You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Hezbollah’ tag.
Chomsky in a tete-a-tete with Hezbollah's Nasrallah
The Guardian, not content with six pieces (news items and commentaries) already published defending the anti-Semitic radical preacher, Raed Salah, and demonizing his opponents, decided to publish two additional apologias (Letters: Double standards over Salah arrest, July 4) from ferocious critics of Israel – Ghada Karmi and Noam Chomsky.
Evidently, the Guardian felt that Karmi, an outspoken proponent for the end of the Jewish state, and Chomsky, who believes the U.S. is “the world’s greatest terrorist state“, has defended the Khmer Rouge, expressed support for Hezbollah, and has likened Zionism to Nazism, could provide unique, and thoughtful, insights into the UK’s detention of Salah.
While Chomsky’s letter characterized Salah – who’s advanced anti-Semitic conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 – as an important voice for “rights” and “justice”, Karni chastised the UK for failing to arrest Israeli leaders, who she characterizes as “war criminals”, and advances the blatantly false claim that “Raed has committed no crime in Britain or elsewhere.”
Karmi, evidently writing without the services of an internet search engine, neglected to inform her readers that Salah was imprisoned in Israel after acknowledging funding Hamas, served time for assaulting a police officer, and has been banned from Jerusalem for repeatedly engaging in incitement to violence.
More broadly, in eight pieces and over 3000 words in the course of a week, the Guardian has displayed a disgraceful, if characteristic, obsession with the “cause” of an extremist preacher with a proven record of anti-Semitism, support for designated terrorist organizations, and incitement to violence.
Of course, the ubiquity of such profound moral inversions at the Guardian – regarding radical Islam, Israel and anti-Semitism – doesn’t render such ideological pathos any less outrageous or shameful.
Related articles
- On anti-Semites and their enablers: Guardian editorial defends radical anti-Semitic preacher, Raed Salah (cifwatch.com)
- On the “Guardian Hamas support network” (cifwatch.com)
- The Guardian’s bias in covering Sheikh Raed Salah (cifwatch.com)
- Haneen Zoabi defends anti-Semitic Islamist preacher: Accuses UK Zionist lobby of controlling British politics (cifwatch.com)
- What the Guardian won’t report: Raed Salah’s not so liberal views on women, gays, and Jihad (cifwatch.com)
- At the Guardian, it’s Sheikh Raed Salah – O – Mania! (cifwatch.com)
- The Guardian and “powerful” Jews (cifwatch.com)
This is cross posted at the blog, Anne’s Opinions
For a change, the Guardian has published a story which, although it is about the Middle East, does not have an Israel angle to it at all. And yet it shows up British politics at its perfidious worst. The item, on British MPs’ 107 paid visits to Middle Eastern dictatorships, was hidden away in the Guardian’s World news page, but curiously filed under the non-world title “Politics”.
It is extraordinarily revealing, and goes a long way towards explaining Britain’s hostility to Israel. Conversely it could be said that because of Britain’s hostility to Israel, Britain’s politicians are so cosy with Middle Eastern Arab dictators.
Either way it shows up British politicians in a most unflattering and unsavory light. It also shows how feeble is the famed “Israel lobby” and “Jewish influence” in Whitehall.
The most shameful of the politicians is Clare Short:
“Former international development secretary Clare Short accepted £1,580 worth of flights, hotel accommodation, food and travel expenses from al-Manar television in Lebanon in 2008. Al-Manar is described by the US government as “the media arm of the Hezbollah terrorist network“, and was classed as a specially designated terrorist entity by the US in 2006.
Short said her trip had been registered with Commons authorities and that the visit allowed her to see how reconstruction in southern Lebanon was proceeding after the country’s conflict with Israel in 2006.
“I did an interview for the TV programme and was free to express my views without censure, and I also met with senior Hezbollah officials,” she said. “I do not accept US advice on who I should speak to. UK diplomats also talk with Hezbollah. I have also met with Hamas leaders on a number of occasions as well as Fatah leaders, and the Syrian and Lebanese governments.”
On the basis of these meetings of hers with known and recognized terrorists, and defying British foreign policy, Short should have been blacklisted and even thrown out of Parliament, rather than letting her stay until her resignation in 2010. She is a disgrace to any democracy. Her attitude and statements about Israel explain her disgraceful behaviour.
