history is memories and hangovers

Ive only spent one weekend in Beruit, a blur of alcohol, illicit substances, music, fun and lack of sleep, arriving from Damascus on a thursday night and leaving on Sunday, my head foggy and my wallet considerably lighter than when I left. I am so glad that I have had just that trifling, muddy, glimpse into the country as the Israeli government is now determined to "set back the country 20 years". I saw little of the scars that were left from 30 odd years of civil war and invasions, my memories are only of balmy warm summer breezes, throbbing clubs and bars, expensive, tho delicious food and warm friendly people, before I made my way back to the considerably poorer, but no less friendly, Syria. My memories are at best like looking through snowstorm onto a white mountain, but thats what you get for enjoying yourself. Another lost weekend in a life that contains more than a few lost weekends.

..................................................................................

a US military perspective of the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon:

OperationPeace for Galilee was launched to meet five national strategygoals:
(1) eliminate the PLO threat to Israel's northern border;
(2) destroy the PLO infrastructure in Lebanon;
(3) remove Syrianmilitary presence in the Bekaa Valley and reduce its influence inLebanon; (4) create a stable Lebanese government; and
(5)therefore strengthen Israel's position in the West Bank.

In brief, the Israeli Defense Force conducted a successfulcombined arms offensive which achieved every military objectiveassigned it, but which revealed certain weakness in forcestructure and tactics. Strategic goals were initially met withthe evacuation of much of the PLO from Beirut and the defeat ofSyrian forces in the Bekaa; however,long term results have been arenewed PLO presence in Lebanon, the rise of militant Shi'afundamentalist militias in the south, the almost total collapse ofany semblance of a Lebanese government, restored Syrian presenceand influence, deep domestic divisions in Israel concerning thewar, and increased political violence in the West Bank.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1987/SGC.htm

I will read the report over the weekend to figure out how the US government can claim to be making such roaring progress in Iraq and the middle east in general, statements such as "a successfulcombined arms offensive which achieved every military objectiveassigned it" are breathtaking in their stupidity.


Voices from the past reflected in voices of today, want to replace kissinger and regan with anyone we know:

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger defended the Israeli operation: "No sovereign state can tolerate indefinitely the buildup along its borders of a military force dedicated to its destruction and implementing its objectives by periodic shellings and raids" (Washington Post, June 16, 1982).

"On Lebanon, it is clear that we and Israel both seek an end to the violence there, and a sovereign, independent Lebanon," President Reagan said June 21, 1982. "We agree that Israel must not be subjected to violence from the north."

from a somewhat distorted view of the time

"The Israelis would fire back and sometimes miss, inadvertently hitting civilian targets.
In numerous instances, the media mistakenly reported that Israel was hitting civilian targets in areas where no military ones were nearby."

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Lebanon_War.html

pinpoint, restrained and ever moral. However a look through the library to see any mention of the Qana massacre, reveals little if not a bit less than that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qana

I find the wikipedia a somewhat useful tool as long as you take care to not accept everything as fact rather than opinion, what I find a lot more interesting are the discussion pages as thats where the battle for history is played out in all its ugly glory. Here is a bit of the discusion on one of the greatest journalists of our times, Robert Fisk, a resident of Lebanon and frequent critic of Israeli and Arab governments, who lived though the times in situ, unlike the contributing authors cited here. Remember that Fisk broke the story of the shabra/chatila massacres and was in the camps while the massacres were occuring, so he is obviously an unreliable scource:

Robert Fisk Reference

Is this reference to Robert Fisk really necessary in this article? The paragraph describing Israeli killing of civilians seems out of place and misleading. What is the purpose of mentioning this? Why are there no factual statistics accompanying this point? Simply saying "often to children" in reference to phosphorous shells leaves a quesitonable account of the events that transpired in this war. Moreover, Fisk has a reputation and a history of being very biased against Israel and the US. Is the intention of the author of this article to relay a one-sided, biased account of the 1982 Operation for Peace in the Galilee? If not, then perhaps the opinions or writings of another journalist with less bias to either side would be appropriate here.
-ecl26

Responding to your points in order:
1. No, the reference to Robert Fisk is not really necessary to this article.
2. Yes, the paragraph describing Israeli killing of civilians seems out of place and misleading.
3. The purpose of mentioning it is to demonize Israel.
4. There are no factual statistics accompanying it because Fisk didn't provide any; he was more interested in criticizing Israel than providing factual accounts.
5. Yes, saying "often to children" in reference to phosphorous shells leaves a questionable account of the events that transpired in this war.
6. Yes, Fisk has a reputation and a history of being very biased against Israel and the US.
7. Yes, the intention of the author of that particular part of the article was to relay a one-sided, biased account of the 1982 Operation for Peace in the Galilee?
8.Yes, the opinions or writings of another journalist with less bias to either side would be appropriate here.

Hope that was helpful. Jayjg (Talk) 18:49, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1982_Lebanon_War


.............................................................................................................................

for those wondering what ever happened to those glorious seers of the future, the neocons

the christian science monitor has a resonable primer, tho dated:

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html?s=spusa

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/07/19/war-without-end/

I have a personal deep and unabiding hatred of Samuel Hunntington and his bullshit theory of civilisations clashing. Firstly I find the book tedious in the extreme, thirdly I think the entire thesis is pure and utter crap cobbled together to create an enemy, coz a fabricated enemy makes for a non fabricated load of cash and power. Try to view the US/Saudi relationship through the eyes of sammuel and it ceases to exist within his framework.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011022/said

more on the ever shrinking fantasy world of neo-conservatism later, much more. Have they got one thing right that they didnt fabricate?