Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Monday, July 17, 2006

Israel Widens Airstrikes; 140 Civilians Dead since Weds;
Nasrallah Threatens Haifa with Worse Attacks


Israel may be planning a ground incursion into southern Lebanon, according to The Guardian.


Photos of Lebanon courtesy Al-Safir.

An Israeli air strike on a south Lebanese town on Sunday killed 8 Canadians and wounded 6; several were from a single family on vacation there.

Israel struck at large numbers of targets on Sunday, and early Monday morning, that had nothing to do with Hezbollah. The far north of Lebanon is Sunni, as is the port of Tripoli, where the Israelis killed a Catholic Lebanese soldier. They also hit factories in north Beirut, not a Shiite area. They bombed a village near Zahle, a notorious center of Greek Orthodox, killing 3 civilians. The Israelis are either not very good shots, since they have murdered 140 civilians since Wednesday and only managed to kill about 17 Lebanese military personnel. Or they just don't give a damn.

Aljazeera reports that Israeli air strikes on the civilian areas of southern Beirut have resumed. Hezbollah has offices in that area, and is widely supported there, but it is a heavily populated civilian area.

[PS: I just heard a comment by a reporter on CNN that Israelis are claiming that they are taking rocket fire from south Beirut. This is a lie and simple war propaganda. Hizbullah's rockets have to be fired from the far south because they are short range. No rocket is being fired into Israel from Beirut. Whatever reporter fell for this is uninformed and not doing his or her job.]


Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert conveyed to Lebanon through Italian PM Romano Prodi his conditions for ceasing hostilities against Lebanon. As also reported on CNN they are:

1. The return of two captured Israeli soldiers held by Hizbullah

2. A withdrawal of Hizbullah to the Litani River, 30 mi. or so north of the Israeli border deeper into Lebanon.

3. Cessation of rocket attacks on Israel

It is worth noting that if this is what Israel wants, two of the three could have been gotten without reducing the entire country of Lebanon to rubble. They could have traded 3 Hizbullah members in their custody for the 2 Israeli soldiers. And, if they hadn't gone wild bombing everything in sight it is unlikely Hizbullah would have shelled them on this scale in the first place.

As for the demand that Hizbullah withdraw (presumably this means its paramilitary fighters) to the Litani, that talking point will inspire the profoundest fear in the Lebanese that Israel is essentially attempting to move its border north and make the Litany the new border, thus staking a clear claim on the waters of the river, which Israelis have coveted since 1948. It is a non-starter politically, though whether it can be attained with violence is yet to be seen.



[Ar.] Hasan Nasrallah, the leader of Hizbullah (Hezbollah), gave a televised speech on Sunday explaining his own strategy. He said in an eerily calm and calculating voice that he had aimed his rockets only at military targets, not at Israeli settlements "in Occupied northern Palestine" (i.e. Israel). In contrast, he said, the Israeli military had from the beginning targeted civilians. (In fact, Nasrallah's katyushas are impossible to aim with any precision and in loosing them on Israel, he inevitably killed and wounded civilians; likewise in Haifa. His opening statement is a self-serving lie.)

He complained at length about Israeli airstrikes against civilian targets. He linked hitting the Israeli warship to Israel's airstrikes on Baalbak [where they hit a Husayniyah or Shiite mourning center].

He added,

"We arose to strike at the city of Haifa, and we know the importance and grave significance of this city. Had we targeted with our missiles the chemical and petrochemical factories, an enormous catastrophe would have ensued for the inhabitants of that area. But we deliberately avoided those factories, which were in the sites of our missiles, since we were eager not to push things toward the unknown and were eager that this weapon be a weapon not of revenge but of defense . . . a weapon that would return the crazies in the Olmert government to a modicum of reason and save them from a grandiosity complex, or, I might say, the stupidity whereby they distinguish themselves . . . But because we set those targets aside this time does not mean that we we always adopt this position. At any point where we consider that we are involved in defending our nation and our people and our families, we will resort to all means we can in pursuit of that defense . . . "
(-my translation)

He also denied that there were any Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Lebanon or that he had had Iranian help. He said people were always putting down the Arabs and saying they could not accomplish anything, but, he said, look at the Israeli warship in flames. That was an Arab accomplishment.

Uh, wouldn't an Arab accomplishment be more like, oh, inventing something or building up something nice? Destroying things and killing people is not an accomplishment.

I watched in horror as this maniacal speech unfolded in which Nasrallah actually threatened the Israelis with releasing chemical gas from local factories on civilians in Haifa. Despite fighting them for all those years, he clearly does not understand the Israelis' psyche or the trauma of the Holocaust. A threat like that. The Israelis don't like being caught in a quagmire any more than the next person, which is why Nasrallah could get them to leave southern Lebanon. But his victory appears to have given him megalomania, and he has now gone too far.

Hizbullah's attacks on Israeli civilians are war crimes. The killing of the civilians in Haifa at the train station was a war crime. And threatening to release chemicals from factories on civilian populations is probably a war crime in itself, much less the doing of it.

Obviously, I do not accept that Hizbullah's actions justify the wholesale indiscriminate destruction and slaughter in which the Israelis have been engaged against the Lebanese in general. But they do have every right to defend themselves against Nasrallah and his mad bombers.

Phalange leader Karim Pakradouni says that Israel might well destroy Lebanon, but it cannot destroy Hizbullah. He said that the Israelis are making the same mistake now with regard to the Shiite party as it did in 1982 with regard to trying to destroy Yasser Arafat's PLO. Padradouni said that the Phalangists, who once maintained a significant paramilitary, would not remilitarize and were supporting Lebanese President Emile Lahoud. Lahoud, an ex-general and a Maronite Christian, is pro-Syrian and soft on Hizbullah.

More from the Pope. A Vatican statement said:
"As in the past, the Holy See condemns both the terrorist attacks on the one side and the military reprisals on the other." It stated that Israel's right to self-defence "does not exempt it from respecting the norms of international law, especially as regards the protection of civilian populations."


[PS: See James Wolcott on the conundrum of rightwing US Catholics who don't care for the Pope's even-handedness on this issue.]

Taylor Marsh on Bush's religion and his ineffectual role in the current crisis.

Electronic Lebanon.



Gilbert Achcar on Israel's dual onslaught on Palestine and Lebanon.

A Blog transmitting poetry and impressions from Lebanese.

15 Comments:

At 12:05 PM, Blogger Dr Victorino de la Vega said...

Bushmert doesn’t care about “collateral damages”: someone who enthusiastically destroyed Bagdad, the former capital of an empire stretching from Spain to India, won’t have second thoughts about razing a small Arab city-state with no oil to steal.

The Arab League and its Saudi and Egyptian “pillars” did nothing for Iraq in 2003, even though TeX-Aviv was then exclusively targeting their fellow Sunni Arabs…

Don’t expect the Wahhabi collaborators of Riyadh to lift a finger for Lebanon.

Three days ago, the house of Saud sent a crystal clear message to Bushmert- a man who appreciates “moral clarity” whatever that means:

“The massacre can continue. Please Sahib President, make sure Yahweh’s glorious air force destroys in priority the South, Beirut, and the Beqaa valley. Allah blesses you. Saudi Arabia is your friend. You can always count on us. The Supreme Council of the Riyadh ‘Ulamas is praying day and night for your victory. We love you Mr. President. Allah loves you.”

 
At 12:10 PM, Blogger GD said...

Prof. Cole. Yours... But they do have every right to defend themselves against Nasrallah and his mad bombers.

Euh. Who started bombing who ? And who in the first place occupied South Lebanon for 20 odd years (despite a U.N. resolution demanding an immediate withdrawal) ? And what is Hizb Allah supposed to do whilst the Israeli – a sovereign nation, dixit Bush (one has to wonder what is Lebanon) – are showing "restraint" (sic) by killing civilians and destroying the whole country, turn the other cheek ?

As always in the conflict in the middle-east at the difference of all the others for the west it is never clear cut who is the criminal. The best we can get is both are guilty (the occupier and the victim) and a pathetic call to the occupier to show restraints (translation : kill them all but without the world noticing). Frankly not only disgusting but also the good recipe for future disasters.

Difficult even for a non-muslin (imagine for a Muslim) while looking at Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, etc. (and the undue pressure on Syria and Iran) not to believe that the West – even through its Zionist proxy (at this stage it needs to be stated clearly) – is engaged in a crusade against the arab-muslim world.

As far as Arab accomplishments go, it seems the west is endeavouring to destroy them all one after the other and not to allow – through occupation, wars and proxy corrupt regimes – that region to flourish.

 
At 12:27 PM, Blogger Christiane said...

Obviously, I do not accept that Hizbullah's actions justify the wholesale indiscriminate destruction and slaughter in which the Israelis have been engaged against the Lebanese in general. But they do have every right to defend themselves against Nasrallah and his mad bombers.

