Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
[http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=15...]
Click here to search for discussions with Omgili discussions search engine.
 |
Noam Chomsky On the US-Israeli Invasion of Lebanon
Noam Chomsky On the US-Israeli Invasion of Lebanon Mathaba.net
On the US-Israeli Invasion of Lebanon
Posted: 2006/08/26
Though there are many interacting factors, the immediate issue that lies behind the latest US-Israeli invasion of Lebanon remains what it was in the four preceding invasions: the Israel-Palestine conflict.
By Noam Chomsky
Though there are many interacting factors, the immediate issue that lies behind the latest US-Israeli invasion of Lebanon remains, I believe, what it was in the four preceding invasions: the Israel-Palestine conflict.
In the most important case, the devastating US-backed 1982 Israeli invasion was openly described in Israel as a war for the West Bank, undertaken to put an end to annoying PLO calls for a diplomatic settlement (with the secondary goal of imposing a client regime in Lebanon).
There are numerous other illustrations.
Despite the many differences in circumstances, the July 2006 invasion falls generally into the same pattern.
Among mainstream American critics of Bush administration policies, the favored version is that We had always approached [conflict between Israel and its neighbors] in a balanced way, assuming that we could be the catalyst for an agreement, but Bush II regrettably abandoned that neutral stance, causing great problems for the United States (Middle East specialist and former diplomat Edward Walker, a leading moderate).
The actual record is quite different: For over 30 years, Washington has unilaterally barred a peaceful political settlement, with only slight and brief deviations.
The consistent rejectionism can be traced back to the February 1971 Egyptian offer of a full peace treaty with Israel, in the terms of official US policy, offering nothing for the Palestinians.
Israel understood that this peace offer would put an end to any security threat, but the government decided to reject security in favor of expansion, then mostly into northeastern Sinai.
Washington supported Israels stand, adhering to Kissingers principle of stalemate: force, not diplomacy.
It was only 8 years later, after a terrible war and great suffering, that Washington agreed to Egypts demand for withdrawal from its territory.
Meanwhile the Palestinian issue had entered the international agenda, and a broad international consensus had crystallized in favor of a two-state settlement on the pre-June 1967 border, perhaps with minor and mutual adjustments.
In December 1975, the UN Security Council agreed to consider a resolution proposed by the Arab confrontation states with these provisions, also incorporating the basic wording of UN 242.
The US vetoed the resolution.
Israels reaction was to bomb Lebanon, killing over 50 people in Nabatiye, calling the attack preventive presumably to prevent the UN session, which Israel boycotted.
The only significant exception to consistent US-Israeli rejectionism was in January 2001, when Israeli and Palestinian negotiators came close to agreement in Taba.
But the negotiations were called off by Israeli Prime Minister Barak four days early, ending that promising effort.
Unofficial but high-level negotiations continued, leading to the Geneva Accord of December 2002, with similar proposals.
It was welcomed by most of the world, but rejected by Israel and dismissed by Washington (and, reflexively, the US media and intellectual classes).
Meanwhile US-backed Israeli settlement and infrastructure programs have been creating facts on the ground in order to undermine potential realization of Palestinian national rights.
Throughout the Oslo years, these programs continued steadily, with a sharp peak in 2000: Clintons final year, and Baraks.
The current euphemism for these programs is disengagement from Gaza and convergence in the West Bank in Western rhetoric, Ehud Olmerts courageous program of withdrawal from the occupied territories.
The reality, as usual, is quite different.
The Gaza disengagement was openly announced as a West Bank expansion plan.
Having turned Gaza into a disaster area, sane Israeli hawks realized that there was no point leaving a few thousand settlers taking the best land and scarce resources, protected by a large part of the IDF.
It made more sense to send them to the West Bank and Golan Heights, where new settlement programs were announced, while turning Gaza into the worlds largest prison, as Israeli human rights groups accurately call it.
West Bank Convergence formalizes these programs of annexation, cantonization, and imprisonment.
