Top Issue 1-2024

19 March 1998 Edition

Resize: A A A Print

Israel to leave Lebanon

By Dara Mac Neil

The Israeli government has signalled an apparent willingness to withdraw from Lebanon. Israel has occupied a portion of southern Lebanon since 1978, in defiance of the orders of the UN Security Council. But when has Israel ever paid heed to the UN resolutions?

A plan to effect a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the so-called `security zone' was put before the Israeli cabinet, on 15 March. Presenting the plan was none other Ariel Sharon, the former Defence Minister who oversaw Israel's invasion of Lebanon, in 1982.

The decision was made public less than a week after Israeli soldiers killed three unarmed Palestinian civilians at a checkpoint.

Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke of the killings as ``a tragedy.'' Had the victims been Israeli it would, no doubt, have been ``an atrocity,'' or some variation thereof.

One Palestinian who survived the attack - the three were returning from work - rubbished claims that soldiers had fired only when the Palestinian vehicle had attempted to break through the checkpoint, as the Israeli army initially stated.

He confirmed the three were given the order to proceed by an Israeli soldier. Another soldier, apparently unaware the vehicle had been cleared, immediately opened fire. The fatally-injured driver lost control and the vehicle crashed.

Despite the announcement of an official inquiry, the surviving Palestinian confirmed that he had yet to be approached, or contacted by Israeli officials. This despite the fact that the man had already given his account to several members of the media.

The killings, however, were overshadowed by the announcement of Israel's plans to withdraw from Lebanon. It would be foolish in the extreme to see in the proposed withdrawal any `softening' of Israel's position on the now moribund peace process.

After all, the chief proponent - Ariel Sharon - was found guilty by Israeli authorities of failing to prevent the 1982 massacres of Palestinian civilians, in the Sabra and Shateela camps. Given the proven complicity of the Israeli Defence Forces - providing covering fire and logistical support for the Lebanese militia that entered the camps - Sharon's legal reprimand was laughable.

The slaughter of hundreds of Palestinian civilians was carried out only after PLO fighters had agreed to vacate the camps, in return for guarantees of safety for the remaining.

Following the internationally-supervised evacuation of the `feda'yeen' (fighters), Sharon met with Lebanese militia leaders in Beirut, on 12 September 1982. The massacre was believed to have been approved at this meeting. On 15 September the militias moved into Sabra and Shateela.

Also worth bearing in mind is that Sharon is ``dedicated to the belief that a pattern of Jewish settlements and protective roads in the heart of the West Bank is the best means of preventing the Palestinians from gaining a reasonable state.'' That summary of Sharon's position (by the Economist) also represents a very concise summary of current Israeli policy.

The Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon gave birth to the Hezbollah. Their aim? An Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.

Given that the Israeli presence runs counter to UN resolutions, along with the major precepts of international law, it would be expected that the Hezbollah campaign would elicit some degree of international understanding, if not support.

On the contrary, in what stands as a truly remarkable act of intellectual duplicity, it is the latter who have been demonised as the aggressors. A similar deception occurred in Vietnam, where the Vietnamese became the first nation in history to invade itself.

This duplicity extends to according Israel the ``right to self defence'', while demonising Hezbollah resistance as ``terrorist.''

This continued even as Israel repeatedly broke agreements not to attack north of their Lebanese `security-zone', into non-occupied Lebanon. The agreements also bound Hezbollah not to launch attacks south of the `security-zone', into Israel proper.

In March 1996, Israeli shelling killed two civilians in the town of Yater, north of the `security zone'. Hezbollah responded with an attack on Israel.

It was obvious who had violated the agreement.

On 8 April a roadside bomb killed a Lebanese child north of the `security zone'. Hezbollah responded with attacks, on Israel and an attack within occupied Lebanon. The latter attack killed an Israeli soldier.

It provided the pretext for a massive Israeli assault on Lebanon - Operation Grapes of Wrath. During the assault, Israeli forces placing similar roadside bombs to that which had killed the Lebanese child, came under attack from Hezbollah.

The Israelis responded by firing on a UN shelter, at Qana. More than 100 sheltering refugees were killed.

The Israelis' blamed faulty map-reading skills. However, UN sources later confirmed they had told Israel a full two days before the attack that the Qana shelter housed refugees.

UN officers at Qana also testified to seeing two Israeli helicopters hover above the shelter for the duration of the bombardment. More damming was their evidence that they had repeatedly asked the Israelis to stop their bombardment of the refugee shelter, but that it had continued for a full twelve minutes after they made contact.

Although the Qana atrocity effectively forced a premature end to Operation Grapes of Wrath, Israeli policy continued as before. Within weeks, they had resumed attacks north of their supposed `security zone'. The West continued to insist on Israel's right to ``self-defence.''

What provoked the Israeli decision to withdraw remains, as yet, unclear. However, given their past record, it is unlikely it was prompted by a desire to further the cause of a peaceful settlement.

It is entirely likely that Israel has decided to concentrate its efforts elsewhere - containing the Palestinians in their shabby Bantustans.


Modern day slavery in Brazil



Sometimes they're lured to work with offers of money. $5 per day, maybe more. Unimaginable, almost unreal money. Those that hear the offer rarely refuse.

But in return they must work hard, long days. It seems worth it.

And so they work, long, hard days. The money never materialises. Not a single penny. Eighteen hour days are common, often six, sometimes seven days a week. They are given rice and a drink three time daily. By day they are watched. By night they are watched. And still no money.

The `dictatorial' state of Cuba? No, rather the `progressive, modern' nation of Brazil. An investigation by the Catholic Church's Pastoral Commission on Land has revealed that in modern, democratic Brazil, slavery still flourishes. The Commission estimates that as many as 30,000 people are `employed' in this manner.

This modern-day slavery, the Commission says, is common in Brazil's amazonian states. More than 80% of the cases were uncovered in the northern state of Para.

Lured with false promises of money, the `workers' find, upon their arrival that, somehow, they are already in debt to their `employer'. Transport, food, accommodation - it all costs money. The only way to pay off the debt is to work. But that just seems to create more debt. Before long, the employer has an indebted slave at his beck and call.

This age-old problem re-entered the public domain in Brazil in 1995. A special government commission was established to investigate 350 allegations of slavery.

A law was passed. Any landowner found guilty would forfeit his land. Quite obviously, it was never enforced with a great deal of vigour, much less observed.

More sickening, however, was one of the conclusions reached by the Church-sponsored investigators. Their belief was that in 1998 Brazil there are many many people who would prefer the certainty of slavery to the uncertainty of unemployment and starvation. At least you're guaranteed some food.

An Phoblacht
44 Parnell Sq.
Dublin 1
Ireland