O Snodaigh challenges Ahern on Lebanon

by where? Thu Aug 17, 2006 14:01

Whats the story where does everyone on the left/anti war side stand on Irish troop involvemenet in the UN force in s.Lebanon?

Iawm/ and SF seemed unsure in this Daily Ireland article yesterday http://www.dailyireland.com/home.tvt?_scope=DailyIrelan...opp=1

so do the greens, and going by what the first post says are SF against it unless the force is allowed into N Israel. Which is not going to happen.

I actually think it is in fact a difficultissue to take a clear stand on, but it looks like irish troops will be asked to join in next 24 hours or so, so I suppose clear thinking is what is needed.

by SP Member - Socialist Party/CWI Thu Aug 17, 2006 16:37

The SP is against the deployment of Irish troops to the Lebanon

by ed Thu Aug 17, 2006 18:48

So is Ed Horgan according to today's Daily Ireland as well, so that means PANA are against I suppose.

by Catholic Worker member Thu Aug 17, 2006 18:49

The Catholic Worker is opposed to the deployment of Irish soldiers to Lebanon and Shannon Airport!

by MichaelY - iawm Thu Aug 17, 2006 19:08

-IRISH ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT WELCOMES SET-BACK FOR ISRAELI/US AGGRESSION IN LEBANON.
- OPPOSES ANY PLAN TO SEND IRISH TROOPS WHILE REAL CAUSES OF CONFLICT REMAIN.
-SAYS ISRAELI ASSAULT PART OF US/ISRAELI PLAN TO ATTACK IRAN

The Irish Anti-War Movement (IAWM) welcomes the defeat of the Israeli/US aggression in the Middle East. Along with the Lebanese people we all breathe a bit easier with the news of the Israeli military assault and the news of the ceasefire - even as its prospects for resolving the underlying issues of the conflict are not favourable at this time.
The IAWM believes Israel is guilty of war crimes because of its deliberate targeting of civilians and social infrastructure in Lebanon. There is little doubt in our mind that this merciless bombing, coupled with ground attacks, was part of a plan to ignite a sectarian civil war in Lebanon as part of preparations to launch a military assault on Syria and possibly Iran later in the year.

The plan backfired – it did not work – despite Bush’s rantings about ‘victory’, the invasion united the Lebanese population against Israel and increased support for the main popular organisation resisting the aggression: Hezbollah.

At another level, the United Nations Security Council stood by in silence during the assault that lasted 34 days. Its standing and ability already greatly damaged in 2003 when the US Government had declared the UN “irrelevant” when the SC stood firm and refused to authorise an unlawful invasion of Iraq. It is clear that the Israeli assault was only halted, this time round, because of the strength of the resistance and the cracks that appeared in the US/EU alliance. Resolution 1701/2006 that came after the dithering, while the bombs dripped and the rockets flew, is no more than a compromise.

1701 itself does not and cannot deal with the root causes of the conflict:
·It demands no action on the Israeli occupation of Palestinian, Lebanese and Syrian territory,
·It says nothing about the Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners in Israeli custody, and
·And it skirts the wider US/Israeli agenda for ‘regime change’ in the region.

Lebanese and some Palestinian refugees are returning to their villages in large numbers despite Israeli threats to desist. Israeli troops are massing southwards. Real justice, however, will not be done until those responsible for the war crimes are held to account. The Israelis have murdered over 1,000 Lebanese people…and destroyed houses, bridges, roads, electricity generating stations, media outlets…whole areas of Beirut itself have been devastated. We also need to remember that Israel has not ceased its murderous and unprovoked attacks on the Palestinian territories.

It is very clear that the Israeli assault had little to do with the issue of hostages…it was planned long in advance and its real spark was an attempt to collectively punish both the Palestinian and the Lebanese resistance for their political support of Hamas and Hezbollah respectively. It was
planned long in advance with the US as part of its agenda for regime change in the Middle East.
Israel took two Palestinians hostage before the capture of Gill Shaillait by Hamas in a clear provocation.

Hezbollah’s incursion into Israel and capture of two Israeli soldiers was a response to Israel’s failure to release many Lebanese hostages in their custody. Israel has previously exchanged prisoners with Hezbollah without mounting a full-scale military assault. Hezbollah’s incursion into Israel was also part of an on-going pattern of incursions and occasional firing by both sides over the past number of years and cannot be seen as an isolated and unprovoked attack by eizbollah, as Israel suggests.

The real spark for the conflict was a campaign of collective punishment against the Palestinian people for electing Hamas as their government and a long-standing plan to destroy Hezbollah as part of the build up to a military assault on Iran. This assault continues despite the ceasefire in Lebanon.

