What IS the message from Osama bin Laden?

At the moment we are suffering the annual travail of "trick or treat"ers; something for which I have a rapidly reducing tolerance.

"Trick or Treat"ing (I abbreviate to TT) is as far as I am concerned a form of terrorism, a very mild form perhaps but terrorism non the less. Why is this? Well it has to do with expectation. A vast majority - perhaps 99% - of the TT-ers are young children usually accompanied by parent. They are harmless, and (I will admit openly) can be quite harmless if you meet them at the door with an invite to your barbeque dinner. Then you inform them that you are having BBQ'd children...

No, the terrorists are the ones who arrive at about 9 p.m. They sometimes even have a goodly portion of dutch courage on board. They approach the idea of TT with malice and menace. They make it clear that if you do not produce the goodies then their "trick" will not be pleasant to clean up in the morning.

But that is not what I want to talk about.

I am against all forms of terrorism. State sponsored to individual threat and menace. The French government sending secret service agents into Auckland to blow up Rainbow Warrior ranks alongside CIA kidnapping the Panama President. That differs not in any respect from the Palestine / Israel conflict. There is no "right side" there. There is only terrorism. That differs not from 9/11. Nor does it differ from the Ghujarat State "encouraged" Hindu uprisings against the minority Islamic communities; some several millions against 30,000. The invasion of a home by criminals and thugs, whether in Palestine or in Puketitiri is an act of terrorism also. Those criminals and thugs can be from a "defensive army" or they can be just locals out to steal a quad bike. And I subscribe to the idea that ANY invasion of another country without international sanction is also an act of terrorism.

But that is not what I want to talk about.

I came across a blog the other day (sorry I have lost it) which commented upon the recent UN General Assembly resolution castigating the US for its embargo of Cuba. The comment was to point out that only four nations voted against the resolution; US (of course), Israel (it goes without saying), and two former US protectorates in Micronesia Palau and ?.

At about the same time, the initial translations of Osama bin Laden's latest address to the nation of the United States were hitting the airways. There is only one small part of that address that I want to quote, and I say before I put it in here that it is the one thing that has been constant in all of the events relating to AlQaeda. It was said after the attack against USS Cole. It was said after the attack against the hotels in Kenya. It has been a constant theme in the extremeist Islamic tirades against the US...

...Therefore, the motivations are still there for what happened to be repeated. And I will talk to you about the reason for those events...

But after the injustice was so much and we saw the transgressions and the coalition between Americans and the Israelis against our people in Palestine and Lebanon...And these special events that directly and personally affected me go back to 1982 and what happened when America gave permission for Israel to invade Lebanon...that we had to destroy the towers in America so that they taste what we tasted, and they stop killing our women and children..."

Now the reference to Lebanon 1982 rang a few bells, but I still wanted the refresher to be certain. So I did my usual digging to find...

One version...

