Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Revisionism already in Lebanon?

by manon Sun Jul 16th, 2006 at 09:22:16 AM EST

Is the Western media already being revisionist about the last few days events' in the Middle East?  

The first time I read about the incidents in the Western media, I got the distinct impression that the killed and captured IDF soldiers had been on the Lebanese side of the border.  In my opinion, this was an Israeli incursion into Lebanon.

Later that day, after reading posts on various blogs and other western media stories, I realized that somehow I had gotten the story wrong:  the stories invariably said that Hezbollah had entered Israel to kill and kidnap Israeli soldiers, and my view of the situation changed:  the Israelis needed to defend themselves.

Now, I read various stories in the non-western press, for example at Asia Times (www.atimes.com) and they are validating my first impression:  

To them, it is legitimate self-defense. They back this argument by saying that Israel still controls the Sheba Farms, which are part of Lebanon, and still has Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails. Also, they add that the Israeli tank destroyed by Hezbollah, and the soldiers captured and killed on July 12, had trespassed into Lebanon's side of the border with Israel.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG15Ak02.html

(And if you have time, read the rest of the article - it's the only one to do that I've read that explains everything that is happening in Lebanon right now)

So George Bush is saying that Israel has the right to defend itself, but this wouldn't sound so good if it was Israel that had started this latest round of events, would it?   Is there a concerted effort in the MSM of the West to actually change history or is this just a misunderstanding?


Display:
FWIW, the first accounts I remember are of Hezbollah crossing the border into Israel, and then claims that the raid actually happened on the Lebanese side surfacing later. But I might be wrong and ultimately (refer to Poemless' diary) it doesn't matter. Is there an "official" version anywhere? And, how precisely is the "border" (the blue line) defined?

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jul 15th, 2006 at 06:59:16 PM EST
They back this argument by saying that Israel still controls the Sheba Farms, which are part of Lebanon

According to the Lebanese they're part of Lebanon. According to the UN they're part of the Golan Heights, i.e. Israeli occupied Syrian territory and Israel has fully withdrawn from Lebanese territory. According to Israel they're part of Israel like the rest of the Golan which it declared was part of Israel back in the early eighties. The Syrians have been a bit unclear, suggesting that the Lebanese are right but refusing to make a formal legal declaration that that is the case, which is what the UN has demanded as a precondition for revisiting the issue.

UN statement on Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon

by MarekNYC on Sat Jul 15th, 2006 at 07:26:23 PM EST
there is an internationally recognized border along the Israeli-Lebanon border and the Israelis have built a strong defensive position there from which they patrol rather strenuously.

Marek, you're thinking of the Golan Heights, which used to belong to Syria.

by manon (m@gmail.com) on Sun Jul 16th, 2006 at 09:26:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Okay, here's the deal:

Okay, until last year, Lebanon wasn't an independent country. It was an autonomous part of Syria with it's own diplomatic corps.

Then came the "Ceder Revolution" and the Syrians were forced out. Lebanon was now for the most part a real live country. The only part that wasn't independent was the south which was controlled by Hizullah, who refused to be disarmed and was supported by both Syria and Iran.

Now before the ceder revolution, there were talks with Israel, which went nowhere because the Lebanese dipolomats were ordered by their Syrian masters not to negotiate anything.

The New Government of Lebanon, since it didn't have the power to actually fight Hizbullah, kept it's "official" war with Israel going.

Let me repeat that: Lebanon was officially at WAR with Israel on the day before the Hizbullah attack that started this whole mess

Also, the civil war that took all those years and ripped the country to shreds, had been going on for seven years before the 1982 israeli invasion.. I heard that the inciting incedent was a fight over a pinball machine in a bar. There were wider issues of course.

Most of the Israeli attacks have been in the south where the people freely elected Hizbullah to local and parlimentery offices.

Southern Lebanon is under the control of Hizbullah and the population actually wants it that way.

The people in the north and center of the country, don't. They want things to be back the way things were in 1970, when Beirut was the jewel of the Middle East, people were generally middle class and life was pretty good for all involved.

But Syria and Iran don't want that for the Lebanese.

The first step twoards real peace in the region is an exchange of ambassidors between Lebanon and Syria, but Syria refuses.

That's not Israel's fault.

by messy on Sun Jul 16th, 2006 at 09:03:28 AM EST
yes i found this information as well :

during the incursion in liban, 8 Israeli soldiers were killed and 2 kidnapped .

it is totally amazing to see how that the mainstream media cover up that.

what a shame

by fredouil (fredouil@gmailgmailgmail.com) on Sun Jul 16th, 2006 at 05:26:27 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]