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.
d 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]](http://republican-news.org/graphics/title_gifs/aprn.gif)