Posted on 07/18/2006 7:46:08 PM PDT by inpajamas
The events in Yugoslavia leading up to the NATO operations against the Serbian people in 1999 and the events which followed should be taken into consideration as a possible precursor for future actions taken against other nations and in particular, Israel. Although every situation is unique unto itself, there are patterns, models, and precedents that may indicate the direction and even to some extent outcomes. While responses and actions may differ, by looking at past events we can understand established mindsets that will determine future actions as well as results.
In 1995, Militant Islamic Albanians organized into the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). Employing guerilla-style tactics against Serbians, incidents of violence increased, as did reprisals. The Serbian government claimed that their army was only going after suspected Albanian "terrorists" however, reports began to circulate that Yugoslav forces were committing war crimes in Kosovo. As violence escalated in a series of KLA attacks and Yugoslav reprisals, diplomatic efforts for a peaceful solution were initiated. Under an agreement led by Richard Holbrooke, OSCE observers moved into Kosovo to monitor the ceasefire. Yugoslav forces partly pulled out of Kosovo, however, the ceasefire was broken shortly thereafter by KLA forces, which again provoked harsh counterattacks by the Serbs. Rumors of genocide against Albanians began to circulate and the rest is history - a civil war was settled by a multi-national third party who became both judge and arbitrator.
While there are differences in circumstances between what happened in Kosovo in 1999 and what is taking place in the Middle East today, there are also similarities including past events that could foreshadow some future ones.
The Yugoslavian Precedent
Leading up to NATO actions against Serbia the world news media methodically turned the Serbs into the new “Nazis of our time while portraying Islamic radicals as victims of genocide and ethnic cleansing. Today similar accusations are cast at Israel and the USA anytime they attempt to take any action in order to defend their nations from terrorist and rouge nations. I would not excuse genocide or any crimes against humanity committed by anyone, but Kosovo was pre 9/11 and there was much more to be told that went virtually untold and other things reported that were not true. The result was that the world in large believed accusations which now appear to have been at the very least greatly exaggerated and war was waged upon a people under siege of radical Islamic militants.
Does it seem odd that international actions seem to be taken only when Islam is losing while in the places they are clearly committing crimes the world closes its eyes?
The NYT ran an article in 1999 titled: “NATO Peacekeepers Plan a System of Controls for the News Media in Kosovo” - the bottomline: censorship and processed news with a biased slant - “All the news that’s print to fit“. The world was told international intervention was necessary as a humanitarian effort to keep the radical Serbs from committing genocide and eradicating poor oppressed Islamic people (terrorist?).
Is it possible that anti-Israeli Arabs will force the same type of actions in the Middle-East? - That is; use terrorist actions and guerrilla warfare to provoke a conflict in which the media will portray the civilian populations as victims which must be saved by international intervention. If terrorist groups can escalate the conflict to create great hardships upon civilians then calls will go out for measures to be taken on an international level as a humanitarian effort - In fact they already have.
Consider international responses to the crisis:
EU - Javier Solana
A senior European Union official returned from the Middle East on Monday sounding pessimistic about the chance of a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah militants, and the EU said it was considering the deployment of peacekeepers. Javier Solana, the EU’s foreign and security chief, said the best that could be hoped for was a “de-escalation” of the fighting. He was to brief a meeting of EU foreign ministers on his weekend talks in Beirut.
UK - Tony Blair
“The blunt reality is that this violence is not going to stop unless we create the conditions for the cessation of violence,” Blair said after talks with Annan in Moscow. “The only way is if we have a deployment of international forces that can stop bombardment coming into Israel,” he said.
France - Dominique de Villepin
French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin on Monday joined British Prime Minister Tony Blair and United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan in calling for the deployment of an international force in southern Lebanon, in order to end the spiraling conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.
Germany - Angela Merkel
Germany’s leader on Monday spoke in favor of sending international peacekeepers into Lebanon but only if the United Nations endorses the move. Speaking at the Group of Eight summit near St. Petersburg, Chancellor Angela Merkel said an international peacekeeping force could provide much-needed support for the government of Lebanon because it is in a “difficult position.” Israel missiles have been hitting targets on Lebanese territory for six days now.
