On Beit Hanun

Two days ago an errant Israeli artillery shell hit a civilian Palestinian target killing 18. Unlike the Arab terrorists who deliberately target Israeli civilians with fatal rockets, Israel attempts to mitigate civilian casualties. The global response, while anticipated and indicative, illustrates the futility of the situation. By launching rocket attacks from civilian areas, the terrorists are hedging their strategic position. If Israel is dissuaded from responding then the terrorists proceed with impunity. If Israel does respond and civilians are inevitably killed then the Palestinians are the unfortunate darlings of the media.

Personally, I don't buy into the emotive bullshit. The Palestinian people are sympathetic to the terrorists and routinely co-operate with them by providing human collateral cover. Case in point, the recent standoff in the Gaza Mosque. Indeed, it is this deliberate and persistent culture of complacency to terrorism that implicates Palestinian civilians.

Update
A big thanks to John Bolton for vetoing the outrageously unbalanced Resolution against Israel. A big fuck you goes out to Qatar for sponsoring it.

Israel-Lebanon Before July 11

The media is currently being swamped with in-depth analyses of the Israeli-Hizbullah conflict. Incidentally, I have just finished reading a superb editorial that appeared in The Australian newspaper, a nation wide publication. Despite the unrelenting press coverage, I suspect that most people's exposure to the conflict is purely osmotic- a brief thirty second news report over dinner or the odd glance at a headline on the way to the sports pages. This post attempts to motivate some history and provide a context for the current crisis.

---

Fact 1: Israel and Lebanon are both sovereign nations with independent governments and no contested borders.
Explanation: During the Lebanese civil war (1975-1990), Israel invaded from the south to halt PLO attacks. Israel completely withdrew from Lebanon to the green line (mutually recognised border) in 2000 and ceased all its military operations.

Fact 2: The Lebanese government is in violation of UN Resolution 1559- the disarmament of all militia.
Explanation: The 2000 Israeli withdrawal was conditional on a cessation of hostilities from its northern neighbour. The UN accordingly enacted resolution 1559 and called for the disbandment of Hizbullah- a Shiite terrorist organization sponsored by the Syrian and Iranian regimes. The Lebanese government failed to enforce the resolution and allowed the militia to continue operating. Since 2000 there have been hundreds of cross-border skirmishes between Israel and Hizbullah.

Fact 3: Lebanon is a Syrian proxy.
Explanation: There is a misconception that Syrian involvement in Lebanese politics concluded in February 2005 following the Hizbullah assassination of the anti-Syrian reformist Prime Minister, Rafik Hariri. While Lebanon enjoys some level of autonomy there is significant Syrian oversight. For example, Hizbullah maintains 18 MPs within the Lebanese Parliament, two of whom form part of the coalition's cabinet. Syria broadcasts propaganda through the airwaves into Lebanon. Syria recruits for Hizbullah and supplies the terrorist group with weapons. Syria offers assylum to those found guilty of sedition. Syria intimidates and murders opponents of the Hizbullah.

Fact 4: Hizbullah is not a division of the Lebanese army.
Explanation: Support for Hizbullah within Lebanon is divided along sectarian lines. Many Arabs (Lebanese or otherwise) correctly assert that Hizbullah does not represent the collective will of the Lebanese people and undermined the Lebanese government through its unilateral attack on Israel. Indeed, the current Lebanese PM Fouad Siniora scolded Hizbullah for inciting conflict during the nation's peak tourism period.

Fact 5: Israel is not at war with Lebanon.
Explanation: While the protracted Lebanese government policy of appeasement precipitated this conflict, Israel's main objectives are to enforce UN resolution 1559 by decimating Hizbullah's base of operations and the release of its two captured soldiers. Israel has no interest in engaging Lebanese soldiers.

