Israel Kills 38 Civilians on Eve of Ceasefire
Hersh: Israeli Campaign Dress Rehearsal for War on Iran
250 Hizbullah Rockets Slam into northern Israel, Kill 1
Seymour Hersh says that sources knowledgeable about Israeli and Bush administration planning maintain that the Israelis laid out last spring in Washington and gained administration support for a plan for a bombing campaign against Hizbullah in Lebanon based on the Kosovo campaign. Moreover, the exercise was intended as a demonstration project and a preparation for a Bush administration war on Iran. The campaign against Hezbollah would have two major benefits. It would remove Hezbollah's rocket capability, which was a form of deterrence against Israeli or American bombing of Iran. And, what Israel learned from attacking Hezbollah would be useful in formulating tactics in the American assault on Iran.
Let me say this loud and clear, drawing on Pat Lang. Any US attack on Iran could well lead to the US and British troops in Iraq being cut off from fuel and massacred by enraged Shiites. Shiite irregulars could easily engage in pipeline and fuel convoy sabotage of the sort deployed by the Sunni guerrillas in the north. Without fuel, US troops would be sitting ducks for rocket and mortar attacks that US air power could not hope completely to stop (as the experience of Israel with Hizbullah in Lebanon demonstrates). A pan-Islamic alliance of furious Shiites and Sunni guerrillas might well be the result, spelling the decisive end of Americastan in Iraq. Shiite Iraqis are already at the boiling point over Israel's assault on their coreligionists in Lebanon. An attack on Iran could well push them over the edge. People like Cheney and Bush don't understand people's movements or how they can win. They don't understand the Islamic revolution in Iran of 1978-79. They don't understand that they are playing George III in the eyes of most Middle Eastern Muslims, and that lots of people want to play George Washington.
By the way, Hersh maintains that US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has at least some inkling of all this, which is one reason he hasn't been enthusiastically cheering on the Lebanon war.
I had this second hand, from someone who knows someone in the know. It confirms Hersh's account:
' Rumsfeld is very uneasy with the unquestioning support for the Israeli offensive because of the impact it will have on American troops in Iraq. His point to Bush and Rice is that Iraq's Shias will not stand by while their Lebanese Shia brothers are destroyed. He has pointed out to them -- to Rice and Bush -- that there are close family and political ties between the Moqtada al-Sadr family and the Musa al-Sadr and the close friendship between Maliki and Nawaf Moussawi, the foreign minister of Hezbollah. That Hezbollah worked to free the Dawa 17 at one point in its history was a surprise to Rice, as well as to Bush. With American casualties mounting in Iraq Rumsfeld does not believe we need to make enemies of the Shia. The demonstration of last week shook him -- and American commanders. '
If Hersh and my correspondent are correct, we are beginning to see an "India Office" effect in the US government. When Britain ruled India, the British Government of India often developed its own foreign policy and priorities that were not the same as London's Foreign Office. Rumsfeld does have Iraq interests for which he has to speak, however much he hates Hizbullah and Iran.
As for the Israelis, the Kosovo analogy is plausible, since Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has instanced Kosovo as justification for his actions. The irony is that the Israelis misunderstood Kosovo. Hizbullah is like the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), not like Milosevic's Serbs. If Wesley Clarke had bombed the KLA, the Kosovo war would have failed completely. More ironically, in its decision to expel the Shiite population from the area of Lebanon south of the Litani river, and to make nearly 1 million Lebanese homeless, the Israelis acted more like Milosevic himself than like NATO.
Hersh reports that Bush and the Israelis expected the rest of the Lebanese to turn on Hezbollah and police them for Tel Aviv and Washington, and they expected Sunni Arab powers like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan to help with curbing Hizbullah. Although Saudia condemned Hizbullah adventurism early on, the Saudis and others soon began calling for an immediate ceasefire once they saw the damage the Israelis were doing to the Lebanese infrastructure.
