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.

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.