Ze'ev Schiff

Ha'aretz - In its second Lebanon war, Israel was surprised by Hezbollah's anti-tank weapons and the way they used them. The Israel Defense Forces was similarly surprised on the Egyptian front in the Yom Kippur War. At the time, we knew the Arab armies had Russian-made Sagger anti-tank guided missiles, but we did not understand the significance of the mass deployment of these missiles nor how it would affect the IDF's Armored Corps. On the first night of the war, the IDF lost 150 tanks.

This is what happened in the war against Hezbollah. We knew the organization had advanced anti-tank rockets; the IDF's Military Intelligence even acquired one. We also understood that Hezbollah was positioning anti-tank units; however, we failed to understand the significance of the mass deployment of these weapons.

The result: Anti-tank weapons caused most of the IDF casualties in the war - nearly all the Armored Corps' casualties and many from the infantry units. More infantry soldiers were killed by anti-tank weapons than in hand-to-hand combat. Many of the infantry soldiers who lost their lives because of anti-tank weapons entered houses in the villages; the rockets penetrated the walls, killing them.

[snip]

Four Israeli tanks hit large landmines. Three of the tanks, which lacked underbelly protective armor, lost all 12 crew members. The fourth had underbelly protective armor; of its six crew members, only one died.

Anti-tank missiles hit 46 tanks and 14 other armored vehicles. In all these attacks, the tanks sustained only 15 armor penetrations while the other armored vehicles sustained five, with 20 soldiers killed, 15 of them tank crew members. Another two Armored Corps soldiers, whose bodies were exposed, were killed. In another location, Wadi Salouki, Hezbollah carried out a successful anti-tank ambush, hitting 11 tanks. Missiles penetrated the armor of three tanks; in two of them, seven Armored Corps soldiers were killed. Two of the other tanks were immobilized.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

Dr. Andrew McGregor | August 15

Terrorism Focus (The Jamestown Foundation) - As the world waits to see if the UN-brokered ceasefire in Lebanon holds, the Israeli army will begin assessing its disappointing performance against Hezbollah guerrillas. Among the many aspects to be investigated is the vulnerability of Israel's powerful armored corps to small, hand-held, wire-guided anti-tank weapons. Indeed, Hezbollah's innovative use of anti-tank missiles was the cause of most Israeli casualties and has given the small but powerful weapons a new importance in battlefield tactics. In a recent statement, Hezbollah's armed wing, al-Moqawama al-Islamia (Islamic Resistance), described Israel's main battle-tank as "a toy for the rockets of the resistance" (al-Manar TV, August 11). Hezbollah's anti-tank weapons consist of a variety of wire-guided missiles (usually of Russian design and manufactured and/or supplied by Iran and Syria) and rocket-propelled grenade launchers (RPGs).

The missiles include the European-made Milan, the Russian-designed Metis-M, Sagger AT-3, Spigot AT-4 and the Russian-made Kornet AT-14. The latter is a Syrian supplied missile capable of targeting low-flying helicopters. Iraqi Fedayeen irregulars used the Kornet against U.S. forces in 2003. The most portable versions of these weapons are carried in a fiberglass case with a launching rail attached to the lid.

On July 30, the Israeli army published photos of various anti-tank missiles they claim to have found in a Hezbollah bunker (see: http://www.hnn.co.il/index.php?modul...sk=view;id=967). The weapons include Saggers and TOW missiles. The TOW (Tube-launched, Optically-tracked, Wire-guided) missile is a formidable weapon first produced by the United States in the 1970s. These missiles were of interest as their packing crates were marked 2001, suggesting that these were relatively new additions to Hezbollah's arsenal and not part of the shipment of TOW missiles from Israel to Iran that was part of the Iran-Contra scandal of 1986 (the shelf-life of the TOW is roughly 20 years). On August 6, Israeli Major-General Benny Gantz showed film of BGM-71 TOW and Sagger AT-3 missiles he reported were captured at one of Hezbollah's field headquarters (Haaretz, August 6).