Note the list of countries visited:
Trips by country
Qatar 32
Bahrain 18
Oman 16
Egypt 12
UAE 10
Saudi 8
Kuwait 4
Jordan 3
Tunisia 2
Yemen 1
Syria 1
And note which little democratic country is not mentioned at all.
Like this:
This review of Michael Totten’s new book, “The Road to Fatima Gate: The Beirut Spring, the rise of Hezbollah, and the Iranian War against Israel”, was written by Hadar Sela, and published in The Propagandist.
The current political and social upheaval throughout the Middle East and North Africa has highlighted something that those of us living in the region have known for a long time; just how rare accurate reporting and analysis of events in this area is.
Too much of the commentary produced by foreign correspondents and Middle East ‘experts’ is one-dimensional and it is the result of both the inability of writers to set aside their own cultural straight-jackets which have little or no relevance in this region, together with the commercial pressures to compete for headlines in a digital age in which speed and volume of content trump accuracy and quality reporting.
I often think of this prevalent sort of Middle East journalism in terms of mass-produced, flat-pack chipboard furniture. It’s not meant to last, it all looks pretty much the same, it doesn’t aspire to quality in terms of the materials used, and it comes in a one-size- fits- all form of presentation designed to appeal to the broadest possible consensus.
By contrast, Michael Totten is a master carpenter. His work is a long, slow process using only carefully selected quality materials, often acquired with difficulty. In terms of volume, he comes nowhere near the output of many of his colleagues, but what he does produce will stand the test of time because Totten does not seek to tell his readers (or himself) what they want to know – he informs them of what they need to know.
Over five years of research went into “The Road to Fatima Gate”, which begins with the ‘Beirut Spring’ of 2005 which followed the political murder of the former Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafik Hariri. The book documents the subsequent seismic shifts in Lebanese politics over the next half-decade and the related events in the broader region, including the 2006 summer war between Hezbollah and Israel.
Not only does Totten manage to unravel for his reader the intricacies of the various factions at work in Lebanon, he succeeds in mapping their changing alliances and connections to the broader regional picture, whilst at the same time deconstructing the often one-dimensional impressions which many Westerners hold of the players at work in the entire Middle East.
Read the rest of the essay, here.
What a newspaper does not report can be just as revealing as what it does.
Back in May 2010 CiF rushed to report the arrest of two Arab Israelis suspected of espionage, allowing Ben White to make wild claims that “Israel seeks to silence dissent” and “repressive practices long used in the West Bank and Gaza are now being used to limit civil liberties within Israel”.
White claimed that:
“Several examples now point to an uncomfortable reality for the self-proclaimed “only democracy in the Middle East”: practices that have long been routine in the military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza are being used in Israel to suppress dissent and limit civil liberties.” (my emphasis)
He attempted to paint a terrifying picture of Soviet-style assaults on the civil liberties of Israel’s Arab citizens:
“So why is this happening now? First, it is the latest manifestation of a deteriorating atmosphere in Israel, with political dissent and human rights groups under attack…..
….Second, there is also a specific focus on Israel’s Palestinian minority…..
…..Hussein Abu Hussein, the lawyer for both Makhoul and Said, stressed the role of someone like Makhoul in being a prominent advocate internationally for “the need for accountability” – in other words, “the state has enough reasons to stop this voice”. Mohammad Zeidan, of the Arab Association for Human Rights (HRA), says that the arrests are “clearly political”. He believes that for some in Israel, the work being done by NGOs and Arab parties on the international level is “crossing a red line” – “they want to remind us that this is not a democracy”. “
Ten days after White’s article, CiF published a piece by Yousef Munayyer in which he too took up the theme of Israel’s supposed ‘intimidation’ of Ameer Makhoul.
“In recent years, the Israeli repression of Palestinian nonviolent dissent has increased significantly and Israel is showing signs of transforming into a fully-fledged police state. Even Israeli citizens, both Palestinian such as Ameer Makhoul and Jewish, have faced intimidation in one form or another for being critical of Israel’s policies.”
On June 1st CiF printed an article by Daphna Baram in which she managed to link Ameer Makhoul’s arrest to the previous day’s events aboard the Mavi Marmara.