Fact 6: Israel's response is not disproportionate.
Explanation: Critics of Israel usually employ deliberately convoluted jargon. When Israel engages Palestinians, terrorist sympathisers describe "legitimate resistance against occupation". Presently, Israel is being accused of "exercising disproportionate force". These phrases make great slogans but are absolutely devoid of any meaning.
A nation with an undisputed border is attacked by its northern neighbour and suffers eight deaths and two abductions. The nation responds by isolating its neighbour; disrupting the enemy's ability to smuggle the hostages across the border. The response is calculated and measured with care taken to mitigate civilian casualties. Unfortunately, the enemy's base of operations are routinely concealed within dense civilian areas and are used to launch rocket attacks against the nation's civilians. What is the appropriate response? For Israel to negotiate with Hizbullah and to make concessions to the agressive terrorist militia? To rely on the Lebanese government to intervene on its behalf? To allow the incessant barage of rockets to continue hammering northern Israeli cities?

Fact 7: The July 11 attacks came one day before the UNSC was set to convene on the matter of Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Explanation: Self-evident. The Iranians successfully instigated a proxy war to to shift the focus away from their selfish desires to enslave the MidEast with nuclear weapons.

---

The situation in the Middle East is unbearable to both the Lebanese and Israeli peoples. Both seek a cessation of violence and an opportunity to mourn and rebuild. Despite the heavy casualties on both sides, it's essential to recall that both Israel and Lebanon are victims of the international pariah regimes: Syria and Iran.

Qana: An Anlysis

Mainstream media coverage of the latest Mideast conflict has been lax. There is a notable absence of objective analyses, context and commentary. Rather, media outlets have embraced sensationalism and deliberately inflamed the situation by instigating people's intolerance. The objective of this post is to restore the complexity of the conflict and motivate my central thesis- the Israeli Defense Force is acting ethically.

Qana: a Hizbullah Aberation
Several days ago, the Israeli Air Force (IAF) engaged Hizbullah targets in the Southern Lebanese city of Qana. In excess of 60 people were killed, more than half of them children. The UN deplored the act as "deliberate and ruthless" and the UNSC prepared a document criticising Israel for "disproportionate" use of force. In the midst of the tragedy, few news agencies bothered to objectively report the facts. However, News Radio (Australia- 1278 AM) broadcast a compelling BBC interview. The foreign British correspondent, based out of Southern Lebanon, extended an ostensibly objective analysis into the incident. Despite attempts by the programme's host to bait the journalist into editorialising, he calmly maintained his neutral stance and asserted the facts. So what are the facts?

Prior to the IAF's attack on Qana, the IDF employed its airforce to cover the city in leaflets imploring civilians to evacuate. The tactic, which has been employed aggressively throughout the campaign, cited that Hizbullah terrorists had seized the town as a platform from which to launch rocket attacks against Israel. The civilians were in effect held as human collateral aimed to dissuade Israeli airstrikes. Aerial surveillance footage captured a particularly despicable instance of inhumanity when Hizbullah terrorists, dressed as plain-clothed civilians, fired a rocket from the balcony of a private residence. Naturally, when the 24 hour deadline concluded, the IAF struck Qana.

According to the IDF's preliminary investigation and eyewitness testimony, Hizbullah terrorists effectively enforced a siege over the town. Gunmen prevented locals from leaving and the terrorist group tactically decentralised itself. When Israel struck its objectives, the civilian density localised proximal to the targets were maimed and killed. And Hizbullah had further subverted international opinion.

Critcism
Israeli advocates, myself among them, appreciate that Israel errs. However, we maintain that any criticism of Israel should be proportionate and balanced. This precludes agitation fueled by intolerance. The UN charge of "deliberate targeting of civilians" is an absolute fallacy and an indictment of the organisation's central tenent of neutrality. The IDF's manifesto of mitigating civilian casualties supersedes ALL of its military objectives. For example, the IDF blatantly eliminates the element of surprise by declaring its targets in advance. Moreover, the IDF employs ground troops and actively engages in guerrilla warfare against terrorists in dense urban environments. Does an errant Israeli rocket ever kill civilians? Yes. Are civilians sometimes caught in the crossfire? Yes. But it's a huge stretch to suggest that Israel intentionally targets civilians. Legitimate criticism might involve questioning the wisdom of using the airforce to engage hostiles in an urban setting, while recognising that terrorists cannot be allowed to operate out of civilian areas with impunity. In any case, the conflict is complex and has depth. Linear analyses, slander and emotive jargon based on anti-Israel sentiment doesn't constitute valid condemnation.

Photographed near my university. This is an example of myopic, unjustified and intolerant criticism.

