Atlas readers get the best round the world coverage. While I am working on today's mind bending events read Nidra Poller, the most exquisite truth teller in France (how they must despise her and tremble in her wake.) The French are pathetic.
LOST IN TRANSLATION
Paris 23 July 2006
French diplomacy is on the peace path! Jacques Chirac is flexing France’s diplomatic muscles in an aggressive campaign to impose a “humanitarian cease fire” that will save Lebanon and boost French prestige on the world stage. Despite failure to impose the French solution at the recent G-8 meeting in St. Petersburg and again at the Rome Conference, the Chirac-Villepin tandem has already convinced French media of its inevitable success.
Media complicity is automatic when it comes to placing Israel and the United States in a bad light. By the second day of the conflict, coverage was already slanted and, within a week, it had become hysterical. The point of view of the French newscaster today is shoulder to shoulder with the innocent civilian praising Nasrallah and shouting guttural threats to massacre Israelis as he stands by the ruins of a harmless building bombed by evil Israelis for no reason whatsoever. The Hizbullah attack that provoked Israel’s reaction is pushed far into the background, leaving an image of the conflict as an unprovoked humanitarian crisis visited upon Lebanon. Nothing short of an immediate cease fire can deliver the—Lebanese--victims from their unjust plight.
Above and beyond hyping the humanitarian crisis, the media are broadcasting outright falsifications that lead the public to believe the French government’s diplomatic offensive is advancing by giant steps. Canadian PM Stephen Harper fell victim to one of these tricky operations.
Harper has come out forthrightly in support of the U. S. government’s refusal of a hasty ceasefire that would damage without destroying Hizbullah’s military capacity. His two-day stopover in Paris after the G-8 meeting was underplayed to the point of invisibility in French media…except for a curious July 18 AP France release that quotes Villepin, commenting on his cordial meeting with Harper. The French PM claims that his Canadian counterpart joins in the call for an immediate humanitarian truce in Lebanon; a cease fire is their top priority. The release closes with a vague mention that Harper thinks “many other things have to happen” before the international peace force envisaged by the G-8 could intervene. What things in what order from whom? The AP release doesn’t say. A direct citation in the Globe & Mail reads like a more accurate version of Harper’s reaction to Chirac’s call for a cease fire: “But I would point out it’s not the first thing called for nor is it the only thing called for.”
Condoleeza Rice fell victim to the same disingenuous enrollment in the humanitarian ceasefire camp when she made a surprise visit to Lebanon on June 24th. French media blew bugles and flashed lights all day long, claiming that the American Secretary of State had met with Lebanese PM Fuad Siniora, and was now calling for an immediate truce. It was not true, as her explicit statements published the next day demonstrated, but this kind of brief artificial victory has become the norm.
French MFA Douste-Blazy was sent to the Rome Conference to defeat the American-Israeli-Canadian block and impose the French solution to the conflict. He failed. Conference participants did not agree on an immediate cease fire. But French media pretend that all the participants, including Condoleeza Rice, have reached a consensus on an eventual diplomatic solution that just happens to coincide with the program outlined by President Chirac in an exclusive interview published by Le Monde on the eve of the Conference. Another turnabout of American diplomacy? Or another falsification?
Why is France so insistent on packaging the military conflict in Lebanon and Israel as a humanitarian crisis? It is generally believed that France, co-sponsor of UN Resolution 1559, supports Lebanese efforts to get free of the Syrian stranglehold, stands with the free world against Hizbullah terrorism, and recognizes the implication of Iran and Syria in triggering the current conflict. The demand for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire is presented as an expression of exquisite concern for the wellbeing of civilians. The obvious advantages it would offer to Hizbullah are brushed away with unconvincing promises of future dispositions that resemble failed dispositions of the past.
Why would France act vigorously and aggressively to protect Hizbullah while claiming to be motivated by humanitarian considerations? Just two days after an unprovoked Hizbullah cross-border attack in which three Israeli soldiers were killed, two were kidnapped, and the north of Israel was bombarded from east to west, President Chirac angrily accused an unnamed party of a deliberate intention to destroy Lebanon. Subsequent statements from the pro-Syrian Lebanese president Emile Lahoud and from Nasrallah himself indicate that this line of defense—Israel wants to destroy Lebanon--was prepared before the cross-border attack. Now France, allied with the UN and some EU nations, is pushing for a diplomatic solution that would hand Hizbullah the rewards it sought in initiating the conflict and cannot win in battle. Nasrallah, Lahoud, Siniora and Chirac are all demanding that Israel liberate Lebanese prisoners, evacuate the Sheba’a Farms, and accept vague promises of protection from a multinational force under UN auspices instead of fighting like a sovereign nation to protect its population against an existential danger.
The humanitarian crisis that serves as cover for this cowardly surrender is in large part fabricated. Hizbullah fighters store weapons in mosques, schools, and homes. They fire rockets from civilian sites and next to UN posts. They force civilians to remain in the south, despite Israeli warnings of bombings and ground operations. Further, the mass exodus of indignant expatriates, dual nationals, tourists, and businessmen suggests that people of all stripes and colors had expected to enjoy life in Lebanon while Hizbullah openly prepared to attack Israel and kill Jews.
Jihadis parade in battle dress, hide behind civilians, fight dirty, and turn into civilians when they get hit. The demand for a “humanitarian cease fire” is in fact the imposition of new rules of engagement that will tie the hands of any nation that resists jihad conquest. Under cover of humanitarian concerns, France, in complicity with the Lebanese government and the UN, is pressuring Western nations to endorse the rules of jihad and accept the role of dhimmis. The diplomatic battle engaged at the Rome Conference and pursued behind the scenes is not pitting the saviors of humanity against the Jewish child-killers. It is a test of the resolve of all democratic nations engaged in a war we cannot avoid.