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

Dr. Anthony Cordesman | August 17

CSIS - Transcript of press briefing here (warning pdf).

Working draft here (again, pdf).

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

William S. Lind | August 17

On War - With today’s cease-fire in Lebanon, the second Hezbollah-Israeli War is temporarily in remission. So far, Israel has been beaten.

The magnitude of the defeat is considerable. Israel appears to have lost at every level—strategic, operational and tactical. Nothing she tried worked. Air power failed, as it always does against an enemy who doesn’t have to maneuver operationally, or even move tactically for the most part. The attempts to blockade Lebanon and thus cut off Hezbollah’s resupply failed; her caches proved ample. Most seriously, the ground assault into Lebanon failed. Israel took little ground and paid heavily in casualties for that. More, she cannot hold what she has taken; if she is not forced to withdraw by diplomacy, Hezbollah will push her out, as it did once before. The alternative is a bleeding ulcer that never heals.

But these failures only begin to measure the magnitude of Israel’s defeat. While Hezbollah’s leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, is now an Islamic hero, Olmert has become a boiled brisket in the piranha pool that is Israeli politics. The cease-fire in Lebanon will allow camera crews to broadcast the extent of the destruction to the world, with further damage to Israel’s image. Israel’s “wall” strategy for dealing with the Palestinians has been undone; Hamas rockets can fly over a wall as easily as Hezbollah rockets have flown over Israel’s northern border.

Most importantly, an Islamic Fourth Generation entity, Hezbollah, will now point the way throughout the Arab and larger Islamic world to a future in which Israel can be defeated. That will have vast ramifications, and not for Israel alone. Hundreds of millions of Moslems will believe that the same Fourth Generation war that defeated hated Israel can beat equally-hated America, its “coalitions” and its allied Arab and Moslem regimes. Future events seem more likely to confirm that belief than to undermine it.

[emphasis added - and that's the key part boys and girls; that's Hizbullah's strength and its weakness, that inability to maneuver effectively, that's the crux. ~ JPD]

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

While missiles seem to be getting most of the credit, I doubt that actual landmines were used where they're credited in the article above. Instead, my guess is that these were the same type of remote-controlled roadside bombs which have been the deadliest weapon against coalition forces in Iraq.

Somehow landmines seem like ancient technology now.

how many actual Hezbollah militants were killed by Israeli forces? I have read that Lebanese deaths were somewhere over 1000, with a significant percentage of those being civilian women/children.

"We are grateful to the Israelis for the extra ad work they did for us," a source at a Russian defence factory said.

"This may help us finalise several contracts for the export of small arms."

http://www.india-defence.com/reports/2374

The Russians thank you. Iran thanks you. Hizballah thanks you. Al Qaeda thanks you.

the goal of Israel was not to vanquish its enemy? They had to know Hezbollah was hidden among civilans. What if Israel's goal was training their men for a future conflict against another state, testing equipment and strategies?

What if those behind the war want perpetual conflict because they make huge sums of money selling weapons?

I'd guess whoever sold all those munitions did rather well for themselves.

Watch out after November, when George has nothing left to lose and falls on his sword for the cause.

When I hear people say Hezbollah somehow won, I shake my head. If this had been a boxing match it would have looked as follows. One opponent chasing the other around the ring landing a hundred shots to one while the other did nothing more than make the bell.

Lebanon will have borrow money from the world bank to rebuild. Several weeks before the war ended I heard it said that 80% of all the bridges in Lebanon had been destroyed. Good old Wolfowitz stands, ready and willing to offer a hand.

What a joke.

Call me cynical.

I did inhale.

Every major political issue - Lebanon, Iraq, radicalism - links back to the festering Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Rami G Khouri
Monday August 21, 2006
The Guardian

We have a very simple choice before us in the Middle East: we can get serious about working together to give the people of this region a chance to live normal lives in peace and security; or we can all act silly in the ways of provincial chieftains, as many public figures in Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Israel and the US have done in recent days.
The chances of achieving a region-wide peace in the Middle East are slim to non existent right now, because the key non-Arab players are focusing on the wrong issues. They are trying to manage or eliminate the symptoms of our region's tensions instead of addressing the root causes. Hizbullah and Iran are among the best examples of this.

Israel and the US are obsessed with disarming Hizbullah and confronting Iran. But a quarter of a century ago neither of these issues existed. How Hizbullah and Iran became so problematic is worth recalling. Until 1979 Iran under the Shah was a close ally and friend of the US and Israel, and Hizbullah was not even born. What happened in the three decades from the mid-70s to today? Many things. The most consistent one was that we all allowed the Arab-Israeli conflict to fester unresolved. Its bitterness kept seeping out from its Palestine-Israel core to corrode many other dimensions of the region.
The constant clashes between Israel and Lebanon since the late 1960s derived heavily from the unresolved Palestinian-Israeli conflict that started with the 1948 war. Since Iran's 1979 revolution Islamist revolutionary zeal has found effective expression in its close association with Hizbullah, which Iranian revolutionary guards were instrumental in establishing and training. Tehran's assistance to Hamas today follows a similar pattern. A non-Arab power such as Iran exploits the resentment against Israel and the US throughout the Arab world to make political inroads into Arab regions. If the Arab-Israeli conflict had been resolved decades ago, Iran would not have this opportunity.

MORE

it was Hizbollah that captured Israeli soldiers in Lebanon!
Also that the US and Israel planned this attack earlier and that the capture of Israeli soldiers was the catalyst!
My only statement about settling this conflict: give back the land to the Palestinians that Israel has stolen and work with your neighbours without Bush because he lies and is looking for the Rapture.

_{repressive governments mix administrative clumsiness & inefficiency with authoritarian tendencies.}

14/08/2006
Dr. Radwan Al-Sayyid is a prominent Lebanese intellectual and a professor of Islamic studies at the Lebanese University.

-----

According to prominent British historian Eric Hobsbawm, it is a mistake to ignore history but an even bigger mistake to think that history repeats itself! We have been accustomed to study the history of Islam by focusing on three particular nations: the Arab nations, the Iranian nation and the Turkish nation. Marshall Hodgson, one of the founders of the world history approach at the University of Chicago, wrote a seminal three-volume book, The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World Civilization, in which he divided Islamic civilization into six geo-strategic and geo-cultural realms, in which Arabs appear in one founding geo-strategic and three geo-cultural realms, while the Persians appear in two geo-strategic and three-geo cultural realms. The Turks are solely in three geo-strategic realms and no geo-cultural realms.

I do not wish to discuss the philosophy behind Islamic history or civilization. But, what one gains from both Hobsbawm and Hodgson is that national or self awareness in modern crises plays the most prominent role in the movements of nations. Arabs, Iranians and Turks are linked together but the geo-political clash between Iranians and Turks remains dominant in contemporary history, despite the geo-cultural links between the two nations.

We know from the Shahnama (the Book of Kings) that in pre-history, there were clashes between Iran, the land of the Aryans and Turan, the lank of the Turks. But, whereas Central Asia did not establish great empires before Islam, the Iranians had founded a great empire in the six century BC, when they expanded their territory at the expense of Greece and ancient Turks and Babylonians. They also clashed with the Romans and the Byzantine Empire west of the Euphrates during the Sassanid period (228-640 AD), until the appearance of Islam. When the Arabs conquered both Persian and Turkish lands, the population converted to Islam during the next 4 centuries, but retained their language and character. After the 12th century and until the 19th century, Persian culture remained dominant in the Turkic world whereas the Turks controlled the political domain in the rest of the Islamic east until the 19th century.

What’s the benefit of this historical introduction? At the time when the cultural exchange between Persians and Turks was at its apex, the two nations clashed in the geo-political and geo-strategic realms.

Both nations witnessed, in the 14th and 15th centuries a political awakening based on a self-awareness and military preparedness/mobilization, with the sectarian dimension Sunni vs.

Shiaa added to it in the 16th century, when a Turkic Sunni dynasty, which converted to Shiaa Islam (the Safavid), founded a nation in Iran, at a time when the ottoman dynasty had mobilized Turkic people in Anatolia to fight the remains of the Byzantine empire and later made gains in the Balkans and Europe. The two nations then became neighbors and rivals, until the conflict between the two lessened in intensity when both grew weaker in the 17th century. The Arabs owe this historical division for a modern united Iraq; the British sought to unite the three Ottoman vilayets, in order to become a division between the two and a balance point between the two entities: Turkey and Iran!

If we do not wish to re-ignite the Iranian-Turkish conflict, the Arabs need to effectively prove their presence, in order to establish a balance and safeguard their interests from being exploited by either side.

Throughout the 20th century, each nation built its cultural and national state on the European model. Each underwent a constitutional and reformist and modernist period but the Turks and the Iranians did not fight each other in the 20th century. Both entered into an alliance with the west after the Second World War and remained on the same side during the cold war. As for the Arabs, they suffered, as both sides forgot their presence, due to their long absence from the historical stage. Whereas both the Iranian and Turkish nations succeeded in safeguarding what they considered to be essential national rights, the Arabs failed to unite and build a modern nation (even in Egypt); the crux of their national wound remains the establishment of a Zionist entity in Palestine. Another wound might emerge in Iraq.

Iran broke off from the western alliance with a bang after the Islamic revolution in 1979 and remains, until today, in constant conflict with the west, especially the United States and Western Europe. As for Turkey, it has concentrated on reconciling the national and the (Islamic) cultural realms and has always enjoyed western support, because of its role throughout the ages. The Arabs were divided during the cold war into an Atlantic camp and a Soviet camp. They have since returned to a failed political experiment and continue to suffer from the wound that is Palestine and in recent years Iraq.

King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz visited Turkey last week at a critical time for Arabs, Turks and Iranians alike. The Iranians are trying to disrupt the US’s strategic hegemony and are targeting the balance of powers in the Arab world that the US intervention in Iraq, Syria, Palestine and Lebanon rattled in the first place. As for the Turks, they are suffering from two problems, the Cypriot and the Kurdish questions, and from European objections to their EU membership. They remain the least worried about the present and future. They have successfully reconciled state and religion and their economy is thriving. Their oil-poor nation is rich in water and its Turanic expansion into the Caucus and Central Asia is, once again, taking place.

As for the Arab world, it enjoys a strategic location, from the Atlantic Ocean to the Mediterranean, and it holds the future of the world’s energy and strategic channels in its hands. But, the Arabs suffer from divisions and almost irresolvable problems, in addition to the intrusion of other parties in their lands and interests. Iran is in a state of great “turmoil” since the start of the Islamic revolution. The country claims it is suffering from US sanctions and from an attack on their strategic expanses. On the other hand, their western opponents (and now the Arabs) complain of Iran’s new imperial thinking and from its return to “exporting the revolution” and endangering the security of its neighbors, even Turkey. This is why many Arabs and Europeans believe that Turkey has an important role to play, that of a balancing element in the map of “the New Middle East”.

What is the New Middle East? Shimon Peres was the first to put forward this Israeli concept in the late 1980s. He believed that the age of conflicts ended with the end of the cold war and the era extremist nationalities! He also believed that Israel was the most democratic and developed nation in the Middle East. Therefore, he envisaged a region that would be open and connected to each other by railways, telephone lines and airlines, whose center is Israel. Every nation or region would have a unique role: Turkey would provide water, Gulf countries oil and Arab countries manpower that would train in Israel and return to its country to spread technological development and democracy! At the time, Iran and Iraq were not included in the vision, because of the nature of the ruling regimes in Baghdad and Tehran. The United States, during George W. Bush’s second term in office, has revived Peres’ concept, in war and not in peace, even if the war was meant to bring about peace, democracy and development!

