portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

human & civil rights | imperialism & war

palestine journal: 27 july - where were those two soldiers captured, anyway?

as israel's dual invasions of lebanon and gaza continue to spiral out of control, several people have asked me, "where were those two soldiers captured, anyway?", referring to the capture of two israeli soldiers by hezbollah fighters on july 12th, the event that supposedly set this whole thing off......
well, the answer, for my part, is, it's really not clear. hezbollah and the
lebanese government claim that the soldiers were captured inside lebanon, near Ayta
al-Sha`b village 60 km north of the Israeli border. the israeli government says the
two were captured near the israeli town zar'it, directly along the israel-lebanon

what IS clear, and what i know from personal experience, is that israel controls
that border. and their 'routine patrols' very often venture quite deep into
lebanese territory.

what i CAN tell you is a little story from when i went touring around israel some
years ago, with what turned out to be a rather zionist tour group.....and we went to
the border with lebanon, went on a cablecar ride to the top of a hill overlooking
the border, and there were tall towers and balloons, monitoring across the border,
monitoring every action of hezbollah along that border. and we went on a 'picnic',
accompanied by israeli military jeeps, who led the way over hills and valleys,
several kilometers into the hills, where we reached a waterfall with a swimming
hole, and found the place already full of israelis 'out for a picnic'.........INSIDE
lebanon. no one seemed to care that this 'picnic site' was a major violation of
lebanese sovereignty....the only concern was to watch out for hezbollah.......that's
what the israeli soldiers were there for. US-paid-for, israeli military protection
for israelis willing to break international law, and even bring their children along
with them.

in fact, there are israeli settlements that have been built across the
internationally-agreed-upon border with lebanon, and whole 'kibbutzim' (co-op farms)
constructed in the israeli-occupied sheba'a farms region, which is officially
supposed to be part of syria.

but then, israelis have never cared much for internationally-agreed-upon borders (or
internationally-agreed-upon peace terms, human rights conventions, rules of warfare,
or anything else). the state of israel has never officially declared its borders,
and has continually expanded further and further onto palestinian land since its
creation in 1948. and yes, israeli patrols routinely venture across the lebanese
border in their 'routine patrols'.

so it's very likely that the jeep which was ambushed on july 12th was on lebanese land.

jonathan cook, a british reporter living in nazareth, has this to say, about the
subsequent "chronology of events":

"So the chronology of war has been reorganized: now we are being told that Israel
was forced to attack Lebanon to defend itself from the barrage of Hizbollah rockets
falling on Israeli civilians. The international community is buying the argument
hook, line and sinker. "Israel has the right to defend itself", says every
politician who can find a microphone to talk into. But, if we cast our minds back,
that is not how the "Middle East crisis", as TV channels now describe it, started.
It is worth recapping on those early events (and I won't document the long history
of Lebanese suffering at Israel's hands that preceded it) before they become
entirely shrouded in the mythology being peddled by [David] Horowitz [a well-known
American zionist, conspiracy nut, and opponent of free speech] and others.

Early on July 12 Hizbollah launched a raid against an army border post, in what was
in the best interpretation a foolhardy violation of Israeli sovereignty. In the
fighting the Shiite militia killed three soldiers and captured two others, while
Hizbollah fired a few mortars at border areas in what the Israeli army described at
the time as "diversionary tactics". As a result of the shelling, five Israelis were
"lightly injured", with most needing treatment for shock, according to the Haaretz

Israel's immediate response was to send a tank into Lebanon in pursuit of the
Hizbollah fighters (its own foolhardy violation of Lebanese sovereignty). The tank
ran over a landmine, which exploded killing four soldiers inside. Another soldier
died in further clashes inside Lebanon as his unit tried to retrieve the bodies.
Rather than open diplomatic channels to calm the violence down and start the process
of getting its soldiers back, Israel launched bombing raids deep into Lebanese
territory the same day. Given Israel's world view that it alone has a right to
project power and fear, that might have been expected.

But the next day Israel continued its rampage across the south and into Beirut,
where the airport, roads, bridges, and power stations were pummeled. We now know
from reports in the US media that the Israeli army had been planning such a strike
against Lebanon for at least a year.

In contrast to the image of Hizbollah frothing at the mouth to destroy Israel, its
leader Hassan Nasrallah held off from serious retaliation. For the first day and a
half, he limited his strikes to the northern border areas, which have faced
Hizbollah attacks in the past and are well protected.

He waited till late on June 13 before turning his guns on Haifa, even though we now
know he could have targeted Israel's third largest city from the outset. A small
volley of rockets directed at Haifa caused no injuries and looked more like a
warning than an escalation.

It was another three days -- days of constant Israeli bombardment of Lebanon,
destroying the country and injuring countless civilians -- before Nasrallah hit
Haifa again, including a shell that killed eight workers in a railway depot.

No one should have been surprised. Nasrallah was doing exactly what he had
threatened to do if Israel refused to negotiate and chose the path of war instead.
Although the international media quoted his ominous televised message that "Haifa is
just the beginning", Nasrallah in fact made his threat conditional on Israel's
continuing strikes against Lebanon. In the same speech he warned: "As long as the
enemy pursues its aggression without limits and red lines, we will pursue the
confrontation without limits and red lines." Well, Israel did, and so now has

read the rest of Cook's article here:


homepage: homepage: http://americaninpalestine.blogspot.com