Canada, Gaza and Deluded Opinions

The Canadian government has embraced the Neville Chamberlain approach to global politics; appease your enemies and desert your friends. Canada has been vocal in its opposition to the Iraq War and intentionally subverted global opinion by sheltering cowardly army deserters. Moreover, Canada maintains a limited economic and diplomatic boycott of Israel. Ostensibly, this policy seemed effective. The only nations exposed to terrorist attacks were those who outwardly supported the Imperial American War initiative (Madrid and London) and the Zionist Occupation (Israel). The liberal sentiment that Islamic terrorism was a symptom of adverse foreign policy proliferated globally and millions marched with their proverbial fingers in their ears chanting "terrorism is not our problem!"

Until last week.

Canadian intelligence infiltrated an Islamic terrorist cell and prevented an imminent catastrophe. Undoubtedly, the Canadians would have felt indignant, betrayed. After all, they did everything that Mr. bin Laden requested. Among the conservative thinkers there was no surprise. This development merely reiterates what the right has been saying for decades; that the objective of Islamic terrorists is to destabilize the West and establish an international Shariah theocracy. Naturally, these intentions are as much an affront to moderate Muslims as they are to others.

Also in the news, Israeli Internal Security Minister (and former Shin Bet agent), Avi Dichter, addressed the Israeli Cabinet. He presented a report about the continuous barrage of rocket attacks from Gaza, numbering 500 since the Israeli withdrawal. He observed that "just as the IDF responded harshly to Katyushas in the North, it should wield a strong hand against Kassams in the South" and employed strong language emphasizing the need for the IDF to "turn Beit Hanun 'into a ghost town' ". Naturally, the cabinet rejected his suggestions. Olmert: "We have strong means in our arsenal, but sometimes international considerations limit their effectiveness. It's not worth harming civilians. We have gotten rid of our dream from childhood that Israel can do everything alone. These dreams do not exist anymore." Curious.

When Sharon conceived the idea of unilateral disengagement, he legitimately believed that strategic settlement withdrawal was militarily advantageous. His motivations were pragmatic and he was certainly, if not deliberately, indifferent to irrelevant global opinion. At the time of the withdrawal empirical evidence (return of the Sinai to Egypt) suggested that his reasoning was plausible. Sadly, he was wrong.

One year on and enthused by delusions of victory, Palestinian terrorist groups have consolidated their power base within Gaza. A recent IDF report cites that "Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's ambitious plan to withdraw from large parts of the West Bank will not do anything to decrease the scope of daily violence in the region. Instead, the army is moving forward based on a working plan that it is nearing another round of bloody violence with the Palestinians." The report identifies the rigidity of Hamas' ideology as the main prospective source of conflict. For Olmert, however, there has been a phase shift from securing Israeli lives to securing world opinion. It seems that the "childhood dreams" of self determination and security that Olmert apparently envisaged (but didn't pass onto his kids, one of whom refused to serve in the IDF) are far less important than what French cheese makers and Canadian beaver hunters seem to think.

Rockets

Several days ago BBC broke a story that accused the Israeli Defense Force of perpetrating a massacre against Palestinian civilians. Palestinian mobs filled the streets and Hamas announced plans for a fresh wave of terrorist attacks against Israelis. Moreover, Kofi Annan issued a statement condemning the disproportionate Israeli force. Sadly, the mainstream media coverage ended there.

Last night the Israeli government released a report into the incident. The report found that no specific orders to target the site were issued and that the likelihood of an errant misfire was slim. The report cited the following anomalies as justification for its conclusion:
1. Shrapnel taken from two wounded Palestinians who were evacuated to Israeli hospitals showed that the explosives were not manufactured in Israel.
2. Absence of a sufficiently large crater, indicative of IDF artillery shells, at the site of the explosion.
3. All debris were removed before the IDF was able to investigate. Limited Palestinian co-operation has hindered all efforts to investigate the site.
The leading theory currently entertained, suggested that an explosive charge, buried by Palestinians on the Gaza beach to prevent Israeli infiltration, was behind the explosion. A more realistic theory is that Hamas murdered their own in an attempt to subvert the imminent Palestinian Referendum.