“Ameer Makhoul and Dr Omar Saeed (human right activists and Israeli citizens) were arrested in the middle of the night at their homes some two weeks ago, and were unlawfully prevented from conferring with their lawyers for 12 days. Now they are facing trial on extremely controversial spying allegations. In this atmosphere, no wonder the government now starts killing European human rights activists and protesters in an act of terrorist piracy.”
In November 2010 Seumas Milne wrote that
“leading civil rights campaigner Ameer Makhoul faces up to 10 years in jail after being convicted of the improbable charge of spying for Hezbollah.” (my emphasis)
Earlier this week Ameer Makhoul was sentenced by a court in Haifa to nine years of imprisonment for spying for Hizbollah both in war-time and afterwards. So far, the Guardian’s Jerusalem correspondent Harriet Sherwood has failed to report upon the subject whatsoever and CiF readers remain ignorant of the details of the case. Whilst for people such as Milne, spying for Hizbollah is probably at worst the moral equivalent of stealing a few paper clips from the office, the fact is that Ameer Makhoul has been tried and found guilty of an extremely serious crime in a court of law in a democratic country with a fiercely independent judicial system.
If that calculated omission of information were not enough, CiF published an emotional polemic written by Makhoul’s wife on Jan. 31st in which she repeats the Guardian-style claims of persecution against him, painting him as an innocent victim of Israeli oppression.
Janan Abdu knows as well as I do that any Israeli civilian is free to make a complaint regarding his or her treatment by the security forces at any stage of proceedings and that such a complaint must be investigated. She also knows that if a defendant makes any claims of mistreatment during his or her trial, that too is investigated – regardless of whether a formal complaint has been made or not.
But of course neither Abdu nor the Guardian have any interest in informing readers of the truth, the details of the case nor the gravity of Makhoul’s crime. The Guardian’s decision to print Abdu’s unproven accusations without presenting the other side of the story indicates that it is more interested in defaming Israel than reporting the news. Janan Abdu’s decision to write this article for a foreign newspaper – rather than addressing any complaints she may have to the authorities who can actually do anything about them – show that she is interested solely in whipping up hatred against the country her husband has betrayed.
In the summer of 2006 over one million Israeli citizens in the North of Israel, myself and my family included, spent weeks in air raid shelters under a barrage of lethal Hizbollah rockets. Thousands of people were displaced from their homes. Children were still being treated for post traumatic stress disorder well over a year after the war ended. 43 Israeli civilians – Arabs and Jews - were killed along with 76 soldiers and hundreds were injured.
These are just a few of the people who lost their lives that summer:
A guest post by AKUS
In all the excitement over the Pallypapers, the events in Lebanon are getting less attention than they deserve, even though vastly more significant.
The state of play at the moment is that results of the UN Hariri assassination investigation have not yet been released. In the meantime, Hezbollah has managed to depose Hariri as Prime Minister through a parliamentary coup and the incomprehensible support of Druze leader Walid Jumblatt. One can only assume that Jumblatt hopes avoid conflict by siding with Hezbollah – a vain hope at best as the country falls further and further into the hands of these theocratic thugs. A new Prime Minister – yet another Lebanese billionaire – Najib Mikati, has been selected by Hezbollah to put a moderate face on things, but clearly will be no more than a puppet in a Hezbollah dominated government.
The pro-Western elements in Lebanon are now urging sit-ins against Hezbollah, something that no doubt amuses that heavily armed group. The Sunnis have rioted futilely because Hezbollah are Shiites (standard operating procedure for Islamic factions). The Saudis are backing their Sunni Muslims against Iran’s Shiite Hezbollah. According to the Washington Post article, “Hariri has insisted he will not join a government led by a Hezbollah pick”. The US has rather feebly said it would “reconsider” its aid to Lebanon if Mikati forms of a government dominated by Hezbollah. But that, of course, is exactly what is about to happen. One can only wonder, in retrospect, why America ever provided any aid to Lebanon rather than joining with Israel to destroy Hezbollah.
So we now have what amounts to the world’s first terrorist state – a country headed by the selected puppet of a terrorist group. At the next session of the United Nations, will we have the edifying spectacle of Ahmadinajad once more representing Iran and a person representing its terrorist client state, Lebanon, denouncing Israel and the United States? Will Hezbollah be asked, perhaps, to provide one of its thugs to chair the UN Human Rights Council?