Why did Israel invade Lebanon in 1982?
In June 1978, Prime Minister Begin, under intense American pressure, withdrew Israel's Litani River Operation forces from southern Lebanon. They were replaced by UNIFIL, a UN force to restore peace and help the Lebanonese government re-establish its authority, as authorized by UN Resolution 425. The withdrawal of Israeli troops without having removed the PLO from its bases in southern Lebanon became a major embarrassment to the Begin government, maintaining pressure for Israel to return.
UNIFIL was unable to prevent terrorists from reinfiltrating the region and introducing new, more dangerous arms. Cross-border conflict between Israel and the various forces in Southern Lebanon continued at differing levels of intensity after 1978. Civilians on both sides, and UNIFIL peacekeepers, were killed as the fighting ebbed and flowed. Israel increased its support of the Lebanese Christian Militia in the south, under Major Saad Haddad, who regularly fought armed PLO fighters but also caused casualties among non-combatants. The US government during the Carter administration (1976-1980) had several times joined in UN condemnations of Israeli raids and reprisals in South Lebanon, always condemning simultaneously PLO terrorist cross-border activities (generally not condemned by the UN).
In July of 1981 Lebanese-American Philip Habib was sent by the Reagan Administration to negotiate a more lasting cease-fire between Lebanon and Israel. On July 24 Habib announced agreement that all hostile military action between Lebanese and Israeli territory in either direction would cease. For the next eleven months the cease-fire was in effect as a formality, but the PLO repeatedly violated the agreement. Israel charged that the PLO staged 270 terrorist actions in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, and along the Lebanese and Jordanian borders. Twenty­nine Israelis died and more than 300 were injured in the attacks. In April 1982, after a landmine killed an Israeli officer, the rocket attacks and air strikes recommenced.
Israeli strikes and commando raids were unable to stem the growth of the PLO army which built camps, trained thousands of fighters, and stockpiled arms in south Lebanon. The situation in the Galilee became intolerable as the frequency of attacks forced thousands of Israeli residents to flee their homes or to spend large amounts of time in bomb shelters. Israel was not prepared to wait for more deadly attacks to be launched against its civilian population before acting against the PLO terrorists.
The final provocation occurred in June 3, 1982 when a Palestinian terrorist group led by Abu Nidal attempted to assassinate Israel's Ambassador to Great Britain, Shlomo Argov. The IDF subsequently bombed PLO bases and ammunition dumps in Beirut and attacked other targets in Lebanon on June 4-5, 1982. The PLO responded with a massive artillery and mortar attack on the Israeli population of the Galilee. It was the PLO shelling, and not directly the Argov shooting as is sometimes assumed, that triggered the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
On June 6, 1982, under the direction of Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, Israel invaded Lebanon with a massive force, called Operation Peace for the Galilee, driving all the way to Beirut and putting the PLO and residents, as well as the Lebanese civilian population of that city, under siege. Israel justified its breech of the Habib cease-fire by citing the attempted assassination of the Israeli ambassador in London and a build-up of PLO armaments in South Lebanon. Israel was also concerned by increasing Syrian involvement in the Lebanese civil war and wanted to forestall a hostile, Syrian-backed government developing in Lebanon.
Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said of the operation:
 No sovereign state can tolerate indefinitely the buildup along its borders of a military force dedicated to its destruction and implementing its objectives by periodic shellings and raids. (Washington Post, June 16, 1982)

Second version...

1982 Israel Invades Lebanon Israel invaded Lebanon on June 6. The immediate cause cited for the invasion was the attempted assassination of Israel's Ambassador in London. Israel's plan was designed first to create a buffer between Lebanon and Northern Israel. The incursion quickly grew to a full-fledged attempt to destroy the P.L.O.

Israeli forces advanced to Beirut. In the course of that advance, a large-scale mini-war broke out with Syria. Over two days, Israel shot down 82 Syrian planes with no losses of its own, and completely destroyed the intricate Soviet-designed anti-aircraft missile system protecting Syria. A cease-fire was reached after Israel surrounded Beirut. Under the terms of the agreement, the P.L.O. was forced to leave Lebanon.


1982 Lebanon Phalanges Massacre at Sabre and Shatilla On September 16, Lebanese Christian troops entered the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatilla. There, they opened fire on Palestinian civilians, killing hundreds. The Israelis were not directly involved in the massacres, but their presence nearby and their tactical control of the area resulted in sharp criticism of the Israeli Army at home and abroad. An Israeli commission of inquiry laid the blame on a number of Israelis, including Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon.

Strange how names crop up again and again...


One US military assessment (Introduction)...

