Friday, October 27, 2006
Dan Gordon tears into Robert Fisk's version of events from Lebanon, here: Who Betrayed Lebanon? And Who Watched it Happen?
No Fisk, you’ve got it wrong. The same Hezb’allah which pulled children’s bodies from the wreckage of the carnage which they themselves provoked, only to rebury those poor children’s bodies, and dig them up again for the next news crew; the same Hezb’allah which in the most cynical fashion launched, from within the Lebanese civilian population, their attacks against Israel’s civilian population in order to achieve maximum casualties of both, should have it on their consciences. So should their journalist appeasers and apologists, who enabled them and continue to cover up their crimes.
That Fisk is one such appeaser and apologist becomes clear...
The piece prompts this muse from Melanie Phillips:
...Now history is surely about to repeat itself once again. Israel’s occupation of Gaza ended with disengagement. The Palestinians have been left alone to get on with constructing the civil society to furnish the state that the world assumes they want so badly. They have not done so. Instead, they are descending into the chaos and anarchy of civil war, while equipping themselves with ever more fearsome rockets and other weapons in order to attack Israel with ever greater ferocity. Moreover, Iran is helpfully training them to become an army to wage war all the more professionally upon Israel from the land it has vacated, just like Hezbollah was used to attack it from Lebanon. Israel will have no option but to go back into Gaza to try to protect its citizens from such aggression. And how will the western media report this when it does so? Undoubtedly by screaming once again about Israeli atrocities and war crimes, just as they did over Jenin and Lebanon.
What has happened in Lebanon and Gaza dramatically exposes the utter hollowness of the ‘occupation causes resistance’ argument. In both cases, the ending of occupation merely facilitated even greater aggression. Instead of ‘land for peace’, the real deal is land for war...
[h/t: Adam Holland]
"...only to rebury those poor children’s bodies, and dig them up again for the next news crew...'
Yes, and Gordan does 'tear' into Fisk, with a near complete disregard for the fatcs, preferring the kind of fantastical slanders above.
"Moreover, Iran is helpfully training them to become an army to wage war all the more professionally ..."
Please don't forget that it was with the help of the Rice and Wolfensohn border brokerage enterprise that permitted the transfer of tons of explosives and arms.
"The Palestinians have been left alone to get on with constructing the civil society to furnish the state that the world assumes they want so badly. They have not done so."
My view (from Australia) is that it was unfortunate that when the Palestinians voted out a "talk peace-act war and corruption" Fatah government, sanctions were immediately imposed, badly damaging their civic society. The democratic vote against Fatah's corruption and incompetence, and the handover of government were both positive democratic things. If Hamas had acted reasonably peacefully when in government (after all Fatah were a long way from peaceful), things could have got a lot better. Unfortunately it's a hope that didn't get a chance (and many believe it would not have happened anyway, given Hamas' composition and attitudes)
"...only to rebury those poor children’s bodies, and dig them up again for the next news crew..."
Michael, that quote is a reasonable interpretation of the events near Qana on 31 July. There is much more evidence of re-enactment than there is of the children's being killed by an attack on that day.
There is also strong evidence that the ambulance "attack" of 24 July was a hoax. The same ambulance group was involved in both events.
On the other hand, When Fisk says “The Israeli Army were soundly thrashed when they crossed the border to fight the Hezb’allah losing forty men in thirty six hours,†he is probably referring to the major crossing, and the fighting around Bint Jubal, although it's a passing reference, so it lacks enough detail to check, and to count as true it might need to count both wounded and killed as 'lost'. Overall, I think Fisk is playing fast and loose with the truth - that's what makes it so hard to pin down, but I think this time Dan Gordon picked the wrong time period to refut it on.
Dan Gordon says "Hezb’allah on the other hand has been forced to abandon all its strongholds. Its terrorist capital, and infrastructure are in ruins and the positions it once manned are now finally taken up by the Lebanese Army and fifteen thousand man strong United Nations force. " I think that's very optimistic - I haven't seen reports that indicate that Hezbollah aren't back in their bunkers, or that the UN and Lebanese army have any intention of keeping them out.