Naturally, the Hamas response was instant. Over 50 shells were launched against the southern Israeli city of Sderot. Two people were wounded by the bombardment; one is critical. The mayor of the city presented a plea on behalf of his constituents to an Israeli minister. Defense Minister, Amir Peretz, issued an ultimatum to the terrorists urging them to cease the rocket attacks of face a calculated Israeli response. The rocket attacks continued and the IDF has finally responded by killing two Islamic Jihad operatives on their way to carry out the attack.

I draw the reader's attention to two points. The first is the obvious asymmetry between the Israeli and the Palestinian military tactics; the deliberate targeting of civilians on the Arab side and the tireless efforts to minimise civilian casualties on the Israeli side. Arrogant Western media outlets casually refer to this bullshit notion of a cycle of violence. Fact: the linear violence exists because the Palestinians repeatedly inflame it. And in rare instances where there is a lul they instigate it. Secondly, there is evidence to suggest that Hamas was an accomplice to the Islamic Jihad Kassam campaign.

The sad reality that I must bear at this point in time, and believe me when I say that it eats at me, is the obvious realisation that the Intifada is an elaborate publicity stunt to undermine the legitimacy of the state of Israel. I find it morally reprehensible and an indictment of Western media outlets that I have to write entries like these and correct malignant fallacies. This, along with numerous other incidents, among them the Jenin massacre, illustrate that journalism is a profession dominated by opportunistic grubs. Undoubtedly, the BBC will retract its story or will extend a thorough analysis into the incident, but this will certainly be relegated to a tiny corner of a back page. Nevertheless, the BBC succeeded- a family of Palestinians was wantonly murdered by their own, a Jew is on his deathbed and Israel is the bad guy despite the absence of any evidence. Hooray for freedom of the press!

A Brief History Lesson

In a previous post a reader requested that I explain the circumstances and origins of the Palestinian national movement. I have decided that the most effective response is a simple citation of the facts. Accordingly, I will abstain from any editorialising.
In the second part of his question, Samuel asked me whether one can be neutral in one's sympathies on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. The answer is a resounding no. The case for Israel is far more compelling than the case for Palestine.

In the year 1947, the United Nations General Assembly accepted a resolution that divided British Mandate Palestine into two distinct territories. The orange portions (as indicated below) were appropriated to form a Jewish state and the yellow portions were designated to form the basis of a Palestinian state.

Neighbouring Arab regimes instantly rejected the resolution. That was where the consensus ended. Syria, which had administered the land during the Malmuk period, demanded the right to annex it. As did Jordan, which had occupied the West Bank (hence the West Bank of Jordan) since the Ottoman Empire's conquests. Gaza belonged to Egypt. However, the UN resolution called for the creation of a new and independent Arab state alongside Israel; a policy the Arab governments were averse to.

Nevertheless, Israel proclaimed independence on May 15 1948. Several weeks later, the newly born state was invaded along three fronts by the armies of Jordan, Syria and Egypt. Israel's military success and the subsequent Armistice Agreements ensured that the two-State solution was never fully implemented. Adding further detriment, the Arab nations effectively sealed their borders to the displaced and relegated them to refugee camps. Border skirmishes ensued as the refugee population demanded integration. The notorious Black September Massacre (Sept. 16 1970), sanctioned after Palestinian Fedayeen attempted to seize the Jordanian Kingdom, resulted in the deaths of thousands of Palestinians along the Jordanian border. Naturally, Israel integrated very few displaced Arabs.

The birth of the Palestinian movement is contentious and difficult to ascribe. I view the initial phase of transitory statehood as commencing in the years 1956-1958. These were the chaotic years of spontaneous resistance against Israel allegedly organised by non-governmental entities (in reality these groups were part of an Arab led proxy war, but that's rather incidental). Specifically, the Fatah Party was formed by Cairo student-activist, Yassir Arafat, and the organisation actively engaged Israeli troops. The Palestinian identity was cemented over the years 1964-1967 and is attributed to two main factors. The first was the sense of statelessness among the new generation of Arabs living in satellite camps. The second was the threefold expansion (to roughly 1/2 the size of Tasmania, or the size of New Jersey) of the Jewish state in the Six Day War. Demoralised by the abominable failure of the Arab war machine and the empty promises to "push the Jews into the sea", the Arab refugees shed their dependency of their brothers and sought to liberate Jerusalem with their own blood. Thus far they have successfully forced an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and remote Israeli settlement.

