Re: Israel Crosses the Line

So, let me get this straight... 'Israel has the right to defend its self'
but when anyone else acts in retaliation or in a similar manner they are
'terrorists'. How long do we (all of us) sit back and let ourselves be spoon
fed by dictatorial and biased 'superpowers' as to who we must believe are
the real 'bad guys'? Close the news paper and open your eyes. Maybe then you
will even see who is really behind this all.




"250cents a time" <250cents a time@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:44b9ec0f_1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
now, let be help you with your form of story.

the israel had pretend that their soldiers are kidnaped and the rockets
falling in israel are also bul***

all is staged so that israel is helping the USA eventual attacked of IRAN

good or not this story, THE SORT YOU ALWAYS TWISTED ABOUT.








"Dr Evil" <drevil@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:44b9aed3_2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
July 14, 2006 Israel Crosses the Line

And you read it here first. by Justin Raimondo


The Israeli offensive against Iran - until now, purely polemical -
morphed
into military action the moment the IDF crossed the border into Lebanon
and
took on Hezbollah. As our regular readers know, this turn of events was
predicted in this space two months ago:

"War with Iran will probably not begin with a frontal assault by the U.S.
and/or Israel on Iran's alleged nuclear weapons facilities, or even a
skirmish along the Iraq-Iran border. Look to Lebanon and Syria for the
first
battlegrounds of this developing regional war. The Israelis know
perfectly
well that Iran's nuclear ambitions, if they ever materialize, are not an
immediate threat: their real concern is their volatile northern border,
where their deadly enemies - Hezbollah - are an effective obstacle to
Israeli influence. The Israelis are also looking to exploit growing
opportunities to make trouble in Syria, where the restive Kurds are their
reliable allies, and the brittleness of the Ba'athist dictatorship is an
invitation to regime change."

The suggestion, by Professors John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, in
their
now famous "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," that the Iraq war
was
fought for Israel's sake, and against our own interests in the region,
was
received in many quarters with outright horror, and not only from the
Amen
Corner. Noam Chomsky and Stephen Zunes both objected to this thesis of an
Israel-centric foreign policy: Israel, they insist, is the "junior
partner"
of the American hegemon, and is only acting at the behest and under the
de
facto control of its masters in Washington.

The war's aftermath, however, tells a different story. Examined in light
of
Israel's postwar actions - the unilateral "withdrawal" from Gaza, the
absorption of more territory and the building of more settlements on the
West Bank, the war against Hamas, and now the re-invasion of Lebanon -
the
chief (and only) beneficiary of the new regional balance of power is
clear
enough. The American invasion and occupation of the Mesopotamian
heartland
has empowered the Israelis as never before - and now they are on the
offensive, carving out a greatly expanded sphere of influence extending
into
Kurdistan as well as Lebanon, bringing closer to fulfillment the old
Zionist
vision of an empire stretching "from the Nile to the Euphrates."

The U.S., on the other hand, has considerably reduced leverage in the
region. Our troops in Iraq are exposed, vulnerable to the Iranians - and
stalemated by the Iraqi insurgency, which shows troubling signs of
extending
into Shi'ite areas. As the Israelis advance, with American support, Sunni
and Shi'ite factions in Iraq - including those in the governing Shi'ite
coalition - are radicalized, and turn their fire on the Americans.

Yet the U.S. is still shilling for the Israelis, blaming Syria and Iran
for
acts that occurred well outside the purview of the mullahs and the
increasingly isolated regime of Bashar al-Assad. Meanwhile, in the UN, we
are bringing the issue of Iran's nuclear power program to the Security
Council, pressing for a confrontation that can only end in
$200-per-barrel
oil.

In 1996, a group of pro-Israeli Americans - including Richard Perle,
James
Colbert, Charles Fairbanks Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David
Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser - prepared a policy statement for then-Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that proposed a strategy of regime change as
the
only solution for Israel's growing encirclement and isolation. The main
problem, they averred in "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the
Realm," was Syria, and the troublesome border with Lebanon:

"Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one
with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the
strategic
initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and
Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon."

But this could occur only if Iraq was taken out first:

"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey
and
Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This
effort
can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq - an important
Israeli strategic objective in its own right - as a means of foiling
Syria's
regional ambitions."

With Saddam out of the way, the second phase of the "Clean Break"
scenario
is unfolding before our eyes. And the propaganda war is going just as
well
as the military aspect of the campaign: the Israelis are no fools. They
realize they can't proceed without the tacit complicity of the U.S. and
the
Europeans, who must be made to look the other way as the IDF commits war
crimes on the ground. Under the pretext of avenging the "kidnapping" of
one
of their soldiers - and, more recently, two more - they have unleashed a
military assault planned well in advance of the allegedly precipitating
incidents.

This is surely one of the most threadbare excuses for a war ever uttered.
One wonders how Israel's spokesmen can say it with a straight face.
Soldiers
in wartime are captured, not "kidnapped." If Hezbollah has "kidnapped"
those
two Israeli soldiers, then how do we describe the jailing of thousands of
Palestinians, including hundreds of women and children, on the basis of
their alleged sympathy for Hamas - now the democratically elected
government
of Palestine? In any case, it appears, according to this report, that
Hezbollah has some Israeli competition when it comes to the business of
kidnapping.