With decisive US support, Israel is annexing valuable lands and the most important resources of the West Bank (primarily water), while carrying out settlement and infrastructure projects that divide the shrinking Palestinian territories into unviable cantons, virtually separated from one another and from whatever pitiful corner of Jerusalem will be left to Palestinians.
All are to be imprisoned as Israel takes over the Jordan Valley, and of course any other access to the outside world.
All of these programs are recognized to be illegal, in violation of numerous Security Council resolutions and the unanimous decision of the World Court any part of the "separation wall" that is built to defend the settlements is ipso facto illegal (U.S.
Justice Buergenthal, in a separate declaration).
Hence about 80-85% of the wall is illegal, as is the entire convergence program.
But for a self-designated outlaw state and its clients, such facts are minor irrelevancies.
Currently, the US and Israel demand that Hamas accept the 2002 Arab League Beirut proposal for full normalization of relations with Israel after withdrawal in accord with the international consensus.
The proposal has long been accepted by the PLO, and it has also been formally accepted by the supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei.
Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has made it clear that Hezbollah would not disrupt such an agreement if it is accepted by Palestinians.
Hamas has repeatedly indicated its willingness to negotiate in these terms.
continued....
|
|
Re: Noam Chomsky On the US-Israeli Invasion of Lebanon Read on....
The facts are doctrinally unacceptable, hence mostly suppressed.
What we see, instead, is the stern warning to Hamas by the editors of the New York Times that their formal agreement to the Beirut peace plan is an admission ticket to the real world, a necessary rite of passage in the progression from a lawless opposition to a lawful government. Like others, the NYT editors fail to mention that the US and Israel forcefully reject this proposal, and are alone in doing so among relevant actors.
Furthermore, they reject it not merely in rhetoric, but far more importantly, in deeds.
We see at once who constitutes the lawless opposition and who speaks for them.
But that conclusion cannot be expressed, even entertained, in respectable circles.
The only meaningful support for Palestinians facing national destruction is from Hezbollah.
For this reason alone it follows that Hezbollah must be severely weakened or destroyed, just as the PLO had to be evicted from Lebanon in 1982.
But Hezbollah is too deeply embedded within Lebanese society to be eradicated, so Lebanon too must be largely destroyed.
An expected benefit for the US and Israel was to enhance the credibility of threats against Iran by eliminating a Lebanese-based deterrent to a possible attack.
But none of this turned out as planned.
Much as in Iraq, and elsewhere, Bush administration planners have created catastrophes, even for the interests they represent.
That is the primary reason for the unprecedented criticism of the administration among the foreign policy elite, even before the invasion of Iraq.
In the background lie more far-reaching and lasting concerns: to ensure what is called stability in the reigning ideology.
Stability, in simple words, means obedience.
Stability is undermined by states that do not strictly follow orders, secular nationalists, Islamists who are not under control (in contrast, the Saudi monarchy, the oldest and most valuable US ally, is fine), etc.
Such destabilizing forces are particularly dangerous when their programs are attractive to others, in which case they are called viruses that must be destroyed.
Stability is enhanced by loyal client states.
Since 1967, it has been assumed that Israel can play this role, along with other peripheral states.
Israel has become virtually an off-shore US military base and high-tech center, the natural consequence of its rejection of security in favor of expansion in 1971, and repeatedly since.
These policies are subject to little internal debate, whoever holds state power.
The policies extend world-wide, and in the Middle East, their significance is enhanced by one of the leading principles of foreign policy since World War II (and for Britain before that): to ensure control over Middle East energy resources, recognized for 60 years to be a stupendous source of strategic power and one of the greatest material prizes in world history.
The standard Western version is that the July 2006 invasion was justified by legitimate outrage over capture of two Israeli soldiers at the border.
The posture is cynical fraud.
The US and Israel, and the West generally, have little objection to capture of soldiers, or even to the far more severe crime of kidnapping civilians (or of course to killing civilians).
That had been Israeli practice in Lebanon for many years, and no one ever suggested that Israel should therefore be invaded and largely destroyed.
Western cynicism was revealed with even more dramatic clarity as the current upsurge of violence erupted after Palestinian militants captured an Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, on June 25.