In truth, we are on the verge of a new era and a new Middle East. But, interestingly, it is Iran and Turkey who are molding it and not Israel or the United States. Iran’s aim of taking part in ensuring the security of the region and its equilibrium is legitimate but its methods threaten stability (in the Arab world more than in Israel). The United States fought Saddam Hussein for 15 years until he was toppled. The struggle with Iran will hurt both sides but Iran is set to suffer more. The entry of Turkey through the American door will be to no avail. Turkey was wise and strong when it did not become embroiled in Iraq with the United States, despite the sensitivity of the Kurdish issue, whereas Iran became entangled in Iraq and in Lebanon. At present, trade between Turkey and Iran is worth more than 10 billion dollars and is of a similar value with the Arab world. In order for equilibrium to be reached, an Arab geo-political initiative is necessary, and not just in trade. Saudi Arabia has opened strategic windows of opportunity for the Arabs, in the last two years, with India and China. It is currently engaged in finding new ones. Herein, King Abdullah’s visit to Turkey was economically significant. But, at this stage, political and strategic indications are the most important.

The Iranians and Turks have come forward and showcasing their merchandise. What about the Arabs?

History does not make the present but it doesn’t deny it or imprison it. Turkey used to control the region but never set an example for others to follow; the Arab caliphate remained the ruling model. Iran never held any influence west of the Euphrates, during the Islamic ages, but is now influential beyond Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. In order to reign in the Iranian advance, Turkey has to be present. This requires an Arab presence, as well as an Arab vision and initiative.

Turkey is not showcasing the sultanate model and no one wants it. Its model of a positive relationship to bring about development and democracy and between religion and the state is ambition and attractive. Iran has huge oil capabilities; it is a cohesive country where the state is very strong. But its political and fundamentalist model doesn’t interest anyone, except the supporters of

wilayet-e-faqih (rule by clerics) ... and Hugo Chvez. Will the Arabs, the first founders of the state and the first founders of a healthy relationship between the state and religion, come forward?

Asharq-e.com

-----

Despite what some in the West and Israel think, Nassan Hisrallah just could be establishing respect for borders. His popularity brought the factions together in Lebanon and he's very pragmatic. I believe he could live beside the Jewish population...will Israel and Western powers be smart enough to recognize their time came and passed for the Middle East? He has 'great' potential to be a uniter.

What choice is there...he will not be manipulated by any country--he marches to his own drum. Imagine if Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia came to the conclusion they had to share their wealth with their population? And Iraq cannot survive if there is ongoing sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites.

The United States set the standard after WWII, perhaps now it's the turn of the Arab countries to unite. Previous foes can become new allies. "Uneasy at first, but strengthening with practice with their new found respect for each other."

up, Dave.

Aug 22, 2006

The new creative destruction
By Mark LeVine Asia Times Online

If there is one question one could ask Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah today, it would be this: When did you begin planning for the reconstruction of south Lebanon? Before you kidnapped two Israeli soldiers on July 12, or only after it became clear how much of south Lebanon Israel was willing to destroy to "win" its war against you?

Either way, it was the latest master stroke in a string of decisions that have confounded Israel, the United States and the world at large. Indeed, while critics of the Israeli invasion claim - with increasing evidence - that Israel planned the attack well in advance (even with the support from the administration of US President George W Bush), it now appears that it was Hezbollah

that suckered Israel into a war for which it had perfectly planned each component: the bait - the kidnapping of two soldiers; the military tactics - tunnels, missile barrages and advanced anti-tank weapons; and the post-fighting reconstruction - a large-scale effort that only Hezbollah, and not the feckless Lebanese government, is capable of undertaking.

Call it the new creative destruction; and the "new" Middle East it is creating will be very different than the one dreamed of by Bush administration planners and their allies in Israel.