The Israeli attacks on the Lebanese infrastructure, and the disregard for civilian life in the urban bombing campaigns, were the biggest miscalculations of the war, in my view. They clearly would have the effect of weakening the Siniora government and of strengthening Hizbullah politically. They also had the effect of uniting Lebanese public opinion against Israel. In short, they were stupid strategy from a political point of view, and weren't of much use militarily, either, as Sunday's barrage of 250 rockets against Israeli cities by a still-defiant Hizbullah demonstrated.
In the end, Hizbullah is unbowed, and there is no early prospect of its being weakened. Although the Lebanese government is demanding that it disarm, no one can understand how they think they could make it, given the weakness of their army (can they do something Israel cannot?)
Israel is launching an immediate diplomatic blitz aimed at ensuring[Ar.] that Hizbullah is not allowed to re-arm. Since the re-arming would be done by Iran and Syria, who are not open to Israeli blandishments, it is hard to see how this will work very well. Nor is it clear that Hizbullah's armaments have been exhausted to begin with.
Al-Hayat draws on Defense News and other sources to conclude that Israel's carefully nurtured image of military invulnerability has been badly tarnished, with perhaps important downstream effects. This article suggests that the key lesson of the Lebanon War was that anti-tank weapons are back after two decades of innefectuality. The Russian RPG-29, in use by the Russian army since 1989, and the Iranian Tufan and Ra'd- T, all in Hizbullah's arsenal, succeeded in destroying a fair number of Merkava tanks and Israeli armored troop transports. (RPG = rocket propelled grenade). In contrast, Iraqi guerrillas fighting US Abrams tanks only had RPG-7s, and their shells just bounced off the tanks. The RPG-7s were largely useless when wielded by Palestinians against Israeli Merkava tanks, as well.
Hizbullah's successful use of a Chinese-designed guided missile to hit an Israeli ship must also give pause to anyone thinking of deploying the Fifth Fleet against Iran in the Persian Gulf (al-Hayat also says that there are problems with US minesweeping capability in the Gulf.)
Anthony D'Amato, a law professor at Northwestern U. analyzes the UN Security Council ceasefire resolution.
Naharnet/ AFP write:
' A U.N.-brokered ceasefire to end the month-old conflict in Lebanon came into force on Monday but intense fighting continued right up to the deadline for the guns to fall silent. In the first reaction to the truce, Israel Army Radio said the Jewish state's naval and air blockade will remain in effect for the present, Haaretz reported.
Israel launched an 11th-hour wave of air strikes on Lebanon and Hizbullah fighters unleashed a barrage of rockets just hours before the agreed "cessation of hostilities" took effect at 8 a.m. Beirut time (0500 GMT).
Israeli forces shelled areas around Tyre and Khiam in the war-battered south of the country, while combat jets flew over Beirut, dropping warning leaflets, and bombarded the ancient eastern city of Baalbek.
At least 38 Lebanese civilians and four soldiers were killed by Israeli fire Sunday as fighter jets kept up their deadly bombing in Beirut and across the country. Five Israeli soldiers were also killed in action. '
In one of the villages hit, Brital near Baalbak, Israeli planes collapsed 3 buildings and it is feared a lot of civilians were in them. Naharnet continues:
'
In one of the deadliest raids Sunday, at least 15 people were killed, including three children, by Israeli air strikes that hit eight buildings and a mosque in Beirut's southern suburbs, emergency services said . . .
At least eight people were also killed near Baalbek in eastern Lebanon, security officials said. '
The Lebanese state led by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora is using the $800 mn. in aid given it by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to help Shiite refugees from the south who are living in schools and makeshift shelters in Beirut and elsewhere. There is a race, al-Nahar suggests, between the government and Hizbullah for the loyalty and affection of this large displaced population, amounting to hundreds of thousands of persons.
Hizbullah rained 250 rockets down on Israel on Sunday, mostly without hitting much of anything. But they did kill one man (a Palestinian Israeli) and injured 52.
I'm a grizzled old bird by now, having lived through wars and riots and having lost friends to everything from revolution to AIDS. But this story about David Grossman's son being killed in the Lebanon war brought tears to my eyes. Grossman, a writer with a conscience, is a noble man. As a father with a son, I cannot imagine or understand, only share the horror.
Thousands of Americans protested the Lebanon War in Washington over the weekend.