There is plenty of evidence to show that the Israeli assault was part of a wider US/Israeli plan for "regime change” by military force throughout the region. Condolezza Rice and the US administration refused to call for a ceasefire but chillingly described the Israeli assault as the “birth pangs of a new Middle East”. The US promptly rushed missiles to Israel to bolster up the start and blatantly backed Israel’s actions. Award winning US journalist Seymour Hersch quoted a senior US intelligence official as saying the Israeli plan was “the mirror image of the what the United States has been planning for Iran.” Hersch’s article refers to many other senior US military and political figures as telling him the Israeli attack was a rehearsal for a planned attack on the Islamic Republic.

UN resolution 1701 demands no action on Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory, the question of Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners in Israeli custody and blames Hezbollah for starting the conflict while saying nothing about Israeli war crimes or US complicity.

If as looks likely, the US and Israel escalate the conflict to a wider regional confrontation, by attacking Iran or Syria, UN troops, including Irish troops, will get caught up the conflict. Troops from a neutral country, such as Ireland, should play no role in policing a UN resolution that the US and Israel are likely to twist into a justification for another war in a few months from now.

Ireland will not help tackle the dangerous situation in the Middle East by sending troops into a war-zone but by standing up clearly against US warmongering and telling the US government to get their troops out of Shannon airport.

The US and Israel must be politically isolated until they cease their interference in the Middle East, and end the occupations of Palestine, Iraq and other Arab territory.

Ireland could play a role by do everything it can and within Europe to push for major aid and assistance to the Lebanese people in re-constructing their shattered country. Any such assistance should also be accompanied by demands that Israel pay compensation to Lebanon for the death and destruction they have inflicted on Lebanon.

by who cares Thu Aug 17, 2006 20:22

who cares says this or that in Daily Ireland, I would not belive anything I read in that. As if anyone in Foreign Affairs is going to listen to any of the @left wing/anti war groups@ on this issue!!!

by Duine Fri Aug 18, 2006 13:07

Tá mise i gcoinne imlonnú Arm na hÉireann sa Liobáin roimh sainordú NA níos soiléire agus cúlaontú Hiosbólla is na nIosraelach

by Felix Quigley Fri Aug 18, 2006 14:29

Michael Y

You make many assertions in the above post which need to be answered but I will focus on your support for Hezbullah, which is a support which is spread across the whole of the "Left" in Ireland and in the Provos.

You write above "main popular organisation resisting the aggression: Hezbollah."

Your whole writing is laced with lies. Who on earth is the aggressor here! Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 then the Hezbollah was armed to the teeth by Iran through Syria. You cannot dispute that fact.

Nor do you. You say that that was as a defence against Israel. So no matter what Israel does in your eyes it is wrong. You discount the withdrawal in 2000 completely. Remember that Lebanon had been made by the PLO into a base from which to attack Israel. Do you dispute that?

But it is on the issue of your support for this Jew-hating organisation that i challenge you.

How do you define this Hezbullah organization and how do you characterise Nasrullah?

Do you see Nasrullah as an anti-Semite. Do you see his sponsor Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, as a Jew Hater.

What do their calls to completely destroy Israel mean to you? You do not ever address that question.

by Felix Quigley Fri Aug 18, 2006 14:38

O'Snodaigh does us all a favour. he shows us what a jew hating organization Sinn Fein has become. Israel is the Homeland of the Jews and Sinn Fein has lined up here to back the Fascist Hezbullah.

He says that the Irish troops should go into Israel because Israel is the cause of the problem. Sinn Fein do not, like the Irish neoLeft, bother to explain that Hezbollah has been armed for war against Israel, the people responsible for that are the Fascists of Iran, who hang gay lads from public gallows in Teheran, for the crime of being gay, and who have the most savage laws against the rights of women. This tells us an awful lot about this Sinn Fein and Provo movement.

by Paddy Hughes Fri Aug 18, 2006 14:41

Who wrote the IAWM statement? There is support for EU aid to be sent to Lebanon. Surely the SWP should know by now, especially after the Tsunami and Pakistan earthquake that "Aid" from capitalist states always have strings attached. But I guess the IAWM/SWP were too caught up in the "Bob Geldof Lets Wear White and Support the G8" Lovefest to see this. Any Irish or EU aid going to Lebanon will be conditional on Privatisation and Construction Industry contracts. No anti-impialist should ever call for capitalists to give aid without saying "no strings attached aid".

by MichaelY - iawm Fri Aug 18, 2006 15:15

One at a time:

On the question of aid Paddy Hughes - a number of Irish based NGOs, among them Trocaire, who are organising a benefit on Sunday night btw, and the entire Muslim community in Ireland are seriously pre-occupied with the devastation caused to the villages and towns not only near the border but also in Beirut, the roads, the airport, the bridges linking Beirut to Damas etc. We are all worried about issues of medicines and food for the refugees. And funds for reconstruction of homes before the winter sets in.

Now, leaving aside the issue of the SWP influence/control of the IAWM, a silly herring if there ever was one, we felt that while Israel should be asked by the UN to pay reparations (a nearly impossible task if there ever was one), our job here, as anti-war activists, along with our Lebanese and Palestinian friends, is to push the Irish Government to help the NGOs and use its influence in Europe to assist....this is what our comrades in the IPSC are also discussing - along with plans for a boycott of Israeli goods. I personally believe that the issue of the 'strings' is a valid one and you're correct in raising it. How it is to be applied - a good question. Leaving aside the diversions re:Geldof etc, I would appreciate your comments on the key components of the statement re: the use of the Irish Army, re: the 1701 etc. Which brings me to the issue of the Hezbollah and this untiring supporter of Israel Felix:

I see my friend that you are trying your best, in a number of threads, to defend the indefensible. The US/Israeli plan, hatched about 2 years ago to destroy Hezbollah's political and military influence FAILED. Forget the lies about the two captured soldiers and the like. Its attempt to portray the invasion as a defensive action, an invasion that cost almost a thousand innocent lives and untold structural damage to the Lebanese economy, FAILED. Its attempt to be a template for a forthcoming attack on Iran FAILED. Olmert and his ilk are facing huge internal opposition..... Hezbollah has come to increase its political influence, its support from the Christian and Sunni sections of the Lebanese population has grown. These are the 'facts' of the situation as we understand them. Bush and his cabal can shout 'victory' until the cows come home but Israel comes out of this with its tail badly bitten and its credibility not only in the Arab world but internationally in tatters. And your job, however is defined, is getting more and more difficult Felix.

The Lebanese people see and experience Hezbollah as an organisation that has ably defended them...those of us here in Ireland who have a minimum of political sense, while recognising the serious political contradictions in Hezbollah's ideology and political practice, have absolutely no qualms about supporting its fight against the plans of the Empire that wants to shape a "New Middle East"..... the same way that we will support Iran and Syria if they were to be attacked militarily. This is what all the secular political forces argue within Iran - fight politically the mullahs but oppose US warmongering!! The same way that we, along with a sizeable majority of the Palestinian people, we would support Hamas. The least I can say is that if democracy is what is to be exported to the Middle East to the Arab world, let us respect the democratic wishes of the people in question.

Hope the above clarifies some of your 'honestly held' beliefs and consequent queries.

by h Fri Aug 18, 2006 15:32

Edward Horgan, a decorated former UN peacekeeper, told Daily Ireland he had “huge concerns” about such a mission.
I oppose any Irish involvement, it is not a clear-cut UN mission,” Mr Horgan told Daily Ireland.
“It looks like the United States and the French are very involved in the planning of this.
“Both those countries have bad histories of direct involvement in Lebanon. This will eventually make the force unpopular with Hezbollah.
“It looks like a poorly organised plan that will see this force essentially backing US and Israeli interests in the area.”
Mr Horgan who served with the UN in Cyprus in the 1960s and in Egypt in 1973, explained what he meant by “clear-cut”.
“The reason it is not clear-cut is because the UN Security Council failed to call for an immediate ceasefire when the conflict began,” he said.
“Hundreds of innocent people have died since.
“This force seems to be part of backing the Israeli interests.
“It will be both very dangerous and inappropriate for Irish troops to get involved.
“There is also talk of Irish troops being part of a rapid reaction force there.
“I do not think that Irish troops are prepared or trained for such a mission.
“This is a very different mission than Liberia or east Timor.”

http://www.dailyireland.com/home.tvt?_ticket=OMTEDWX263...opp=1

by Ali H. Sat Aug 19, 2006 08:31

It's good to see that at least SF havethe guts to identify the real cause of the problems in the Middle East and the biggest threattothe lives of UN peacekeepers, ie Israel. Demilitarising the Israeli side of the border for a few km wouldn't do anything substantial to degrade Israeli "security" and if anything might enhance it in that Hezbollah target the border precisely because it has many military installations located in civilian areas as reported by Lara Marlowe of the BBC. Despite ZioNazi bleatings to the contrary there is no evidence of Hezbollahs intentions being other than defensive, and thankfully they gave the ZioNazi invasion force reason to not want to hang around for another kicking, unlike those of the Israelis who have deliberately murdered over 1500 Lebanese in their grotesque turkey-shoot.