Fascinating stuff, and a testament to the increasing wimpish nature of the West.
Dramatic developments took place last week in Lebanon as Hizbollah brought down the government whilst the Prime Minister was out-of-town: just the latest in its continued attempts to prevent the conclusions of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon from being implemented.
It is, of course, too early to predict and foolish to speculate what will happen in long- beleaguered Lebanon, but there is one scenario which can be placed right at the bottom of a list of possible outcomes, and that is the likelihood of a war between Israel and Lebanon. Unless Hizbollah deliberately leaves Israel no choice – for example if Israeli civilians are targeted as was the case in 2006 – there is no reason that these latest internal Lebanese developments should lead to cross-border conflict
It therefore seemed rather strange that CiF should choose to publish an article by Nicholas Noe on January 14th which totally ignores the internal aspects of the current crisis in favour of an elaborate hypothesis detailing why, if conflict does break out, it will be anyone and everyone’s fault except that of Hizbollah.
This isn’t the first time that Noe has predicted similar doom and gloom on the pages of CiF; in fact lately he appears to get wheeled out whenever there is some sort of crisis in Lebanon in order to promote the anti-American and anti-Israeli line. Noe’s impressive ability to ignore the objective facts at hand in favour of almost superstitious speculations may be somewhat easier to comprehend if one takes into account that he’s the founder and editor-in-chief of ‘Mideastwire’, and also runs Arabic language courses for foreign students in Beirut, the highlight of which are visits to Hamas and Hizbollah HQs.
“When Amtissal signed up to learn Arabic in Beirut, she was in for a bonus: class trips to the offices of Hezbollah and Hamas, both classified as terrorist organizations by her native America.
“It was an amazing experience,” the U.S. media studies graduate told AFP. “We saw the difference between television and reality.”
For 21-year-old Andrew Waller, the Beirut Exchange was a golden opportunity to hear the voices of groups he had only read about.
“Meeting Hezbollah was an experience I really treasure,” said Waller, an economics student at the University of Exeter in Britain.”
“To be fair, you’d have to look long and hard to find a tyranny or a fascist dictator of the Islamist or the Baathist kind upon whose boots Galloway has not slobbered.” – Terry Glavin
Galloway with Hamas leader Ismail Hanyieh
“Useful idiots” is a term which was used to describe Soviet sympathisers in Western countries and the attitude of the Soviet government towards them. However, the term, in a broader sense, refers to Western journalists, travellers and intellectuals who give their blessing – often with evangelistic fervour – to tyrannies and tyrants, thereby convincing politicians and the public of the utopian (rather than dystopian) nature of the society.
While such a definition may seem apt in any analysis of George Galloway’s political behavior, another compelling case can be made that he’s not an “idiot” at all. There is reason to believe that, indeed, he knows fully well that the groups he champions (whether it be Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Ba’athist Syrian regime) are ideologically reactionary, racist movements, and that his support is given not in spite of such ideological orientations, but because of them. In which case, we are left with the impression that he is not simply a terrorist dupe, but a full-fledged fascist.
This essay by Terry Glavin, which appeared in the National Post, makes a compelling case for the latter view.
Galloway with Saddam Hussein
James Denselow’s CiF piece on Nov. 20, “Lebanon: justice at what cost?“, pertained to the possible indictments against Hezbollah members for the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minster, Rafik Hariri.
Refreshingly, Denselow, unlike so many other CiF writers, didn’t reveal an obsession with Israel – never once mentioning the Jewish state in his 769 word essay. Indeed, anyone paying attention knows that the case against Hezbollah is extremely strong.
However, I put the reader comments, beneath the column, in a software program that creates an image with each word sized according to the frequency in which its used. Here’s what was produced.
Apparently, CiF moderators’ efforts to prevent the comment threads from veering off-topic still aren’t very effective, to say the least.
Ahmed Moor
As anyone who has spent time in or seriously studied the Middle East and the Arab world knows, the default option for many a political leader or struggling dictator in that region when the going gets tough is to kick the Zionist cat.
Rising opposition from within? The Zionists must be behind it. Economy going off the rails? The Israelis are of course to blame. Indeed more or less anything can be attributed to the Jews, often in a manner which would not seem out-of-place in a Monty Python sketch, because the conspiracy theories about them have been cultivated for so long that they have become part of the region’s folklore and mindset.
