue that the right of anticipatory self-defense expressed by the Caroline has been overridden by the specifically limiting language of the United Nations Charter. In this view, Article 51 of the charter fashions a more restrictive statement on self-defense -- one that relies on the literal qualification of a prior "armed attack." This narrowly technical interpretation ignores that international law cannot compel any state to wait until it absorbs a devastating, or even lethal first strike, before acting to protect itself. Both the Security Council and the General Assembly refused to condemn Israel for its 1967 preemptive attacks.
The right to self-defense by forestalling an attack is also well-established in classical international law. In 1625, Hugo Grotius, in Book II of "The Law of War and Peace," indicated that self defense is to be permitted not only after an attack has already been suffered but also in advance when "the deed may be anticipated." Or as he said a bit later on in the text, "It be lawful to kill him who is preparing to kill ..." Similarly, in his famous text of 1758 known as "The Law of Nations," Emmerich de Vattel affirmed that "The safest plan is to prevent evil," and that in order to do so a nation may even "anticipate the other's design."
Because we are concerned here with the prospect of Israel's preemptive strikes, both Grotius and Vattel -- the founding fathers of international law -- parallel the earlier Jewish interpreters. The Torah contains a provision which exonerates a potential victim of violent robbery if in self defense he struck down -- and even if he killed -- the attacker before the attacker committed any crime (Exodus: 22:1). In the words of the rabbis, "If a man comes to slay you, forestall by slaying him" (Rashi: Sanhedrin 72a). Israel's right under international law to preempt in particular circumstances is strengthened further by the ongoing nature of belligerency with enemy states. According to Grotius, citing the law of prize and booty in Deuteronomy, the ancient Israelites were fully exempted from the issuance of warnings in dealing with existing enemies. This is because they were engaged in what we would call today "protracted war" -- exactly the formal condition which now exists between Israel and Iran, and between Israel and all frontline Arab states except Egypt and Jordan.
The Israelites, recounts Grotius, had been commanded by God to "refrain from making an armed attack against any people without first inviting that people, by precise notifications, to establish peaceful relations." Yet, he continues, the Israelites "thought that this prohibition was inapplicable to many of the Canaanite tribes, inasmuch as they themselves had previously been attacked in war by the Canaanites." The prohibition, in other words, was not needed in case of protracted war.
Modern Israel is engaged in protracted war. Modern Israel must act to defend itself against Iranian nuclear annihilation. International law is not a suicide pact.

Louis Rene Beres, who writes on international law and Israeli defense issues, is chairman of Project Daniel.

How the Arabs treat dissenting opinion (by threats of course!) Gideon Levy is a known dissenting op[inion- yet he can express himself withou threat.

Walid Shoebat Foundation launches Media iniative this week.

Walid Shoebat and Zak Anani will be appearing on Radio and TV over this week. We have already through our PR agent arranged 25 interviews on Radio and TV

Walid will appear for the first time on CNN. The segment is set for between 2.45 pm and 4 pm on Wednesday July 26th. This will be the first appearance of Walid on this channel. We have finally broken through on to CNN network.

Zak Anani was on Fox News last week and if any one missed it here it is

http://www.terrorfreeoil.org/videos/ZA071506.php

After Zak appeared on TV he received dozens of life threatening phone calls which required him to change his number under advisement of the authorities.

This is the third time he had to change his number. Also because of false accusations by Islamic thugs his children were taken from him then restored after a year, last week. All the accusations were proven totally false but the story does not stop.

As a result of his appearance on TV last week, the court decided to take back one of his daughters because, "By Zak speaking out for Israel and against terror he is ENDANGERING his children's welfare"

This is outrageous and what message does this say to our free society?

That the courts in Canada would put into foster care a child of the victimized parent of intimidation, because of Islamic hatemongers.

Surely, if the court was so fearful of harm to his child then the protection of Zak and his family by the law enforcement officers at the expense of the tax payer is a prequisite for a free society and not to imprison and separate the innocent because of evil Islamists.
This is political correctness and appeasement gone mad.

Zak has not nor will he be intimitated, and will be doing dozens of media interviews over the next couple of weeks despite the intimidation.

We need some financial support for Zak to pay for a lawyer so he can keep his kids.

He is risking his life to speak for civilization and for the people of Israel, we owe him some help to fight and keep his children from the powers of foolish courts who purport to represent "freedom" and "Justice"

Please email us at walid@shoebat.com if you wish to help Zak in his time of need.

http://www.shoebat.com

[Idris]

The Islamofascists do not want peace with Israel or even a piece of Israel. They don’t want a “two-state” solution, where Israel is allowed to exist at all; they want a “one-state” solution, where all “Palestine” is governed by Sharia law.

They want to see the Islamic flag flying over Jerusalem. And their hatred won’t be appeased until the last Jew has been driven out of Israel.

Need proof? Consider this paragraph from an Associated Press report today:

In Tehran, a Hezbollah representative in Iran warned that his militant group plans to widen its attacks on Israelis until “there will be no place they are safe.” Hossein Safiadeen said there would be “a new Middle East in the way of Hezbollah and Islam, not in the way of Rice and Israel.”

There is no negotiating with such animosity. A cease-fire will only give Hezbollah time to recover and regroup. It will only delay the inevitable.