|
19 Comments:
Regarding Hizbullah rearming, I note that the Lebanese paper The Daily Star proposes that Hizbullahs military wing could be incorperated into the Lebanese Army.
Prof Cole: " Although the Lebanese government is demanding that it disarm, no one can understand how they think they could make it, given the weakness of their army "
The deal is to absorb Hizbullah fighters, as Lebanese Army commandos and trainers, together with their weapons.
Lebanon can then acquire better antitank and short range cruise missiles from anywhere, and enlarge the warrens in the south to make it unthinkable for Israel to launch a ground attack ever again.
In short, Hizbullah on steroid.
Well, Grossman is another man who succumbed to Israeli militarism and belief in supremacy, even in calls for peace. I quote from two critiques from the pen of real pro-peace Israelis:
For example, Yitzak Laor wrote:
David Grossman wrote in the Guardian, again on 20 July, as if he were unaware of any bombardment in Lebanon: ‘There is no justification for the large-scale violence that Hizbullah unleashed this week, from Lebanese territory, on dozens of peaceful Israeli villages, towns and cities. No country in the world could remain silent and abandon its citizens when its neighbour strikes without any provocation.’ We can bomb, but if they respond they are responsible for both their suffering and ours. And it’s important to remember that ‘our suffering’ is that of poor people in the north who cannot leave their homes easily or quickly. ‘Our suffering’ is not that of the decision-makers or their friends in the media.
And this what Tom Segev had to say:
On Shabbat morning Amos Oz phoned his friend, MK Haim Oron (Meretz), and informed him that the time had come to end the war. He and two other leading Israeli authors, A.B. Yehoshua and David Grossman, wanted to sign a public declaration to that effect...
The three writers worded their ad as though they were working in the legal department of the Foreign Ministry: The aggression of Hezbollah "was carried out inside Israeli territory," they emphasized; Israel's reaction "was in accordance with international legitimization of self-defense in the face of the aggression of an enemy country." Also, the Lebanese casualties were addressed as a legal entity - as "many citizens of the enemy country" - and not as human beings, first and foremost.
As befits a self-respecting government, the three recognize only Lebanon, not Hezbollah. Hezbollah operates "under the aegis of the Lebanese authorities," they wrote, stating: "The Lebanese people has no right to demand that its sovereignty be recognized if it refuses to take full responsibility for all its citizens and all its territory."
It is not clear how the trio discovered that someone had asked the "Lebanese people" whether it wanted to "take full responsibility" for Hezbollah and when exactly it "refused" to do so. But apparently the writers know a great deal: not only that this war had "reasonable and feasible" goals - but that the latter "have already been achieved." Therefore, "there is no justification for causing additional suffering and bloodshed on both sides for goals that are not possible and are not worth such suffering."
Then came the sort of climax that is only possible in truly great literature: "Israel's determination to defend its borders and its citizens aggressively has in our opinion been made sufficiently clear to the people of Lebanon, and therefore there is no need to further increase our pain and theirs." That is how it has always been: From the earliest days of Zionism, it was necessary to make the situation "clear" to the Arabs, since they, as ignorant natives, do not understand it without having it explained to them. And this time we succeeded. And the situation was indeed made clear. And it was worthwhile. And that definitely justifies using an important conjunctive adverb, like that which concludes the argumentation part of the Declaration of Independence: "therefore."
Another casualty is the support of Americans like me who have been broadly supportive of Israel in the past. I am indifferent now to the fate of such people.
I hope that the Lebanese military acquires a robust air defense capability, as well as shore-to-ship missiles, for the day when the Israeli air force comes back.
There seems to be a lot of talk for what various groups in Iraq will do to our soldiers there if Bush decides to bomb this or that other country, too. I'm not sure it's all that relevant. There are several reasons for this.
One, Rumsfeld, the Congress, Democrats, and the American public don't care what happens to our soldiers over there. Sure, there is an exception of a few thousand 'liberal'-ish bloggers, but that's a very tiny minority. Most Americans could care less that our soldiers are raping and killing and still don't even have the proper armour to protect themselves from retribution attacks. Our soldiers don't even have enough bullets with which to shoot Iraqi civilians. I mean, and I'm supposed to believe that someone cares about the fate of our soldiers in Iraq? That's just not living in the reality-based community.