UN - Kofi Annan
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan called for ending the latest Middle East crisis by establishing an international force in Lebanon, saying it would have to be stronger than the largely ineffectual U.N. peacekeeping force that has been there for nearly three decades. “It is urgent that the international community acts to make a difference on the ground," he said. Annan provided few details, saying the Security Council "will have to discuss this and define the specific mandate for one to be able to talk in more concrete terms.
Russia - Vladamir Putin
ABC reported: Russian President Vladimir Putin, closing out the first G-8 summit on Russian soil, said his nation would contribute troops to a U.N. peacekeeping force. The European Union said it also was considering deploying peacekeepers in Lebanon. “Russia is continually taking part in peacekeeping operations. And we will not turn away from involvement in such operations in the future. “Putin stated Monday.
Italy - Romano Prodi, PM
Italian PM says 10,000 peacekeepers needed in Lebanon-Israel Prodi said his country was ready to make a “significant contribution'’ to any deployment in Lebanon, after UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan announced the plan at the Group of Eight summit in St. Petersburg, Russia. U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair, French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Angela Merkel also backed the idea.
Israel and the USA
Israel is against the idea of international forces being introduced on a large scale in the region; for now that may be enough to keep it from happening, especially if the US backs Israel up on the issue. ‘Peacekeepers’ are only effective where they are not needed or until conflict breaks out. The problem is that the mindset of the forces is to treat all parties equal and not take sides. By treating aggressors as defenders, peacekeepers will complicate the situation by becoming ‘terrorist protection agents’. Terrorist attacks will not stop but the Israelis will be hindered from dealing with them freely and effectively. Israel could be turned into the “bad guy” by the media and international community when they have to take actions to protect themselves after international forces fail to do the job.
Conclusion:
Note: This is the beginning of a process and there is much more to happen before international forces become a problem; in fact, if they are introduced into the region they may help establish a temporary pseudo-peace. Although the deployment of international forces on a large scale may or may not take place at this point in time; I predict it will take place or at least be made a compulsatory demand at some point. Also, when this does take place I expect a multi-national UN sanctioned force with a much broader base rather than NATO. However, before any such military action will take place the UN will first make demands with ultimatums, for why would the internationalist risk fighting for something if they can persuade Israel to give in willingly?
Although currently there is strong support for Israel among US citizenry, the political pendulum of power swings both ways. It is also possible that international intervention can be sold to a number of uniformed people who are sympathetic to Israel if it is packaged in a way where it appears “good“ for all parties.
If the consensus is that international intervention is necessary to protect citizens in the region from Israeli actions, and also to protect the Jewish people from terrorist actions, Russia will not be opposed, nor China, the EU or many other nations with one possible exception being the USA. - And the US is the wild card. If the administration changes in 2008 or if at present complete chaos were to break out and continue for a time, these events may be used as grounds to bring “peace” to the region by interjecting international forces as a buffer between the parties.
Due to the extent of Israeli military power there would be no NATO type of operation as used against the Serbs, but rather, an attempt to persuade Israeli politicians to accept the forces into the region as peacekeepers for the common good of all parties.
If Israel were to refuse then the media along with many nations will use the occasion to blame Israel for all the problems and for being the obstacle to peace. All of this will work to create a situation where the UN will seek embargos and sanctions to pressure the Jewish state into accepting the international peace plan. What happens from this point on is difficult to determine but there are a number of scenarios depending on how Israel responds to international demands and pressures. It could end with military confrontation or it could end in Israeli compliance by accepting international peacekeeping forces into the region, which would lead to an eventual undermining of Israel’s sovereignty and their ability to defend the state.
I say Israel is being compared to Serbia, but the comparison is invalid due to each nation's actions.
You say the media is finding it difficult to compare Israel to Serbia, because Israel has acted differently.
If you look at today's stories, the Washington Post compares Israel to NATO when it bombed Serbia, not to Serbia.
Its air war in many ways duplicates the way U.S. air power dismantled targets in Bosnia, Serbia and Iraq in the past 10 years. source
Whereas antiwar.com is carrying Malic's latest screed where Serbia is being compared to Israel.
Let me ask you this - who, in your eyes, is the media?
Your friend, Sacribey sends you his greetings, the Omar one.
