Tuesday, January 22, 2008

John Bolton Reveals The Truth About The Lebanon War


Author, former US Ambasador to the UN and Undersecretary of State John Bolton is an inconvenient man to have around these days for a number of people. The latest is these is Israeli PM Ehud Olmert and Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni,who are desperately trying to escape responsibility for the fiasco of the Lebanon War against Hezbollah.

Bolton is in Israel for the Herzliya Conference on terorrism, and in an interview with the Israeli paper Ha'aretz he had a few things to say about what happened back then, why it happened and at who's insistence the Israelis were pressured into a ceasefire. And in the process, he as much as called Ehud Olmert an out and out liar.

Olmert's line on why he launched a last minute ground offensive against Hezbollah in which 33 Israeli soldiers were killed was because the original draft of the ceasefire resolution that Israel received on August 11 was detrimental to its interests, and the offensive supposedly improved the final resolution.

Bolton flatly contradicts that, saying "The Israeli military operation did not play a role in the talks on drafting UN Security Council Resolution 1701." He also denied that the wording of UN Resolution 1701 was changed in any way after August 11, claiming that he had kept Israel's UN ambassador, Danny Gillerman, fully briefed.

"Nothing dramatic occurred in the negotiations in the last 48 hours [before August 11]," he said. "The retreat in the wording, to Israel's detriment, had been going on for almost a week... There was no sudden descent into the abyss."

Since Bolton was the point man who negotiated for the US on Resolution 1701, this is coming directly from the source.

He also reveals exactly who it was that forced an end to the war on terms unfavorable to Israel and the US...none other than Condi Rice.

...the former ambassador said the main reason for America's retreat from its initial position was U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who "changed her mind fundamentally" after an Israeli aerial assault killed 28 civilians in Kana on July 30.

"Rice exerted enormous pressure on me to reach an agreement already," he said. "Until Kana, the U.S. wasn't interested in another typical Middle Eastern cease-fire. We thought we would exploit the fighting to fundamentally change the situation, especially in Lebanon and Syria. But under the influence of her shock over Kana, the secretary of state changed her mind and only wanted an immediate end to the fire. That was the policy Rice dictated."



The Qana attack he's talking about was an incredibly effective Hezbo-wood production,which I and others wrote about at the time and which apparently used the bodies of dead children as Hollywood prop dummies.

That's the scam that convinced Condi Rice to lean on Israel.

According to Bolton, on August 5, 2006, he and French UN ambassador Jean-Marc de la Sabliere who was unofficially representing Lebanon's interests had agreed on the wording. But the Arab League rejected it, "so we had to make changes to obtain the Lebanese government's support and make the Arabs happy. We also understood that we had to prevent a Russian-Chinese veto in the Security Council."

By the way, Bolton and Sabliere's account of what happened agree on almost every particular.

Bolton, understandably isn't happy about Resolution 1701.

"Resolution 1701 wasn't as good as the first draft, and even it hasn't been fully implemented, just like previous resolutions that sought to impose order in Lebanon and reduce Syria's influence on its neighbor," he said. "Hezbollah hasn't been disarmed. The Lebanese army does not control the entire country. UNIFIL [the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon] was not expanded sufficiently."

In his view, "Hezbollah still constitutes as big a threat to Israel as in the past, and the threat it poses to the Lebanese government has only grown since the war."

Thanks, Condi. Nice work.

And really, thanks and a hat tip to the gang at EU Referendum

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

So Qana was a "production2? In exactly the same way 9/11 was then. You pig, inhuman garbage...people like you and John Bolton are the reason for so much death, long live the resistance. And don't expect sympathy when your family is killed...we will term it a production. You are an animal.

Freedom Fighter said...

Isn't it cute how they're always `anonymous'?

Your comment is instrucutive to the rest of us` anonymous' which is why I wanted the members of Joshua's Army to see it.

Yes, to answer your question, Qana was indeed a hezbo-wood production, and I and a number of other commentators pointed out the discrepancies,if you actually bothered to read the links.

Like the famous Jenin `massacre' or the killing of Mohammed Dura, it ws something designed to be used in a propaganda war and spread like manure by sympathetic `journalists'.

I'll also point out that even if Qana wasn't a staged production and civilians were killed, it was perfectly acceptable according to international law as a legitimate act of war.

Qana was being used as a missile site to target and kill Israeli civilians, and Article 28 of the Geneva Convention is quite clear that enemy combatants hiding behind civilians andusing them as human shields are legitimate targets like those brave Hezbollah fighters...and that civilian collateral damage in those circumstances, while regrettable is in accordance with international law.

Your comment is also instructive in that you show us the mindset that we're fighting against when you compare 9-11 and Qana.

You're actually correct in one respect. Both were acts of war.

The difference is that Qana was done in response to an aggressive war by Hezbollah on Israel and was directed towards a military objective.

9/11 was,like Pearl Harbor, an aggressive surprise attack on a country thatwas not at war with you and designed to butcher as many innocent civilians as possible.

But then, that's the way you and your pals play the game, isn't it?

Don't be surprised or angry if your `resistance' involves some serious payback. It hasn't yet,but that may change.

Regards,

ff

B.Poster said...

John Bolton is truly a great man and he is a true American patriot. I think he is one of the greatest Americans ever and I pray that God will send us more like him. We need more like him and the sooner we get them the better.

As great a man as Mr. Bolton is he has some blind spots. In this way he is no different from anyone else. Everyone has blind spots. I'm pretty sure I have them myself. There are a couple of issues that I find troubling regading Mr. bolton. These are as follows: 1.)When Mr. Bolton speaks it always seems to be about Ms. Rice or the State Department. Mr. Bolton generally does not criticize Mr. Bush or when he does it generally seems to be quite mild. Maybe Mr. Bush cannot do any thing but he clearly does not seem to be trying. Mr. Bolton should be making more of an effort to point this out. In theory, the State Department and Condi Rice are supposed to answer to the President. In this case, this is George W. Bush. At best, George W. Bush has abdicated his responsibility. John Bolton shold be much more willing to criticize the President. 2.) I'm NOT excusing any of the actions of any American official. How they handled the war between Lebanon and Israel was disgraceful. The pressure applied to Israel when they were engaged in a fight for their survival was disgraceful. Israel is still in a fight for its survival and its enemies are now even stronger. The actions of our government in pressuring Israel were and are disgraceful. With that said, Mr. Bolton should point out the enormous pressure that the US government is under. The best way to mitigate against this pressure would be to develop more of our own oil and gas reserves, build more refineries, and balance the budget. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Bolton has not done this.

B.Poster said...

Anonymous

Qnaa probably was a production. If you dig deeper than the main stream media, this will likely become apparent, however, as Freedom Fighter correctly points out, even if it was not staged, Israel was still justified in attackiing Qana.

It is unlikely that the US government staged 911. This event was the most investigated event in the histroy of the world. It would be pretty near impossible for the US to stage an event like the 911 attacks. The reason is because the actions of the US face intense media scrutiny. This media coverage ranges from nuetral to hostile. There are few, if any, true pro-American news media outlets. There are none in the main stream media. Here the coverage ranges from hostile to Ameican interests to neutral regarding American interests. This media scrutiny on the Aemrican government was operating before the attacks of 911. Since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq this media coverage has gone even more intense.

On the other hand, Hezbollah, Hamas, and other "Palestinian" groups have a vast cheer leading squad within the main stream news media and elsewhere. As such, they do not face very intense media scrutiny. Due to this staging something like Qana would not be very difficult for them to do.