Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Chomsky on Israel, Lebanon and Palestine


Do you agree with the argument that Israel's military offensive in Lebanon
is "legally and morally justified?"
Noam Chomsky: The invasion itself is a serious breach of international
law, and major war crimes are being committed as it proceeds. There is no
legal justification.
The "moral justification" is supposed to be that capturing soldiers in a
cross-border raid, and killing others, is an outrageous crime. We know,
for certain, that Israel, the United States and other Western governments,
as well as the mainstream of articulate Western opinion, do not believe a
word of that. Sufficient evidence is their tolerance for many years of
US-backed Israeli crimes in Lebanon, including four invasions before this
one, occupation in violation of Security Council orders for 22 years, and
regular killings and abductions. To mention just one question that every
journal should be answering: When did Nasrallah assume a leadership role?
Answer: When the Rabin government escalated its crimes in Lebanon,
murdering Sheikh Abbas Mussawi and his wife and child with missiles fired
from a US helicopter. Nasrallah was chosen as his successor. Only one of
innumerable cases. There is, after all, a good reason why last February,
70% of Lebanese called for the capture of Israeli soldiers for prisoner
exchange.
The conclusion is underscored, dramatically, by the current upsurge of
violence, which began after the capture of Corporal Gilad Shalit on June
25. Every published Western "timeline" takes that as the opening event.
Yet the day before, Israeli forces kidnapped two Gaza civilians, a doctor
and his brother, and sent them to the Israeli prison system where they can
join innumerable other Palestinians, many held without charges -- hence
kidnapped. Kidnapping of civilians is a far worse crime than capture of
soldiers. The Western response was quite revealing: a few casual comments,
otherwise silence. The major media did not even bother reporting it. That
fact alone demonstrates, with brutal clarity, that there is no moral
justification for the sharp escalation of attacks in Gaza or the
destruction of Lebanon, and that the Western show of outrage about
kidnapping is cynical fraud.
 
Much has been said about Israel's right to defend itself from its enemies
who are taking advantage of Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, thus causing
the latest chapter in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Do you agree?
NC: Israel certainly has a right to defend itself, but no state has the
right to "defend" occupied territories. When the World Court condemned
Israel's "separation wall," even a US Justice, Judge Buergenthal, declared
that any part of it built to defend Israeli settlements is "ipso facto in
violation of international humanitarian law," because the settlements
themselves are illegal.
The withdrawal of a few thousand illegal settlers from Gaza was publicly
announced as a West Bank expansion plan. It has now been formalized by
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, with the support of Washington, as a program
of annexation of valuable occupied lands and major resources (particularly
water) and cantonization of the remaining territories, virtually separated
from one another and from whatever pitiful piece of Jerusalem will be
granted to Palestinians. All are to be imprisoned, since Israel is to take
over the Jordan valley. Gaza, too, remains imprisoned and Israel carries
out attacks there at will.
Gaza and the West Bank are recognized to be a unit, by the United States
and Israel as well. Therefore, Israel still occupies Gaza, and cannot
claim self-defense in territories it occupies in either of the two parts
of Palestine. It is Israel and the United States that are radically
violating international law. They are now seeking to consummate
long-standing plans to eliminate Palestinian national rights for good.
 
The United States has refused to call for an immediate cease-fire, arguing
that this would mean a return to the status quo ante, yet we are
witnessing a "back to the past" re-occupation of parts of Lebanon, and
Lebanon's rapid decline to political chaos by the current conflict. Is the
US policy correct?
NC: It is correct from the point of view of those who want to ensure that
Israel, by now virtually an offshore US military base and high-tech
center, dominates the region, without any challenge to its rule as it
proceeds to destroy Palestine. And there are side advantages, such as
eliminating any Lebanese-based deterrent if US-Israel decide to attack
Iran.
They may also hope to set up a client regime in Lebanon of the kind that
Ariel Sharon sought to create when he invaded Lebanon in 1982, destroying
much of the country and killing some 15-20,000 people.
 
What will be the likely outcome of this "two-pronged" crisis in Lebanon
and the occupied territories, in the near and long-term?
NC: We cannot predict much. There are too many uncertainties. One very
likely consequence, as the United States and Israel surely anticipated, is
a significant increase in jihadi-style terrorism as anger and hatred
directed against the United States, Israel, and Britain sweep the Arab and
Muslim worlds. Another is that Nasrallah, whether he survives or is
killed, will become an even more important symbol of resistance to
US-Israeli aggression. Hezbollah already has a phenomenal 87% support in
Lebanon itself, and its resistance has energized popular opinion to such
an extent that even the oldest and closest US allies have been compelled
to say that "If the peace option is rejected due to the Israeli arrogance,
then only the war option remains, and no one knows the repercussions
befalling the region, including wars and conflict that will spare no one,
including those whose military power is now tempting them to play with
fire." That's from King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who knows better than to
condemn the United States directly.
 
What steps do you recommend for the current hostilities to be brought to
an end and a lasting peace established?
NC: The basic steps are well understood: a cease-fire and exchange of
prisoners; withdrawal of occupying forces; continuation of the "national
dialogue" within Lebanon; and acceptance of the very broad international
consensus on a two-state settlement for Israel-Palestine, which has been
unilaterally blocked by the United States and Israel for thirty years.
There is, as always, much more to say, but those are the essentials.
-- 
visitate 
http://www.comunisti-italiani.it/frames/index.htm
http://cubainforma.interfree.it/
il film sul 9/11 : 
http://www.loosechange911.com/
http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/Berlin.jpg
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

  Noam Chomsky 
ROTFL!
Tb
-- 
www.tonibaruch.blogspot.com



