Israeli cabinet rejects masive reliance on troops.
The Israeli war with Hizbullah is going badly for the Israelis. Some generals think the problem is too few troops. But the Israeli cabinet rejected that way of thinking, Thursday, sticking to its current mixture of air power and light infantry.
Air strikes in the south will continue.
Bloomberg reports that the the Israeli assault on Lebanon may have much strengthened the hand of Shaikh Hassan Nasrullah.
Mitch Prothero in Salon.com on the myth that Hizbullah hides among civilians.
' Throughout this now 16-day-old war, Israeli planes high above civilian areas make decisions on what to bomb. They send huge bombs capable of killing things for hundreds of meters around their targets, and then blame the inevitable civilian deaths -- the Lebanese government says 600 civilians have been killed so far -- on "terrorists" who callously use the civilian infrastructure for protection.
But this claim is almost always false. My own reporting and that of other journalists reveals that in fact Hezbollah fighters -- as opposed to the much more numerous Hezbollah political members, and the vastly more numerous Hezbollah sympathizers -- avoid civilians. Much smarter and better trained than the PLO and Hamas fighters, they know that if they mingle with civilians, they will sooner or later be betrayed by collaborators -- as so many Palestinian militants have been.
For their part, the Israelis seem to think that if they keep pounding civilians, they'll get some fighters, too. '
A Christian Bishop in Jerusalem would get a better hearing among American Christians than would non-Christian leaders, right? Wrong.
posted by Juan Cole @ 7/28/2006 06:32:00 AM
Click to join Infoco
25 Comments:
According to the news I just heard, Israel has called up 30,000 Reservists. Must be planning a love-in, lots of flower-chains and cries of 'Peace' and 'Love'. Yeah!
The Israeli Cabinet says that the war is not going to be escalated. Perhaps they are giving the troops a nice holiday in Lebanon, on a nice beach somewhere. Is there still a nice beach somewhere?
Then perhaps the Israeli Cabinet is lying and WW3 has begun.
I was just listening this morning on the BBC to an interview with Mayer, the ex-British ambassador to Washington, you know the one who wrote the memoirs about his time in Washington in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. He was interviewed about Blair's visit to Washington. Very good analysis, which showed a high level of competence. One of the things he said, which was slid over and not picked up by the interviewer (pity), was that, although military operations may continue in the war in Lebanon, from a political point of view the war was now definitely lost for Israel.
I agree. Since the Israeli cabinet decided yesterday not to launch a major invasion, it is impossible to see how Israel can achieve their declared objectives of destroying Hizbullah.
This is going to be an earthquake for the Middle East.
Given the fact that Israel's casualties number 19 civilians as of 07/27, and Lebanon's civilian dead number close to 600 (400 + 200 missing presumed dead in rubble of bombed buildings), it is no longer a matter of speculation as to which party is deliberately targeting more civilians...
Israel has threatened that any Lebanese village it deems to be a point of launch for missiles will be "completely destroyed" - that is Collective Punishment a la Genghis Khan... Are 12th Century Mongols now running Israeli war policy?
And when the IDF fights Hizbollah on the turf in South Lebanon it is finding the resistance, now joined by secular Lebanese Shiite militia AMAL, to be dishearteningly strong...
The New York Times says the Arab opinion has turned to supporting Hizbollah... The Christian Science Monitor reports 87% of Lebanese support Hizbollah, including 80% of Christians and 80% of Druze in Lebanon...
This Israeli war is making Hizbollah more popular, and stronger, among the Lebanese, the Arabs and the Muslims...This is Israel's Iraq War moment in Lebanon (unless, of course, you count the Bush War in Iraq to ALSO be Israel's war).
UN official Jan Egeland certainly doesn't agree that HA doesn't hide among civilians. Al-jazeera quoted him as calling HA fighters cowardly etc. etc.
Also, hiding behind civilians is not the same as making one's presence known to them. HA doesn't have military bases and are absolutely encamped and firing rockets from populated areas such as Bint Jbael. All the author of this article asserts is that during peacetime civilians didn't know who was and who was not an HA soldier. Unlike Egeland, he is not in Lebanon know and can make no claim about HA's present tactics.
Bishop Riah H. Abu El-Assal, Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem, is a bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States which is afflicted with its own branch of the Israel lobby -- more here.
In the last few days we verified some disturbing facts about the background to the current conflict. the below text from a press release we sent out today is a little long, but i think absolutely essential to understand the dynamics of what's unfolding in the middle east.
SHIN BET VETOED SECRET ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN PEACE AGREEMENT
Israeli and Palestinian Sources Concur: Israel Made War Inevitable
The Omega Institute (OI), which works closely with the Institute for Policy Research for Development (IPRD), has learned from Israeli and Palestinian sources that just prior to the current crisis, senior Hamas leaders were in active dialogue with Israeli religious leaders in a round of bilateral peace negotiations. Israeli negotiators included Rabbi Menachem Froman, former deputy leader and co-founder of the Israeli Settler movement Gush Khatif; Rabbi David Bigman, head of the liberal religious Kibbutz movement Yeshiva at Ma’ale Gilboa; and Yitzhak Frankenthal, founder of the Arik Institute. Ongoing negotiations had resulted in a breakthrough peace “understanding”, which was to be announced at a press conference in Jerusalem to mark the launching of an extraordinary peace initiative. Israeli Prime Minister Olmert had been briefed extensively about the initiative by Frankenthal. Also due to attend the conference were Khaled Abu Arafa, the Palestinian Cabinet Minister for Jerusalem, Sheikh Muhamed Abu Tir, senior Hamas Member of the Palestinian Parliament, and other senior Palestinian delegates.
The meeting was to announce a joint Israeli-Palestinian call for the release of Corporal Gilad Shalit who had been abducted by Hamas in Gaza, along with proposals for the beginning of the release of all Palestinian prisoners. These measures were to precipitate unprecedented new peace negotiations on a framework peace agreement, drawn on the 1967 borders. The presence of Palestinian Cabinet Officers and senior Israeli religious leaders in contact with the Prime Minster was to underline the seriousness of this peace proposal on both sides.
Just hours before the meeting was due to start, the Israeli Shin Bet internal Security Service arrested Abu Tir and Abu Arafa and warned them not to attend the meeting, under threats of detention. The meeting, which offered a major opportunity to obtain Shalit’s release and launch a new framework for peace, was thrown into disarray. The next day, the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) invaded Gaza, and the day after both Abu Tir and Abu Arafa were abducted by Israeli forces, along with a third of the Palestinian Cabinet, provoking a predictable escalation of violence.
"The Israeli war with Hizbullah is going badly for the Israelis. Some generals think the problem is too few troops. But the Israeli cabinet rejected that way of thinking, Thursday, sticking to its current mixture of air power and light infantry."
They should pay attention to Mr. Alan "Israeli lives are more important than Lebanese lives" Dershowitz. He has explained why the war is going badly. In case anyone missed the point, I'll summarize.
Deshowitz has stated (correctly, trumpets please) that Israeli lives are more important to Israelis than Lebanese lives are to Israelis. His mistake was in thinking that anyone but Israelis cared.
Apparently, Hizbollah soldiers, for that is what they are, also think that Israeli lives are more important to Israelis than Lebanese lives are to Isrealis, and they have committed their manpower to making Israelis soldiers suffer casualties as quickly as possible.
If news reports can be believed, the kill ratio is heavily in favor of the Israelis, but as Hizbollah understands, the casualty acceptance ratio is heavily in favor of Hizbollah.
It might appear that Hizbollah as no regard for their own lives. I hope that something else is going on, that Hizbollah understands the sacrifice of its own troops leads to a faster resolution in their own favor, leading to overall fewer casualties on both sides.
So, in effect, although Israel has the greater fear for loss of its troops, Hizbollah is actually doing what needs to be done to preserve Israeli lives. Irony is a lovely thing.
All this leads to something I would like to call the Dershowitz Doctrine. It goes like this.
We Americans loved Israel and we want to see Israel protected from its enemies.
From time to time, Israel becomes Israel's worst enemy. This occurs when they start to believe too much of their own 'light unto nations' garbage.
An aside: For all his barbarism, I never came to despise Ariel Sharon because I believe he did only what was necessary to gain certain advantages for his people. I believe he did not hate Arabs, only intended to beat them. I do not believe the same can be said for Olmert or Netanyahu. I believe they hate Arabs as 'lesser humans.'
Back to the 'Dershowitz Doctrine.'
When Israel becomes its own worst enemy, it is our duty as Israel and Israeli loving Americans to administer some tough love to the 'light unto nations.' This cannot be done by witholding funds or arnaments. It cannot be done by pulling Bolton out of the UN and replacing him with Cindy Sheehan. It cannot be done by sending Condi Rice to bitch slap Olmert because, apparently, he likes it. No, no, no, it cannot be done in any fashion where the 'light unto nations' sheds its inspiring luminescence.
Nay, verily, it can be done only by utilitzing the 'Dershowitz Principle' where each lost Israeli yields life yields enormous consequences.
My humble suggestion, and I offer this with the highest sincerity, is that we find a way to smuggle certain weapons into the hands of those who might use them to Israel's advantage. I'm talking Hizbollah.
My hope is that certain administration officials, such as Vice President Richard Cheney, will see the logic in this. Sometimes you just have to shoot your best friend in the face.
See, if we let Hizbollah have a precision guided weapon or two, and they use it to take out a tank or even a fighter jet, just one or two at a time, then the Israelis will quickly declare victory and leave Lebanon.
Perhaps they can be persuaded to attack Bolivia or Paraguay. (Or was it Uruguay. I forget. Ask Douglas Feith, it was his idea.)
By letting Hizbollah do our dirty work for us, it's probably wise to contract this out to Blackwater, they have so much discipline, we maintain plausible deniability.
Not that Bush needs anymore plausiblity, deniabilitismishly speaking. When he says, "I did not know that," we believe him. We really, really believe him. I digress.
The Dershowitz Doctrine, arming Hizbollah one effective weapon at a time, but only to keep Israel centered, also has tremendous cost/benefit aspects.
Does one seriously accurate, laser guided missle cost more than rebuilding Haifa, or even rebuilding 5% of Lebanon (which is all we would do)?
Nay, verily, it does not.
Sometimes you just have to bitch slap your best friend, and it is long past time to do that to^H^H for Israel.
Airplanes do not make targeting decisions. Neither do their pilots. Targeting decisions are usually made by headquarters. In the case of an armored or infantry operation the ground forces may directly request close air support from above. Otherwise it's the generals with the intelligence and the maps. Sometimes pilots are told to go after "Targets of opportunity" -- trucks on a certain road, for example. But nobody these days wastes expensive sorties on trying to hit "Somewhere in the city".
I read in Har'retz that this scenario has been war-gamed extensively by the Israelis and they come out the loser in every scenario but one, and that one depends on Syrian involvment -- perhaps a return of Golan Heights or a return to Lebanon in exchange for their support in stopping Hezbolah ops. The Bush Administration, however, seems to be discouraging movement in that direction.
PS: you seem to be missing words in this sentence: "Bloomberg reports that the the Israeli assault on Lebanon may have [DONE?] much strengthen the hand of Shaikh Hassan Nasrullah."
The BBC today, amid reports of Tony Blair flying to DC to plead with Bush about a ceasefire and Chirac urging immediate UN action calling for a ceasefire, reported the impact that fundamentalist Christianity has upon current US policy. This branch of Christianity views Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and even other Protestant sects as apostate. These Tribulationists believe that we are in the End Times and that Christians owe a biblical obligation to support the Jews in establishing a Greater Israel, establishing the Third Temple and bringing all Jews home again.
The point of this is to hasten Armageddon in which the Jews will either be all killed or converted.
The BBC was very specific that it appears that our current foreign policy is based on literal interpretations of New Testament texts such as Revelations that view these books as prophetic and referring specifically to current events.
Be very afraid.....
I fear that this reflects the syndrome that we must let ethnics in the US fight all battles relevent to their homeland and that "unrelated" US citizens should not presume to intrude.
Up to a point this might be tolerable, but the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cries out for citizens of all ethnicities to get involved, because everyone's sons are being killed in our military and everyone is suffering from the terrorism consequent on not solving this problem.
All citizens must become hardened against being called anti-semitic. Personnally I have been reassured by several Jews who have thanked me for my "evenhanded" positions. So it may not be as bad as some fear to face the problem in a straightforward way.
Myth about Hizbullah hiding among civilians:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/28/world/middleeast/28refugees.html
Juan,
With all due respect, whether the war is going well or poorly matters little when the war has been defined by the Israeli defense minister as "a war of no choice."
I also find it unfortunate that the world views the capture of two Israeli soldiers and the campaign launched by Israel on two ends of a scale, when you and I both know that there is so much else going on to account for "the sixth war" as al-Jazeera is calling it.
I do believe that Hizballah will emerge weakened from this conflict, once the dust has settled and the Lebanese are less intimidated by Israeli bombardment and Hizballah posturing.
Hope all is well,
Nadav Samin
i am both deeply moved and a little disturbed by bishop riah's letter. in it, he explicitly and strongly identifies with the arab population, repeatedly using the pronoun "we". in the opening sentence he explicitly identifies israel as a "predator."
i share most of the bishop's sentiments and am moved by his generous and brave heart, but i find his polarization (we, they) unhelpful. there's a lot of history behind and around the state of israel, which cannot be by-passed with the simple label of israelis (jews?) as predators. i dunno. i am a christian, and i bleed for the arab population in the palestine and lebanon. but israel is not simply a predator. i would expect a more compassionate, understanding, nuanced view from a bishop, however frustrated and pained. painting israel as the predator is rash and dangerous.
RE: article about the 'myth' about HZ hiding among civilians
No myth to me. Israel is targeting civilians, HZ is targeting civilians and HZ is fighting from civilian positions.
And the refugees seem to be saying 'a pox on both their houses'
no good guys here....
but only the stronger group can stop this ---
to Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed,
I don't know what your sources do, but the notion that there was going to any serious discussion of a peace agreement based on the 1967 borders is ridiculous. Whatever the shin bet might think about it, never in a million years would the Israeli public accept such a deal. Therefore while it may be true that SB did make those arrest, to say that a breakthrough based on 67 borders was on the way is a bit hard to believe.
I am an Israeli living through my first real 'war', and moved here in the great days where a New Middle East looked possible ('91). I believed in that possibility. As the peace project fell apart I have probably agreed with many of you at the badness of Israels behavior, and Israels (partial) responsibiliity for failure of the peace process. Nonetheless, there is always some hope that it can be changed (Olmert was elected on a policy of withdrawal, perhaps not the withdrawal some of you want, but its a start).
But I can't do "nuance" vis-a-vis the war with Hizballah. It basically comes down to the feeling that all Israelis have that Israel doesn't have the luxury of losing the wars it gets into.
I ask you, will the Middle East be a better place with a Hizballah victory? Will Lebanon be a better place? Will an emboldened Iran be more likely to be a placated good neighbor or will it be more likely to "wipe Israel off the map" (a quote that has been used in Al-Jazeera and Lebanon Daily Star English articles even if Professor Cole does not believe in that translation).
I belive that an Israeli defeat against Hizballah will lead to a bigger war, as Hizballah IS aat some level a proxy for Iran. This WILL turn the region into a mess as Iran will turn on the Shiite spigot in Iraq and the neocons will sense their big chance to march on Tehran (or enjoy the Rapture, whichever comes first).
So I have to hope for Israeli victory. And I have to hope for a decisive victory, because I see no option that does not leave the status quo unsolved and the status quo will invariably lead to this situation again.
Such a victory will include killing lots of Hizballah. There will no doubt be quite a few Lebanese civilians and UN observers caught up in it as well.
I don't believe those things are intentional atrocities by evil Zionists.
I do believe that Israel DOES value Israeli lives an infinite amount more than those of Hizballah members, or any other non-Israeli.
Countries that have "won" a war has convinced the other side that they were willing to reach the other countries price for defeat first, regardless of the balance.
For the US in Viet Nam, 60,000 soldiers was too high a price to pay and for the North Viet Namese, a few million soldiers and civilains was not too high a price. Winning WWII took the fire-bombing of Dresden and the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima to exceed the price of the Allies enemys.
Hizballah will set a very high price for their defeat and Israel must meet it.
The indifference of Christian Zionists to their coreligionists in Palestine (and now Lebanon) is greatly distressing. Particularly, since the ultra-Zionist Israeli policies pushed by Sharon's Likud in past years greatly precipitated the exodus (no pun intended) of Arab Christians from the ME.
Patrick Buchanan noted this week that Lebanon is Israel's Vietnam, with all the terrible connotations that carries. Israel has chosen an air war rather than a ground war, and that means, as Buchanan noted, that she has lost because she cannot defeat Hizballah from the air. If the terror group survives, then it wins. Meanwhile, Israel rains destruction down on innocent civilians and the institutions of the Lebanese government that the US the just recently nurtured into office. A ground war, of course, would only exponentially increase the suffering of civilians.
To quote Fouche, Israel's war against Lebanon "is worse than a crime, it is a mistake." Israel has turned Hizballah and Nasrallah into genuince "Arabian Knights" against Zionism. The US' Arab allies are humiliated and forced to distance themselves from us. Even the Zionist New Republic's Peter Beinart is forced to castigate Democratic "leaders" for demagoging against Iraqi PM Maliki's criticism of Israel.
The only choice now is that identified by Buchanan. Since Israel will not send in ground troops that might bring a quick end to the war (and that unlikely), the US must immediately move for a total ceasefire, as our interests are in increasing danger. That ceasefire must be achieved using our Arab allies, Mubarak, King Hussein, the Saudis, in order to restore their prestige and establish that only they can deliver peace with Israel. Egypt, Jordan and SA must be the conduits to Syria which will then be the conduits to Iran and Hizballah.
Absent successful execution of a ceasefire by these "moderate" Arab states, the victor of this conflict will be Hizballah, regardless of its outcome. Having now elevated Nasrallah by the failure of its campaign to this point, Israel can only hope to neutralize Hizballah through one of two ways: (1) press its campaign to a ground war and hope it can humiliate Hizballah in the manner it did the Arab armies in the past (a dubious propsect that would unquestionably come at a horrendous cost in civilian life and treasure); or (2) cut a deal that gives a real success to moderate Arab leaders over Nasrallah. That would mean a complete withdrawal of Israel from South Lebanon and commitment not to violate Lebanese airspace. Anything less will leave Israel immersed in perpetual conflict and empower the terrorist forces that truly hate it.
Of course, what causes me as much anger against the President and the Democrats is knowing that my tax dollars have (1) paid for the weapons Israel is using to rain destruction on Lebanon and enrage the Arab world against the US; and (2) that my tax dollars (billions of them) will clean up Israel's mess. Sometime I would appreciate it if they would put an "American desk" at the State Department.
Dr. Cole may have this Haaretz column linked already, but it speaks well to diversity of opinion that actually exists in Israel--a diversity not permitted here--as well as giving a clear view of just what Israel is doing to Lebanon.
"Morality is not on our side" http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/742257.html
The Israeli propaganda machine sets up a program that alerts you whenever you are needed to vote for Israel on internet polls. They also tell you how to vote.
This is the website:
http://www.giyus.org/
Do they need so bad to cover up all those civilians killed in Lebanon?? This is outrageous!
The enemy is hiding among the civilians....
Aren’t such claims a common vernacular among tyrants and genocidal maniacs?
dear frebnedzo,
i don't know what you mean by a hezbollah 'victory.' unless the world becomes a very different place in a hurry, no such thing is in the cards. the only question, pace the bush adminstration, is how soon people will stop killing people. no one is going to win here. no stability of any kind is going to be reached in the foreseeble future. we need to stop the humanitarian catastrophe asap.
Please correct "masive" in the first sentence.
Thanks for the ever-insightful window on fact-based reality, Juan.
Following a BBC report, Alaistair wrote :
I agree. Since the Israeli cabinet decided yesterday not to launch a major invasion, it is impossible to see how Israel can achieve their declared objectives of destroying Hizbullah
I think that their biggest victory is that US/Israel have managed to draw Chirac in their boat on the theme of disarming the Hezbullah. What the EU is asking is an international force who will be in charge of the application of UN resolution 1955 (or whatever number that is, concerning exactly the disarming of the Hezbullah). Without the Israelian attack there won't have been any move to achieve this resolution. On this chapter France, Germany and the US are united, although given their public opinions the EU government can't show it too clearly. Also the EU think that Israel is going to far in terms of destruction and harm to civilians, but that is only a question of degree, there is no disagreement on the issue itself.
With regard to Christiane's comment on the EU position:
The main point of my comment above was to transmit to everybody the view of a very senior and objective retired British diplomat who took a large part in the planning for the invasion of Iraq.
It is worth commenting on the position of Chirac and France. Given the past history of France with Lebanon, it is very difficult for France to refuse to take part in an intervention force. Nearly all the contacts of France with Lebanon are with the Maronites and other Christian communities, the sector of the population who are most opposed to Hizbullah's actions. It is not difficult to imagine many Lebanese in Paris telling the French government how awful Hizbullah is. Expatriates (in this case not exiles) are notorious for being more extreme than people in the country itself. At the same time, all the messages coming out of the Foreign Ministry (les Affaires Etrangeres), have been that the near veto on the (failed) Security Council resolution for the invasion of Iraq was enough for them and they do not want to confront the United States again. It would take some time for a new policy with regard to the US to develop. Nevertheless, Chirac (although you may say he is now nearly out of power) has been notoriously sensitive to Arab opinion.
It is evident that if a multi-national intervention force is sent to Lebanon, the intention of the United States and Israel is that it should simply replace Israeli troops to carry out the same objectives - disarm Hizbullah, prevent them from bombarding Israel, and conceivably line the Lebanese-Syrian border to prevent rearmament of Hizbullah.
The question is, if Hizbullah were to decide to fight on, and resist this multi-national force as though it were Israeli, would the French troops fight? My feeling is no, they would not, they will let the fighting flow around them. Too many other foreign policy objectives would be put in danger if they did. But they can't refuse to take part.
This is one of the reasons that I think the fighting will stagnate, and Israeli objectives will not be achieved.
Post a Comment
<< Home