This comment shocks me as terribly unbalanced. The Israeli are the ones who started this war and they didn't spare civilians either. In fact they made about 6 times more victims than the Hizbullah; they claimed officially that they would bomb Liban out and pull its economy back 30 to 50 years. As you rightly stated, all this could have been solved by a simple prisonners's exchange. Israel clearly provoqued the actual war escalation. IMO it's impossible that they chose this road without the US Goverment agreement. They can't risk to loose that support and Bush came behind them constantly reasserting that Israel had a right to defend itself; the whole question is how far does this go ? adn whether the US invasion of Iraq the standard to measure self defense ? That was an unmaksed war of aggression and it seesm that Bush and the US is proceeding on the same track there, He has steadily accused Syria and Iran as being behind Hizbullah; to me that sounds as if there is a plan to destabilize the whole ME region and this plan is agreed by Bush and Olmert.

 
At 12:31 PM, Blogger Christiane said...

Addenda to my previous comment :

It's somewhat too easy to say that Israel and the AIPAC are manipulating the US and drawing it in the ME conflict against its interests.

US wants to extend its influence in the whole ME, because of its ressource and its strategical importance. She is acting for her imperialistic interests, not for those of Israel, its the other way around : she is supporting Israel because it serves her interests in the region.

 
At 12:39 PM, Blogger Spin proof said...

Wasn't the assault on Lebanon going to neutralize /destroy/ annihilate Hizbullah?

Now the opening position for the negotiations is to request they kindly move back 30 miles, for a bit of time.

This was not just an Israeli aggression, it was a joint US/Israeli assault using American weapons against a demilitarized country with the full weight of the USA behind it, and openly.

The miscalculation/fantasy, was that the Lebanese people and government would rise up against Hizbullah. Boy-wonder thinks he pacificated [sic] all the Arabs by telephoning Mubarak and the Saudi king to tell them it is all Hizbullah's fault: so there.

I have no idea how the Israeli /US lunatics are going to extricate themselves, but whatever happens, their crime, with the many others before it is carved in granite in the memory of the hundreds of millions of Arabs and Muslims.

 
At 12:43 PM, Blogger John Francis Lee said...

The Israelis don't like being caught in a quagmire any more than the next person...

I have to question this. What can the Israelis' goal be in all of this? They must think that the "final solution" is at hand.

If there is anyone left standing, left alive anywhere in the Middle East after this horrific, shocking, awful onslaught by the Israelis surely their lives, and the lives of their children, will be devoted to revenge against Israel.

 
At 2:48 PM, Blogger Phoenix Woman said...

Check out TAP's Laura Rozen's interview with Mark Perry, here.

Some excerpts:

Mark Perry is co-director of the Conflicts Forum, a Beirut-based nongovernmental organization that has, over the past three years, put former senior American and British policy-makers and intelligence officials in talks with Hezbollah and other militant political Islamic groups in Lebanon. He formerly worked as an adviser to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and as a reporter for Newsday. Perry has recently returned from Beirut and is now in Arlington, Virginia. Laura Rozen interviewed him by telephone Friday about the unfolding crisis in Lebanon and Israel.

So explain what your group, Conflicts Forum, is about and under what auspices you have been having a dialogue with Hezbollah

We have been talking to Hezbollah for three years. [Conflicts Forum] has put together a group of former senior policy-makers to talk to Hezbollah. We did two official, open sessions, in March and July of 2005, and then we did a lot more informal, private sessions. And [my co-director, former MI6 agent] Alistair [Crooke] and I talk to them every time we go to Beirut -- about once a month -- and talk to them on the phone on a weekly basis.


[...]

We’ve been hearing the theory that the timing of Hezbollah’s Tuesday kidnapping of the two Israeli Defense Force soldiers was planned well in advance and with coordination from Tehran or Damascus. Can you speak to that?

Oy vey. There are a lot of people in Washington trying to walk that story back right now, because it’s not true.

Hezbollah and Israel stand along this border every day observing each other through binoculars and waiting for an opportunity to kill each other. They are at war. They have been for 25 years, no one ever declared a cease-fire between them. … They stand on the border every day and just wait for an opportunity. And on Tuesday morning there were two Humvees full of Israeli soldiers, not under observation from the Israeli side, not under covering fire, sitting out there all alone. The Hezbollah militia commander just couldn’t believe it -- so he went and got them.

The Israeli captain in charge of that unit knew he had really screwed up, so he sent an armored personnel carrier to go get them in hot pursuit, and Hezbollah led them right through a minefield.

Now if you’re sitting in Tehran or Damascus or Beirut, and you are part of the terrorist Politburo so to speak, you have a choice. With your head sunk in your hands, thinking "Oh my God," you can either give [the kidnapped soldiers] back and say "Oops, sorry, wrong time" or you can say, "Hey, this is war."

It is absolutely ridiculous to believe that the Hezbollah commander on the ground said Tuesday morning, "Go get two Israeli soldiers, would you please?”


[...]

Some are proposing that the Lebanese government send its army into southern Lebanon. What do you think of that idea?

[said sarcastically] It’s a really great idea. The Lebanese army can’t collect the garbage in Beirut. Neither can the Syrian army. Southern Lebanon is Hezbollah land. … Hezbollah is the second or third most competent military force in the region, after Israel and Iran. It could probably defeat a good sized Egyptian battalion.

[...]

How do you see this playing out?

Some interesting things are going on in Israel, and we ought to take note of it. The first thing, the current prime minister in Israel [Ehud Olmert] is a very capable guy. And he is a realist. … But he isn’t Ariel Sharon. He’s not a warrior. He has a genetic mistrust of the uses of bombs and airplanes to conduct foreign policy.

But when you are attacked you respond, and he did. And he has been very clearly signaling that there are limits here. While Condi Rice and George Bush talk about Syria and Iran, Olmert has taken Syria and Iran off the table, put them back on, and then taken them back off.

When Hezbollah attacked Haifa Thursday, first Hezbollah said, “We didn’t do it.” Then they said, “We didn’t target Haifa.” No one picked up on it. Here’s what they meant to say: “We understand hitting Haifia is a major escalation, and we didn’t mean to do that.”…

Olmert responded, “You get Haifa, we’ll take down Beirut,” and he went after Beirut. So far as I can tell, since then, Haifa has been off limits.

Now so far as I can tell, there are rules here. And the rules are, you take down our major cities and we’ll make life very uncomfortable for you. And Olmert put Damascus back on the table as a clear warning. And I think [Syrian president Bashar al-] Assaad probably called Hezbollah -- over which he doesn’t have too much influence -- and said, “Did you hear that signal or not?” And they got it.

So now we’re in a game. … I expect we’ll see an escalation here over the next two days, but what I would expect to find after that is that both sides climb down off the ladder.

 
At 3:29 PM, Blogger Frebnedzo said...

Litani river comments, during the occupation of Lebanon and certainly now are sheer fantasy. That doesn't mean that the Arab public isn't exposed to that sort of "evil Zionist" propoganda, but you should qualify it as such when you write about it.

Hezbollah, as a member of the Lebanese governemtn committed an act of war and continues to use the most indiscriminant means of warfare whereby, when they are "lucky", they flatten a building or two in Haifa, and if they get really lucky will hit the chemical plants and cause a civilian devestation.

Or maybe I missed your one sentance tut-tut about "Israeli civilians in Haifa passed away after a missle struck their building" that you contrast with "Girl killed by Zionist Likudnik warplanes who intentionally and indiscriminantly leveled her house with 500 lb bombs. How is that going to help the situation?"

I really enjoy your blog, but sometimes your sense of balance is a bit over the top, at least for this Israeli.

 
At 4:02 PM, Blogger Karen Shacham said...

Hey There,

My name is Karen Shacham and I work with CNN Pipeline in Atlanta.

I thought you might be interested to know that breaking news from the Mideast Crisis is LIVE on Pipeline, right now including footage from Israeli TV.

CNN Pipeline is an online, commercial-free multiple live-news feed. It showcases four simultaneous news feeds from around the world and an on-demand function that allows you to select from a variety of news stories.

Please let your members know that they can go to http://www.cnn.com and click on the Pipeline link to watch it *live* and get a two week free trial.

Thanks and have a great day!
Karen

 
At 4:48 PM, Blogger Mr. Millar said...

Professor Cole writes:

"It is worth noting that if this is what Israel wants, two of the three could have been gotten without reducing the entire country of Lebanon to rubble. They could have traded 3 Hizbullah members in their custody for the 2 Israeli soldiers. And, if they hadn't gone wild bombing everything in sight it is unlikely Hizbullah would have shelled them on this scale in the first place."

While I join Professor Cole in my distaste for the escalating violence and think he's right that the Hizbollah bombardment would have been smaller given a more moderate Israeli response, I think he neglects to consider that the Israeli soldiers were captured in a Hizbollah invasion of Israel. Israel had to respond to an extremely aggressive Hizbollah act which came right on the heels of an equally aggressive Hamas kidnapping. What precedent would it set for extremist groups if all they had to do to get their prisoners back was invade Israel and capture some soldiers. Israel was put in an impossible situation both strategically and in regards to their domestic politics (see new prime minister Olmert having to prove that his people can trust him to protect them). The Israeli position is impossible because they have to make absolutely clear through brutal escalation of force that terror will not work against them. However, in doing so Israel breeds contempt among Muslims throughout the Middle East. I agree with professor Cole, but think he has oversimplified the ease with which Israel could have achieved two of their goals.

 
At 6:45 PM, Blogger Dan Lewis said...

It is worth noting that if this is what Israel wants, two of the three could have been gotten without reducing the entire country of Lebanon to rubble. They could have traded 3 Hizbullah members in their custody for the 2 Israeli soldiers. And, if they hadn't gone wild bombing everything in sight it is unlikely Hizbullah would have shelled them on this scale in the first place.

In the last prisoner exchange with Hizbullah in 2004, Israel released hundreds of prisoners in exchange for the remains of three soldiers and one businessman (possibly an intelligence operative).
Google reference

Do you have a reason to put your number on the prisoner exchange so much lower?

The last prisoner exchange involved Israelis captured or killed in 2000, and it took four years to get the exchange ready. That would be plenty of time now for tensions to die down and arrangements to be made for the exchange.

Now that the violence has been taken to the next level by Israel and the rocketeers, would an exchange still do much to decrease tensions? It might rob the Israelis of their original pretext, but Bush's passivity has essentially given them a free hand to accomplish whatever they define their mission to be.

It wouldn't be the first time we let a war in the Middle East go on and on after its original casus belli vanished.

 
At 12:01 AM, Blogger LJansen said...

I don't agree with Juan that the Pope's statement about terrorist attacks and reprisals is evenhanded. As if Israel is just acting in "reprisal." Israel is trying to wipe out the only entity capable of responding to its veritable genocide in Palestine and now Lebanon. It's the same old bias in favor of Israel's "right to defend itself"--all over the world if necessary. Doesn't that sound familiar? Pre-emptive strikes against potential enemies? USreal is accurate and that entity is lead by Bushmert. Long live Palestine and Lebanon.

 
At 7:25 AM, Blogger Mr_dude said...

You forgot to emphasize that these are Lebanese Canadians, as some stations had to clarify after first indicating that 8 Canadians were killed by the Israelies. This is to comfort the blue eyes that it was only brown skins that were fried.

 
At 3:35 AM, Blogger Harcourt Fenton said...

"Obviously, I do not accept that Hizbullah's actions justify the wholesale indiscriminate destruction and slaughter in which the Israelis have been engaged against the Lebanese in general."

Huh?? Israel's attacks are not "indiscriminate". They are targeted against sites and facilities and vehicles utilized by Hezbollah. Israel targeted the tarmac and the gas tanks at the airport; they did not destroy the control tower or the radar tracking systems. They are not intentionally targeting innocent civilians nor are they just throwing bombs up into the air to see where they land. Please be clear that Hezbollah is the one being "indiscriminate" here; their missile attacks alone justify the massiveness of the response. If Israel falls back now without wiping out the threat, how can it justify its withdrawal from security zones in Gaza and Lebanon and the West Bank to its people. Clearly, we have learned that a full withdrawal from Gaza and Lebanon has only strenthened the resolve of Hezbollah and Hamas to kill Jews and remove them from the State of Israel.

 
At 10:28 PM, Blogger Isra123 said...

Ljansen wrote,
"...Pre-emptive strikes against potential enemies..."

Pre-emptive? Potential?
Since Israel pulled out of Lebanon, Hizbulla has been shelling us from time to time.
Their stated goal is to destroy Israel and they acquired more than 11,000(!)rockets and Iranian missiles for this "noble" cause.

This is the SECOND time they crossed our border and kidnapped some soldiers while killing others
(there were several more unsuccessful attempts).

In the previous kidnapping we did a prisoners exchange, and got our soldiers back in coffins
(no clue was given about their condition then also.)

We will end this now.

Hizbullah chooses to hide behind civilians for cold cynical reasons - a war crime, but this time it will not buy them immunity.
If there is a rocket aimed at our cities or even stored in people's home we will destroy it, and the blood will be on Hizballah's hands, according to the international law (check for yourself.)

We do not want civilian victims, but for us our citizen's lives come first.

As for the Lebanese prisoners, I think there are only three.
The most famous is the terrorist Samir Kuntar, google him to find how he killed a 4 year old Israeli girl smashing her head with a rock,after shooting her father dead in front of her.
He will remain in prison until the day he dies and will then burn in hell (he still shows no remorse.)

After six years of putting up with their shooting rocket at us whenever they felt like it, and responding with measured steps, this time we have had enough.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home