MORE

Ze'ev Schiff | August 22

Ha'aretz - One of the main conclusions of the war against Hezbollah will be the fact that the fighting abilities of the ground forces deployed by the Israel Defense Forces in Lebanon have been blunted by years of police action in the territories.

Most units, in their training and operations, followed fighting doctrines of police forces and not of standing armies. Hezbollah trains, fights and is equiped as an army, utilizing some of the most advanced anti-tank missiles and other weapons.

The character of the IDF - known for its blitzkrieg methods, encircling movements deep inside enemy territory, and the ability to bring about a quick and decisive conclusion to the fighting - has been spoiled by years of involvement in operations that tied it down, emotionally and politically.

[Comment: Damning if true. ~ JPD]

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

August 21

Ha'aretz - The following is the text of a petition signed by IDF reservists who served in the Spearhead Brigade in Lebanon, sent to Defense Minister Amir Peretz and IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz in protest at the handling of the war by the government and senior military officials:

We, fighters and commanders at the Spearhead [Hod Hachanit] Brigade, were called up to enlist under an emergency mobilization order [Tzav 8] on July 30, 2006. Our attendance was complete in all battalions.

As we were signing on the battle equipment and weapons, we knew that we were signing for much more. We left behind wives and children, girlfriends and families. We put aside our jobs and livelihoods; we were prepared to carry out our mission under the most difficult of conditions, in heat, thirst or hunger.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

The logic of war
By Stephen Zunes

There is increasing evidence that Israel instigated a disastrous war on Lebanon largely at the behest of the United States. The administration of President George W Bush was set on crippling Hezbollah, the radical Shi'ite political movement that maintains a sizable block of seats in the Lebanese parliament.

Taking advantage of the country's democratic opening after the forced departure of Syrian troops last year, Hezbollah defied US efforts to democratize the region on Washington's terms. The populist party's unwillingness to disarm its militia as required by

United Nations resolution - and the inability of the pro-Western Lebanese government to force it to do so - apparently led the Bush administration to push Israel to take military action.

In his May 23 summit with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Bush offered full US support for Israel to attack Lebanon as soon as possible. Seymour Hersh, in the August 21 New Yorker, quotes a Pentagon consultant on the Bush administration's long-standing desire to strike "a preemptive blow against Hezbollah". The consultant said, "It was our intent to have Hezbollah diminished, and now we have someone else doing it."

Israel was a willing partner. Although numerous Israeli press reports indicate that some Israeli officials, including top military officials, are furious at Bush for pushing Olmert into war, the Israeli government had been planning the attack since 2004. According to a July 21 article in the San Francisco Chronicle, Israel had briefed US officials with details of the plans, including PowerPoint presentations, in what the newspaper described as "revealing detail". Political-science professor Gerald Steinberg of Bar-Ilan University told the Chronicle, "Of all of Israel's wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared. In a sense, the preparation began in May 2000, immediately after the Israeli withdrawal."

Despite these preparations, the Bush administration and congressional leaders of both main US parties tried to present the devastating attacks, which took as many as 800 civilian lives, as a spontaneous reaction to Hezbollah's provocative July 12 attack on an Israeli border post and its seizure of two soldiers.

Some reports have indicated that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was less sanguine than Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice or Bush about the proposed Israeli military offensive. Rumsfeld apparently believed that Israel should focus less on bombing and more on ground operations, despite the dramatically higher Israeli casualties that would result. Still, Hersh quotes a former senior intelligence official as saying that Rumsfeld was "delighted that Israel is our stalking horse".

The recent announcement of a shaky ceasefire may represent only a minor speed bump in US plans. After all, the attack on Hezbollah was only the first stage of what the Bush administration apparently hopes will be a joint redrawing of the Middle East map.
On to Iran and Syria?
On July 30, the Jerusalem Post reported that Bush pushed Israel to expand the war beyond Lebanon and attack Syria. Israeli officials apparently found the idea "nuts".