Israel has undertaken numerous initiatives to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians. To date, all have failed. The fundamental problems are the asymmetrical expectations between the two peoples, extensive corruption within the Palestinian leadership and the reluctance of the Palestinians to disavow violence and pursue legitimately diplomatic routes.

What does the future hold for the region? Assuming a continuation in terrorism (a rather shrewd assumption), Jews will certainly embrace emigration. In fact, I will be amazed if Israel sustains a Jewish Knesset and demographic majority over the next fifty years. I also suspect that certain radical Muslim elements are viewing the Israeli conflict as a successful experiment in warfare. Given comparable (but latent) demographics within certain Western countries and the tendency of the media to embrace self-hating pseudo-liberalism, I anticipate similar clashes globally. The Middle East conflict, though alluringly territorial, is clearly existential. Crap-I've editorialised.

Ayatollas with Bombs

In an alarming development, Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, declared on Iranian television that "At this historic moment, with the blessings of God Almighty and the efforts made by our scientists, I declare here that the laboratory-scale nuclear fuel cycle has been completed and young scientists produced enriched uranium needed to the degree for nuclear power plants Sunday." Assuming this statement and its timing to be accurate, Iran has essentially mastered the rudimentary research and development capability required to enrich uranium to the 3% required for nuclear fuel. This percentage refers to the concentration of the fissionable uranium isotope U-235 within the fuel. The secondary stage of weapon-grade development involves further enrichment of the uranium to 90%. This is a complex task that involves an experimental analysis of the fuel cycle and the construction of additional gas-centrifuges. Depending upon a variety of factors, including Iran's empirical results and its access to nuclear technologies, the nation could have access to the destructive technology within 6-48 months.

Why Iran?
It is a perverse misconception that the USA, Israel and its allies are averse to Iran possessing civilian nuclear power generators. As a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act, Iran may pursue peaceful nuclear power subject to international approval and transparency. However, Iranian authorities have been anything but transparent. According to Mohamed Elbaradei, the chief of the IAEA, Iran lacks a legitimate reason for nuclear power, "There's a lot of concern why Iran is developing an enrichment program, why do they need nuclear energy? They have a lot of gas, they have a lot of oil? There's a lot of skepticism there." Moreover, Iran has failed to disclose the location of numerous clandestine nuclear facilities and the illegal supply trail of their technologies, "These equipments have been imported from outside of Iran. They were not domestically manufactured." On Iran's mandated co-operation with the IAEA, Elbaradei observed, "..We had a very difficult relationship with Iran, cooperation was no good, information was slow, in many cases contradictory, and I have reported all that and I said that you are not helping us to build confidence. Verification is after all to try to build confidence, and we need transparency." Yet, the strongest evidence to support Iran's illegitimate nuclear ambitions was the nation's rejection of the Russian Proposal to enrich uranium on Russian soil. The statement by the Iranian Foreign Ministry that "The Russian proposal is not on our agenda anymore," was intentionally vague. Nevertheless, there may be no mistake of Iran's intentions.

Options
The world faces two options. The first is to retain an open dialogue with Iran and seek a diplomatic solution. Proponents of this option suggest possible economic sanctions and political isolation should talks fail. A detraction of this policy is that it's slow. Libya defied UN economic and political sanctions for two decades before finally capitulating. A second drawback is that in the medium-term Iran wields leverage in the form of crude oil. The alternate policy, one to which I subscribe, is to insist on immediate Iranian compliance with its obligations under the NPT. Through transparent inspections, Iran should abate global fears about its nuclear ambitions. Should this fail, the UN must respond with tactical strikes against known and suspected nuclear sites.

Appeasement- but at what cost?
Should the West elect to appease Iran and provide it with ample time to develop its nuclear arsenal, the world will begin living on borrowed time. Iran may elect to attack Israel, a move that would instigate a policy of Mutually Assured Destruction. Iran could extort its Muslim neighbours, threatening them with nuclear war. Iran could supply terrorists with nuclear weapons. The disastrous possibilities are limitless. Radical oppressive regimes and nuclear weapons don't mix.