Thursday, September 21, 2006

ICRC Spokesman: Photo Removed to Keep "Moral High Ground"

An International Committee of the Red Cross spokesman explained that a photo of a damaged Red Cross ambulance, which was said to have been hit by the Israeli Defence Force during the Lebanon conflict, was removed from the ICRC website following allegations of a hoax by a blogger “in order to keep the moral high ground on the issue”.

An essay published by Zombietime soon after the picture appeared on the ICRC website criticized perceived factual inaccuracies in the reporting of the incident. It argued that the circular hole in the roof which was said to have been caused by a missile corresponded with the size and position of ventilation covers on top of other ambulances. It was also claimed that, “The presence of rust on every part of the roof where the paint has been scratched away proves that the damage to the metal happened long before July 23”, the date the incident was said to have taken place.

The photo showing the damaged ambulance was removed from the ICRC website shortly after this post was made. Roland Huguenin-Benjamin, an ICRC spokesman who was in Lebanon during the conflict and saw the ambulance in question, told The Guardian that the ICRC “categorically rejects and denies” the claims made by Zombietime.

When subsequently asked why the photo was removed, he replied to your correspondent that the ICRC held a meeting, at which it was decided that Zombietime would not be directly confronted. “The Institute in Geneva decided not to go into a controversy in order to keep the moral high ground on the issue”, he said.


Email verification of the ICRC spokesman's quote

New Sigh Album Out Next Year

Sigh have finished recording and are currently mixing new album "Hangman's Hymn". This really should be something to look forward to, since they are one of the only bands around who can continually surprise listeners with each release.

Mirai says:

“SIGH have finished recording the new album ‘Hangman's Hymn’ and have started the mixing process. Hopefully it will be done in a month or so. The album has 10 tracks, but all the songs are connected to each other so closely that this can be taken as one track that lasts for 45 minutes.

He adds, “It is turning out to be a very heavy, fast and symphonic album. It is a fusion of sophisticated theories of classical music and the primitive power of heavy metal rhythms!”
The album is due to be released next year.

You can listen to a preview on their Myspace page.

Friday, September 15, 2006

Van Halen Cured of Cancer

From Blabbermouth:

After saying he was free of the cancer that led to tongue surgery a few years ago, the guitarist said that he and a partner had developed a treatment that cured his cancer, though he wouldn't reveal what it contains. As for how he got cancer in the first place, Van Halen denied it was from smoking, which he has never stopped, and he claimed the disease might have come from the metal guitar pick he used.

Less surprisingly, he didn't forget to mention the possibility of a reunion with DLR.

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Comment: A Pyrrhic Victory

Both sides have claimed victory following the ceasefire in Lebanon. Israeli PM Ehud Olmert says that “we have re-installed our deterrence and now we can make peace from a position of strength”, while Nasrallah has declared that “we emerged victorious from this encounter, while our enemy left the scene defeated”.
While it would be facetious to assign victory to either side, given that it is more than likely that the current ceasefire will be temporary, both sides have certainly suffered losses greater than they would have anticipated before going into war.
Katyusha rockets caused a great deal of damage to civilian infrastructure in northern Israel, particularly in Haifa, which makes this the first time Israeli civilians have been on the front line in an open war since the War of Independence. Thirty nine civilians were killed and there were mass population evacuations to central and southern Israel. The IDF sustained 119 casualties, a significantly higher death toll than any other in recent memory. This was made all the more poignant by media coverage which focused on each casualty in great detail.
Hezbollah, meanwhile, has lost the vast majority of its rockets and launchers, which have either been used or destroyed by the IDF. The IDF also claims to have killed 530 Hezbollah terrorists and there is an ongoing Israeli military presence in south Lebanon, which will only be ended when the UN peacekeeping force is in place. It is reported that 1,287 Lebanese civilians were killed during the conflict; although it is likely that Hezbollah terrorists are included in this figure.
Given the vast losses of both sides, it is easy for either of the two to claim to be victorious, by pointing to the casualties and damage suffered by their opponents, rather than looking at themselves. However, since the goal of Hezbollah is to wipe out the State of Israel and the goal of Israel must consequently be to wipe out Hezbollah, neither side can claim a true, lasting victory until one of them suffers a decisive defeat.
So what is to be made of the current state of affairs? Who has won so far?
While Hezbollah may claim to have won, this is at best a Pyrrhic victory. This term refers to a battle during the Pyrrhic war of 279BC, in which King Pyrrhus of Epirus defeated the Roman army at Heraclea and Asculum, but endured a high level of casualties that proved to be fatal.
The Roman historian Plutarch illustrates the meaning of this term in a report by Dionysus:

"The armies separated; and, it is said, Pyrrhus replied to one that gave him joy of his victory that one other such would utterly undo him. For he had lost a great part of the forces he brought with him … on the other hand, as from a fountain continually flowing out of the city, the Roman camp was quickly and plentifully filled up with fresh men, not at all abating in courage for the loss they sustained."

The crucial point is this: while both Pyrrhus and the Romans suffered losses, the Romans were able to replace them, while Pyrrhus was not. This led to the Romans being eventually victorious. In the current conflict, Israel has many reserve soldiers and a reliable supply of arms and fuel from America. However, Hezbollah are thought to have a limited number of around 2,000 troops and any attempt to rearm will be made extremely difficult given the Israeli presence in southern Lebanon.
A recent speech by Nasrallah serves to prove this point, as he said that “had we known that the captive operation would result in such a war, we would not have carried it out at all”. This is extremely close to the admission by Pyrrhus, namely that, “one other such would utterly undo him”, and implies that Nasrallah would be reluctant to provoke Israel again. While it is strange for someone who claims victory to simultaneously express regret for initiating a war, it is also important to note that both sides returned to the battlefield in the Pyrrhic war, and it is a distinct possibility that something similar will happen in south Lebanon in the future.
Furthermore, Lebanese opinion appears to be turning against Hezbollah. In an interview with the Lebanese daily Al-Nahar, Sayyed Ali Al-Amin, the Shi’ite Mufti of Tyre, said, “the Shi'ite community in Lebanon authorized no one to declare war in its name” and even went so far as to say that, “the war was forced upon the country and people, who did not want it”. This criticism from a Shi’ite is of great significance, because it had hitherto been assumed that Hizbollah could count on the support of all its co-religionists in Lebanon, if not the other religious groupings in a deeply divided sectarian state. This anti-war sentiment has become so widespread that Nasrallah has been forced to cancel a series of victory marches in Beirut’s Shi’ite suburbs after the plan was attacked by leading community figures for being "unmerited and indecent". Mourning ceremonies for the dead are being held instead.
In contrast, Israeli opinion polls have shown that a majority of the population wanted to continue fighting until the country’s war aims were achieved, instead of accepting the UN ceasefire. Since then, 100,000 people have demonstrated in Tel Aviv calling for the return of the captured soldiers. There have also been widespread calls for changes within the leadership hierarchy, who are thought to have underperformed in the execution of the war and its conclusion. To Israelis, the war did not produce an undisputed victory, and did not bring back the captured soldiers. After all, this was the Israeli Government’s major goal before the aerial bombardment of Lebanon.
If there is a renewal of the conflict, Israel will be better placed to gain victory. Israel’s losses are more immediately replaceable than Hezbollah’s, and Israeli public opinion cannot acquiesce to a return to the status quo ante, which created the conditions for the war to erupt in the first place. An investigation has been carried out to evaluate the mistakes made by Israel in the handling of the war, whereas there has been no similar investigation on the Hezbollah side, which has left Israel in a stronger position if fighting were to erupt again. Another possibility is that the centrist Kadima party may be replaced by a more hawkish government in the next Israeli election, which would be better equipped to unite the population behind it and then dismantle Hezbollah. Indeed, one commentator has even called for Nasrallah to be Israeli Prime Minister, as he has done a better job of uniting the Israeli people than any of its current leaders!
On the other hand, Olmert’s claim that Israel’s “deterrence” factor has now returned is not entirely correct. Nasrallah publicly regretted having taken the hostages in the first place, but another Hezbollah leader, Abdullah Sif al-Din, told the Iranian Fars news agency that, “we must, all the time, prepare ourselves for self-defence and to plan for the next stage”. Nasrallah himself is also anticipating a “next round against Israel”.
Where the goal of each side is the destruction of the other, outright victory will prove elusive until one of the protagonists is destroyed or irrefutably defeated. Until this happens, each side will continue to prepare for war, no matter how much talk there is of peace.

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

In case there are any doubts about Hezbollah's ties with Iran ...

Memri reports:

*Hizbullah-Lebanon Representative in Iran: "Everything We Have, We [Obtained] Thanks to the Islamic Revolution [in Iran]"

The representative of Hizbullah-Lebanon in Iran, Abdallah Safiy Al-Din, emphasized Hizbullah's close affiliation with Iran, and mentioned the organization's preparations for the confrontation with Israel. Following are excerpts from his statements, as cited in the conservative Iranian daily Kayhan, which is affiliated with Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei:

"Everything we have, we [obtained] thanks to the Islamic Revolution [in Iran], [thanks to] the Imam [Ayatollah Khomeini, founder of the Islamic regime in Iran], [thanks to] the Honorable Leader [Ali Khamenei], and [thanks to] the 'rule of the jurisprudent' [i.e. the founding principle of the Islamic regime in Iran, which states that the country must be ruled by a religious jurisprudent]. Everything we have, we have thanks to our total obedience to the jurisprudent...

"During the six years since the liberation of South Lebanon, we did not draw our attention away [from Israel] even for a single day, but made plans for times such as these..." [11]

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Chavez and Ahmadinejad sitting in a tree ...

Chavez compares IDF to Nazis ... now where could he have got that idea from?

Haaretz reports:

In an interview with the Qatar-based satellite station Al Jazeera, Mr. Chavez said Israel's military action was an "unjustified aggression that is being carried out in the style of Hitler, in a fascist fashion."

Thursday, August 03, 2006

France FM: Iran no Longer Stabilising force

After Ahmadinejad called for Israel's destruction Thursday, France FM Philippe Douste-Blazy decided that Iran is no longer a stabilising force within the region.

No doubt this is the first time Ahmadinejad has called for Israel's destruction.

Haaretz reports:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis was to destroy Israel, Iranian state media reported.

In a speech during an emergency meeting of Muslim leaders in Malaysia, Ahmadinejad also called for an immediate cease-fire to end the fighting between Israel and the Iranian-back group Hezbollah.

"Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented," Ahmadinejad said, according to state-run television in a report posted on its Web site.

France's foreign minister condemned Ahmadinehjad's comments Thursday, saying Iran is ruining its chances to play a positive and stabilizing role in the Middle East.

"I totally condemn these words," Philippe Douste-Blazy said on France-Inter radio, saying they were "absolutely unacceptable on anyone's part, especially from a head of state."

The crisis had presented an opportunity for Iran to "show that it can play a positive and stabilizing role in the region," Douste-Blazy said, adding that Ahmadinejad's statement "confirmed that this is not the case."

Saturday, July 29, 2006

Straw Leads Cabinet Revolt on Israel

It looks like Tony Blair is standing on his own now.

He even had a speech changed to remove any suggestion of condeming Israel.

Mr Blair, who is on a five-day visit to the United States, refused to utter any criticism of Israeli aggression and even rewrote a speech to make it clear that he pins the blame for the crisis solely on Hezbollah terrorists.

Has Beens

In his lastest column, Charles Moore has a go at Europeans who are using the war in Lebanon to make cheap shots at Israel:

It is as if, having relinquished power, we Europeans now wish our own powerlessness upon the rest of the world. We make vaporous and offensive Nazi comparisons. We preach that unilateral action is always wrong. That position can be maintained only by people who do not have to make life-and-death decisions. It is cheap and immoral.


Soxblog makes a simple point that is often overlooked by those who disagree with the 'ceasefire' camp:

But I wish those urging a ceasefire would for once be asked what they think a ceasefire is supposed to accomplish. In the real world, all a ceasefire will do is give Hezbollah the breathing space it needs to recover from a grievous miscalculation.

But those urging a ceasefire are never required to explain themselves. After all, they are purportedly on the side of the angels, craving peace. The rest of us have to explain ourselves because we’re a bunch of bloodthirsty warmongers. It would be wonderful to see a widely public debate on the purportedly salubrious effects of a ceasefire.

If you are in the 'fire' camp, you should click here.