"Re: [iDC] The Current War and The Will of the People

[A. G-C]

    Dear friends,


    The convergence plan named "Lebanon":

A clear explanation better coming later than never;-) Leaving the fire but
waiting for the next: here is a remarkable article by Uri Avnery in Gush
Shalom, issue of August 19.

The question is of politics as untraceable politics, cause the unavowable
reality front of the international rules: "the colonies", Avnery says [hope
to definitively dismember the Arabic Palestinian territory which was
constituted in heritage from Oslo agreement]. By this way there is not
political solution to stop this war but the abusive solution. So more
what... ?

Not being the traditional war by the way of the dialectical theory of
Clausewitz  ( the war to follow open Politics by another disposition, that
finishes by a victory or a defeat ‹ of the political parts in presence )
because the declaration of the security and of the preventive self-defence
misinforms the object of this war. From this point of view the data of the
problem is falsified by the appeal of the data, and all the speeches from
which they give place are perverse or unsuitable.

Observing the following fire coming from the part of Israeli army, in the
name of preventive self-defence of Israel by killing the soldiers of the
remaining Lebanese ("Iranian"/ "Syrian" and so on), whatever the cease fire,
it becomes impossible to wait in reply for the disarmament of the
Hezbollah... 

There appears that the question of Lebanon may become the war of the double
mass described by Elias Canetti in "Mass and power": the statement of the
very objective integrated double mass by the process of the war being to
produce the greatest number of death from each part to the other part,
( that can grow up to the last being ).

Israel and allied call for killing till the last one of armed Hezbollah
member ( meaning at the extreme that every one of the people being Shiite
can having hidden weapons that has to be killed even the last one
‹extermination ) at the same time the tanks enter Gaza, more the part of the
whished FINUL to disarm the Hezbollah thanks the Lebanon government
( obviously by the force if Hezbollah does not self disarmed ). But from
another part Hezbollah and allied guerilla knows that even disarmed
he/she/it/they must be killed till the last one being able to claim their
rights in the terms of territory and of institutions. The very answer is
that Israel must disappear.

But historically which part at the beginning? May be the double mass at the
beginning.

For all these reasons I think that Uri Avnery is the informed man about the
life, this one who not loving the death, asks for the political declaration
of the war to what its objective as politics is really. And how he does not
love more the war he asks ( without believing in it too much? ) for the
liberation of colonies.

By the same way that he begins his article we can extensively ask: do we
believe that for the colonies of Golan we shall have a world war between the
imperialist West and the oriental Moslem to whom the western imperialism
bothers?

Maybe it is the very question that we should settle before it will be too
late? And according to the answer that we could made, to act as fast as
possible hardly to prevent this following war - not by entering in our turn
the war.

Sorry for my bad English writing.

Best

A.


Let you know:
/////////////////////////////////

http://www.avnery-news.co.il/english/index.html

    
    The 155th Victim

    Uri Avnery



    WITH A few words, a Lebanese army officer destroyed, the day before
yesterday, the illusion that Israel had achieved anything in this war.

At a televised Lebanese army parade that was also broadcast on Israeli TV ,
the officer read a prepared text to his assembled troops, who were about to
be deployed along the Lebanese-Israeli border.

This is what he said in Arabic: "Today, in the name of the comprehensive
will of the people, you are preparing to be deployed on the soil of the
wounded South, side by side with the forces of your Resistance and your
people, which have amazed the world with their steadfastness and blown to
pieces the reputation of the army about which it has been said that it is
invincible."

In simple language: "the comprehensive will of the people" - the will of all
parts of the Lebanese public, including the Shiite community. "Side by side
with the Resistance": side by side with Hizbullah. "Which have amazed the
world with their steadfastness": the heroism of the Hizbullah fighters.
"Blown to pieces the reputation of the army about which it has been said
that it is invincible": the Israeli army.

Thus spoke a commander of the Lebanese army, the deployment of which along
the border is being celebrated by the Olmert-Peretz government as a huge
victory, because this army is supposed to confront Hizbullah and disarm it.
Israeli commentators have created the illusion that this army would be at
the disposal of the friends of the US and Israel in Beirut, such as Fuad
Siniora, Saad Hariri and Walid Jumblatt.

It is no accident that this item was drowned in the deluge of TV blabber,
like a stone thrown into a well. After broadcasting the item itself, no
meaningful debate about it took place. It was erased from the public mind.

But not only the balloon of the redeeming Lebanese army has been punctured.
The same has happened to the multi-colored second balloon that was to serve
as an Israeli achievement: the deployment of the international force that
would protect Israel from Hizbullah and prevent its re-armament. As the days
pass, it becomes increasingly clear that this force will be, at best, a
mishmash of small national units, without a clear mandate and "robust"
capabilities. The commando raid carried out by our army today, in blatant
violation of the cease-fire, will certainly not attract more international
volunteers for the job.

So what remains of all the "achievements" of this war? A good question.

