|
WSWS
: News &
Analysis : Middle
East
Western diplomacy supports Israels war of aggression
By Chris Marsden and Barry Grey
19 July 2006
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email
the author
On Tuesday, the seventh day of Israels air war on Lebanon,
with some 250 civilians killed and much of the countrys
infrastructure destroyed, President George Bush issued yet another
threat against Syria.
Declaring that Syria was trying to get back into Lebanon,
he warned against any attempt to invite Syrian forces back into
the devastated country little more than a year after Syrian troops
were forced to leave as a result of a campaign orchestrated by
the United States and France.
Bushs statement was typical of the cynical and thuggish
declarations coming from both Washington and Tel Avivall
of which go unchallenged by the European powers and the Western
media.
Bush charged Syria with meddling in the affairs of a country
that is being reduced to rubble by bombs, missiles, ships and
warplanes supplied by the US to its closest Middle East ally.
And as he painted Hezbollah, Syria and Iran as the aggressors,
he continued to oppose any cessation of Israels bombing
of civilian targets throughout a defenceless Lebanona violation
of international law that defines its perpetrators as war criminals.
Bushs comments crowned a day of much vaunted diplomatic
initiatives by the major powers and their cats paw, the
United Nations, to resolve the Lebanese conflict along lines dictated
by the United States and Israel. For its part, Israel made clear
that it would accept nothing that cut across its current drive
to destroy Hezbollah and transform Lebanon into a tool of Israeli
policy, or its ability to launch future attacks against any and
all forces or states that resist its imperialist designs.
The international peacekeeping force proposed jointly
by British Prime Minister Tony Blair and United Nations General
Secretary Kofi Annan is advanced in order to police such a victors
peace. Its stated mission is to oversee the removal of any Hezbollah
presence from the southern areas bordering Israel.
At the same time, the international force proposed by Annan
and Blair would directly serve the interests of the major imperialist
powers. It would provide Washington with an opportunity to establish
a permanent military presence, working directly with the Israeli
Defence Forces (IDF). White House national security spokesman
Frederick Jones said, Were open to the possibility
of that force being necessary. Other US spokesmen, however,
discounted the proposal.
The European powers welcomed the proposal, seeing it as a potential
means of mitigating Washingtons dominant position in the
Middle East. Russian President Vladimir Putin was among the first
to pledge support for the force, along with the European Union.
French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin backed a deployment,
while French President Jacques Chirac said he believed some
means of coercion might be needed to enforce the UN resolution
calling for the disarming of Hezbollah.
But even such a UN-run police force is deemed by Israeli Prime
Minister Edhud Olmert to be an unacceptable limitation on Israels
freedom of action. Military violence is the preferred method of
both the American and Israeli ruling elites.
Israel will, moreover, be satisfied only with the complete
subjugation of Lebanon and its reduction to an impotent client
regime. As the Israeli daily Haaretz pointed out, the creation
of a security zone in the south is considered insufficient by
the Israeli Defence Forces as it would not... prevent Hezbollah
from deploying long-range rockets and missiles further north in
Lebanon.
Bush and Olmert insist that no ceasefire is possible until
Israel has achieved its basic military objectives. In her discussions
with UN representatives, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni
insisted on the same conditions.
On this question Tel Aviv is knocking on an open door. UN special
envoy Terje Roed-Larsen said, after meeting with Livni in Jerusalem,
I think both parties agreed that it is necessary to have
a political framework in order to reach, eventually, a cease-fire.
The resolution issued by leaders of the Group of Eight at their
summit in St Petersburg Sunday fully accepted Israels presentation
of the conflict, blaming the outbreak of hostilities in Lebanon
on Hezbollah and in Gaza on Hamas. It stopped short only of specifically
identifying Syria and Iran, though this was the clear implication
of the resolution and the specific intention of Washington and
London.
Russian President Putin has since let it be known that this
omission was a concession to Moscow. Yesterday Bush remedied this
failing with his accusations against Syria.
Israel welcomed the G8 resolution as a legitimization of its
attack on Lebanon. Livni stated, Israel concurs with the
position of the international community, which places responsibility
for the conflict on extremist elements. Israel and the international
community share a common problemthe presence of extremist
terrorists.
As far as the Olmert government is concerned, the realization
of a Greater Israel, including the permanent annexation of most
of the West Bank and the Golan Heights, demands the crushing of
all resistance by the Palestinians and the Lebanese. Of necessity,
it requires military action against Syria and ultimately Iran.
Since the fall of the Baathist regime in Iraq, Iran is Israels
only serious contender as a regional power.
The Bush administration has accused Damascus and Tehran of
masterminding the actions of Hezbollah and Hamas at a time when
it is pushing for international sanctions against Iran and meeting
resistance from Russia and China. It sees Israeli aggression against
Gaza and Lebanon as a means of furthering its own geo-strategic
agenda in the Middle East.
An editorial in the July 18 Jerusalem Post, which supports
the most hawkish elements within the Olmert government, stressed
the unity of purpose between Israel and the US. It was entitled
Bushs Brilliant Thought.
After hailing the G8 resolution for mentioning Hizbullah
and Hamas by name and Iran and Syria by implication, it
praised Bush and Blair for being more explicit in
identifying the root cause of the problem, namely
Iran and Syria.
It drew attention, in particular, to Bushs statement,
[T]here seems to be a consensus growing that in order for
us to have the peace we want... we must deal with... two nation
states that are very much involved with stopping the advance of
peace, and that would be Iran, and that would be Syria.
The Post commented, It has been the case for decades,
but it is finally dawning on the world, that there are not two
conflictsthe Arab-Israeli conflict and the Islamist-Western
conflictbut one. As John Gibson, a commentator for Fox News,
put it, When the Iranians get nukes this ruckus were
witnessing today will look like a walk in the park... It seems
like a war between Israel and some terror groups. Its really
a war by Iran on us.
The editorial concluded: As of Sunday, [Israel Defence
Forces] sources stated that Israel had eliminated about 25 percent
of Hizbullahs missile capacity. Defense Minister Amir Peretz
has said that Israel requires another week or two to finish the
job...
If Israel succeeds in destroying Hizbullah, it will have
done the world, not only ourselves, a great favour. Bush and Blair,
and perhaps other leaders, seem to understand this, and that the
broader task of free nations is to confront Hizbullahs sponsors
in Damascus and Teheran.
Even as Israeli bombs and missiles continue to rain on Beirut
and other cities and towns in Lebanon, the US is working for a
new resolution in the UN Security Council that will provide a
legal fig leaf not only for intensified attacks on Hezbollah,
but also for future military actions against Syria and Iran.
See Also:
G8 powers sanction Israeli aggression
in Lebanon
[18 July 2006]
US gives Israel a blank check to wage
war
[17 July 2006]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |