Aletho News


Shifting responsibility: the propaganda of The Jewish Chronicle

By Brenda Heard | Friends of Lebanon | December 30, 2012

Are they STILL pushing this absurd line? The Jewish Chronicle is propagandising again.[1] In its recent article “Britain’s anger with Israel over 1982 Lebanon War,” the JC states the attempted assassination of the Israeli Ambassador to the UK in June 1982 “provided the spark for Ariel Sharon to spearhead Israel’s incursion into Lebanon.” The JC states that the ambassador was “shot in the head by Palestinian terrorists,” and that the “invasion of southern Lebanon” demonstrated “Israel’s determination to stamp out terrorism from its northern border.” NOT BY A LONG SHOT, GUYS.

In case you missed it, the ambassador was shot by a Jordanian who was working within the Abu Nidal Organisation (ANO)—which in turn was run by a Palestinian who had been based in Jordan, Syria, Sudan and Iraq . . . but not in Lebanon. The ANO was characterised by its international, mercenary approach. The Jordanian gunman was accompanied by a cousin of Abu Nidal. . . and an Iraqi intelligence operative.

At best, the JC is being disingenuous. The 1982 military invasion of Lebanon was simply an escalation of Israeli aggression dating back decades—the aim of which was to eradicate the Palestinian resistance. The 82 invasion targeted the PLO, with whom the ANO were enemies. Thus the attempted assassination has long been widely acknowledged to have been a thin pretext. Yet the JC laments that, when the ambassador was shot, Israel had had to defend itself by running over Lebanon—a tired and feeble excuse.

As stated at the 7th emergency special session of the UN General Assembly (16 August 1982):

“For more than two months now the international community, as a whole, has focused its attention on Lebanon, where one of the most lethal wars of aggression the Middle East has ever known throughout its history is going on. The capital of a member nation of the United Nations [Beirut] has been besieged by the armed forces of a neighbor State [Israel].

This premeditated operation, which has already resulted in thousands of Lebanese and Palestinian civilian victims, was planned well in advance, designed to bring about a final solution to the Palestinian problem. At the same time, acts of intimidation and terrorism towards the Palestinians on the West Bank of the Jordan and in the Gaza Strip are increasing, leaving the victims convinced that the only way, to survive is to submit to domination.

Thus the military operations conducted by Israel in Lebanon replicate the political war against the PLO . . . . the Israeli leaders continue to flout the fundamental principles contained in the Charter and to violate numerous resolutions of the United Nations which, however, presided over the creation of the State of Israel.  The most recent and most flagrant example of this attitude was Israel’s rejection of resolutions 508 (1982)509 (1982)512 (1982)513 (1932) and 516 (1982) of the Security Council, and resolution ES-7/5 of the General Assembly, which all required Israel to put an end to the hostilities and to withdraw its forces behind the internationally recognized frontiers of Lebanon.  The diplomatic efforts which have been undertaken here and there have always been met by the same Israeli reaction. That is, an escalation of violence.” [2]

The platitudes of the JC are routine. This article does serve, however, to draw attention to one disheartening reality. The attitude of far too many—not just Israelis, but also Americans, Arabs and Europeans—has been to view the Palestinians as nothing more a problem. Send them here, send them there, blast them into oblivion, just sort it. But the Palestinians are not a problem, they are a people. They deserve neither scorn nor pity; they deserve simple human equality. Was Britain “angry” with Israel for stampeding Lebanon in its attempt to eliminate the Palestinian “problem” and to pave the way toward a greater Israel? In retrospect, it seems they were not angry enough.

[1] For further reading, the British National Archives documents referred to in the JC article: ; CAB 128/74/7 (08 July 1982); CAB 128/74/5 (24 June 1982)

[2] Massamba Sarre (Senegal) Chairman, Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People: UNGA A/ES-7/PV.25 (16 August 1982) See also further international statements UNGA A/ES-7/PV.27 (17 August 1982)

December 31, 2012 - Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , ,


  1. Israeli aggression dating back decades—the aim of which was to eradicate the Palestinian resistance

    On the contrary, the reason for the Zionists’ repeated aggression against Lebanon is that they covet the water of the Litani River. The goal is to annex the entire southern part of the country as far north as the Litani, exterminate or expel all the grunting subhuman goyim who live there, and sluice off every drop of the water for the benefit of Jews exclusively. Otherwise, you see, they won’t be able to continue to offer a comfortable Western lifestyle (for Jewish citizens only, of course), and then Jews won’t want to live there. Meanwhile, the goyim continue to proliferate, and Hizbullah gave them a bloody nose in 2006. No Litani, no Jewish state! Things are looking bad.

    Comment by traducteur | December 31, 2012 | Reply

    • Actually, with a lot of desalination plants having come, coming and/or soon to come on-line Israel will not only be able to provide enough water for itself but will be able to increase water transfers to Jordan and even the PA…

      As for the “bloody nose” in 2006, Nasrallah himself stated that he known the extend of the Israeli response he would not have executed the operation that started that whole fracas…

      Comment by ScubaMan | December 31, 2012 | Reply

  2. Of course, there’s no Jewish state anyway, never has been. All PR, is that.

    Comment by traducteur | December 31, 2012 | Reply

    • I guess you live in a fantasy world…

      Comment by ScubaMan | January 2, 2013 | Reply

  3. Thanks for expanding on this point, traducteur. Very true, and what I meant by including the phrase ” to pave the way toward a greater Israel,” or as they might call it “Eretz Israel.” The aggression has been two-prong: (1) eliminate resistance and (2) claim territory and its resources.

    Scubaman, the Litani has indeed been coveted–and will continue to be, regardless of any “desalination plants” Israelis may use now or in the future. The quest for the Litani derives not just from practical need, but from a sense of entitlement–one that will persist no matter the variations in actual water needs.

    As for Nasrallah’s statement: he was asked if he had known before the operation that Israel would launch a war would he–with that foreknowledge–have still proceeded with the operation. In responding no, he indicated that he would not have knowingly jeopardised the civilian population. Bear in mind that (1) prisoner swaps and these limited military operations had long been standard fare and (2) that Israel’s 2006 bombardment had been planned well before that operation, which merely served as pretext. Regardless of timing, however, the Resistance was clearly ready and able to defend Lebanon.

    Comment by brenda | January 1, 2013 | Reply

    • Israel has already twice controlled the South of Lebanon up to and including the Litany… Never has it expressed any desire let alone any actual action towards claiming the territory let alone actually annex the territory…

      As for 2006, the Hizballah attack was not the usual fare for the region… The attack was made under the cover of a rocket and mortar barrage targeting much of northern Israel… And, even if that weren’t true, Israel has the right to respond to an attack… And no, Israel is not obliged to limit such a response to the immediate area of the attack…

      As for planning, get real… That’s what the military do when they’re not actually fighting… They make plans and train according to those plans… As for the resistance, they and Lebanon as whole paid dearly for their actions…

      Comment by ScubaMan | January 2, 2013 | Reply

  4. So far from supplying Palestinians with water, the Zionists systematically sluice off the entire water supply of Palestinian villages so that the nearby Jews-only settlement can have every drop. It’s one of a number of means of what they call “encouraging the goyim to emigrate”, along with confiscating their land, demolishing their homes, destroying their crops, denying them employment, health care and education, machine-gunning their children, and the like. All in vain: the Palestinian people continue to live in their ancestral homeland!

    Comment by traducteur | January 2, 2013 | Reply

    • Quite to the contrary!… Israel is supplying the PA with MORE water then was called for in the Oslo agreements!…

      Comment by ScubaMan | January 2, 2013 | Reply

      • Of course, the Oslo agreements failed to include that the definition of water is not urine mixed with some water.

        Comment by aletho | January 2, 2013 | Reply

        • Can you give a verified example where Israel has provided the Palestinians water tainted with urine (or any other substance for that matter) as potable water?!… If not, then you’re clearly being nothing but a propagandist!…

          Comment by ScubaMan | January 4, 2013 | Reply

  5. Ah, that’s good news. May the Palestinian people continue to be fruitful and multiply!

    Comment by traducteur | January 2, 2013 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.