Alternative Insight


The Media's Levant War Evasions

While the Israeli army (IDF) fights the war in the air, its other army of worldwide sympathizers fight the war on the ground, using media to convince everyone that Israel is fighting a just war. The media isn't necessarily pro-Israel; it has shown the images of atrocities committed against Lebanon. It's just that those who are pro-Israel are effective in the insertion of arguments in media that are favorable to Israel.

Report that Hezbollah started the conflict:
Daily commentaries in all types of media emphasized that Hezbollah, by its capture of two Israeli soldiers and killing of three soldiers, started the conflict. Hezbollah is guilty of continuing its serious and provocative border skirmishes, but another skirmish is not a war. The timeline of the conflict by Times Online and AFP: How Middle East crisis has unfolded, July 13, 2006, illustrates that before Hezbollah fired salvoes of rockets into Haifa, Israel bombed and shelled Lebanese installations. From the timeline of the London Times report:
More than 50 Lebanese die in the bombing and shelling of Hezbollah bases.
Israel cripples Beirut international airport, begins a naval blockade and urges residents to evacuate neighbourhoods in southern Beirut.
Hezbollah threatens to attack Haifa, Israel's third largest city.

Note: Reports from less conventional sources imply that the soldiers were captured on Lebanon's territory. The failure of the Lebanese Prime Minister and Foreign Minister to acknowledge this implication in their speeches seems to indicate the reports are false. For more information go to: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/israeli_solders.html

Emphasize Hezbollah's 1983 attack on the marine barracks in Beirut:
One example of excessive media attention to this event comes from C-Span, July 21 interview with Claudia Rosett, Foundation for the Defense of Democracy, Journalist in Residence. Ms. Rosett stressed that Hezbollah's assault on the marine barracks killed more Americans until Al-Queda on 9/11. C-Span followed up the interview with Ms. Rosett by having a July 23 interview with Major Bob Jordan (Ret.), U.S. Marine Corps, who discussed the 1983 barracks bombing in Beirut that killed 241 American service persons. CNN devoted an hour program to the barracks attack.

What does a 1983 attack on a marine barracks in Beirut have to do with the present war in Lebanon and why is it being discussed in 2006? Are Ms. Rosett and other commentators trying to use an aged occurrence to arouse emotional antipathy to Hezbollah and gain "gut" support for Israel? Don't they realize they are indicating that the United States is a participant in the Lebanese war and is using Israel to revenge old wounds.

Hezbolla has flip-flopped on its involvement with the 1983 attack. Its latest statement - involvement - might be an exaggeration. It has not been confirmed that an incipient Hezbollah of that time, which has little relation to the Hezbollah of today, was responsible for the bombing.

Scholars differ as to when Hezbollah came to be a distinct entity. Some organizations list the official formation of the group as early as 1982, whereas Diaz and Newman maintain that Hezbollah remained an amalgamation of various violent Shi’a extremists until as late as 1985. Regardless of when the name came into official use, a number of Shi’a groups were slowly assimilated into the organization, such as Islamic Jihad, Organization of the Oppressed on Earth and the Revolutionary Justice Organization. These designations are considered to be synonymous with Hezbollah by the US, Israel and Canada. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah

Lost in the rhetoric is the fact that the attack on the U.S. marine barracks and another on a French installation were reactions to U.S. and French shellings of the Lebanese Shouf mountains, which killed many civilians. Usually, when a foreign force enters a nation and kills innocent civilians, the attacker is labeled terrorist. Not so, in this case. The U.S. labeled its offensive action against innocent civilians as a defensive measure and retaliation by the aggrieved as a terrorist action.

Link Hezbollah to international terrorism:
Ms. Rosett's C-Span appearance also included the proposition, repeated in other media reports, that Hezbollah operates in South America and has sleeper cells in the U.S.. As another example, CNN almost always uses the adjective "terrorist" before the noun Hezbollah. The total of Hezbollah's "reported" involvement with international terrorism is summarized as follows: The suicide truck bombings of the U.S. Embassy and U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 and the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut in 1984; the 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847; the kidnapping and detention of Americans and other Westerners in Lebanon in the 1980s; bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Argentina in 1992 and the Israeli cultural center in Buenos Aires in 1994; and the conviction of two brothers in the U.S. for smuggling cigarettes and sending profits to Hezbollah.