On the Iraqis themselves, it seems to me that most Iraqis have alread decided whether they want to live or die - the answer, clearly, is that they want to live - even if it means they continue to live under the American jackboot. Imagine you're an Iraqi and you were just brutalized by another American raid, or maybe your neighbor was, you still only have two choices:
1) take it (kowtowing)
2) pick up arms against the occupation and likely be killed, eventually, and leave your family to fend for themselves.
Joining the resistance, it seems to me, is a sure death sentence - either for yourself or one or members of your family. Or maybe you're not condeming your family to death - just a life of misery through degradation, prostitution, homelessness, starvation, etc.
Will an attack on Iran really compel a family man (or woman?) to forget about his/her family and actively engage the enemy?
I doubt it. I'm thinking numbers, here. How many of your brothers and sisters in, say, Lebanon or Iran, would have to be murdered before you decided you had to give up your life and most likely the lives of your family - including your sons and daughters? 100? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000? more?
It's not such an easy moral decision. I think the vast majority of men - of whatever affected religious/ethnic affiliation - would join the resistance if their families could be provided for once the men have been killed. So, people don't join the resistance. Can you blame them? To me, the moral choice is clear - do what you can to fight the enemy rhetorically and nonviolently, and try to stay alive for your family - regardless of how many innocent people the American government kills.
The Pentagon has already calculated, using their expert planners and anthropologists and evil versions of Juan Coles and the CIA and informers and other terrorists, just how many murders and how much destruction they can get away with in Iran. There's a fine line they have to dance - they want to foment rebellion in Iran - they want to bring down that government - without spurring on the resistance in Iraq to the tipping point. The resistance will be spurred, of course, and our soldiers will become even more of shooting ducks than they already are - that's a fact - the question is, do they get slaughtered when the U.S. attacks Iran? What's the best way for the U.S. government to bring down the Iranian government? Well, terrorism seems to work wonders - ust look at Iraq - and let's see what happends in Lebanon. Bombing civilians and the civilians infrastructure, terrorism, is a good start to fomenting any revolution. Just sustain the killing and terorrism as long as possible while pumping tens of millions of dollars into anti-Ahmadinejad groups - through the CIA, the IRI, the NED, AID, etc. So, we can expect that. But how much terrorism? For how long will it be implemented?
Will the U.S. be able to take out a few power stations, claiming they were hidden WMD depots or filled with chick peas or something? How many hospitals will they be able to destroy? How many apartment buildings?
The real interesting play, though, is how will Ahmadinejad react? How much destruction will he allow his country to undergo before he retaliates? He'll want to remain in power at the end of the day, of course, and that will require that he plays his cards cool. All the talk about America losing its upper hand and all that is just nonsense - we have the ability to 'erase' (as those good liberals like Atrios likes to say) Iran and any other foe in the region. As the Angry Arab might say, we have enough firepower to make the rubble bounce in Tehran. At the end of the day, the U.S. wants obedience from whatever force controls Iran - if we could get it without making the rubble bounce, we'd do it, period, but Ahmadinejad's been playing it cool so far. Will Ahmadinejad's people save him, the way Chavez's people saved Chavez?
There are all the obvious questions, too. Has Ahmadinejad rallied the troops - upped the nationalism forces - in time for the American onslaught?
Where has the Iranian-people lobby been in the U.S.? I know it's tough to get on tv when you're not for wholesale slaughter, but I would have thought I'd have seen something from them by now. Maybe they really don't understand the explicitly-stated U.S. foreign policy goals of regime change all over the Middle East? Got me.
Should be an interesting fall propaganda campaign, that's for sure. You thought the anti-Arab/Lebanese/Hizzy propaganda was bad - you ain't seen nothin yet.
Hersh reports that Bush and the Israelis expected the rest of the Lebanese to turn on Hezbollah and police them for Tel Aviv and Washington... The Israeli attack ... had the effect of uniting Lebanese public opinion against Israel... In the end, Hizbullah is unbowed, and there is no early prospect of its being weakened. Although the Lebanese government is demanding that it disarm, no one can understand how they think they could make it, given the weakness of their army.
Given all of the above and the fact that the UN Lebanon resolution specifies that there be "no authority other than that of the government of Lebanon" in Lebanon, isn't it likely that Hizbollah will now, with a suitable change of uniform, simply become the Lebanese Army?
They are after all indisputably Lebanese are they not? And their ability to defend Lebanon from aggression from the south is proven and can only be enhanced by its becoming the official Lebanese Army.
If I were a Lebanese I would certainly be clamoring for a protector from the Hun to the south. I would want better missles from wherever they were to be had as well. Until they can threaten Israel with the same kind of destruction it has dealt the Lebanese the Lebanese can never again feel safe in their own country.
You write: "People like Cheney and Bush don't understand people's movements or how they can win." But who won (by hook or crook) the 2000 and 2004 elections? Harris polls affirm the two still command zombie-like loyalty from 30% to 40% of Americans. 44% believe that the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis! The other 60% to 70% are too divided or doubting to impede the W juggernaut. Bush's latest Saturday radio address fused 9/11, Iraq, Israel's war on Lebanon, and the latest London arrests into a single GWOT. The W fedeyeen may ditto this argument all the way to congressional victory this November. A newly frightened public may once again pick whoever promises to wield the biggest stick. "Withdraw" or "we've been wrong" do not seem to be viable campaign slogans. Rove rule #1: stick to the offensive.
So maybe it's good, after all, that Rumsfeld remains on the scene, since only he may grasp that expanding the war to Iran could be a disaster. He is stubborn, a bully, sometimes dead wrong, but no lunatic. Bluster and monumental vanity aside, it's finally sunk into his thick hide that things are in a mess.
Bush's and Rice's inability to understand the Middle East is no surprise any more than their failure to understand that they are George III to some Arab George Washington. In the early 1980s, several Libyan exchange students were at university and there were frequent arguments between them and the campus Republicans on the exact place of Khadaffi in world history. The Libyans described him as a liberator and their country's George Washington. The Republicans would dispute this, pointing out the many sterling qualities of Washington vs Khadaffi as a despot and dictator.
It was noticeable to me as not a single Republican changed his point of view but rather decided that the Libyans had embedded their secret police among the students to ensure there was no regime criticism among the students and the students were afraid to speak out for fear of being called home and executed.
The Palestinians have benefitted from Israel's incursion it seems, as they now know to not waste their time firing RPGs 7s but to try to import RPGs 29s to ensure more bang for their buck. Once they change ordnance, the Israelis may follow the example of US forces in Iraq and stop armored incursions into heavily populated areas where merely being "buttoned up" will no longer guarantee safety.
Prof. Cole:
Thank you for the link to the Haaretz article about Uri Grossman. I had seen a mention of it yesterday in a BBC article, but I did not know about this full-length piece in Haaretz until now.
I have David Grossman's "The Book of Intimate Grammar" on my shelf. I have not read it yet, but now I intend to make reading it a priority.
I have one specific request. I wanted to ask you if you could write something on Informed Comment about the right's use of IDF videos to "prove" that Hezbollah is launching rockets from civilian neighborhoods. Here is one link in particular that was sent to me by a well-known right-wing blogger as "proof" that this is happening. To me, the videos (I've watched them) prove nothing at all; all you see is aerial shots of trucks and houses and little rocket-shaped "things" (for lack of a better word), and we're supposed to take it on faith that these are rockets, and that they are being launched from civilians' homes. Where is the proof? Am I missing something?
Your expertise on this subject (the politics and history of the Middle East) is so vast, and you know much more than I do about the specific mechanics of war in this region: maybe you can shed some light for me, and others like me, on what we're supposed to be seeing in these videos.
I know you have better things to do, but... I'm hoping you will write about this.
Thank you for everything you do to shine a light on a part of the world that is so terribly misunderstood.
Kathy Kattenburg
Liberty Street
I think you misunderstand the analogy to Kosovo. The Kosovo campaign, in the view of the Bush Administration, had demonstrated efficacy of collective punishment, by providing an incentive for a democratically elected government to expel a political party deemed hostile to American interests. The message to the Yugoslav people was: if you continue to support Milosevic we will destroy the civilian infrastructure of your country; but if you expel him, we will spare you. Note that air power was found to be sufficient: ground forces were never needed. The Bush Administration believed that in the same way, the Lebanese could be induced to "crack down" on Hezbollah. Leaving aside the question of how exactly the Lebanese government could remove Hezbollah, it should be noted that Yugoslavia was subjected to a bombing campaign lasting 79 days, while a campaign of this duration against Lebanon could not have been sustained without the removal of Tony Blair from office.
The subsequent use of the Kosovo analogy by the Israeli government was solely to rebut the charge that its bombardment was criminal. (The Numemburg defense: if the Americans did it too, it is not a war crime.)
Not that we need more evidence but I am more than a bit miffed at the latest in stab-in-the-back legends from the extreme right wing.
This has to be the very lamest of the lame, an email I just received...can't they do better?
This just in from another wignut
Here's a link to one of the many exposed photos which had been doctored by Hezbollah to gain world sympathy in their incredibly good propaganda campaign. Of course, it was the New York Times who had to appologise - again!
How about Bush stabbed Israel in the back?
Very Graphic
Qana 2006 - YouTube
Another casualty is the support of Americans like me who have been broadly supportive of Israel in the past. I am indifferent now to the fate of such people.
I wouldn't say that I'm indifferent but I am more willing to question claims of existential threats to Israel's safety. They were never under any real threat from Hezbollah but the level of destruction of the Lebanese infrastructure led me to wonder what Israel was thinking.
Sy Hersh's story answered a few of those questions.
I hope we'll see Prof. Cole post some reactions to the "60 Minutes" interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad. It was pretty much what I had expected: Mike Wallace trying to land a punch (which he never seemed to do) and Ahmadinejad filibustering every question.
I am reminded between this adventure and the other adventure in Iraq, contemplated without full regard of the consequences and based on a theorem in which the theorist has fallen in love with the theorem to the exclusion of "collateral damage" of an eventual devolution to Gordon's situation in Khartoum, in the grip of ideological psychosis, at the mercy of the 19th century 'mahdi'
You wrote: "Israel is launching an immediate diplomatic blitz aimed at ensuringthat Hizbullah is not allowed to re-arm. Since the re-arming would be done by Iran and Syria, who are not open to Israeli blandishments, it is hard to see how this will work very well."
What's wrong with that? 1701 calls for the establishment of a Lebanese state monopoly on the possession of armed force throughout all of the country. All the Israelis are doing is demanding that the UN, which brokered the ceasefire, and the Lebanese government, which accepted it, actually implement it.
Israeli PM Ehud Olmert chided Europeans for being so sensitive about the civilian death toll inflicted by Israeli air strikes in Lebanon:
"European countries attacked Kosovo and killed ten thousand civilians.
Ten thousand! And none of these countries had to suffer before that
from a single rocket.
"I'm not saying it was wrong to intervene in Kosovo. But please:
Don't preach to us about the treatment of civilians."
It leads one to wonder who briefs Olmert, a former Jerusalem mayor, on
the history of events in Kosovo? His riff on Kosovo sounds remarkably
like the late Slobodan Milosevic carrying on in court. And he's also
wrong on all counts, factual as well as legal.
NATO's 1999 air strikes, in three months of much more intense bombing on a
much more populous country, managed to kill barely half as many civilians
as the Israelis have managed to kill in Lebanon in barely three weeks.
Human Rights Watch estimated the total number of civilians killed by NATO air strikes in Serbia and Kosovo in March-June 1999 at ca. 500. The estimated number of civilians killed by Israel's air campaign in Lebanon in just one month over 1000. The number of Israeli civilians killed by Hezbollah rockets was 41.
That estimate of 10,000 total civilian deaths in Kosovo, which originates
with the office of the prosecutor of the UN war crimes tribunal, is not a tally of victims of the NATO bombing. It includes primarily victims of the ethnic cleansing
campaign carried out by Belgrade's army, police and militia, as well as a smaller number of victims of killings carried out by the KLA rebels and their sympathisers.
Olmert is also mistaken in holding "the Europeans" primarily responsible for the 1999 war in Yugoslavia and its civilian casualties. As some may recall, at the time of the 1999 Kosovo war both the Sharon government and much of the Israeli public were sympathetic to the Serbian propaganda argument that Belgrade was merely doing its part to fight the "Muslim menace" in Kosovo and thus deserved Israel's support. Olmert's misguided attempt at finger-pointing must be related to a dim memory of that time. The former Jerusalem mayor conveniently forgets that the 1999 NATO air campaign against Yugoslavia was initiated not by the Europeans, but by the United States -- Israel's patron.
And even the U.S. only very reluctantly came around to supporting air strikes, a full year after Milosevic had begun his crackdown in Kosovo and only after it had become clear in March 1999 that Belgrade's forces had no intention of honoring the terms of the OSCE-supervised armistice agreement and were launching an offensive directed at the Kosovar Albanian population. According to UNHCR, some 260,000 Albanian civilians in Kosovo had already been expelled from their homes by Belgrade's forces by the time the first NATO bomb fell on March 24, 1999. Milosevic then upped the ante, by expelling a total of 800,000 ethnic Albanians from Kosovo in the weeks that followed. It's only thanks to the success of NATO's bombing campaign, forcing the withdrawal of Belgrade's forces, that these hundreds of thousands of refugees were able to return to their homes.
For more on these matters, see the
Milosevic trial public archive and the articles posted on the
Balkan Witness site.
A far more ominous and apt parallel between the events of 1999 in Kosovo and Israel's July-August 2006 war in Lebanon is the number of deliberately displaced civilians -- over 900,000 people terrorized into leaving their homes in Lebanon, and a similar number expelled from Kosovo by Milosevic's forces in 1999. Every country has the right to defend itself. But no one -- not Yugoslavia and not even Israel -- is entitled to do so by illegitimate and disproportionate means.
Did Israel lose the war in Lebanon?
According to WorldNetDaily, no matter what Olmert and Bush say, Israelis lost the war in Lebanon. Actually, this makes lots of sense - the way guerilla wars are fought, if IDF will actually withdraw, Hizbullah certainly will benefit from this politically and ideologically.
Needless to say, this is not what WorldNetDaily's Aaron Klein means. His goal is to blame Olmert for not hitting Hizbullah guerillas hard enough. The reader is supposed to believe that with even more force, Hizbullah could have been destroyed.
Diplomacy as an extension of war - no longer the oposite.
Bush and his entourage is now waging a diplomatic fight to give Irael what it couldn't accomplish by warfare. Lebanon's border with Syria has to be closed or tightly controlled to prevent arms flow to Hebollah. Southern Lebanon is to be controlled by a force whose mission it is to keep the area safe for Israel. Hezbollah is to be completely dissarmed of course.
So in the lulls between wars we try some diplomacy to pick up the loose ends, i.e. missions unaccomplished.
Probably the best example of this is selling Afghanistan to NATO. We went in there to crunsh al Qaeda but instead disbursed it. Then we decided crushing the Taliban (an easier task given their government style physical infrastructure) could be made to look like the same thing. But we didn't crush the Taliban. With diplomatic brilliance we transferred crushing duty to NATO. In a while, we can start calling Afghanistan a full flegged narco state, and blame old Europe for the situation.
No longer
I hope we'll see Prof. Cole post some reactions to the "60 Minutes" interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad. It was pretty much what I had expected: Mike Wallace trying to land a punch (which he never seemed to do) and Ahmadinejad filibustering every question.
There is a bit more nuance to his answers now, since the translation is done by his personal translator, instead of by the propagandic MEMRI.
By the way, Hersh maintains that US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has at least some inkling of all this, which is one reason he hasn't been enthusiastically cheering on the Lebanon war.
Maybe now we can stop mislabeling Rumsfeld as a neocon, since the true ones are still following the plans from "A Clean Break". Where is Wolfowitz and Feith to guide (or prod) Rumsfeld when he needs them?
Post a Comment
<< Home