PDA

View Full Version : Blame both sides


500lbguerilla
08-29-2006, 06:52 PM
Robert Fisk: Untold story of the massacre of Marjayoun leaves blame on both sides of the border
Published: 23 August 2006
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1221078.ece

There are few marks on the road where the missiles hit the innocents of Marjayoun. But there are the memories of what happened immediately after the Israeli airstrike on the convoy of 3,000 people after dark on 11 August: a 16-year old Christian girl screaming "I want my Daddy" as her father's mutilated body lay a few metres away from her; the town mukhtar discovering that his wife, Collette, had been decapitated by one of the Israeli missiles; the Lebanese Red Cross volunteer who went into the darkness of wartime Lebanon to give water and sandwiches to the refugees and was cut down by another missile, and whose friends could not reach him to save his life.

There are those who break down when they recall the massacre at Joub Jannine - and there are the Israelis who gave permission to the refugees to leave Marjayoun, who specified what roads they should use, and who then attacked them with pilotless, missile-firing drone aircraft. Five days after being asked to account for the tragedy, they had last night still not bothered to explain how they killed at least seven refugees and wounded 36 others just three days before a UN ceasefire came into effect.

It is one of the untold stories of the Israeli-Hizbollah war; there are others - infinitely more bloody - but the ultimate tragedy of these largely Christian refugees involved a raft of Lebanese officers and ministers, the Prime Minister of Lebanon, the US ambassador and the Israeli Defence Ministry.

It all began on 10 August when the Israelis staged a small ground offensive into Lebanon after a month of massive bombing of Lebanese villages in the south. Brig-Gen Adnan Daoud, commanding a mixed force of 350 Lebanese paramilitary police and soldiers at the barracks in the pretty Christian town of Marjayoun, found a man at the gate at 9am, an Israeli officer calling himself Col Ashaya. Brig-Gen Daoud, whose men were not fighting the Israelis, called the Lebanese Interior Minister, Ahmad Fatfat, who "endorsed" - Fatfat's word - Daoud's decision to let him in. "Ashaya" spent four hours looking round the barracks to assure himself that there were no Hizbollah members there. Then he left. Daoud put a white flag on the guardhouse.

But at 4pm that afternoon, an Israeli tank unit approached the barracks and started to shoot their way in. Daoud was again told by Fatfat to let in the Israelis who, according to Daoud, informed him that "we are the occupiers and we are in charge". An Israeli officer then locked Daoud into a room.

Thousands of Christians in Marjayoun now feared for their lives. According to several aid workers, Hizbollah were firing rockets from behind the town's hospital, which was immediately abandoned by the Lebanese Red Cross. The inhabitants believed, with good reason, that Hizbollah's missiles would be redirected from Israel on to Marjayoun itself now that the town had been taken over by Israeli troops and tanks.

Locked in his room, Daoud now called Fatfat again and Fatfat called the Lebanese Prime Minister, Fouad Siniora, who, by chance, was talking to the US ambassador to Beirut, Jeffrey Feltman. Feltman - either via the State Department or directly to the US embassy in Tel Aviv - told his diplomats to call the Israeli Defence Ministry; and they swiftly replied that there should be no Israeli troops in Daoud's barracks. But the Israelis in Marjayoun refused to believe what Daoud told them.

Marjayoun's inhabitants, however, were now in a state of panic and Daoud called Fatfat at 7pm to start arranging for a refugee convoy north from Marjayoun to Beirut. The Lebanese government, according to Fatfat, called the United Nations command in southern Lebanon at 5am the next day, 11 August, to seek clearance from the Israelis to allow the thousands of refugees to be convoyed north. The UN, according to the government in Beirut, subsequently notified Gen Abdulrahman Shaiti, assistant to the head of Lebanese military intelligence, that the convoy had permission from the Israelis to travel.