So when self-declared anti-Zionist, one-stater, promoter of apartheid analogies and would-be dismantler of the Palestinian Authority Ahmed Moor appears on the pages of CiF America promoting Jewish/Zionist conspiracy theories, we can be sure that here is one American who has well and truly imbibed the culture surrounding him in his chosen new home in Beirut.
According to Moor, both the Israeli government and pro-Israel American Jewish organisations are leaning heavily on the US administration to confront Iran, if not directly then by way of its proxy in Lebanon, Hizbollah.
“Josh Block – a former spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) – recently argued that President Obama ought to confront Hezbollah in Lebanon in order to confront Iran.”
“Only last week, Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu flew across the Atlantic to ask Vice President Joseph Biden to launch a war against Iran on Israel’s behalf.”
“The pro-Israel lobby is aware that America is too over-committed to attack Iran. But America is evidently capable of taking on Hezbollah, an Iranian ally”
In actual fact Josh Block seemed to be arguing in favor of strengthening and supporting the Lebanese people who do not want their country taken over by proxies of a theocratic dictatorship – the link in Moor’s article is broken – see here. The Lebanese are of course not the only ones in the region concerned about Iran’s growing influence on the area and the possibility of its gaining an upper hand in the Middle East power struggle; there are several Arab countries who have no less interest than either Lebanon or Israel in containing the neighborhood bully before it is too late to prevent yet more violence. Moor completely ignores the bigger regional picture, however, in favor of a trite kick to the local cat; Israel.
Kieron Monks is a reporter and editor for Palestine Monitor. He’s written pieces in the publication accusing “Zionist lobbies” of “smearing” such heroic figures as Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein. Finkelstein, it should be noted, asserts that the Holocaust has been exaggerated and exploited by Jews to justify Israeli human rights violations and crimes against humanity, and supported Hezbollah’s “armed resistance against the Israeli Army in Lebanon.” In the same essay, Monks accuses the Jewish people of having transitioned from “oppressed” to “oppressor”, and – even more shamefully – accuses Jewish groups of desperately ”digging deeper for evidence of their victim-hood.”
In another piece for Palestine Monitor, entitled “Human Currency”, in 2009, he argues that Palestinians should not negotiate with Israel, and that force is the only thing which Israelis understand.
So, with such a prolific anti-Israel pedigree, and palpable hostility towards the Jewish community, I wasn’t surprised to see that Comment is Free recently published his essay, on Nov. 19, Palestine aid models must change.
It was these five words in the following passage that initially got my attention:
“The impact of foreign interests can be clearly seen in PA budgets that allocate 10 times more money to security – suppressing resistance to the occupation – than to agriculture, which could be the backbone of the Palestinian economy.”
This passage really caught my eye. With language, context is everything, but, given his past commentary, its seems clear that it should be read as criticism of the Palestinian security forces attempts to combat extremism, violence, and terrorism against Israelis – a minimal requirement for coexistence in the region. The words “resistance to the occupation” often are a thinly veiled euphemism for the right to “armed resistance.”
Another passage in his essay lends support to my conclusions. He says:
Individual NGOs have attempted to assert their independence from donors. Many reject USAID funding due to its political demands, which preclude assistance for projects that could benefit people with affiliations to undesirable political groups. The Dalia Association has introduced a “Village Decides” scheme, focused on institution building, which empowers local communities to invest funding as they see fit, without conditions.
Of course, Monks fails to inform his readers what he means by “undesirable political groups.” He’s referring to U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) guidelines requiring NGOs receiving funds to pledge “not to promote or engage in violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state, nor … make sub-grants to any entity that engages in these activities.”
In the mind of Kieron Monks, requirements that NGOs – who ostensibly are trying to promote peace and human rights in the region – shouldn’t promote terrorism or anti-Semitism are, naturally, a betrayal of the revolution.
Monks – who fetsishizes violent resistance by the most reactionary political movements, and peddles hateful narratives about Jews, yet still styles himself a brave progressive voice – is the perfect embodiment of the Guardian’s consistent betrayal of true liberal values.
There was a time when liberal papers (like the Guardian) were at the forefront in the fight against anti-Semitism. There was a time when such papers could be relied upon to be in fierce opposition to totalitarianism and unwavering in their defense of democracies - and never mistook the former for the latter. And, there was a time when liberal papers would see through the thin veneer of folks such as Kieron Monks and see him as the reactionary that he is.
I long for the return of that kind of crusading and fearless liberal voice in the UK.
On her maiden visit to Israel my very English mother sat down to her first breakfast and spread a piece of bread with what she assumed was raspberry jam. Neglecting to appreciate that on another continent things may not always be as they first appear, she took a bite of ‘harissa’ – a red paste made out of chilli peppers. At that moment she learned that like anywhere else in the world, this is a place in which one’s own preconceptions based on existing knowledge are not necessarily relevant.
Harriet Sherwood’s recent report from Ghajar is another example of what can result from the adherence to inapplicable preconceptions, particularly when mixed with deeply entrenched prejudices. As we are only too aware walls and fences (though exclusively when constructed by Israelis) are quite a popular theme at the Guardian. In this article too, Sherwood takes the ‘Berlin Wall’ theme and develops it way beyond any logical proportion and without context.
It is true that the villagers of Ghajar are themselves promoting the ‘Berlin Wall’ theme in connection to their current plight – I heard them use the concept myself when I visited Ghajar last week - but they are doing so as a metaphor for their discontent about the proposed division of their village and possible resulting enforced separation of families. Sherwood, however, takes this particular phrase and uses it to turn what is a very complex situation into a dumbed-down version of events laden with her own preconceptions. The primary message she communicates to her readers is that Israel is building yet another big bad wall and that Arabs will suffer as a result.
‘Just Journalism’ has challenged Sherwood’s employment of the ‘Berlin Wall’ theme in a very competent analysis of her article which is well worth a read. Sherwood’s preconceptions obviously do not permit her to address the much more interesting wider issues which make up the Ghajar story, presumably because to do so would compromise the trite ‘black and white’ version of the Middle East conflict which she takes care to pump out to her readers on a daily basis.
She does not have a word to say about the background role of the UN in the creation of the complex situation which currently exists in Ghajar. She completely ignores the interesting fact that here are a group of Alawite Muslims, who took Israeli citizenship en masse when it was offered to them, requesting to remain under Israeli rule at least for the foreseeable future. Likewise, only a cursory reference is made to UN resolution 1701 and even then in exclusive relation to Israel’s meeting of its conditions when in fact the few hundred square meters of northern Ghajar are actually one of the least problematic aspect of the implementation of that resolution. Even the well-known and clearly documented instances of Hizbollah infiltration into Ghajar and drug trafficking through the permeable border there are hinted by Sherwood to be unsubstantiated claims by Israel.
The Ghajar story presents an opportunity for any journalist worth his or her salt to begin to convey to readers the multiple complexities of the region’s daily life, as well as its disputes. It is a chance to challenge some of the many mistaken preconceptions about the area and peel away a few of the layers of prejudice and ignorance which form a protective wall around the one-dimensional view of the Middle East held by so many. Predictably, Sherwood chose not to rise to that challenge in this article. Instead she went along the tried and trusted route of reinforcing the concepts already firmly established in her readers’ and editors’ minds as in fact she has been doing ever since her arrival in Jerusalem several months ago with her tediously monochrome accounts of the events taking place around her; accounts which reveal more about the barriers in her own mind than those on the ground, existing or imaginary.
Alexander Henly’s CiF piece, oddly placed in the “Belief” section, from Nov. 17, titled “Omar Bakri trial is about politics, not Islamism or justice” (about Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed’s decision to hire a Hezbollah affiliated attorney for his upcoming trial in Lebanon) produced some really amusing and creative apologetics for the Shiite terrorist group.
First up, is rayuk.
Hmmm…Nasrallah is a modern day Churchill? I wonder if I can find another commenter to out due rayuk in the morally perverse analogy awards? Unfortunately, Harriet Sherwood was busy suggesting that Israel may be erecting a “Berlin Wall” in Ghajar, and it appears as if not even she is capable of two such moral inversions in the same day.
Oh, wait I found one, by a commenter who’s entertained us in the past: Ellis.
A modern day Christ. Thanks Ellis, you win!
This is cross posted by Israelinurse at OyVaGoy
This isn’t a post about bank overdrafts or even the dismal state of the drought-hit water level of the Sea of Galilee. It’s a tiny glimpse into the realities of Israeli life.