Lebanon 1982: The Imbalance Of Political Ends And Military Means
CSC 1985 SUBJECT AREA History WAR SINCE 1945 SEMINAR
Lebanon 1982: The Imbalance of Political Ends and Military Means
by MAJOR M. THOMAS DAVIS, US ARMY 1 April 1985
Marine Corps Command and Staff College Marine Corps Development and Education Center Quantico, Virginia 22134
ABSTRACT Author: DAVIS, M. Thomas, US Army
Title: Lebanon 1982: The Imbalance of Political Ends and Military Means Publisher: Marine Corps Command and Staff College
Date: 1 April 1985

On June 6, 1982, the Israeli Defense Force, following the directions of Ariel Sharon, Israeli Defense Minister, launched a large scale invasion across the northern border into Lebanon. The invading force consisted of nearly 60 thousand Israeli soldiers organized into 9 division sized formations and supported by portions of the Israeli Air Force and Navy.

The announced purpose of the attack was to push back those elements of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) operating in southern Lebanon to a distance 40 kilometers north of the border between Israel and Lebanon 50 that Israeli settlements and villages of northern Galilee would be beyond the range of PLO artillery.

The Israeli government under Prime Minister Menachem Begin declared that it had no broader designs on the territory of Lebanon and that "Operation Peace for Galilee" would be over in a few days as had "Operation Litani" in the Spring of 1978. Despite the limited aims initially established by Jerusalem, it soon became obvious that the Israelis had in mind objectives of considerably greater scope.

Considering the rather dubious nature of the initial justification for the operation, as well as the Israeli Defense Force's early crossing of the 40 kilometer line, it became apparent that the true objective was destruction of the PLO and elimina- tion of not only that organizations limited military threat, but more significantly its political threat to the established policies of the Israeli government. Additionally, the Begin government evidently hoped to foster the development in Lebanon of a political order which might be more capable of controlling events in southern Lebanon and more conducive to signing a peace agreement with Israel.

By January 1985, the Israeli army was still in Lebanon occupying that part of the country north of the Alawi River. The operation in Lebanon had cost the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) over 600 killed, losses which on a per capita scale approach those the United States suffered in Vietnam over nearly ten years, had created serious rifts within Israeli society, its armed forces, and its government, and had toppled from power the government of Prime Minister Begin and Defense Minister Sharon.

Worse, from both a political and military point of view, the invasion had failed to achieve in any certain way the objectives for which it had been launched -- objectives which were never so clearly enunciated that they were clearly reducible to military terms.

The purpose of this study is to argue that the Israeli adventure in Lebanon was a costly failure. The period since World War II has been one of limited war, one in which conflicts have been restricted in either space, time, objective, means, or combinations of all four.

This international condition necessitates that the political objectives for which military forces are employed be more clearly and concisely defined than ever before; that the nature of the conflict, and the probable conditions of its termination, be rigorously analyzed.

I believe that the "two towers" that OBL refers to are the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatilla.

It must be noted that Israel, as such, was not directly involved in that massacre; it was in fact carried out by Lebanese Phalangist Christians. Israel's "part" was undertaken at the strong insistence of the US by the withdrawal of all troops from the area.



Irrespective of the rights and wrongs, and the fact that taking one event out of the pus and poison that is the Levant does nothing to cure that boil, there is the cause of Osama bin Laden's hatred of the US.

There is not one "right" in the war in the Levant. There are very many "wrongs" on every side.

If there is a point that the US needs to hear, it is this...

 One of the biggest wrongs that has ever been committed in the Levant is the US's continuing support of Israel action, irrespective any criticism that should have been said.

 Not once has the US allowed a draft resolution critical of Israel to reach the floor of the UNSC.

 Not once has the US criticised or castigated Israel for their continual and continuing breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

If George Bush, or the US for that matter, wants to win a major battle against Islamic terrorism it can be achieved in one very small stroke. There are no bullets required. There are no machines of war. Not one US life will be threatened.

Place a draft resolution before the UNSC calling Israel to account for continual and continuing breaches of the Geneva Convention; giving those breaches their true description of war crimes; and giving Israel's continuing treatment of the Palestinian people the correct description of "crimes against humanity".