AFTER EVERY failed war, the cry for an official investigation goes up in
Israel. Now there is a "trauma", much bitterness, a feeling of defeat and of
a missed opportunity. Hence the demand for a strong Commission of Inquiry
that will cut off the heads of those responsible.

That's what happened after the first Lebanon war, which reached its climax
in the Sabra and Shatila massacre. The government refused any serious
inquiry. The masses that gathered in what is now called "Rabin Square" (the
mythical 400 thousand) demanded a judicial inquiry. The public mood reached
boiling point and in the end the Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, gave in.

The Kahan Commission that investigated the event condemned a number of
politicians and army officers for "indirect" responsibility for the
massacre, even though its own factual conclusions would have justified a
much stronger condemnation. But Ariel Sharon was, at least, removed from the
Defense Ministry.

Before that, after the trauma of the Yom Kippur war, the government also
refused to appoint a Commission of Inquiry, but public pressure forced its
hand. The fate of the Agranat Committee, which included a former
Chief-of-Staff and two other senior officers, was rather odd: it conducted a
serious investigation, put all the blame on the military, removed from
office the Chief-of-Staff, "Dado" Elazar - and acquitted the political
leadership of any blame. This caused a spontaneous public uproar. In its
wake, Golda Meir and Moshe Dayan - predecessors of Olmert and Peretz as
Prime Minister and Minister of Defense - were forced to resign.

This time, too, the political and military leadership is trying to block any
serious investigation. Amir Peretz even appointed a whitewash-committee,
packed with his cronies. But public pressure is building up, and chances
seem good that in the end there will be no way out but to appoint a judicial
inquiry committee.

Generally, the one who appoints a commission of inquiry and sets its terms
of reference predetermines its conclusions. Under Israeli law, it is the
government which decides to appoint such a commission and determines its
terms of reference. (As a Member of the Knesset, I voted against these
paragraphs.) But the composition of the commission is determined by the
President of the Supreme Court. If a commission is set up, I assume the
present President of the Court, Aharon Barak, a highly respected chief
justice, will appoint himself for the job.

IF INDEED such a commission is set up, what will it investigate?

The politicians and generals will try to restrict the inquiry to the
technical aspects of the conduct of the war: - Why was the army not prepared
for a war against guerillas? - Why were the land forces not sent into the
field in the two first weeks? - Did the military command believe that the
war could be won by the Air Force alone? - What was the quality of the
intelligence? - Why was nothing done to protect the rear, when the rocket
threat was known? - Why were the poor in the North left to their fate, after
the well-to-do had left the area? - Why were the reserve units not ready for
the war? - Why were the emergency arsenals empty? - Why did the supply
system not function? - Why did the Chief-of-Staff practically depose the
Chief of the Northern Command in the middle of the war? - Why was it decided
at the last moment to start a campaign that cost the lives of 33 Israeli
soldiers?

The government will probably attempt to widen the investigation and to put
part of the blame on its predecessors: - Why did the Ehud Barak and Ariel
Sharon governments just look on when Hizbullah was growing? - Why was
nothing done as Hizbullah built up its huge stockpile of rockets?

All these are serious questions, and it is certainly necessary to clear them
up. But it is more important to investigate the roots of the war: - What
made the trio Olmert-Peretz-Halutz decide to start a war only a few hours
after the capture of the two soldiers? - Was it agreed with the Americans in
advance to go to war the moment a credible pretext presented itself? - Did
the Americans push Israel into the war, and, later on, demand that it go on
and on as far as possible? - Was it Condoleezza Rice who decided in fact
when to start and when to stop? - Did the US want to get us entangled with
Syria? - Did the US use us for its campaign against Iran?

This, too, is not enough. There are more profound and important questions.

THIS WAR has no name. Even after 33 days of fighting and six days of
cease-fire, no natural name has been found. The media use a chronological
name: Lebanon War II.

This way, the war in Lebanon is separated from the war in the Gaza Strip,
which has been conducted simultaneously, and which is going on unabated
after the cease-fire in the North. Do these two wars have a common
denominator? Are they, perhaps, one and the same war?

The answer is: certainly, yes. And the proper name is: the War for the
Settlements.

The war against the Palestinian people is being waged in order to keep the
"settlement blocs" and annex large parts of the West Bank. The war in the
North was waged, in fact, to keep the settlements on the Golan Heights.

Hizbullah grew up with the support of Syria, which controlled Lebanon at the
time. Hafez al-Assad saw the return of the Golan to Syria as the aim of his
life - after all, it was he who lost them in the June 1967 war, and who did
not succeed in getting them back in the October 1973 war. He did not want to
risk another war on the Israel-Syria border, which is so close to Damascus.
Therefore, he patronized Hizbullah, so as to convince Israel that it would
have no quiet as long as it refused to give the Golan back. Assad jr. is
continuing with his fathers legacy.

Without the cooperation of Syria, Iran has no direct way of supplying
Hizbullah with arms.