This idea was not exactly secret. In support of the Israeli offensive, the office of the White House press secretary released a list of talking points that included reference to a Los Angeles Times op-ed by Max Boot, senior fellow for national-security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. The article, "It's time to let the Israelis take off the gloves", urges an Israeli attack against Syria. "Israel needs to hit the Assad regime. Hard," argued Boot, referring to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. "If it does, it will be doing Washington's dirty work."

Iran, too, was in the administration's sights. The Israeli attack on Lebanon, according to Hersh, was to "serve as a prelude to a potential American preemptive attack to destroy Iran's nuclear installations". But first, the Bush administration needed to get rid of Hezbollah's capacity to retaliate against Israel in the event of a US strike on Iran, which apparently prompted Hezbollah's buildup of Iranian-supplied missiles in the first place.

Starting this spring, according to Hersh, the White House ordered top planners from the US Air Force to consult with their Israeli counterparts on a war plan against Iran that incorporated an Israeli preemptive strike against Hezbollah. Lieutenant-General Dan Halutz, the chief of staff of the Israeli military and principal architect of the war on Lebanon, worked with US officials on contingency planning for an air war with Iran.

The Bush administration's larger goal apparently has been to form an alliance of pro-Western Sunni Arab dictatorships - primarily Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan - against a growing Shi'ite militancy exemplified by Hezbollah and Iran and, to a lesser extent, post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. Though these Sunni regimes initially spoke out against Hezbollah's provocative capture of the two Israeli soldiers that prompted the Israeli attacks, popular opposition within these countries to the ferocity of the Israeli assault led them to rally solidly against the US-backed war on Lebanon.

In Israel's interest?
In the years prior to Israel's July 12 bombing of Lebanese cities, Hezbollah had become less and less of a threat. It had not killed any Israeli civilians for more than a decade (with the exception of one accidental fatality in 2003 caused by an anti-aircraft missile fired at an Israeli plane that had violated Lebanese airspace). Investigations by the US Congressional Research Service, the State Department and independent think-tanks failed to identify any major act of terrorism by Hezbollah for more than a dozen years.

Prior to the attack, Hezbollah's militia had dwindled to about 1,000 men under arms - this number tripled after July 12 when reserves were called up - and a national dialogue was going on between Hezbollah and the government of pro-Western Prime Minister Fuad Siniora regarding disarmament. The majority of Lebanese opposed Hezbollah, both its reactionary fundamentalist social agenda as well as its insistence on maintaining an armed presence independent of the country's elected government.

Thanks to the US-backed Israeli attacks on Lebanon's civilian infrastructure, however, support for Hezbollah, according to polls, has grown to more than 80%, even within the Sunni Muslim and Christian communities.

Even Richard Armitage, a leading hawk and deputy secretary of state under Bush during his first term, noted, "The only thing that the bombing has achieved so far is to unite the population against the Israelis."

Despite US encouragement that Israel continue the war, Israel's right-wing prime minister has come under increasing criticism at home, with polls from the newspaper Ha'aretz indicating that only 39% of Israelis would support the planned expansion of the ground offensive.

Meretz Party knesset (parliament) member Ran Cohen, writing in the Jerusalem Post, called earlier moves to expand the ground offensive "a wretched decision". Yariv Oppenheimer, general director of Peace Now, which had earlier muted its criticism of the attacks on Lebanon, noted, "The war has spiraled out of control and the government is ignoring the political options available."

Not only have a growing number of Israelis acknowledged that the war has been a disaster for Israel, there is growing recognition of US responsibility for getting them into that mess. A July 23 article in Ha'aretz about an anti-war demonstration in Tel Aviv noted that "this was a distinctly anti-American protest" that included "chants of 'We will not die and kill in the service of the United States,' and slogans condemning President George W Bush."

Members of the US Congress who have unconditionally backed Israel's attacks on Lebanon have responded to constituent outrage by claiming they were simply defending Israel's legitimate interests. In supporting the Bush administration, however, they have defended policies that cynically use Israel to advance the administration's militarist agenda.

