Israeli Invasion of Lebanon VS Sri Lanka Civil War

Israeli Invasion of Lebanon VS Sri Lanka Civil War

Although there are many factors that interact specifically with the question that lies at the basis of the latest US-Israeli invasion of Lebanon remains, I believe that it was in the four preceding invasions: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The most important case, the devastating US-1982 with the support of the Israeli invasion was openly described in Israel as the war in the West Bank, undertaken to put an end to annoying PLO calls for a diplomatic settlement (with the secondary purpose of imposing a client regime in Lebanon). There are many other illustrations. Despite the many differences in circumstances, the July 2006 invasion falls generally in the same scheme(dailystar.com).

The standard Western version is that the July 2006 invasion was justified by legitimate outrage over capture of two Israeli soldiers on the border. Pose a cynical fraud. U.S. and Israel and the West in general, there is little objection to capture of soldiers, or even to a much more serious crime of kidnapping civilians (and, of course, the killing of civilians). It was the Israeli practice in Lebanon for many years, and nobody ever suggested that Israel should be invaded and largely destroyed. Western cynicism was revealed even more dramatic clarity in the current upsurge of violence erupted after Palestinian militants captured an Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, on June 25. This also caused great anger, and support for Israel's sharp escalation of its murderous attacks on Gaza. Scale is reflected in the sacrifice: in June, 36 Palestinian civilians were killed in Gaza in July, the numbers more than quadrupled to over 170, including dozens of children. Pose of outrage was, again, cynical fraud, as evidenced by the sharp and finally, in response to the kidnapping of two Israeli civilians in Gaza, Muammar brothers, one day earlier, on June 24. They disappeared into Israel's prison system, joining hundreds of others imprisoned without charge - hence the kidnapping, like many of those sentenced on dubious charges. Was brief and contemptuous reference to the kidnapping of Muammar brothers, but no reaction, because such crimes are considered legitimate when they are committed "by our side." The idea that this crime would justify deadly attack on Israel would be regarded as a reversion to Nazism.

This distinction is clear, and familiar throughout history: To paraphrase Thucydides, the powerful have the right to ...