That too elicited huge outrage, and support for Israel's sharp escalation of its murderous assault on Gaza.
The scale is reflected in casualties: in June, 36 Palestinian civilians were killed in Gaza;
In July, the numbers more than quadrupled to over 170, dozens of them children.
The posture of outrage was, again, cynical fraud, as demonstrated dramatically, and conclusively, by the reaction to Israel's kidnapping of two Gaza civilians, the Muamar brothers, one day before, on June 24.
They disappeared into Israel's prison system, joining the hundreds of others imprisoned without charge -- hence kidnapped, as are many of those sentenced on dubious charges.
There was some brief and dismissive mention of the kidnapping of the Muamar brothers, but no reaction, because such crimes are considered legitimate when carried out by our side. The idea that this crime would justify a murderous assault on Israel would have been regarded as a reversion to Nazism.
The distinction is clear, and familiar throughout history: to paraphrase Thucydides, the powerful are entitled to do as they wish, while the weak suffer as they must.
We should not overlook the progress that has been made in undermining the imperial mentality that is so deeply rooted in Western moral and intellectual culture as to be beyond awareness.
Nor should we forget the scale of what remains to be achieved, tasks that must be undertaken in solidarity and cooperation by people in North and South who hope to see a more decent and civilized world.
http://mathaba.net/news/?x=542198
|
|
|
Re: Noam Chomsky On the US-Israeli Invasion of Lebanon so i guess inquiring minds(what's that!?)could ask!?HOW do the powerful RULE and WHO are their ENABLERS!?(and WHO worships BOTH!?(GROUPIES!?)hehe!?hehe!!CAUTION!!CAUTION!!DA NGEROUS to 1's HEALTH or SENSE of WELL being or COMFORT!?(or not!?)hehe!!just askin
|
|
|
Re: Noam Chomsky On the US-Israeli Invasion of Lebanon i dont remember a US-Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
Can you please tell us when this happened????
i recall an Israeli invasion, but thats about it.
|
|
Re: Noam Chomsky On the US-Israeli Invasion of Lebanon Quote: : The US backed Israel going into Lebanon, and supplied the weaponry.
Do you think maybe, America and Israel are joined at the hip?
Or is their alliance closer than that?
Worker the US and Israel are one and the same.
Both run by Zionists!
If you don't beleive it, it's because you don't know what's going on.
The reason you don't know is;
The news you are fed by the US media is filtered about four times, before it is published.
Our news in GB is filtered a bit, we know a lot more than the US because of it.
When you read of an incident in the West Bank say, it will go something like this;
"Today Palestinian dissidents attacked Israeli soldiers in the Jewish neigbourhood of wherever"
Now, here is what is wrong with that statement:
The Palestinians cannot be called dissidents, they are in their own territory, on their own land.
Israel is occupying the Palastinians territory, illegaly, just the same as Hitler did Poland in WW2.
Also "Jewish neigbourhood".
It should say "Jewish illegal Settlement", because they have no right to be there, Your media makes it sound as though the Palastinians are causing trouble in Jewish suburbia.
The truth is the Palestinians want their home back.
Watch the video below, learn some truth.
.
|
|
Re: Noam Chomsky On the US-Israeli Invasion of Lebanon Quote: : ahah you are hilarious.
Go back to your sandbaggin nation and stop helpnig the terrorists in london, they have enough problems.
your definition of a joint war simply because the Us supported Israel (even though they repeatedly called on them to pull out of Lebanon, you phucin ignorant phuck) is flimsy at best.
Go back to school, learn something, then come back when youre done molesting the koran
|
|
Re: Noam Chomsky On the US-Israeli Invasion of Lebanon Quote: : Pardon :confused:
Quote: : By the by;
Noam Comsky is a Zionist Jew.
Did you know that?
.
|
|
Re: Noam Chomsky On the US-Israeli Invasion of Lebanon Independant UK
Questions to Noam Chomsky
Q:- Do you believe Israel should exist, why and in what form?
NICK HARRIS
A:- As a Zionist youth leader in the 1940s, I was among those who called for a binational state in Mandatory Palestine.
When a Jewish state was declared, I felt that it should have the rights of other states - no more, no less.
Why should the US exist, sitting on half of Mexico, including Florida, conquered in a violent racist war carried out in violation of the Constitution?
And we can ask much the same about other states.
State formation has been a brutal project, with many hideous consequences.
But the results exist, and their pernicious aspects should be overcome.
NOAM CHOMSKY
Q:- How did you feel about the lack of a swift UN intervention in the recent Lebanon crisis?
ROBIN, INVERNESS
A:- The first requirement was an immediate cease-fire.
That was blocked by Washington, presumably to allow maximal destruction by the invasion - the US-Israeli invasion, according to the (accurate) perception of 90 per cent of Lebanese.
That call should have been accompanied by a demand for withdrawal of the invading army and reparations, unthinkable given the distribution of power.
The resolution that was passed is deeply flawed, a separate matter.
NOAM CHOMSKY
Q:- Surely the US, UK and Israel are guilty of war crimes?
BALALL MAQBOOL
A:- In the case of Lebanon, there is little doubt.
Ample reasons have been given by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and that's a bare beginning.
But guilt extends far beyond.
The Bush-Blair invasion of Iraq, for example, is a clear example of what the Nuremberg Tribunal determined to be "the supreme international crime", which encompasses all the evil that follows.
We would do well to recall the eloquent words of Nuremberg chief counsel Justice Robert Jackson: "We are handing the defendants a 'poisoned chalice', and if we sip from it, we must accept the same judgement." The conclusions seem clear enough.
NOAM CHOMSKY
Q:- After all the lies about the "war on terror", why has nobody in America started procedures to impeach George Bush?
MARICARMEN SANDOVAL DE PASMANS, SINT ODILIENBERG, THE NETHERLANDS
A:- There are several efforts, but there is unlikely to be any outcome in the absence of a genuine opposition party.
NOAM CHOMSKY
Q:- Why do you suppose it is so difficult for us Americans to create a real citizens' movement as a proper counterweight to the administration's power?
HONORABLE ANNA TAYLOR, US DISTRICT COURT
A:- The question is much too important for a brief answer.
The level of activism is high, probably higher than the 1960s.
But it is diffuse and not well-integrated.
An ideal form of social control is an atomised collection of individuals focused on their own narrow concern, lacking the kinds of organisations in which they can gain information, develop and articulate their thoughts, and act constructively to achieve common ends.
By many familiar mechanisms, that ideal has been approached in dangerous but not irreversible ways.
NOAM CHOMSKY
Q:- Since American foreign policy in the Middle East has throughout history been primarily interventionist, do you think the War in Iraq was inevitable, even if Bush had not stolen the 2000 election?
DAVID KEELAGHAN, MONAGHAN, IRELAND
A:- Not at all.
There was unprecedented criticism of the war plans within elite sectors, compelling Bush-Blair to resort to considerable deceit to manipulate their countries into war.
That aside, the US has been no more interventionist than Britain or France, often less so, as in 1956.
NOAM CHOMSKY
Q:- Can Israelis and Palestinians ever live peacefully together in one state?
MATTHEW PETERS, PHILADELPHIA
A:- Perhaps, but it would have to be approached in stages.
Since the 1970s, an international consensus has crystallised on the first stage: a two-state settlement on the internationally recognised borders, with minor and mutual adjustments.
That has been barred by the US and Israel, with inconsequential departures.
The US-Israeli alliance is now working to undermine the option by their programs of "convergence": annexation, dismemberment, and imprisonment (by takeover of the Jordan Valley), cynically described as "courageous withdrawal".
If these policies can be reversed, and the first stage achieved, then further steps are possible.
NOAM CHOMSKY
Q:- Can the curtailment of personal freedoms and the heightened fear among many Western populations be compared to life in the years preceding the Second World War and is it an overstatement to imagine that current events are a precursor to another global conflict?