Hezbollah claims it does not operate outside of Lebanese territory and, to be fair to Hezbollah, the evidence has not conclusively proved otherwise. The terrorist actions in Lebanon have been attributed to retaliation to CIA directed assassinations, and have not been confirmed to being organized by a central Hezbollah organization. Its operations (plural) in South America have been derived from allegations that Hezbollah participated in bombings against Israel installations in one nation, Argentina. If this is true, they were possible revenge for Israel's assassinations of Hezbollah leaders, which have not earned the qualification of terrorist acts.

Is there any evidence that Hezbollah operates in South America? The Argentine government expelled seven Iranian diplomats from the country, stating that it had "convincing proof" of Iranian involvement in the embassy bombing. No mention of Hezbollah. No suspect has been prosecuted in either bombing and the attacks remain unresolved.

Hezbollah's supposed "sleeper cells" in the U.S. have apparently not aroused Homeland Security. The conviction of Hezbollah "financial operatives" in the U.S. was actually the conviction of two persons for evading cigarette taxes, which is a racketeering charge. The brothers, evidently sympathetic to Hezbollah, donated some of their profits to the Lebanese organization. Hezbollah had no proven relation to the racketeering activities.

To its credit, Hezbollah is an avowed enemy of Al-Queda. It never supported Taliban Afghanistan, the home of terrorism or Saudi Arabia, the land of terrorist education. On the other hand, the U.S. sponsored the incipient Al-Queda in the Soviet/Afghan war and supported, through Pakistan, the development of the Taliban. The U.S. also maintains Saudi Arabia as its best Arab friend in the Middle East. Imagine if Hezbollah did what the U.S. previously did and is still doing with Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile, Israel's intelligence agency, Mossad, has been shown to have committed many assassinations throughout the world; Israel diplomats have been expelled for espionage activities in several nations; Israeli spies have been arrested in the United States; Israel and its adherents evidently influence media, politics and educational activities throughout the western world; and Israel accepts persons and organizations which have been declared criminals and terrorists in other countries. Israel is not labeled a terrorist nation.

Argue Israel's use of disproportionate force
The media made disproportionate force the principal argument against Israel's attacks in Lebanon. This argument is a subjective interpretation of a word rather than an objective interpretation of an action. By concentrating on the disproportionate force argument, the more essential argument, which is that Israel is guilty of converting a border skirmish to a massacre of the Lebanese people, is sidetracked. Israel benefits from the skewing of the essential argument.

Exaggerate Hezbollah's strength
Hezbollah is eager to convince Israel that it is a strong force that can severely punish Israel. This strategy plays well with Israel, that wants to convince the world it is not attacking a helpless nation but is contending a military machine that is willing to fight and can inflict heavy losses. The media is only too willing to portray the ground war as battles between two well fortified antagonists - good reading. So we read:

"They will fight, and they will disappear," said Timur Goksel, who watched Hezbollah grow into a potent force during 25 years as a senior advisor to the UN observer force along the Israeli-Lebanese border. Washington Post. July 27, 2006.

Except for its powerful rockets, which will be discussed later, the course of the war and the statistics on Hezbollah's strength don't validate the declarations of Hezbollah's prowess.

So, what about Hezbollah's rocket arsenal and why did Israel's ground offensive stall?

Hezbollah's rockets that are hitting northern Israel, mainly Haifa, have caused limited damage. They are not guided missiles, don't pack more than two hundred pounds of explosives, and many land in fields and in areas where they do no harm. The number of Israeli civilians killed by a total fire of 1000 rockets is less than one or two large suicide bombings and the wounded are mainly from shrapnel or "shock." Material damage is negligible and easily repaired. The rockets are another terror tactic in which suicide bombers are replaced by aerial bombs - a desperate response to Israel's offensive tactics.

On the other hand, Israel's guided missiles pack 500-2000 pounds of explosives, are well directed to targets and reduce a city block to dust. Israel fires hundreds of these missiles daily into the Lebanon heartland.

Israel's offensive didn't stall. It didn't start. From probings, the IDF learned that the entire Southern Lebanon population supports Hezbollah. The IDF will have to remove almost an entire population before launching a ground war. Clearly, Israel's initial strategy emulates the NATO approach during its attacks against Yugoslavia - an aerial war, in which no ground troops are used and to which the defender cannot respond.

Make it seem it's only part of an age old conflict:
The attempt to associate the hostilities with an age old struggle, going back to biblical times, was not pervasive, but did happen. CNN, which advertises itself as "The most trusted name in news," lost its trust on the July 21, American Morning program with Soledad O'Brien reporting from Jerusalem. CNN lists the program as "History of the Wailing Wall; Tricky Diplomacy in the Middle East." Soledad O'Brien read the script, but who wrote the script?

Ms. O'Brien cited the history with non-historical statements. This non-history is pervasive and is never corrected.

The Western Wall, or as tourists often refer to it as the Wailing Wall, dates back to the second century B.C., and it's the source of a lot of conflict for several reasons. First, it's location. You take a look, you've got the Muslim Dome of the Rock right over there, and then over here, the Al-Aqsa Mosque. The conflict also is a result of who's got control and who';s controlling access, as well. The Israeli government has had control since 1967.

This wall is all that remains of the Second Temple of Jerusalem, which was destroyed, and so it's become a location of both huge religious significance and also huge historical significance, as well.

What I think you're struck by is how long -- and historically -- you know, how long the conflict's been going on, frankly. You see in the building of the mosque, this is a conflict that has its roots so far back. So no, I don't necessarily think that the past -- the peace is very close.

American Morning errors:
(1) In Israel, the Wall is called the Western Wall and not the Wailing Wall . The term "wailing wall" was originated in 1873.
(2) The Wall dates back to 20 B.C.and not 200 B.C.. CNN might have unintentionally added a "zero."
(3) The Wall is not a remain of the Second Temple. It is the retaining wall for Herod's platform on which it is claimed the Second Temple was built.
(4) The Wall has become an issue of huge significance because there does not seem to be remains of any other monument, building, institution, or artifact that dates back to biblical times and is of religious significance to the Jewish people in Jerusalem. The wall cannot be the most significant to world Judaism. It was not used for prayer until the 16th century, at which time, according to historian Karen Armstrong, there may have been less than 70 Jewish families in Jerusalem.

From the Jewish Virtual Library :


Indeed, in the early centuries after the destruction of the Temple, Jews were prohibited by the Roman authorities from entering the city of Jerusalem at all, and the customary place for mourning the Temple was the Mount of Olives, which overlooks the Temple Mount from the east. The earliest clear use of ha-kotel ha-ma'aravi in the sense of today's "Western Wall" is by the 11th-century Italian Hebrew poet Ahima'az ben Paltiel. This, too, though, may predate the actual use of the wall by Jews for prayer, since it is not until the 16th century that we hear of the wall being used for that purpose

The English term "Wailing Wall" or its equivalent in other languages dates from much later. In fact despite its hoary sound, "Wailing Wall" is a strictly 20th-century English usage introduced by the British after their conquest of Jerusalem from the Turks in 1917. In the 19th century, when European travelers first began visiting Palestine in sufficient numbers to notice the Jews there at all, the Western Wall was commonly referred to as "the Wailing Place," ....

Only after the Six-Day War in 1967 did it become de rigueur in Jewish circles to say "Western Wall"— a reflection of the feeling, first expressed by official Israeli usage and then spreading to the Diaspora, that, with the reunification of Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty, there was no longer anything to wail about. Henceforward, the wall should be a place of celebration.

Hide the happenings in Gaza:
The news from Lebanon has overshadowed the news from Gaza (and from Iraq). During this time, the IDF has repeatedly entered Gaza, destroyed infrastructure and killed Palestinians, almost on a daily basis. Anyone remotely identified with Hamas or standing close to someone remotely identified with Hamas is subject to execution.

97 fatalities in Gaza, but all eyes are on Lebanon
By Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz, July 30,2006

The Israel Defense Forces has killed 97 people in the Gaza Strip since the fighting began in Lebanon. Most of them were armed, and the rest were civilians - children, women, men, the elderly. The large number of fatalities suggests the IDF is engaged in indiscriminate killing under the cover of the war in the north.

Hide Israel's reasons for bombing the UN post and civilians in Qana
The media critcized Israel for its bombings of the UN Post and the apartment dwelling in Qana.
Reasons for these catastrophes were explored, including if the attacks were deliberate. One word was never mentioned - Israeli terrorism. That Israel might have wanted the UN observers to leave and wanted to frighten the civilian population in southern Lebanon to vacate the region are definite possibilities. Considering the accuracy of guided missiles, Israel's pronouncements that it takes special care not to hit unwarranted targets and no rocket material or Hezbollah fighters among the debris, shouldn't the use of bombings to terrorize the population been a part of the investigations?

Israel's aerial invasions, in both Gaza and Lebanon, are fortified by media evasions of the truth and a manipulation of approaches to the conflicts, all of which benefit Israel.

alternativeinsight
August, 2006

 HOME PAGE     MAIN PAGE

alternativeinsight@earthlink.net