Israeli Attack On Lebanon Was Likely No Surprise To U.S.

One would think that from the slow response in evacuating U.S. citizens from Lebanon that the U.S. was taken totally off guard by the Israeli attacks. Somehow that seems unlikely as both the US and the UK are blocking efforts at quickly arriving at a cease fire. They want to give Israel at least another week to "inflict maximum damage on Hizbullah." Not to mention maximum damage on those inside Lebanon. Apparently the total destruction of the physical infrastructure of Lebanon; the deaths and wounding of civilians; and inflaming the anger of the world; are minor considerations in the bigger game.

"The US is publicly denying any role in setting a timeframe for Israeli strikes. When asked whether the US was holding back diplomatically, Tony Snow, the White House's press spokesman, said yesterday: "No, no; the insinuation there is that there is active military planning, collaboration or collusion, between the United States and Israel - and there isn't ... the US has been in the lead of the diplomatic efforts, issuing repeated calls for restraint but at the same time putting together an international consensus. You've got to remember who was responsible for this: Hizbullah ... It would be misleading to say the United States hasn't been engaged. We've been deeply engaged."

Steven Cook, a specialist in US-Middle East policy at the Washington-based Council on Foreign Relations, said: "It's abundantly clear [that US policy is] to give the Israelis the opportunity to strike a blow at Hizbullah ..." (MacAskill et al, Guardian, 7/19/06)

Despite the allegations by the US, UK, and Israel that Iran and Syria are behind (or supporting) Hizbullah in Lebanon, they were taken totally by surprise at the missiles being used by Hizbullah forces. In particular they knew nothing about Hizbullah having a C-802 Iranian missile which struck an Israeli ship last week. The Israeli's are also claiming that Syrian-made munitions are being used.

It seems to me, that weapons made by a nation do not necessarily mean that those weapons were "provided by" that nation. After all, there is a global arms market - and the US is the largest player in that market. Apparently the firearm of choice in conflicts around the world is the Russian Kalashnakov rifle. Does that mean that Russia is "supplying" those arms? Perhaps, or perhaps it is "just business as usual."

While the US, UK, and Israel wag threatening tongues at Syria and Iran, the munitions, missiles, tanks, and planes being used by Israel came straight from the United States. In fact, Israel may be violating U.S. law in firing on civilians and civilian infrastructure:

"Section 4 of the (U.S.) Arms Export Control Act requires that military items transferred to foreign governments by the United States be used solely for internal security and legitimate self-defence," says Stephen Zunes, professor of politics at the University of San Francisco.

"Since Israeli attacks against Lebanon's civilian infrastructure and population centres clearly go beyond legitimate self-defence, the United States is legally obliged to suspend arms transfers to Israel," Zunes told IPS.

Frida Berrigan, a senior research associate with the Arms Trade Resource Centre at the World Policy Institute in New York, is equally outraged at the misuse by Israel of U.S.-supplied weapons.

"As Israel jets bombard locations in Gaza, Haifa and Beirut, killing civilians (including as many as seven Canadians vacationing in Aitaroun), it is worth remembering that U.S. law is clear about how U.S.-origin weapons and military systems ought to be used," Berrigan told IPS."

According to the Deen article (citing the Congressional Research Services), the United States has become virtually the sole provider of arms and military equipment to Israel. The U.S. is also a major Israeli military funding source paying about 23% of Israel's total military budget. Deen also reports that: "In December of last year, Lockheed Martin was awarded a 29.8-million-dollar contract to provide spares part for Israel's F-16 fighter planes.."

Meanwhile the "neo-conservatives are calling for unconditional U.S. support" of the Israeli offensives in Palestine and Lebanon. Hillary Clinton is being backed by Fox News for publicly supporting Israel's ongoing offensive. This is truly no surprise given Clinton's ongoing move to the right to be seen as a "centrist" candidate (as is Lieberman purportedly). Of course there is a lot of "unconditional support" for Israel in Washington with so many folks having dual US/Israeli citizenship (see links below). If I were Israeli, I would have to wonder about whether the US supports Israel, or whether the US uses Israel as a proxy in the Middle East.

Regardless of one's sympathies on the issue of Israel, Palestine, or Lebanon (and beyond), the destruction and loss of life is unconscionable. Civilians always bear the brunt of war. Apparently civilians are "acceptable losses." However, it distresses me that increasingly violence and war seem to be a ready response - regardless of the costs. One must ask who benefits from the wars and conflicts. By and large, the biggest benefactors are those who sell the arms and those who are contracted to rebuild societies after the destruction is done.

Dual Citizenship Issues
Ed Toner, Original Dissent, Pres. Bush's Minority Advisers

Kurt Nimmo, Another Day In The Empire, Condi Rice: Christian-Zionist Pit Bull

Sam Hamod, Information Clearing House, The Myth of Tiny, Little Israel: Zionist Tentacles Everywhere

Stephen Green, CounterPunch, Serving Two Flags: Neo-Cons, Israel and the Bush Administration

Posted by rowan at July 19, 2006 7:13 AM | [eMail this article!] |