RAY LONG, DUBLIN
A:- I'm sceptical about such comparisons.
There is a serious risk of global conflict, but for different reasons.
We should take seriously the judgement of prominent strategic analysts that current policies, particularly Bush administration aggressive militarism, significantly increase the threat of "ultimate doom".
NOAM CHOMSKY
.
|
|
Re: Noam Chomsky On the US-Israeli Invasion of Lebanon Quote: :
what are you confused about.
Anarchgold , you are a terrorist contributer from England.
I want you to go back to your homeland and molest your koran.
It was clear in my post ( i thought).
what does it matter if noam comsky is a jew????
That means what he says against Israel is all truth???
Are you a christian??
Does that mean everything you say for/against the US, England, Italy, France, and every other mostly christian denominated country is true???
the guy is as anti-american as they come.
Screw him.
|
|
|
Re: Noam Chomsky On the US-Israeli Invasion of Lebanon Quote: : Quote: : Is that against Israel?
You are a hate filled phukk aintcha?
You hate everyone who does not agree with you.
Are you Grims partner in the ADL.
.
|
|
|
Re: Noam Chomsky On the US-Israeli Invasion of Lebanon Quote: :
yes i am a hate filled person.
i hate those that make bold and general statements, such as you have, that are directed against a group of others simply because you beleive that entire group to be of a bad breed based on a few actions/people that you think represent that group.
i hate racist people, people that hate based on stero-types, and most importantly, anyone who uses the words "zionist" or "flying monkey"
|
|
Re: Noam Chomsky On the US-Israeli Invasion of Lebanon Quote: : I do not hate, I have never hated in my life.
Ever!! What is, is just that.
Who am I to hate anybody.
I don't consider myself to be that Superior.
You hate people, you hate lots so I suppose you consider yourself to be Super Superior.
Why should I not mention the word Zionist?
Me not saying the word won't make them go away.
I have no hate for Zionists, I do not hate.
I don't agree with what they do, is all, and in the "Free Western World", are we not allowed to make our displeasure known?
Anyway, you have not answered my question.
Do you work for the ADL?
:rolleyes:
|
|
Re: Noam Chomsky On the US-Israeli Invasion of Lebanon Quote: : o good god you are clever, but not really that clever.
i make statements supporting israel, and you and diechrist start throwing around "zionist" terms.
When did i say i am a zionist or espouse anythign they do???
When do half the people you talk about fall into the category of zionist??
Screw half, most of them.
every media person is a zionist right???
The bush admin are all zionists right??
Grims a zionist, im a zionist, everyone who supports israel is a zionist....right???
|
|
Re: Noam Chomsky On the US-Israeli Invasion of Lebanon Quote: : You aint even a Jew.
Jews spell God like this;
G-d, not like this;
God, as you do.
Hmm, perhaps you don't work for the ADL after all :rolleyes:
The Zions run the media, yes Zionists.
Bush converted.
He helps the Zionists.
Clinton also.
Wolfitz and co are.
.
Attached Images
|
|
Re: Noam Chomsky On the US-Israeli Invasion of Lebanon Quote: : ahah you really want to get into what is "being a jew"
jews spell god like "g-d" only when there is a possibility of the word being thrown away, like on a piece of paper.
If you want to dispose of it, you would have to bury it.
since the internet will never be "thrown away", unless this site shuts down i guess, writing god on here does not matter.
you are not even a real english speaking person, as you spell "are not" as "aint".
pretty stupid logic, huh??
|
|
|
Re: Noam Chomsky On the US-Israeli Invasion of Lebanon Quote: : speakin a clever!?you have ADMITTED to HATING!?and just today, i saw "W" give a great speech on the ELIMINATION of the ideology of HATE!?hehe!!now as we can plainly see,by your standards!?hate is divided into GOOD hate,and BAD hate!?and OF COURSE!?you FALL on the side of GOOD HATE!?but as to HOW this CAME ABOUT!?you have yet to tell us!?or why would you!?there's no danger in you keepin it a secret is there!?hehe!!just askin
|
|
|
|