Jean-Christophe Helary wrote:
> http://ontario.indymedia.ca/twiki/bin/view/Toronto/LibanChangementDeLaVerite
> (very detailed description of how the news shifted from "Lebanese
> territory" to "Israeli territory")
This "very detailed description is somewhat problematic. The original English is here:
http://counterpunch.org/schuh08152006.html
First, there is some game playing between the english and french versions. Someone selectively removed some important information about the quote from ha'aretz:
In the french translation:
Le 13 juillet, l’édition de Haaretz disait: «Cette opération héroïque exécutée contre des cibles militaires est une opération légitime, d’autant plus qu’elle a eu lieu en territoire libanais.»
In the English:
A quote by Hamas political bureau member Mohammad Nazzal in the July 13 edition of Haaretz said: "This is a heroic operation carried out against military targets and so it is a legitimate operation, especially as it took place in occupied Lebanese territory."
hmmmmmm.....gives a bit of a different perspective (plus, it was a Reuters wire article used in Ha'aretz).
Plus, this is just bad analysis to use Mark Regev's quote to argue that the soldiers were on the Lebanese side of the border.
"Voice of America, Jerusalem, on July 12 said: "Speaking to reporters outside the Israeli Foreign Ministry, spokesman Mark Regev says Hezbollah is responsible for the violence. "It appears we have an escalation in the North," he said. "It is very clear that the escalation started on the Lebanese side of the border, and Israel will respond appropriately."
Obviously he doesn't mean literally that it took place on the Lebanese side of the border, he means that it was started by Lebanese (Hizbollah in this case)...or else how can Hizbollah be responsible, as Regev argues?
Then, we have her quote from Boogie Ya'alon in the New Republic, which again, says the opposite of what the counterpunch article is trying to argue: "The present crisis was initiated--in Gaza by Hamas and in southern Lebanon by Hezbollah--from lands that are not under Israeli occupation."
When Ya'alon says that the present crisis was initiated from lands not under Israeli occupation, he means that they were initiated from within Gaza and Lebanon, not that they took place there (are you arguing also that the capture of Gilad Shalit was in Gaza and not a base on the gaza border in Israel?). Any other reading would make no sense to his argument. (not that Ya'alon is someone who makes much sense to me in general).
The Lebanese army communique is quite ambiguous as to whether it took place in Israel or in Lebanon...Zarit and Shetula, the border patrol area between which the soldiers were captured are "in the vicinity or in front of Ayt al-Shaab." That is the case whether it happened in Israel or Lebanon.
Here is what she quotes:
"verbatim Army communique' to the Lebanese government follows: 'At 9:03 or 9:05am in the vicinity or in front of Ayt Al Shaab village the members of the resistance have abducted two soldiers. At 9:15am the resistance shelled the position of the enemy in the occupied territories. At 10:10am the Resistance and Israeli forces clashed with each other in the area of Naqoura,' on Lebanon's side of the border."
Then there is the CNN interview with Lebanon's Ambassador to the US, Farid Abboud:
"HOLMES: ... but crossing over the border into Israel, killing and--seizing soldiers, what did you think would happen?
ABBOUD: I'm not sure where the location of the attack took place. I understand that there was another battle, also, where during which the Israelis crossed Lebanese soil and that the casualties that fell then were inside Lebanon territory ..."
I don't see him saying that the capture took place on the Lebanese side of the border. He diplomatically (or truthfully) states that he doesn't know where it took place, but that there was ANOTHER battle which took place when Israelis crossed Lebanese soil... which we all agree is not up for argument here. So the event he pins down as having taken place in Lebanon is not in dispute anyway.
And this is interesting, what does this mean?: "Because of his stance to CNN Abboud was reprimanded, and recalled to Lebanon"
Lastly this personal interview of Schuh with Mousawi:
"Q: "Were they caught inside Israel or Lebanon? MOUSAWI: How can you possibly say Israel? This is an occupied land, occupied Palestine. Q: Alright. Was it in occupied Palestine or Lebanon? MOUSAWI: It was in Lebanon, on the border. Q: On the border- What town? Where was it near? MOUSAWI: There is no town. It was a military post."
This is a bit vague, he says that the attack took place near a military post "On the border." Does he mean an Israeli military post (in Lebanon)??? (which would be quite strange). And if it was right near Aïta al-Chaab, which the Lebanese police argue, then it was right near a town.
I guess this doesn't effect one way or another the veracity of the argument that the Israelis crossed the border and were attacked, but what a terribly badly argued article to send as backing for the position...
>> mon blog "désinformer" rappelle que les soldats israéliens capturés le
>> 12 juillet l'ont été en territoire libanais et non en Israël : lire
>> les journaux israéliens du 12 et 13 juillet !
>
> Israeli newspapers published on the 12th and 13th confirm that the
> soldiers were captured in Lebanese territory.
I was reading (as usual) the local Israeli papers then and watching the news, and didn't hear this (there may have been an article or two in the beginning hours when there was some confusion, that I missed, or a newswire article).
>
> So it looks like the first reports, dating from the 12th+ on the
> Lebanese side (military police it seems) confirm the "Lebanese
> territory" version, along with, seemingly, some Israeli sources (not
> directly quoted) and that the news machine spun that from "Lebanese
> territory" to "Lebanese frontier" to "Israeli territory".
This is, I believe, a misreading of what occurred. There wasn't a shift from stating it was Lebanese territory and then shifting it over the next day to it being in Israeli territory. Instead, there were a multitude of reports from the beginning that stated it was a cross border attack by Hizbollah and others that stated it was a crossborder attack by Israel into Lebanon gone wrong. Then in the next days, a majority of the second type of reports dropped away (at least in English). Either due to pro-Israel bias, different incoming information, or a pro-Israel conspiracy...
Take your pick.