Who's anti-Semitic?
One of the more unsettling aspects of the broad support in Washington for the use of Israel as a US proxy in the Middle East is how closely it corresponds to historic anti-Semitism. In past centuries, the ruling elite of European countries would, in return for granting limited religious and cultural autonomy, establish certain individuals in the Jewish community as the visible agents of the oppressive social order, such as tax collectors and moneylenders.
When the population threatened to rise up against the ruling elite, the rulers could then blame the Jews, channeling the wrath of an exploited people against convenient scapegoats. The resulting pogroms and waves of repression took place throughout the Jewish diaspora.

Zionists hoped to break this cycle by creating a Jewish nation-state where Jews would no longer be dependent on the ruling elite of a given country. The tragic irony is that, through the use of Israel to wage proxy war to promote US hegemony in the region, this cycle is being perpetuated on a global scale.

more

One of the more unsettling aspects of the broad support in Washington for the use of Israel as a US proxy in the Middle East is how closely it corresponds to historic anti-Semitism. In past centuries, the ruling elite of European countries would, in return for granting limited religious and cultural autonomy, establish certain individuals in the Jewish community as the visible agents of the oppressive social order, such as tax collectors and moneylenders.
When the population threatened to rise up against the ruling elite, the rulers could then blame the Jews, channeling the wrath of an exploited people against convenient scapegoats. The resulting pogroms and waves of repression took place throughout the Jewish diaspora.

Reeks of the way Romans ran the Middle East.

I did inhale.

Ze'ev Schiff

Ha'aretz - A large number of the short-range rockets fired at Israel from southern Lebanon were launched from permanent positions, the Israel Air Force discovered by chance toward the end of the war. The discovery was made after an air strike burned away vegetation, revealing a dug-in Katyusha position on a permanent launch pad. Additional permanent positions were subsequently discovered.

If the tactical intelligence of the Northern Command was unaware of the existence of hundreds of permanent short-range rocket launching positions in South Lebanon, then this is a major intelligence failure. If the Northern Command knew of them and did not pass on detailed information to the air force, then this is a serious failure in the management of the war.

Short-range rockets were one of the biggest problems in Hezbollah's war of attrition against Israeli civilians. The size of these rockets - sometimes small enough to be carried on the back of a donkey, on a motorcycle or by one or two men - made then difficult to pinpoint.

[Comment: Man, that's pretty sophisticated. Thinking during the war, at least as it made it into the open source material was that most firing was from improvised launchers, due to the low signature. If this is the case, it makes it even more likely that that the IDF will take away from this a belief that it is absolutely imperative not to leave Hezbullah free reign to do as it will on the northern border. In their eyes latitude for Hizbullah = prepared battlefield = inevitable pain down the road for the IDF. ~ JPD]

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

Amos Harel

Ha'aretz - Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Dan Halutz is expected to continue to meet with senior IDF officials in various forums this week to discuss failures in the army's pursuit of the war in Lebanon and to present his own position on the decisions made by the General Staff.

Halutz will meet separately with General Staff senior officers and with the commanders of the four divisions that took part in the fighting.

Two meetings are likely to be particularly highly charged: with the commanders of the battalions of the regular army that participated in the war, and with senior reserve officers.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

Yaakov Katz | September 17

The Jerusalem Post - IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz came under harsh criticism on Friday during a meeting with former generals over his personal contribution to what they called the military's failure during the second Lebanon war.

Maj.-Gen. (ret.) Avigdor Ben-Gal told Halutz he had "committed the sin of arrogance" when declaring upon taking up the post of chief of staff a year ago that "the shepherd does not also have to be a sheep to lead the herd," in response to claims that as an IAF commander he could not lead the army.

According to Ben-Gal, a chief of staff from the air force, like Halutz, could not command the IDF, which is comprised mainly of infantry, artillery, and armored forces.

"I don't have anything personal against you," Ben-Gal continued, "But a general from the air force cannot run the military. You are the first and the last chief of staff from the air force."

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.