Two UN armoured vehicles, crewed by Indian troops, subsequently turned up in Marjayoun to find at least 3,000 people, including Shia Muslim refugees from the surrounding, devastated villages, waiting to leave. "We had a total agreement that they would go out to the Bekaa [Valley] from [Alain] Pellegrini [the UN commander]," Fatfat says. "The road was also agreed." But there were delays. Part of the road ahead had been heavily bombed and had to be repaired. It was 4pm before the convoy crept slowly out of Marjayoun, Daoud's 350 soldiers in the lead. The UN vehicles then abandoned the convoy at Hasbaya, the northern limit of UN operations, leaving the refugees dangerously exposed. The UN had already warned the Lebanese authorities that it was late for the convoy to leave.

"They went so slowly, I was enraged," a relief worker recalls. "People at friendly villages would come out and give the refugees food and water and want to talk to them and people would stop to greet old friends as if this was tourism. The convoy was only going at five miles an hour. It was getting dark." The 3,000 refugees now trailed up the Bekaa after nightfall and were approaching the ancient Kifraya vineyards at Joub Jannine when disaster struck them at 8pm.

"The first bomb hit the second car," Karamallah Dagher, a reporter for Reuters, said. "I was half way back down the road and my friend Elie Salami was standing there, asking me if I had any spare gasoline. That's when the second missile struck and Elie's head and shoulders were blown away. His daughter Sally is 16 and she jumped from the car and cried out: 'I want my Daddy, I want my Daddy.' But he was gone." Speaking of the killings yesterday, Dagher breaks down and cries. He tried to carry his arthritic mother from his own car but she complained that he was hurting her so he put her back in the passenger seat and sat beside her, waiting for a violent death which mercifully never came. But it arrived for Collette Makdissi al-Rashed, wife of the mukhtar, who was beheaded in her Cherokee jeep, and for a member of the Tahta family from from Deir Mimas, and for two other refugees, and for a Lebanese soldier and for 35-year-old Mikhael Jbaili, the Red Cross volunteer from Zahle, who was blasted into the air when a rocket exploded behind him.

"There was panic," the Marjayoun mayor, Fouad Hamra, said. "Many people drove away. They had a clearance; everything should have been OK. If Hizbollah was supposed to be carrying weapons at night, they would have been travelling in the opposite direction!"

Who flew the drones? An Israeli soldier of the invasion force? A nameless officer in the Israel Defence Ministry in Tel Aviv? The Israelis knew a civilian convoy was on the road. Yet they sent their pilotless machines to attack it. Why? Last night, the Israeli Defence Ministry had not responded to inquiries from reporters who asked for the answer last Friday.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1221078.ece

Brooks
08-30-2006, 04:18 PM
Don't get me wrong Guerilla.
People shouldn't have died, but would "the Israeli airstrike on the convoy of 3,000 people" only result in seven deaths?

Do you think the phrase "the Israeli airstrike on the convoy of 3,000 people" might be a little sensational or, dare I say, biased?

500lbguerilla
08-30-2006, 05:28 PM
and what is so wrong about that phrase? Is it not accurate? Does it use any emotional words? No it does none of that. Seems to me you just don't like hearing the truth.

Brooks
08-30-2006, 09:12 PM
Okay, fair enough.
Try to read this objectively: "the Israeli airstrike on the convoy of 3,000 people". How many people do you think would be killed in such an attack.

It doesn't include the fact that a 3,000 person convoy is probably stretched out about 5 miles. And if Israel attacks a small group, did they really attack a 3,000 person convoy.

If I shoot someone in NYC, did I attack a city of 12 million people?

sedan
08-30-2006, 09:43 PM
Okay, fair enough.
Try to read this objectively: "the Israeli airstrike on the convoy of 3,000 people". How many people do you think would be killed in such an attack.Seven.

I don't understand your objection here. The size of the convoy is relevant to the story. It answers the question "What was bombed?" Would you have preferred that the convoy be described as 50 trucks, 100 cars, 14 motorcycles and a skateboard? People are what was bombed.

Freethinker
08-30-2006, 10:13 PM
and what is so wrong about that phrase? Is it not accurate? Does it use any emotional words?

You have to understand that there is absolutely nothing the apologists will stop at in making excuses and rationalizations for Israel's acts.