You say the media is finding it difficult to compare Israel to Serbia, because Israel has acted differently."
Then we agree that Israeli responses to attacks are different, but that is not what is being compared in the article. There are differences in actions but there are similarities in the situation.
In your example you cite Malic’s writing; because he condemns NATO and the USA; however, that fits right in with the theme on antiwar.com - He also seeks to defend the Serbs by equating them with the Israelis; not condemn the Israelis by equating them with the Serbs. But he also makes a statement that contradicts you earlier comment that the KLA has not been a problem for 7 years.
Malic writes:
The province has been occupied by NATO for over seven years now and turned into a quasi-state administered by the KLA, where most non-Albanians have been killed, expelled, or forced into ghettos.
In the other example you gave you cited the Washington Post, but your link connects to an article in the Washington Times by Rowan Scarborough where he compares the strategy and logistics of the USA and Israel - that is irrelevant to this discussion - Although, there was a Washington Post article yesterday by Richard Cohen where he claims <(Israel is a mistake) .
A Google search for {“anti-Israel” media bias} = Results 1 - 10 of about 314,000
Actually, I said the KLA hadsn't been a problem for Americans, nor have the rest of the K-Albanians (The KLA and its supporters have always been a minority of K-Albanians, btw). The regional ethnic wars, however, continue to simmer to this day, and if you mix Serbs with Croats, Bosnian Muslims, or K-Albanians, chances are things aren't going to go well, sadly.
Post, Times - yeah, I did mix those up. My bad. My point, however, was that mainstream media isn't comparing Serbia to Israel, instead comparing NATO to Israel, and the Cohen article you reference makes no mention of the Balkans. So while there is certainly an anti-Israeli bias out there in the MSM (doesn't look like Cohen fits into this category from the referenced article, IMO), it doesn't extend to inherently flawed comparisons of Israel to Serbia, either of their situations or through comparisons of their actions, from what I've seen.
In short, the Milosevic/Serbia response for Israel just isn't on the table. It's Apples and Oranges, regardless of how some try their hand at transubstantiation.
actually, the KLA has been a thorn as they have killed US Soldiers in the past.
Great......lolol....What can I say...? well put.
"The KLA and its supporters have always been a minority of K-Albanians, btw"
The KLA is the majority of the KPC/TMK and the KPS. Former members "RUN" Kosovo with an iron fist. If a K-Albanian police officer becomes too honest or works for the good, they WILL be killed. It has happened twice already. The rule of law is ran by the Albanian Mafia and the Kosovo Albanian rule of law there is ruled by former members of the KLA, from Ceku, Ramush, Thaqi, you have Xhavet Haliti and hundreds more. The KLA is simply divided between TMK, KPC, KPS, UCPMB, NLA, ANA, Black Eagles (paramititary group designated to systemically cleanse the Serbs out by murder and intimidation since 2000)
This is fact supported by names, numbers and incidents.
Relative to the comment about the relationship between KLA and American military. It is good due to the U.S. Supporting the KLA and its' offspring organizations either directly or turning a blind eye. I know this because I had American Lt's, Capt's and Major's come into my Office, shutting the door and making comments that we supported the wrong side. Also, they were very distraught that their hands were tied to do anything about it. They also didn't trust the Former KLA members as they had targeted innocent Serbs since 1999 to at least 2004 and beyond.
Israel and the international precedent (Clinton & Kosovo)
The European press has condemned Israel's retaliatory offensive against Hizbullah as an over-the-top response to the capture and killing of its soldiers and invasion of its territory, but remains divided over what must be done to resolve the crisis.
"As always," Le Monde wrote at the start of the crisis, Israel had responded "by making disproportionate use of military force, in violation of international law." On Wednesday, the paper applauded French President Jacques Chirac's call for Israel to exercise restraint as "without a doubt the most legitimate policy."
The French president's plan, Le Monde wrote, was the "only way to preserve a common line with the United States and a kernel of international consensus." It warned Israel that in implementing its "optimistic" plan "to do away with Hizbullah, it must not destroy Lebanon's efforts to reconstruct its country."
The Paris daily Liberation condemned the world's "relative indifference" to the crisis, which it blamed on US President George W. Bush's "policy of going along" with Israel's decisions. "We can deplore, but we cannot be surprised by the general helplessness," it wrote Wednesday.
