ISRAEL’S ATTACK ON LEBANON IS SIMPLY AN EXTENSION OF THE BUSH POLICY: A US offensive by proxy?

Before I went out to purchase a newspaper this day, and after listening to the news pertaining to the Israel and Lebanon crisis, I reflected on what I had seen and read in the media a few days earlier when I saw President Bush at the G8 meeting in Russia. The Israeli offensive had just been underway for a couple days or so. While appearing to be munching on snacks as he was talking with Prime Minister Blair of Britain, not knowing there was a live microphone near by, he stated: “well all he [referring to sweet and honey (?) Kofi Anan-UN Secretary General] has to do is call and ask Syria to tell Hezbullah to cut their [shit] out. And that will solve the problem.”

Listening to the way he made that statement with ease, comfort and confidence, coupled with what appeared to be an insouciant attitude towards the Lebanese casualties, the President looked awfully cool in my opinion not to have known about Israel’s plan to attack Hezbullah or Lebanon for purpose of destroying once-and-for-all Hezbullah’s support systems and infrastructures. Even a blind man could see the obvious, in that the Israeli and Hezbullah conflict is simply a US offensive by proxy. Not to say Israel hasn’t the right to defend itself or hasn’t acted on its own unilaterally before, but the whole scale of mayhem is unprecedented as far as taking so many innocent lives.

Thus, the President’s historical proclamation in 2001 after the 9/11 attack occurred, stating explicitly: “ Either you are with us or you are against us! And those who provide financial support or harbor terrorist groups and organizations will be dealt with in the same manner as the terrorists themselves.” And he meant what he said. Look at what happened to the Taliban in Afghanistan, and now Lebanon. The only difference is another war machine is doing the bidding. Again, Israel has a right to defend its territory and to protect its people when a sworn enemy, be it a sovereign country or an organization such as Hezbullah, acts on its own to kidnap soldiers for ransom. Any country with guts and pride will react. But the question is by what proportionality of a response? . So as I was saying, I went to purchase a newspaper and as I was looking through the selection, one headline and sub-caption caught my eyes on the front page of The Guardian, a British publication, that showed: "United States to Israel: you have one more week to blast Hezbullah [Bush gave green light for limited attack, say Israeli and UK sources]” I realize just because a charge is made and printed doesn’t make it true. But analyzing one’s actions as to what is or isn’t done, speaks volumes. As The Guardian reported, and other media as well, that “the US -backed by Britain-has blocked efforts for an immediate halt to the fighting initiated at the UN security council, the G8 summit in St Petersburg, Russia and the European foreign ministers’ meeting in Brussels, Belgium. Further, when there is obvious delay in sending a US diplomat, for example the secretary of state, to try and ask for both sides to cease fire and stop the killing of innocent and helpless civilians, one can only imagine there being a much deeper underlying objective other than just getting the kidnaped soldiers back.

Unquestionably, opportunity knocked at the US’ and Israeli’s doors due to the stupidity and miscalculation of Hezbullah, and the passivity of the Lebanese government to control Hezbullah’s consistent and prolonged random acts of terrorizing the Israeli populace. Consequently, the US through proxy Israel chose to seize a moment in time.

I will pose just one paramount question, although many could be formulated: was all the killing and destruction really necessary when you supposedly have smart weapons that can target and destroy targets with surgical precision?. Or is there a subtle but clear and ominous message being sent to Syria and Iran at the fatal expense of the innocent? You decide!