The solution is on hand: we have to remove the settlers from there, whatever
the cost in wines and mineral water, and give the Golan back to its rightful
owners. Ehud Barak almost did so, but, as is his wont, lost his nerve at the
last moment.

It has to be said aloud: every one of the 154 Israeli dead of Lebanon War II
(until the cease-fire) died for the settlers on the Golan Heights.

THE 155TH Israeli victim of this war is the "Covergence Plan" - the plan for
a unilateral withdrawal from parts of the West Bank.

Ehud Olmert was elected four months ago (hard to believe! only four months!)
on the platform of Convergence, much as Amir Peretz was elected on the
platform of reducing the army and carrying out far-reaching social reforms.

In the course of the war, Olmert still announced that he would implement the
"Convergence". But the day before yesterday he conceded that we could forget
about it.

The Convergence was to remove 60 thousand settlers from where they are, but
to leave the almost 400 thousand settlers in the West Bank (including the
Jerusalem area). Now this plan has also been buried.

What remains? No peace, no negotiations, no solution at all for the historic
conflict. Just a complete deadlock for years, at least until we get rid of
the duo Olmert & Peretz.

All over Israel, they are already talking about the "Next Round", the war
that will at long last eliminate Hizbullah and punish it for besmirching our
honor. That has become, so it seems, a self-evident matter. Even Haaretz
treats it as such in its editorials.

In the South, they don't speak about the "Next Round" because the present
round is endless.

To have any value whatsoever, the investigation must expose the real roots
of the war and present the public with the historic choice that has become
clear in this war, too: Either the settlements and an endless war, or the
return of the occupied territories and peace.

Otherwise, the investigation will only provide more backing for the outlook
of the Right, to wit: we only have to expose the mistakes that have been
made and correct them, then we can start the next war and win.

U. A. ( 19-08-2006 )



On 7/08/06 3:43, "Myron Turner" <mturner at cc.umanitoba.ca> probably wrote:

> Monic Ross wrote:
>> As far as i'm concerned every Labour mp in this country has breached
>> the Human Rights of their constituents by not representing us and
>> refusing to recognise that Hizbullah and Hamas members have both been
>> democratically elected by their peoples to represent them, whether
>> the west likes it or not. aka:
>> The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of
>> government- as in:
> 
> To begin with, politicians often do things contrary to their
> constituents' desires.  So, at what point does it become a matter of the
> voter's human rights when politicians act contrary to the voter's will?
> More to the point, however, is that Hezbollah's right to participate in
> parliamentary democracy has not, I believe, been questioned, not even in
> the U.S.   A parallel British situation was having Sin Fein represented
> in the Northern Ireland government while the IRA was setting off bombs
> in public areas, killing anyone at random, and there were some very
> bloody days.   It was both a political party and a militia.   You appear
> to live in the UK. If, as I have, you've ever lived through an IRA
> bombing campaign, it would be interesting to know how your views of
> Hezbollah relate to the IRA and Sinn Fein.
> 
> In any event, even Israel has had to accept the right of the Lebanese
> people to elect Hezbollah members to the Lebanese Parliament.  The issue
> is the mililtia, which has operated independently of the Lebanese army
> and the Lebanese government.  I say "has", because this could now
> quickly change.  We know that Lebanese regular army personnel have
> already, in the current conflict, fought along side of Hezbollah.
> 
> Someone earlier argued that the current topic is
>> a reaction against the way mainstream media and politicians deal with this
>> conflict
> But I regularly watch the BBC news, and BBC is not pro-Hezbollah but
> consistently and sometimes sensationalistically biased against Israel.
> So, if your point of view is not being served by your government it is
> by the BBC.  I recall one awful BBC piece from Gaza, where a
> correspondent was standing outside an apartment block from which rockets
> were being sent into Israel.  Around her was a group of children and she
> reported in an upbeat way, as though it were a fireworks display, how
> the children had come to watch the rockets being fired into Israel.  No
> sooner had the rockets been blasted off then an Israeli shell hit the
> building and some of the children were injured.  Understandably she was
> shocked, and it was terrible to see.  But, inured to this, she didn't
> miss a beat, and treated it as an Israeli act of terror.  But for me it
> was a graphic illustration of how this war is being waged.  You shoot
> from the midst of non-combatants and know full well that the people
> around you are in danger if Israel retaliates.  But then you are
> nevertheless still a winner--in the other war, in the public relations
> war.  On the other side, does not Israel know children, civilians are at
> risk?  It's hard to believe they don't.  This war is a moral quagmire.
> I think it's fair to ask whether in fact there is a moral position.  The
> closest to a moral position that we can find is with such groups as
> Human Rights Watch, which seek to exclude all non-combatants from the
> effects of war.  But for me that's not enough.  For, who are these
> warriors fighting our wars?  They are themselves overwhelmingly children.
> But pacifism has never had a place in the real world.
> 
>