Inside the Kaleidoscope:

The Israeli Invasion of Lebanon

Chapter Commentary: Nathan Miller

Outside Reference: Carlin Guthrie

Chapter Commentary: Basic Overview Describes the 1982 Israeli invasion of

Lebanon Lebanon’s situation was complex and

complicated due to the Israeli invasion and Lebanon’s foundation in general.

Friedman describes each group/side and it’s point of view (Israeli Army, Palestinians, and Maronite Christians)

Chapter Commentary: Anecdote #1 Sets the tone for the chapter Interview with Avraham Burg, an Israeli

paratrooper in South Lebanon. Response: The invading Israeli army knew

little about the nation they were invading “Where today’s enemy could be tomorrow's

friend” (Friedman 127).

Chapter Commentary: Anecdote #2

Israel saw the Maronite Christians as the real Lebanese (Begin believed that the Christians were being oppressed by Muslims, empathetic with the Jews of Israel)

Phalangists were taking advantage of their Israeli allies

Friedman recalls an interview with an Israeli paratrooper about his experience with the Phalangists

Chapter Commentary: Conclusion Each side/group had their own goals, agendas,

perception of events Each side/group believed their point of view was

correct Christians wanted to retain power, Muslims

wanted a greater say in Lebanese politics, and the Palestinians and Israelis both fighting for their right to exist, Lebanon was a Kaleidoscope that kept changing.

Outside Reference: Why did Israel invade Lebanon in the first

place? Two conflicting views:1. Protection of northern border from PLO rocket

attacks

2. Desire to simply “wipe out” the PLO as a political and militaristic threat to their existence

Letter to the Editor: One Argument The following information is based on a

letter written to the New York Times in 1985 by Abdeen M. Jabara. The authors credentials are unknown, and the letter presents an argument for the second previously mentioned cause for Israel’s invasion of Lebanon.

“Border Was Quiet When Israel Invaded Lebanon”

The New York Times reported that settlements in northern Israel “were under constant rocket attacks by the [P.L.O.] before the June 1982… invasion” (Jabara).

Israel claimed that the “Peace for Galilee” invasion was in response to these attacks, and would be limited to a 25 kilometer intrusion.

This, however, “extended to a 71-day siege of Beirut and a three year occupation of one-third of Lebanon” (Jabara).

“Border Was Quiet When Israel Invaded Lebanon”

One year before the invasion, Israel bombed Beirut with aircraft, killing 300 civilians and injuring many more. This death toll was much higher than that caused by the rocket attacks.

July 24, 1981- Cease-fire negotiated between Israel and the PLO

According to Jabara, both sides respected the cease-fire up to the 1982 invasion.

“Border Was Quiet When Israel Invaded Lebanon”

“While “Peace for Galilee” was the ostensible reason for the invasion, the real reason was to crush the PLO as a political factor in the Middle East” (Jabara).

“It does not help the American public understand the sequence of events when respected newspapers continue to imply that in June 1982, Israel was responding to a real situation along its northern borders” (Jabara).

Observations and Issues Jabara is obviously commenting on the

New York Times’ orientalist qualities.

Jabara’s background is unknown, so his bias on the subject must be brought into question, along with the factuality of his statements.