<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d11478816\x26blogName\x3dWinds+of+Change+in+the+Middle+East?\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dTAN\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://marsden.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://marsden.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-1649184724542363484', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Tuesday, March 22, 2005

What now?

The Washington Times reports that an "Israeli" surveillance plane violated Lebanese airspace again.

So what did Hezballah do now?? Oh wait, Hezballah disagreed with "Israeli" demands for it to disarm. I guess that means "Israel" has an internationally recognised right to violate Lebanese airspace....... But then again "Israel" will argue that they are at a state of war with Lebanon. They forget, though, that not too long ago, they complained and whined and whined to no end about Hezballah's violation of their airspace.

The Daily Star, in a February 25, 2005 report says:

"Since the Israeli withdrawal from the South in 2000, Israel has continuously breached Lebanese territorial sovereignty by conducting overflights, with the United Nation's Secretary General Kofi Annan repeatedly expressing concern over the breaches."

Moreover, "[T]he UN Security Council has urged Israel to stop violating Lebanese skies several times to no avail." To no avail? What is that supposed to mean? Why is "Israel" not being slammed by a resolution to put an end to such violations? Concerned? Sure. I'm concerned about the Syrian presence in Lebanon too. Why did we need 1559 then?

On another note, today is World Water Day. And on the occasion, I will point out yet another of "Israel's" double standards and resource-thefts.
Sharing precious water supplies can be a difficult and even dangerous process. Take the Middle East, where Israel has only one main fresh water reservoir, the Sea of Galilee. Galilee's water comes from tributaries of the Jordan River -- the Hasbani, Dan, and Banias rivers, which rise in the mountains along the Syrian-Lebanese border.

Israel has been very touchy about any efforts to divert the waters reaching Galilee. It threatened military action in 2002 against Lebanon for planning to divert a tributary of the Hasbani. And in 1964, it actually did use punitive military action against Syria for trying to divert water from the Banias*.

Today, as a more positive climate for peace re-emerges, Israel plans to sell water to the Palestinians in exchange for natural gas.

RFE/RL, March 22, 2005
So "Israel" threatens anyone who diverts the water that originates in THEIR country, while itself diverting water that comes from Arab countries....

Avi Shlaim writes about this in The Iron Wall:
One of Sharett's first tasks as temporary prime minister was to deal with the crisis caused by Israel's project for the diversion of water from the Jordan River in the north....Two problems beset this project. First, the Jordan River was an international waterway, and all the riparian states enjoyed rights over it under international law. Second,...some of the work was carried out in the demilitarized zone [between Syria and Israel]......The driving force behind the diversion was Moshe Dayan. Dayan knew that Israel had no legal right to divert the waters of the Jordan River and that if the matter was referred to the UN, the ruling would go against Israel. He therefore decided to create facts on the ground that the UN would be powerless to reverse. In July, before Ben-Gurion went on leave, the cabinet decided to divert the Upper Jordan and transport that water to the Negev. The execution of the cabinet decision, however, bore all the hallmarks of the Dayan technique. Bulldozers suddenly appeared and started digging up a canal in the DMZ...

p. 88-89
The explanation given for "Israel's" firm beliefs in double standards is the following: "There is no reason for Palestinians to claim that just because they sit on lands, they have the rights to that water," Mr. Katz-Oz said. "The mountains do not own the water that fall on them. It's the same with Canada and the United States. It's the same all over the world."

Right, so that means Canada can freely move its bulldozers to the States and start working on water pumps... Awesome.

* "After Israel began pumping water from the Sea of Galilee into its National Water Carrier [canal] on June 5, 1964, Syria responded with a plan to divert the Jordan's sources into its own territory.... Israel acted to forcibly prevent Syria carrying out its plan and the Syrian water-diversion effort was finally halted in July 1966, when Israeli aircraft bombed a concentration of earth-moving equipment and downed a Syrian MiG-21 which tried to interfere." (Righteous Victims, p.303-04)

Comments:
Part of the truth of the UN is that the US isn't the only country that defends "its own" interests.

I worked on the UN IMIS project (I was a programmer working on their payroll system) and I met some UN employees who were quite honest about that.

France would (likely) veto things that would go against their interests in, say, Burma. (Is Total/Elf Fina still big there? I think so.)

Part of the pressure now on Lebanon comes from it being of interest to both the US and France.

Iraq was a former British possession (interest of US and UK).

Let's see, Afghanistan? Russia had plans to invade in 2000, almost went for it. Why? Because of alleged(?) al-Qaeda support of Chechen rebels.

US and China? Hard to imagine. There is a tenuous connection in Burma. The languages are fairly similar, and American volunteers were helping both Burma and China throw off the Japanese invaders. But that conflicts with France.
 
And, yes, Fishcer is gay.
 
oooh, I am not that good with Japanese names!!! Thanks for the link.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?


Canon Camera