Le Figaro of also found fault with the United States Monday for not responding more quickly to the crisis and criticized Bush's attempts to bring "something positive out of this double war against 'extremists,' out of this wreckage of weapons and blood, at least that of civilians."
Italy's Corriere della Sera wrote on Wednesday that while some consider Israel's response to the kidnapping of three conscripts "disproportionate," the offensives against Hizbulllah and Hamas must be seen in the context of Israel's fight for survival.
On Monday, The Guardian condemned as shortsighted Israel's "collective punishment of Lebanon's fragile economy," but said the "time for calling for restraint has passed, since too many on both sides show no signs of exercising any."
On Wednesday, the paper called Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz "military novices" and suggested "both have something to prove." Former prime minister Ariel Sharon "could negotiate a prisoner exchange with Hizbullah in 2004, rather than bombing them from the sky, because he had no fear of being branded weak," the Guardian wrote.
"Those who witnessed [the fighting] will not forget it, and they will carry a bitterness towards Israel for the rest of their lives, passing it on to their children" the Guardian said, as "both sides have ensured this dreadful conflict spreads, not just across borders - but down the generations."
The S ddeutsche Zeitung also called Israel's response "disproportionate," but said it did have a right to defend itself. This "war was declared by Hizbullah and Palestinian terror groups, not by Israel," it wrote.
On Wednesday, the German paper argued that the offensive against Hizbullah was a diplomatic blunder that had "trapped" Olmert. Striking at Hizbullah would "aggravate hatred of Israel across the world," it said. "The longer this war waged for the purpose of deterrence lasts and the more civilian casualties it causes in Lebanon, the more the images of destruction will push the party responsible for the war, Hizbullah, into the background."
The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on Tuesday dismissed the proposal for a UN-administered buffer zone in southern Lebanon as "an illusion." It called for Hizbullah to be "disarmed and the regular Lebanese army to occupy the border region with Israel in order to prevent terrorist raids.".......
This is an uncut unedited excerpt from the begining of the article
It also happened before. During Bosnian civil war Clinton's administration fooled Jewish American organisations to provide total support to pro-muslim policy and direct support of muslim terrorists.
B'nai brith was used to direcly spread the lies about "Serb Nazis" and the need for Jews to cry Never again against 'genocide' of poor innocent Muslims.
Umbrella organisations such as NJCRAC and The Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA) have orchestrated Goebbels-style campaign of smearing the Serbs as a people and urged letter-writing campaigns in support of Clinton's Bosnian folly because "it is good for Israel".
Today we can see the fruit of their efforts. As I said before, show me a Jewish American who denigrated Serbs as a people and I will show you a Jewish American who works against Israel.
High volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. also
2006israelwar or WOT
..................
Kosovo has now been proven to be gangster/mafia run Islamist terrorist state and an haven for drug trafficking, child sex-slavery/prostitution, - you name it. (It should also be noted that some of the Islamists involved and explosives used in the Madrid and London bombings came from Kosovo)
Here are some related links:
To see where Israel is headed, visit Kosovo
Kosovo: The emerging terror state
Related material:
And here I was taking you seriously.
It seems possible that they may get through this event without too much international involvement but somewhere down the road Israel will face a multinational assault like they have not seen to date. We are not there yet; but things are headed in that direction and it could happen in the next several years to come, or sooner. As I wrote earlier; it will start with unparalleled diplomatic pressure and demands and could end in confrontation if Israel fails to capitulate.
Consider the initial reaction of world leaders when this broke out; virtually every one of them called for international intervention and peacekeepers except the US. Since then Bush has persuaded some of them to back off long enough for the Israelis to have a chance to deal with Hezbolla.
However, terror groups are but branches; terrorist states are the root. Unless the root is killed cutting of a limb will not avail much. When you prune a branch (Hezbolla) on a tree that branch is no longer an issue but other branches (terrorist) benefit by the nutrition and resources that are freed to nourish them. Any relief achieved will be temporary until terrorism is cut off at the stump for it will keep growing back. - Syria and Iran must be dealt with.
Having a jihadist cheerleader take you seriously is no compliment.
Who gives a rat's ass?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.