Last week we received our copy of the IDF Home Front Command’s new booklet distributed to every household in Israel on the subject of how to be prepared in the event of Israel coming under attack.
To most of us this isn’t new information, but of course we have many new immigrants who are less familiar with such situations and even for those of us who have been in such scenarios several times, it’s always useful to remind ourselves what to do in an emergency.
The booklet includes information on the choices of shelter available during an air-raid warning and the criteria for selecting a room in one’s house as the ‘safe room’ if one does not live in a building constructed since it became law to include an air-raid shelter in one’s building plans some 20 years ago.
The safe room should not be on a top storey and should have the minimum number possible of outside walls, windows and doors. Kitchens, bathrooms and utility rooms are not suitable because of the risk of injury from shattering tiles or ceramic sinks and suchlike. Residents of the area around Gaza should choose a room in the part of the house as far away as possible from the direction of fire.
There’s advice on what to have prepared in advance in the safe room such as 4 litres of bottled water per person per day and food sealed in tin cans to prevent contamination as well as a first-aid kit, a torch, a fire extinguisher and communications equipment so as to be able to keep updated. In addition, it is recommended to have all the family’s important papers such as identity cards, medical records and financial documents copied and kept in the safe room, as well as another copy kept safely outside the house as back-up.
It is also advised to have a bag ready for each family member containing clothes and personal effects in case of the need for evacuation, also including medications, money, and baby gear where necessary.
Equipment for sealing off the safe room in the event of chemical or biological attacks includes sheets of polyethylene of at least 100 microns thickness and sticky tape of 30 microns thickness and 50 mms width.
There’s also a map which indicates the length of time which the early warning systems will provide in the event of missile attacks.
Hawkeye
Omar2
WellofSense
Medusa
The Alchemist
Louise
Tosca
Maimon
Telling the Truth
Israelinurse
Adam Levick
Margie in Tel Aviv
Guest/Cross Post
Hadar Sela
Five years on: Guardian still tiptoeing around Hizbollah
July 13, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: 2006 Lebanon war, Guardian, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Qana, United Nations | by Israelinurse | 44 comments
Martin Chulov’s July 12th article marking five years since the outbreak of the second Lebanon war is so anodyne in its omissions that it is positively soporific. Yes, the reader may be briefly awakened from Chulov’s Pravda-style descriptions of Lebanese construction work by the erroneous reference to Qana as a “biblical site” where Jesus “purportedly turned water into wine”, but apart from that the article tiptoes so cautiously around the issues at hand that it fails to inform its readers of anything remotely newsworthy or relevant.
That is all Churlov has to say about Hizbollah’s flagrant violation of UN SC resolution 1701 and the UN’s turning of a blind eye to the process of its rearmament. No mention of an almost four-fold increase in the number of rockets and missiles held by Hizbollah since 2006 and the doubling of its forces. No reference to the known arms stores constructed in the heart of some 270 south Lebanese villages, turning the local population into automatic human shields or the extensive system of bunkers and other military facilities.
And above all, no reminder whatsoever of from where and how Hizbollah manages to rearm right under the noses of UNIFIL: Churlov’s only reference to Hizbollah’s connection to Iranian patronage is to state that via that organisation and Amal Iran has “dispense[d] hundreds of millions in cash to Lebanese who were caught up in the war” as though the Iranian regime were some sort of benevolent charitable organization.
Hizbollah positions in Lebanon, March 2011
We may not know precisely when a third Lebanon war will break out, or what will be the incident which lights the touch paper, but we know that it will happen and that primarily it will be a war against Israel’s civilians, with Hizbollah now capable of firing several hundred rockets a day upon Israeli cities, towns and villages.
When it does commence, the next Lebanon war will come as a complete surprise to the somnambulistic Guardian reader who, thanks to articles such as this one by Chulov together with the Guardian’s disproportionate focus on the joys of the ‘Arab Spring’, remain safely and securely in the dark as regards the details of the complex internal Lebanese political situation, the rearmament of Hizbollah and the failure of yet another UN resolution to curb Iranian expansionism in the Middle East, as well as the true nature of Hizbollah itself.
Tehran itself could hardly have done a better job.
Related articles
Share this:
Like this: