Description: http://www.hirhome.com/index_12.gif
www.hirhome.com

Notify me of new HIR pieces!

Understanding the US position (Part 1)

Why does the US propose a NATO intervention?

Historical and Investigative Research - 24 July 2006
by Francisco Gil-White $Description: C:\Users\Francisco\Desktop\Transfer\web\hir\iraniraq\button1E.jpg$
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hezbollah4.htm

1 | 2
___________________________________________________________

As shown in this series, Hezbollah is not a ‘militia,’ as much of the media would have you believe: it is an antisemitic terrorist army of extermination.[1] A year ago exactly, the Philadelphia Inquirer explained the tremendous symbolic importance that Hezbollah has for the terrorist enemies of Israel:

“Hezbollah now controls the south [of Lebanon]. It is viewed throughout the region as the one armed Arab group that has defeated Israel by suicide bombers and guns [because Hezbollah claims that Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 chased out by Hezbollah’s terrorism].”[2]

Consistent with this, the same article explained that “the United States labels Hezbollah a terrorist organization.” This -- in combination with the oft-repeated US claim to love and support Israel -- leads some to conclude that the United States ruling elite must be opposed to Hezbollah. However, government officials routinely conceal the truth with public statements -- we all know this. Therefore, the public statements of government officials are not a reliable guide for the social scientist.

Happily, the social scientist can examine the foreign policy behaviors of states, and in these behaviors the ruling elites that control state policy reveal their true values and goals. To understand the US ruling elite’s real attitudes toward both Israel and Hezbollah, then, let us first take a look at how US officials have reacted to the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in the past, and then at how they are reacting this time.

The history
___________

A decade ago exactly, in 1996, Hezbollah escalated dramatically its rocket attacks against Israeli civilians. When Israel retaliated, there were casualties, including civilians at a UN base in Qana, in southern Lebanon. Consistent with the general anti-Israeli thrust of the media, Israel rather than Hezbollah was blamed for this, even though 1) it was Hezbollah that attacked first; 2) it is Hezbollah that as a matter of principle targets civilians when it attacks; and 3) Hezbollah had fired its rockets against Israeli civilians from “a position close to the UN post, thus drawing the errant Israeli artillery fire” to the UN base.[3]

An ally of Israel would have blamed the terrorists who endanger both the civilians they attack and the civilians they hide among. Instead, the US used the worldwide diplomatic attack on Israel in order to produce a state of affairs that defies belief:

“For 10 days, Warren Christopher, then the secretary of state, bounced between Damascus, Beirut and Jerusalem until he finally was able to get the 1996 cease-fire arrangement that restricted Israel and Hezbollah to fighting each other without terrorizing civilian populations.”[4]

In other words, a decade ago, the United States went out of its way 1) to restrain Israel from crossing over and destroying Hezbollah; and 2) to guarantee Hezbollah’s ability to attack Israel, even though Hezbollah’s ideology, as HIR has shown, is simply to destroy the Jewish state through genocide![5]

The initial reaction to the current conflict
________________________________________

A few days ago (14 July), in an article entitled “U.S. Urges Restraint By Israel,” the Washington Post explained the US’s initial reaction to the conflict:

“President Bush and his top diplomats scrambled Thursday night to quell spiraling violence in the Middle East and protect the new democratic government in Lebanon as Israeli forces escalated their strikes.

Bush initially told reporters that ‘Israel has a right to defend herself,’ qualifying the statement only with a call to avoid toppling the Lebanese government, which he deems a model for the region.

But as fighting worsened, the White House grew increasingly anxious and issued a late-night appeal to Israel. ‘We just continue to ask that the Israelis exercise restraint, be concerned about civilian casualties, be concerned of course about civilian infrastructure,’ Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told reporters at a hastily called news conference here, 10 hours after Bush’s original comments.”[6]

The United States initial reaction is notable for what it did not contain. President Bush and Condoleezza Rice did not say:

“First, Israel is fighting a terrorist army of extermination; second, Israel is our ally; and third, the US is also fighting a war on terror. So, consistent with our enforcement of regime change in Iraq on the grounds that it was a dangerous terrorist state, we support our Israeli allies in the effort to defeat the antisemitic terrorists who have attacked them and to defeat also those who harbor them.”

Making this kind of statement would have been consistent with the US’s public stance that it is supposedly fighting a war on Islamist terror, and also with its public claim to support Israel. But what Bush and Rice did is rather different. First, Bush, with imperial condescension, granted Israel the right to defend itself and then, according to the Washington Post, Bush and Rice “scrambled ...[to]... quell spiraling violence in the Middle East and protect the new democratic government in Lebanon.”

Now, as shown in this series, the ‘government’ in Lebanon is not democratic at all (this is how the Washington Post lies to you); it is not even a real government but a puppet of Syria.[7] According to the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, US officials don’t want us to notice this:

“...successive American administrations have been reluctant to openly push for an end to Syrian protection of Hezbollah. In fact, the United States has been unwilling even to publicly request that the Syrians end this protection. ...[there is a] long-standing American policy of avoiding public statements which mention or suggest that Syria controls Lebanese policy decisions.”[8]

Of course, in the context of this conflict they have come out and said it. But why didn't US officials want us to notice this? Don’t they say in public that they are enemies of Syria? They do. Shouldn’t they be exposing their enemies when they do things that endanger an ally? They should. So perhaps the picture of the US as supposedly joined at the hip with Israel against Syria is not the right model of geopolitical alliances. But if US officials have been covering up for Syria’s behaviors in Lebanon, what have they been covering up? What is Syria doing to Lebanon?

As discussed earlier in this series, Hezbollah is transforming Lebanon into an Iranian-style theocratic state, because this is what Hezbollah likes, and Iran is funding it.[9] It is Syria that is masterminding the transformation because Sryia owns Lebanon, and Syria is also Hezbollah’s master.[10] In this Syria is assisted by the fact that there are lots of Shiites in Lebanon, and that Hezbollah’s mass base is among the Shiites. An article in the St. Petersburg Times explains,

“[Hezbollah] now has 14 seats in Lebanon’s Parliament and, along with Amal, another Shiite party, controls about a third of the Cabinet.

Thus, part of the reason Lebanon’s government will find it difficult to disarm Hezbollah is that Hezbollah is a substantial part of the [Lebanese] government.”[11]

So what Syria is doing to Lebanon is turn it into a Hezbollah state. A Hezbollah state is Mordor: a country dedicated from head to toes to the destruction, via genocide, of the Jewish state. Given that the Lebanese army, as shown in this series, supports the Hezbollah attacks on Israel, the transformation would appear to be nearly complete.[12]

This is what US officials don’t want us to understand. In particular because, as we’ve also seen, the “Lebanese government [is one that George Bush] deems a model for the region.”

The Hezbollification of Lebanon is the US model for the Arab region.

What does this mean? Given that Hezbollah subordinates all of its political activities towards achieving the extermination of the Jewish people, it means that Bush wants the Arab states around Israel transformed into full-time factories for the production of eager Jew-killers.

Guess who agrees with the US? The 'Palestinian' terrorists:

“Among Palestinian militants, Hezbollah is increasingly seen as a model for resisting Israeli occupation. The Palestinian militant group Hamas, an offshoot of the Sunni Islamic organization the Muslim Brotherhood, has set aside religious differences to support Hezbollah's anti-Israel tactics.”[12a]

Taking everything together, then, the initial US reaction to the current conflict may be characterized as follows:

US officials appeared concerned that some terrorists went too far too soon, forcing an Israeli reaction that threatens the steady growth in Lebanon of a terrorist-Islamist state dedicated to the destruction of Israel through genocide. If the US ruling elite quickly grew “increasingly anxious,” as reported, this is probably because much is at stake, given that the US government considers the Hezbollizing Lebanese government a model for the Arab region.

The initial US reaction to the current Israeli-Hezbollah conflict is therefore consistent with earlier US policy towards the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, and consistent also with the entire history of US foreign policy toward the Jewish people and state.[13]

Trying to find the right thing to say
_________________________________

Just two days later, the same Washington Post was reporting a somewhat different picture. US officials now appeared to be calling for total defeat of the terrorists:

“Israel, with U.S. support, intends to resist calls for a cease-fire and continue a longer-term strategy of punishing Hezbollah... according to senior Israeli and U.S. officials.”[14]

And yet the same article reported that the White House was still calling on Israel to exercise “restraint”:

“...White House officials said Friday that Bush has called on Israel to limit civilian casualties and avoid toppling the Lebanese government but has not pressured Israel to stop its military action. ‘He believes that the Israelis have a right to protect themselves,’ spokesman Tony Snow said in St. Petersburg, where Bush is attending the Group of Eight summit. ‘The president is not going to make military decisions for Israel.’”

So, two days later, the US ruling elite was still trying to save, for the long term, Syria’s Hezbollification of the Lebanese state, but the call for restraint now came with the confusingly simultaneous tough stance of support for Israel.

The next day, the same divided stance:

“Bush defended Israel while calling for restraint. ‘Our message to Israel is: Look, defend yourself, but as you do so, be mindful of the consequences,’ he said. Bush placed most of the blame for the outbreak of violence on Hezbollah and the militant arm of Hamas, and on what he called their backers in Iran and Syria. He said terrorists are trying to wreck a peace process designed to forge a Palestinian state.”[15]

A cynic could read Bush’s statement of support as an oblique threat that Israel should not be defending itself too vigorously: “defend yourself, but...be mindful of the consequences.”

It appears that US officials really didn’t want this particular conflict to escalate. Bush is not only worried that the Hezbollification of Lebanon is in trouble, but that the Oslo ‘peace’ process has been put at risk. One thing is consistent with the other. The Hezbollification of Lebanon that Bush is rushing to protect is precisely what the PLO -- which in the ‘peace’ process is supposed to achieve total control over the West Bank after the Jews are cleansed from it -- has been doing to the West Bank: it has been Hezbollizing it: it is turning everybody into a Jew-killer, and it is making Jew-killing the central organizing principle of West Bank ‘civilization.’ (Israelis who get lost in the West Bank are literally torn limb from limb.[16])

The next day, 18 July, the Ottawa Citizen explained that:

“The American president is no longer hit-listing axes of evil, no longer issuing ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive’ threats, no longer pre-emptively invading countries that give him the heebie-jeebies. He's still exercising the overwhelming influence and leverage of the United States, he’s just doing it by doing as little as possible.”[17]

Strange behavior for an ally of Israel, when that ally is under terrorist attack... But there was nevertheless some tough pro-Israeli cheap talk and the Ottawa Citizen offered a translation of it for its readers:

“Translation: ‘We don’t want a cease-fire. We don’t want an international stability force. We’re letting Israel bomb the #$%* out of Lebanon because we’re hoping it will wipe out Hezbollah once and for all, kneecap Iran and Syria in the process and P.S., it’s quicker than talking.’”[18]

Except that the very same day an open microphone caught Bush complaining in a private remark to Blair that “what they need to do is to get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it’s over,”[18a] which again suggests that US officials are not happy with the threat to the Hezbollification of Lebanon, even as they make lukewarm public statements of support for Israel.

The day after, 19 July, the Wall Street Journal reported an official position that contradicted what the open mike had caught:

“Bush administration and Sec of State Rice have no intention of launching diplomacy to end current fighting between Hezbollah in Lebanon and Israel.”[19]

Finding the solution?
____________________

On 20 July the US ruling elite appears to have found the solution. The Los Angeles Times explains:

“Although wary of multinational peacekeeping operations, the Bush administration is working with allies to find a way to insert a robust military force and a civilian international presence in Lebanon to strengthen the frail government and break the grip of Hezbollah, U.S. and foreign diplomats say.

The peacekeepers would be positioned along Lebanon’s southern border in an effort to prevent future Hezbollah attacks on Israel, whereas the civilian officials would be scattered elsewhere in the Arab country, including at key entry points, to halt the flow of military equipment from Syria and Iran to Hezbollah, the officials say.”[20]

That’s what they say. What will happen is that the multinational force on the Israel-Lebanon border will make it impossible in the future for Israel to prevent the Hezbollification of Lebanon. Once that is accomplished, the multinational force will leave and Israel will be destroyed. This is not a speculation: this is how NATO interventions to ‘ameliorate conflict’ work, and this sort of thing was used already against Yugoslavia. As HIR has argued, if you want to see where Israel is headed, then take a look at what NATO has done to Kosovo.[21]

And get ready, because the Los Angeles Times explains that

“the international peacekeeping effort has become the focal point of American diplomacy”

and also that,

“Diplomats say they believe that there is significant support among some European and Arab governments for mobilizing a strong international presence in Lebanon to help end a confrontation that otherwise could bleed the region.”

The corrupted Israeli government is already on board, according to the same newspaper:

“Israel, often wary of allowing others a role in matters affecting its security, thinks the peacekeeping mission could work. Though some officials at first criticized the idea, the government now views it as ‘something we’ll support,’ said one Israeli official who requested anonymity when discussing the pending diplomatic efforts.”

And everybody is rushing to get this done before the Israeli public can react against it:

“U.N. envoys Wednesday urged the international community to decide on a multinational buffer force quickly.

‘We are in a hurry. It has to happen fast,’ said Terje Roed-Larsen, a veteran Mideast mediator and a special advisor to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. He was speaking at a news conference in Madrid after visits to Beirut and Jerusalem.”

Who is Terje Roed-Larsen? He and his wife Mona Juul are Norwegian diplomats who were architects of the Oslo ‘peace’ process by means of which Israel is now being destroyed. (I don’t think it is coincidence that the same Norwegian diplomats destroyed Yugoslavia -- these people are tools of NATO, as HIR has shown).[22] Roed-Larsen is now one of the top operatives in charge of the assault against Israel:

“In 1999, [Terje Roed-Larsen] was appointed as UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s personal representative to the PLO and Palestine Authority on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. He is also the UN Special Coordinator for peace negotiations in the Middle East. He subsequently left the post in 2004 to become President of the International Peace Academy, a NYC-based think tank, and was also designated as UN Special Representative for the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1559, which calls for Syrian withdrawal of Lebanon and the disarmament of Hezbollah.”[23]

So, not only is Roed-Larsen one of the people responsible for the Second Intifada violence of the PLO, by helping bring the terrorist PLO into the Jewish state. He is also responsible for the UN dropping the ball on Resolution 1559 (discussed earlier in this series), which was supposed to remove the terrorist threat to Israel from Lebanon.[24]

It appears that the force Roed-Larsen and other professional destroyers of Israel want to send in will indeed be a NATO force, as the Los Angeles Times explains:

“To be effective, a new force probably would have to be several times as large as the 2,000-troop U.N. contingent -- known as the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, or UNIFIL -- that is in the region, officials said. It also probably would need highly trained soldiers, such as those of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO], and rules of engagement that would allow its troops to intervene to stop hostilities, officials said.”[25]

Guess what? The largest troop contingent making up UNIFIL is Norwegian, and the commander is likewise Norwegian.[25a] Given the history of Norwegian 'peace-making' in the Arab-Israeli conflict and elsewhere, and given that UNIFIL appears to sympathize strongly with Hezbollah, this does not look like a coincidence.

The Los Angeles Times explains further that,

“The proposed international force would work side by side with the Lebanese army, which is weaker than Hezbollah and has no presence in the Shiite Muslim-dominated region in southern Lebanon, where the Islamist militant group has its base, officials say.”

Are you following this? The “proposed international force would work side by side with the Lebanese army,” the same Lebanese army that, as HIR has shown, already belongs to Hezbollah.[26]

And everybody is on board, says the Los Angeles Times: “Lebanese officials have given some indication of a willingness to work with Israel to secure their border.”

In all this, nobody is proposing the dismantling of Hezbollah, and that speaks volumes. The Los Angeles Times reports that what they officially want is “to prevent Hezbollah from obtaining long-range missiles that could strike Israel,” and “a halt to arms shipments.” In other words, the multinational force will supposedly prevent Hezbollah from arming itself, but it will not disband it. What will really happen is that Hezbollah will arm itself to the teeth (because the arms come through the north), and Lebanon will be Hezbollized without interference from Israel.

But that is not all. As part of this package the UN will ask Israel to withdraw from the Shebaa Farms in the Golan Heights, says the Los Angeles Times:

“The Yediot Aharonot newspaper [in Israel] reported that other elements of the U.N.-proposed deal included the freeing of captured Israeli soldiers; a cessation of Hezbollah rocket fire at Israel; the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails; and an Israeli withdrawal from the so-called Shabaa Farms, a sliver of disputed land on the slopes of Mt. Hermon, where Syria, Lebanon and Israeli-occupied territory touch.”

As HIR has shown, Shebaa Farms was never part of Lebanon, according to none other than the UN itself! The claim Hezbollah makes for Shebaa Farms is a nonsense claim -- a total phony -- meant to give Syria a foothold on the strategic Golan Heights, which it needs in order to have a better chance of destroying Israel.[27] In addition, hundreds of antisemitic terrorists will be released from Israeli jails. So the ‘solution’ to this conflict will apparently be...a Final Solution.

The Los Angeles Times ends its piece with the following ominous lines:

“In Israel, analysts who have watched the current U.N. force in Lebanon expressed less urgency than U.N. officials about discussing the idea of a new deployment.

They noted that the Israeli government had long complained that the [UN] peacekeepers did little or nothing to prevent Hezbollah from moving about freely and staging attacks.

‘There were incidents in which UNIFIL [the current UN force in Lebanon] was seen as having abetted [Hezbollah] or made it more difficult for Israel to identify a coming attack by what they call the Lebanese resistance,’ said Hillel Frisch, an analyst at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv.

Partly as a result of the U.N. force’s history, he said, ‘Israel has major doubts as to whether an international force would have staying power, and at what price.’

An American or NATO component might make such a force more palatable to Israel, he and other analysts said.”

Is this article useful? Help us do more with a donation .
Would you like to be notified of new articles? Sign up (it’s free) .

Well, if a NATO intervention is indeed palatable to Israel, then Israel must want to become Kosovo.[28]

And unless ordinary Israelis defend themselves, it will happen. On Sunday morning (23 July) the Israeli Defense Minister came out and endorsed the idea of this NATO force.[29]

Take me to the

in this series.

Israel at War -- An HIR Series

█ Who attacked Israel?

█ What is Hezbollah?

█ What caused this war?

█ Understanding the US position | 1

█ Understanding the US position | 2

█ The Arab reaction, and what it means

█ Who is killing Lebanese civilians? | 1

█ Who is killing Lebanese civilians? | 2

█ What is wrong with the media? | 1

█ What is wrong with the media? | 2

_____________________________________________________

Footnotes and Further Reading
_____________________________________________________

[1] WHAT IS HEZBOLLAH?; Historical and Investigative Research - 22 July 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hezbollah2.htm

[2] A unilateral Gaza pullout would only help Hamas, Philadelphia Inquirer, July 21, 2005, Thursday, COMMENTARY, K2959, 775 words, By Trudy Rubin

[3] “[Israel] said Hezbollah guerrillas were to blame for firing rockets into Israel from a position close to the U.N. post, thus drawing the errant Israeli artillery fire.”

SOURCE: Cease-fire imminent in Mideast, The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, April 20, 1996, Saturday,, ALL EDITIONS, 290 words, Charles W. Holmes; STAFF CORRESPONDENT, Jerusalem

[4] U.S., Needing Options, Finds Its Hands Tied, The New York Times, July 15, 2006 Saturday, Late Edition - Final, Section A; Column 3; Foreign Desk; TURMOIL IN THE MIDEAST: NEWS ANALYSIS; Pg. 1, 936 words, By HELENE COOPER; Mark Mazzetti contributed reporting from Washington for this article, and Jim Rutenberg from St. Petersburg, Russia., WASHINGTON, July 14

[5] WHAT IS HEZBOLLAH?; Historical and Investigative Research - 22 July 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hezbollah2.htm

[6] U.S. Urges Restraint By Israel; Democratic Government Seen Facing Jeopardy in Lebanon, The Washington Post, July 14, 2006 Friday, Final Edition, A Section; A14, 1052 words, Peter Baker, Washington Post Staff Writer, STRALSUND, Germany July 13

[7] WHO ATTACKED ISRAEL?; Historical and Investigative Research; 21 July 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hezbollah.htm

[8] "Hezbollah: Between Tehran and Damascus"; Middle East Intelligence Bulletin; Vol. 4, No. 2; February 2002; by Gary C. Gambill and Ziad K. Abdelnour

[9] WHAT IS HEZBOLLAH?; Historical and Investigative Research - 22 July 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hezbollah2.htm

[10] WHO ATTACKED ISRAEL?; Historical and Investigative Research; 21 July 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hezbollah.htm

[11] Hezbollah's grip will be tough to break, St. Petersburg Times (Florida), July 14, 2006 Friday, 0 Edition, NATIONAL; Pg. 10A, 947 words, SUSAN TAYLOR MARTIN SENIOR CORRESPONDENT

[12] WHO ATTACKED ISRAEL?; Historical and Investigative Research; 21 July 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hezbollah.htm

[12a] "What is Hezbollah?"; By Jefferson Morley; washingtonpost.com; Staff Writer; Monday, July 17, 2006; 5:14 PM.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2006/07/17/AR2006071700912.html

[13] “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL: A Chronological look at the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm

[14] Strikes Are Called Part of Broad Strategy; U.S., Israel Aim to Weaken Hezbollah, Region's Militants, The Washington Post, July 16, 2006 Sunday, Final Edition, A Section; A15, 1171 words, Robin Wright, Washington Post Staff Writer

[15] G8 leaders urge Middle East to halt violence; Bush defends Israeli actions but calls for restraint, USA TODAY, July 17, 2006 Monday, FINAL EDITION, NEWS; Pg. 4A, 474 words, David Jackson

[16] “Palestinian antagonism is such that when two uniformed Israeli reservists stray into Ramallah -- not two undercover commandos, as the Palestinian media claims -- they get torn limb from limb. . .”

SOURCE: THE ISRAELI VIEW: HOW TWO TRUTHS MAKE ONE TRAGEDY; IN FEW CONFLICTS ARE THE STANDPOINTS OF THE PROTAGONISTS SO POLARISED AS IN THE MIDDLE EAST. WE ASKED WRITERS FROM EITHER SIDE FOR THEIR EXPERIENCES, The Independent (London), October 22, 2000, Sunday, COMMENT; Pg. 18, 794 words, David Horovitz

[17] The U.S. is betting on a fight to the finish, Ottawa Citizen, July 18, 2006 Tuesday, Final Edition, NEWS; Lisa Van Dusen; Pg. A11, 1105 words, Lisa Van Dusen, Citizen Special

[18] The U.S. is betting on a fight to the finish, Ottawa Citizen, July 18, 2006 Tuesday, Final Edition, NEWS; Lisa Van Dusen; Pg. A11, 1105 words, Lisa Van Dusen, Citizen Special

[18a] CHATTER WE WON'T HEAR; EVER WONDER WHAT THOSE WORLD LEADERS MIGHT BE SAYING WHEN THE MICROPHONES ARE OFF?, The Toronto Sun, July 20, 2006 Thursday, FINAL EDITION, EDITORIAL/OPINION; Pg. 20, 513 words, BY RACHEL MARSDEN

[19] HANDS-OFF: BUSH'S RISKY MIDEAST STRATEGY: SEEK CHANGE, NOT QUICK PEACE, WALL STREET JOURNAL ABSTRACTS, July 19, 2006 Wednesday, Section A; Column 5; Pg. 1, 47 words, NEIL JR KING; KARBY LEGGETT; JAY SOLOMON

[20] WARFARE IN THE MIDDLE EAST; U.S. Now Supports a Buffer; The White House seeks a beefed-up multinational military presence on Lebanon's border with Israel. Arms monitors also would be deployed., Los Angeles Times, July 20, 2006 Thursday, Home Edition, MAIN NEWS; Foreign Desk; Part A; Pg. 1, 1757 words, Paul Richter and Laura King, Times Staff Writers, WASHINGTON

[21] TO SEE WHERE ISRAEL IS HEADED, VISIT KOSOVO; Historical and Investigative Research; 8 July 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/yugo/kosovo_junger.htm

[22] “THE OSLO WAR PROCESS: Norwegians are the diplomatic 'advance guard' of the US-European empire. They helped destroy Yugoslavia. They set Israel on the path to destruction. Now they will finish destroying Sri Lanka. Next: India.”; Historical and Investigative Research; 29 October 2005; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/yugo/oslo-intro.htm

[23] Terje Rød-Larsen | From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terje_R%C3%B8d-Larsen

[24] WHO ATTACKED ISRAEL?; Historical and Investigative Research; 21 July 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hezbollah.htm

[25] WARFARE IN THE MIDDLE EAST; U.S. Now Supports a Buffer; The White House seeks a beefed-up multinational military presence on Lebanon's border with Israel. Arms monitors also would be deployed., Los Angeles Times, July 20, 2006 Thursday, Home Edition, MAIN NEWS; Foreign Desk; Part A; Pg. 1, 1757 words, Paul Richter and Laura King, Times Staff Writers, WASHINGTON

[25a] This is from George Mason University's Peace Operations Policy Program. The portions dealing with the nature of UNIFIL troops are highlighted in yellow.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/t-po/resource-bk/mission/unifil.html

UNITED NATIONS INTERIM FORCE IN LEBANON

LOCATION: Southern Lebanon

HEADQUARTERS: Naqoura

DURATION: March 1978 to present

STRENGTH: 5,187 troops assisted by 59 military observers of UNTSO's Observer Group Lebanon, and approximately 540 international and local civilian staff

FATALITIES: 200

FORCE COMMANDER: Major-General Trond Furuhovde (Norway)

BACKGROUND

In the early 1970s, tension along the Israeli-Lebanon border increased, especially after the relocation of Palestinian armed elements from Jordan to Lebanon. Palestinian commando operations against Israel and Israeli reprisals against Palestinian bases in Lebanon intensified. On 11 March 1978, a commando attack in Israel resulted in many dead and wounded among the Israeli population; the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) claimed responsibility for that raid. In response, Israeli forces invaded Lebanon on the night of 14/15 March, and in a few days occupied the entire southern part of the country except for the city of Tyre and its surrounding area.

ESTABLISHMENT OF UNIFIL

On 15 March, the Lebanese Government submitted a strong protest to the Security Council against the Israeli invasion, stating that it had no connection with the Palestinian commando operation. On 19 March, the Security Council adopted resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978), in which it called upon Israel immediately to cease its military action and withdraw its forces from all Lebanese territory.

It also decided to establish immediately a United Nations interim force for southern Lebanon for an initial period of six months, subject to extension. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was set up with the mandate to confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon, to restore international peace and security and to assist the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area. The first UNIFIL troops arrived in the area on 23 March 1978.

UNIFIL'S ACTIVITIES

Until now, however, it has not been possible for UNIFIL to carry out in full its original mandate. From its inception, the Force had to operate under extremely difficult conditions. The PLO and the Government of Israel never fully accepted the UNIFIL mandate with all its implications. Given these attitudes, the Force was prevented from deploying fully in the area evacuated by the Israeli forces between April and June 1978. In fact, the enclave along the border was turned over to the "de facto forces" (Christian and associated militias supported and supplied by Israel). Israel thus retained a degree of military power in the area and continued its fight against the PLO and its Lebanese allies. UNIFIL's efforts to implement its mandate in these conditions inevitably met with only partial success and caused the Force to suffer significant casualties.

In June 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon again. This invasion changed UNIFIL's situation drastically. For three years, UNIFIL in its entirety remained behind the Israeli lines, with its role limited to providing protection and humanitarian assistance to the local population to the extent possible. In 1985, Israel carried out a partial withdrawal, but it retained control of an area in southern Lebanon, manned by the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) and by Lebanese de facto forces (DFF), the so-called "South Lebanon Army".

The situation in southern Lebanon continues to be tense and volatile. The boundaries of the Israeli- controlled area have not been clearly defined but are determined de facto by the forward positions of IDF/DFF. Within the area of operation of UNIFIL, IDF/DFF maintain 72 military positions. IDF/DFF remain targets for attacks by armed groups opposed to the occupation. For their part, IDF/DFF react vigorously to these attacks, often with heavy weapons and with air support from Israel.

UNIFIL has thus been prevented from carrying out its mandate. In the circumstances, it endeavours, to the best of its ability, to prevent its area of operations from being used for hostile activities and to protect civilians caught in the conflict. In carrying out its tasks, the Force is sometimes hampered by firing in close vicinity to its positions and personnel. On a few occasions, UNIFIL has itself been the target of violence.

UNIFIL's operations are based on a network of positions which are manned 24 hours a day. The Force maintains 45 checkpoints, whose function is to control movement on the principal roads in UNIFIL's area; 95 observation posts, whose function is to observe movement on and off the roads; and 29 checkpoints/observation posts which combine the functions of control and observation. Each is assigned responsibility for ensuring that hostile activities are not undertaken from the area surrounding it. This involves not only keeping watch from the position but also patrolling on foot or by vehicle in its vicinity.

In addition, unarmed military observers of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) maintain five observation posts and operate five mobile teams in the area under Israeli control. The UNTSO observers are under the operational control of UNIFIL's Commander.

UNIFIL's network of positions and the patrols mounted from them also play a central role in the Force's performance of its humanitarian task. They provide the civilian population with protection and with a source of help if they are subjected to harassment. Within available resources, UNIFIL also provides civilians with medical supplies, water, food, fuel, electricity, engineering work and escort for farmers. UNIFIL medical centres and mobile teams have provided care to an average of 3,000 civilian patients per month and a field dental programme has also been provided.

In accordance with its mandate of assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the UNIFIL area, UNIFIL and the Lebanese military authorities worked out arrangements for the transfer to the Lebanese army of responsibility for the western part of the Force's Ghanaian battalion sector. The hand-over, which involved the vacating of eight UNIFIL positions, was completed in early April 1992. In a follow-up hand-over, additional area comprising three villages, including the former Ghanaian battalion headquarters at Marakah, was handed over to the Lebanese Army on 16 February 1993.

In July 1994, in his periodic report to the Security Council, the Secretary-General stated that although UNIFIL continued to be prevented from implementing its mandate, its contribution to stability in the region and the protection it provided to the local population remained important. He recommended that the Council extend UNIFIL's mandate for a further period of six months, that is until 31 January 1995. The Security Council approved that recommendation.

COMPOSITION OF UNIFIL

At present, UNIFIL has 5,187 troops provided by the following countries (figures as at 30 November 1994):

COUNTRY, TROOPS

Fiji, 646
Finland, 524
France, 411
Ghana, 788
Ireland, 733
Italy, 45
Nepal, 671
Norway, 806
Poland, 563

TOTAL, 5,187

Figures may vary from month to month due to rotation. "Troops" include any infantry, logistics, engineering, medical, move-con, staff, etc.

In addition, 59 military observers from UNTSO 's Observer Group Lebanon assist the Force in the performance of its tasks. UNIFIL employs some 540 civilian staff, of whom 148 are recruited internationally.

FINANCIAL ASPECTS

The rough cost to the United Nations of UNIFIL in 1994 was approximately $142.3 million. The costs of the operation are met by the assessed contributions of the United Nations Member States. As at 30 November 1994, total contributions outstanding to the UNIFIL Special Account for the period from the inception of the operation to 31 January 1995 amounted to approximately $232.4 million.

Note: Data effective 30 November 1994

[26] WHO ATTACKED ISRAEL?; Historical and Investigative Research; 21 July 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hezbollah.htm

[27] WHO ATTACKED ISRAEL?; Historical and Investigative Research; 21 July 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hezbollah.htm

[28] TO SEE WHERE ISRAEL IS HEADED, VISIT KOSOVO; Historical and Investigative Research; 8 July 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/yugo/kosovo_junger.htm

[29] NEWS BRIEFS; 12:37 Jul-23-06
Peretz Opens Door to NATO Force
http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=108108

(IsraelNN.com) "Defense Minister Amir Peretz (Labor) stated Sunday morning that Israel would allow a NATO force to patrol in Lebanon. He said the presence of an international force is due to the 'weakness of the Lebanese army.' However, European officials have pushed for a United National force. Previous U.N. patrols have been ineffective and often have openly aided Hizbullah terrorists to attack Israel.

Minister Peretz spoke following a meeting with German Foreign Minister Frank Walter Steinmeier. Israel and NATO have forged closer relations the past year, and NATO officials visited Jerusalem earlier this year."

www.hirhome.com

$Description: C:\Users\Francisco\Desktop\Transfer\web\hir\israel\nato.jpg$

NATO logo.

$Description: C:\Users\Francisco\Desktop\Transfer\web\hir\israel\israelflag.gif$

$Description: C:\Users\Francisco\Desktop\Transfer\web\hir\israel\Lebanonflag.gif$

ISRAEL
AT WAR

an HIR series

█ Who attacked Israel?

█ What is Hezbollah?

█ What caused this war?

█ Understanding the US position | 1

█ Understanding the US position | 2

█ The Arab reaction, and what it means

█ Who is killing Lebanese civilians? | 1

█ Who is killing Lebanese civilians? | 2

█ What is wrong with the media? | 1

█ What is wrong with the media? | 2

$Description: C:\Users\Francisco\Desktop\Transfer\web\hir\israel\unpost.jpg$

UN post on the Lebanese- Israeli border. The UN and Hezbollah flags fly side by side.

$Description: C:\Users\Francisco\Desktop\Transfer\web\hir\israel\unflag.jpg$ $Description: C:\Users\Francisco\Desktop\Transfer\web\hir\israel\hezbollahflag.jpg$
UN flag Hezbollah flag

What will happen is that the multinational force on the Israel-Lebanon border will make it impossible in the future for Israel to prevent the Hezbollification of Lebanon.

Once that is accomplished, the multinational force will leave and Israel will be destroyed.

If you want to see where Israel is headed, take a look at Kosovo.

Notify me of new HIR pieces!

Hezbollah Hizbollah Hizbu'llah Hizb'allah

What is Hezbollah?

What is Hizbollah?

What is Hizbu'llah?

What is Hizb'allah?

The history ___________

The initial reaction to the current conflict ________________________________________