The Bush administration is formally committed to the "road map," which
entails the creation of a Palestinian state. Yet the Israelis have done
everything possible to undermine Bush's plan, including obstructing
elections. The American response has been appeasement: as Israeli
gunboats
make short work of Gaza beach-goers, Washington's response is to demand
the
unconditional release of captured Israeli soldiers. There is an undertone
of
disapproval, as Condoleezza Rice urges "restraint" by all parties and the
president worries that the Lebanese government will be destabilized, yet
none of this is allowed to deflect U.S. policymakers from their craven
course of kowtowing to the Israelis while they spend our money and earn
us
plenty more enemies among the world's billion-plus Muslims.

Israel's fifth column in America has been enormously successful in
"spinning" the latest news from the Middle East. Instead of reporting
that
Israel is invading Lebanon, the "mainstream" media avers that Israel has
"entered" Lebanon - as casually as one would enter a room in one's own
house. The first few paragraphs of many news stories describe the latest
attacks on Israeli targets and accounts of the damage done, while, five
paragraphs down, we finally get word that 55 civilians have been killed
by
the latest Israeli aerial bombardment of Lebanon.

The Mearsheimer-Walt thesis - that U.S. foreign policy has been hijacked
(kidnapped, if you will) by what they refer to as "the Lobby" - has so
far
been confirmed by the events of the past few days. The United States is
giving what appears to be unconditional support to phase two of the
"Clean
Break" plan, targeting Syria and Iran, albeit while cautioning the
Israelis
on Lebanon.

The Israelis, outraged by what they regard as foot-dragging in
Washington,
are forcing Uncle Sam's hand. If we won't fire the first shots of World
War
IV, then they are perfectly willing to do so - confident that we'll
follow
them blindly into the maelstrom.

Whether the Bush administration will go all the way with the Israelis on
this one, is, however, in some doubt. The alleged triumph of the
Republican
"realists" over the neoconservatives, supposedly symbolized by the
ascension
of Condi Rice, is counteracted by the Democrats' complete subservience to
the Lobby. Already Hillary Clinton is denouncing the administration for
"appeasing" Iran, and the sudden reappearance of the neocons in
Democratic
Party circles is indicative of what is going on here. Foreign policy is
merely a reflection of domestic political pressures - which, in this
case,
surely do not represent either the views or the interests of the American
people.

Mearsheimer and Walt explain how we got into this mess, but they don't
give
us any answers about how to get out. How do we avoid getting dragged by
our
Israeli "allies" into World War IV?

The short answer: stop appeasing Israel - and start looking out for
American
interests. The Amen Corner makes no such distinction, but clearly there
is
one, the most obvious being that we (unlike the Israelis) have no
interest
fomenting a wider war - especially while our troops are stuck in the
middle
of it all, lined up like sitting ducks and increasingly on the defensive.

The U.S. must unequivocally condemn the invasion of Lebanon and call for
the
unconditional withdrawal of all Israeli forces from Lebanese soil.
Furthermore, the naval and aerial blockade of Lebanon must end: thousands
of
tourists and others are pouring into Syria, where they may not be safe
for
very much longer. This is an intolerable act of war against the whole
civilized community, and for the United States government to not only
stand
by but implicitly condone it is unforgivable. The "war on terrorism"
apparently requires enabling Israeli state terrorism.

The regional conflict widely predicted as one of the more horrific
consequences of the Iraq invasion is now breaking out. The only rational
response is to get out of the way before we are drawn in. Like a summer
fire
in the American West, if it isn't contained, the flames of the rapidly
spreading conflict will soon be licking at our door. And we are bound to
be
choking, sooner rather than later, on the economic fallout - another
factor
that could embolden the Democrats to keep up their effort to outflank the
GOP on the war question from the right.

As both parties fall into lockstep behind the Lobby, and American power
and
prestige are once again harnessed to Israeli interests, there is little
hope
that Congress will step into the breach and stop our headlong plunge into
World War IV. Nor do any of the likely presidential candidates seem
willing
to take on the War Party when the question of war and peace is put in
terms
of Israel's interests - or, as the Lobby would have it, the Jewish
state's
continued survival. Here is a war they can sell by confronting critics
with
a simple question: What are you, some kind of anti-Semite?

Years of relentless propaganda, countless smear campaigns, and a
prodigious
expenditure of money and human resources led us to this moment: the War
Party is launching what amounts to its final offensive, an all-out attack
on
whatever bastions of human decency and common sense remain in this
hideously
war-crazed post-9/11 world. Come what may, we at Antiwar.com will stand
at
our posts, pouring hot molten editorials down on the enemy - and giving
you
the best, most accurate reporting on events in the Middle East anywhere
on
the Internet, or anywhere else, for that matter.

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9301









.