Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 14:16:05 -0500
L-Soft list server at MIZZOU1 (1.8b) <LISTSERV@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu>
To: Haines Brown <BROWNH@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU>
> S * IN ACTIV-L
--> Database ACTIV-L, 7701 hits.
> print 07636
>>> Item number 7636, dated 96/05/07 23:41:16 -- ALL
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 23:41:16 GMT
Sender: Activists Mailing List <ACTIV-L@MIZZOU1.MISSOURI.EDU>
Subject: Israel & Lebanon: Letter to NYT
NOTE: The following letter to the Editor of the New York Times was emailed to the Times on April 25, 1996. Apparently the editors have decided not to print my letter.
Serge Schmemann's first paragraph on the front page story on the
Israeli air, artillery and naval barrage against Southern Lebanon
U.S. and Israel Await Answer from Syrians, 4/18/96)
characteristic ally blames the victim. According to Schmemann, Syria
holds the key to ending the flare-up.
Schmemann's formulation plays down or ignores the fact that it is not Syria but Israelbacked by the U.S. veto at the Security Councilwho will determine when to stop its barbarous shelling which has already killed more than 130 Lebanese and Palestinian civilians and has forced an estimated half a million people to leave their homes -- some for the fifth time.
Schmemann's story ignores the fact that the latest
Israeli-U.S. proposals, calling on Hezbollah to stop the shelling and
to refrain from attacks in the Israeli held
security zone in
South Lebanon are non-starters, because they ignore widespread Arab
resistance to Israel's illegal occupation of 440 square miles of
Schmemann's story once again misrepresents the cause of the latest
flare up. He writes that it was Hezbollah rocket attacks which
triggered Israel's attacks, ignoring the fact that it was a
bomb which killed a Lebanese boy of 13 and wounded three on April 8
which prompted Hezbollah to retaliate by firing three barrages of
Katyusha rockets, 20 in all, wounding 13 Israelis. (He also ignores
his own dispatch in the Times News of the Week in Review three days
earlier which acknowledged that Hezbollah described their rocket
as retaliation for civilian deaths at Israeli
hands. Similarly the Times editorial writer, on April 16th
Time to Stop in Lebanon], also acknowledged that Hezbollah
blamed the Israelis for
two earlier fatal incidents on
civilians in Lebanon to which they were responding.)
At first, Israel's response, to fire 170 artillery rounds, causing
damage to houses, water heaters and electricity pylons but no
casualties was considered
fairly muted but apparently in the
afterma th, the Peres government decided to renew the bombing and
artillery barrages on a scale not seen since July 1993 as a way of
depopulating the area and of putting pressure on the governments of
Syria and Lebanon.
Nowhere in Schmemann's article do we find mention of Israeli attacks on civilians in Lebanon which go back more than two decades. April 24 happens to be the anniversary of two U.N. Security Council r esolutions condemning Israel for its acts of aggression against civilians in Lebanon: one in 1974 (Res. 347) and another in 1980 (Res. 467). y Israel has an interest in depopulating the area in order to maintain control over the water resources of Lebanon which it feels are vital to the health of its economy. Perhaps this explains why, in the course of its latest campaign, the Israelis destroyed the tower reservoir in the village of Sultaniye which supplied water to 20 villages in Southern Lebanon. Perhaps Schmemann or other Times reporters will explore the possibility that the destruction of this reservoir will have a positive impact on the amounts of water flowing into Israel from Lebanese sources.
The timing of Peres's decision to go after longer term strategic goals in Lebanon was apparently triggered by the pressures from the Likud opposition in connection with next month's parliamentary election. The election campaign has been colored by the trauma of the four Hamas bombings in February and March and the recent success of Hezbollah attacks against Israeli soldiers in south Lebanon, killing three.
By ignoring many of these details and the fundamentals of the current round of fighting, Schmemann loses an opportunity and misleads his readers.