Brooks
08-30-2006, 11:07 PM
You have to understand that there is absolutely nothing the apologists will stop at in making excuses and rationalizations for Israel's acts.I'm commenting on coverage and didn't say anything about friggin' Israel or its acts. You're becoming a real one-trick pony. Sheesh.

Freethinker
08-31-2006, 08:38 AM
I'm commenting on coverage and didn't say anything about friggin' Israel or its acts.

You were questioning the correctness of the phrase *Israeli airstrike on the convoy of 3,000 people".

That phrase was specifically concerning an act by Israel.

Sheesh.

Brooks
09-01-2006, 11:07 AM
You were questioning the correctness of the phrase *Israeli airstrike on the convoy of 3,000 people".
That phrase was specifically concerning an act by Israel.
Sheesh.If a news article said "Israeli bombs kill nobody in Lebanon" I would say that was wrong even though I support Israel.
My comments were about sensational coverage no matter who it is I support. Can't you recognize manipulative coverage even when it validates your beliefs?

500lbguerilla
09-01-2006, 06:56 PM
Please brooks...if you think its sooooo unfair why don't you enlighten us with an alternative title.

Brooks
09-02-2006, 12:02 AM
"Seven Die in Israeli Attack"

Brooks
09-02-2006, 05:58 PM
Maybe this would make my point clearer.

When Israel attacked a small part of a convoy of 3,000 and seven people died, the gist of the story is "Israel attacks a convoy of 3,000 people".

Using the same rules of journalism, when Hezbollah launched rockets into Haifa, the gist of the story should have been "Hezbollah attacks a city of 267,000 people". Instead the story read "Hezbollah rockets kill seven in Israel".

sedan
09-02-2006, 06:21 PM
I would have no problem with an article about Hezbollah missile strikes stating the population of the target city. But I also think that the fact a convoy is mobile (while a city is not) adds relevance to stating it's size. Why did the Israelis attack the lead element of a convoy that was moving away from them? As you pointed out earlier the convoy was probably stretched out over several miles. If the Israelis mistakenly thought it was a hostile force moving toward them, didn't they attack the wrong end? If all you do is say "Israeli drones killed seven civilians" I think you are omitting facts that are crucial to the gist of the story.

Freethinker
09-02-2006, 06:37 PM
Maybe this would make my point clearer.

When Israel attacked a small part of a convoy of 3,000 and seven people died, the gist of the story is "Israel attacks a convoy of 3,000 people".

Using the same rules of journalism, when Hezbollah launched rockets into Haifa, the gist of the story should have been "Hezbollah attacks a city of 267,000 people". Instead the story read "Hezbollah rockets kill seven in Israel".

I see what you're saying now.

You have a good point.

I would point out a couple of things, though.

First, the article is not entitled --""Israeli launches airstrike on convoy of 3,000 people".

It was --""Untold story of the massacre of Marjayoun leaves blame on both sides of the border"".

See that first word??

**untold**.

The single phrase included in the article -- ""But there are the memories of what happened immediately after the Israeli airstrike on the convoy of 3,000 people after dark on 11 August"" -- has , it seems to me, far less significance in **manipulating** news coverage than does the fact that this entire STORY was pretty much ignored (as is all too often the case when Israel commits this sort of attrocity) by the mainstream U.S. Media.

Brooks
09-03-2006, 12:49 AM
First, the article is not entitled --""Israeli launches airstrike on convoy of 3,000 people".

It was --""Untold story of the massacre of Marjayoun leaves blame on both sides of the border"".

See that first word??


I never spoke about article titles. That was Guerilla.

Brooks
09-03-2006, 12:54 AM
1. I would have no problem with an article about Hezbollah missile strikes stating the population of the target city.....
2. If the Israelis mistakenly thought it was a hostile force moving toward them, didn't they attack the wrong end? 1. I believe you wouldn't. Unfortunately you aren't the one writing the articles. You'd probably do a better and less sensational and subjective job.

2. I never defended Israel in this thread. To me the glaring issue is the difference in how two stories can be covered (one as the number of actual victims and the other as an enormously high number of potential victims).

500lbguerilla
09-03-2006, 01:56 AM
Sorry I got confused and assumed that it must have been the title.

So Brooks you have a problem with relevent, factual and objective phrases in articles?
2. I never defended Israel in this thread. To me the glaring issue is the difference in how two stories can be covered (one as the number of actual victims and the other as an enormously high number of potential victims). ummm...the legth of the convoy is very relevent in that it could not be taken for anything BUT a convoy of people fleeing the fighting (especially considering they already had permission from Israel). If Israel really suspected anything else it should have landed troops ahead of the convoy to confirm. This is nothing but terrorism plain and simple. You shoot those at the front so that every one else in the convoy sees them as they pass by.

Why only a few missles? Why an unmanned drone? This was a deliberate attack on civilians to terrorize them and the coward that did it was to chickenshit to even man a plane.

Brooks
09-03-2006, 05:24 AM
ummm...the legth of the convoy is very relevent in that it could not be taken for anything BUT a convoy of people fleeing the fighting (especially considering they already had permission from Israel).
I agree the length of the convoy would have been an excellent and relevant point for the story had they mentioned it. Pointing out the length of a 3,000 person convoy would show the reader that only a very small portion of it was attacked for only seven people to have died. Instead, they only mentioned the amount of people in the convoy.
I'm glad we agree on the relevancy of the length. Too bad it wasn't mentioned.

Again, when Israel is attacked they give the amount of victims.
When this convoy was attacked they gave the amount of potential victims.
That's an obvious and intentional difference.

Freethinker
09-03-2006, 11:07 AM
To me the glaring issue is the difference in how two stories can be covered (one as the number of actual victims and the other as an enormously high number of potential victims).

Here, you neatly sidestep that fact that a single objectionable phrase (in terms of being unbaised) included in the article -- ""But there are the memories of what happened immediately after the Israeli airstrike on the convoy of 3,000 people after dark on 11 August"" -- is far less illustrative of what **manipulation** there was than the fact that the story was pretty much ignored by the mainstream U.S. Media.

500lbguerilla
09-03-2006, 02:50 PM
Five days after being asked to account for the tragedy, they had last night still not bothered to explain how they killed at least seven refugees and wounded 36 others just three days before a UN ceasefire came into effect....
Five days after being asked to account for the tragedy, they had last night still not bothered to explain how they killed at least seven refugees and wounded 36 others just three days before a UN ceasefire came into effect. I thought you knew how to read? Back to 3rd grade with you...

Brooks
09-03-2006, 07:53 PM
500 G, None of this contradicts anything I said.

How about imagining length (or rather, "legth") mentioned in the story when it wasn't there. I'll save a desk for you.....

Brooks
09-03-2006, 07:53 PM
Free, I don't get it.

sedan
09-03-2006, 08:26 PM
500 G, None of this contradicts anything I said.Well, you did make this statement:

Instead, they only mentioned the amount of people in the convoy.

The sentence Guerilla posted mentions 7 killed and 36 wounded. That sure looks like a contradiction to me.

Freethinker
09-03-2006, 09:29 PM
Free, I don't get it.

What was broached here was the subject of **media manipulation**.

The single phrase included in the article that prompted a complaint, and the charge of **media manipulation** was -- ""But there are the memories of what happened immediately after the Israeli airstrike on the convoy of 3,000 people after dark on 11 August""

In terms of **media manipulation** the objectionable wording is, for me, far less illustrative of any *manipulating* of the news coverage than the fact that this entire story was pretty much ignored by the mainstream U.S. Media.

Brooks
09-03-2006, 09:41 PM
Well, you did make this statement:
Instead, they only mentioned the amount of people in the convoy.
The sentence Guerilla posted mentions 7 killed and 36 wounded. That sure looks like a contradiction to me.No, no, he said that the length of the convoy was relevant, to which I replied that it would have been, but instead "they only mentioned the amount of people in the convoy".

Earlier on I acknowledged the casualties.