What’s At Stake In Lebanon And Gaza?
The attacks on Israeli troops by Hamas and Hizbollah are very unlikely to have been co-ordinated but the effect, a multiplier effect, is as though they were. Both operations, were carried out from territory Israel had evacuated, both resulted in the capture of Israeli soldiers and both have been used as the “cassus belli” for a war of punishment by Israel that targets civilians in the hope of fomenting civil war.
- Israel’s reaction to the two events essentially has been the same:
- Rejection of any negotiation or prisoner swap – which both Hamas and Hizbollah have forward as their core demand.
- A “shock and awe” campaign in Gaza and Lebanon targetting civilians in the hope of pressurising the fighters on them to release the captives.
Palestine
Israeli troops re-entered the Gaza Strip killing scores of civilians, destroyed vital infrastructure and isolated Gaza. They also seized and jailed Hamas ministers and parliamentarians from the West Bank. Few can believe that the goal was to achieve the soldiers’ release, given how they behaved one can only conclude that the real motive was to weaken Hamas and, provoke its government’s collapse.
Lebanon
The same modus operandi is more blatantly apparent in Lebanon. Lebanese circumstances are very different to those in Gaza and, from an Israeli standpoint far more threatening. Hamas as a military organisation is best described as “pathetic.” The same cannot be said of Hizbollah. Hizbollah has an arsenal capable of reaching deep inside Israel. For years, Israeli has sought a confrontation in the hope of destroying Hizbollah once and for all. The Islamists’ operation provided the needed cassus belli. So far Israel has:
- Imposed a blockade.
- Targeted Beirut airport.
- Targeted Lebanese harbours.
- Targeted key roads.
- Targeted the country’s infrastructure.
- Targeted fleeing civilians.
At the time of writing Israel has killed at least 400 civilians and forced the displacement of more than half a million civilians. The Israeli objectives in Lebanon are as follows:
- Seizure of control of the water resouces between the Litani and Israel’s border.
- Demolishing Hizbollah’s military capacity.
- Politically weakening Hizbollah by enraging the Lebanese.
- Ideally setting back Lebanese political unity and economic progress by at least one generation.
Hizbollah realising that it is fighting for its life has replied with its own escalation. Rockets have (for the first time ever) hit:
- Haifa.
- Tiberias
- Afula
- Nazareth
Additionally they have successfully attacked Israeli naval assests and caused Israeli military casualties on the ground.
Escalation is in the very nature of this type of war. All three parties see this war in existential terms:
- Israel
- Israel believes that it must stamp out armed Islamic activism.
- Hizbollah
- Hizbollah realises that its existence is at stake. That this is the war Israel has been preparing for six years, and that if it backs down that would be an irrevocable defeat.
- Hamas
- If Hamas feels itself unable to govern, it will choose to go down fighting.
The situation therefore has several intertwined strands:
- An Israeli attempt to bantustanise both Lebanon and Gaza.
- An Israeli attempt to seize desperately needed water resources.
- An Israeli attempt to comprehensively defeat armed Islamic activism in its neighbourhood once and for all and establish a “pax Israelica.”
What can be expected? In summary:
- Don’t expect anyone to back down soon.
- Expect the military conflict to escalate.
markfromireland
Good to hear you’re back, Mark.
Thanks for the succinct summary and connections.
It seems to me that Israel has overplayed it’s hand. It has raised the stakes too soon. It needed to cripple Lebanon’s ability to become a staging post for a Syrian attack on Israel once Israel moves to stage two and attacks Syria. But in destroying Lebanon’s infrastructure and creating havoc generally, they are now seen to be waging total war (i.e. a war of annihilation) against Lebanon. This leaves Hizbollah (as you say) and the Lebanese generally with no option but to fight to the death.
It is a basic blunder to leave your opponent with no way out. Israeli citizens are not in the position of having to fight to the death and so will want their government to withdraw sooner of later. The longer Hizbollah can persevere, the more likely they are to win.
The Israeli government is doing all it can to convince it’s citizens (and the rest of the world) that they are fighting for their lives. But they are not. (Israel is threatened economically not militarily.) If the citizens come to realise en masse that this is not so then their own government will want to escalate things until the citizens are, in fact, now fighting for their lives.
So I see an attack on Syria as a foregone conclusion. However, it wont be in the manner they wanted. They will still be fighting Hizbollah in Lebanon.
Israel is making an endrun. They were worried that the US was wavering in it’s determination to go forward with the PNAC plan and so are forcing the issue in typical fashion. Lets hope the less insane figures in the US elite will not go with the escalation and leave Israel to hang out to dry.
Comment by Griffon — July 26, 2006 @ 1:11 am
Yes but with one very important shift in emphasis. The Hizb don’t have to win griffon, they just have to not lose.
Comment by markfromireland — July 26, 2006 @ 1:15 am
Exactly! No arguement there.
A question, Mark.
In the event of US bombing Iran, can the US military provision it’s troops in Northern and Western Iraq overland from Israel?
I’m assuming Turkey will not co-operate for lots of reasons mainly to do with the Kurds and their own fears of US/Israel.
Saudi Arabia doesn’t have the US infrastructure in place that there is in Israel.
And Syria, I would think would be out of the question even if Israel flattened the place. Which just leaves Jordan as a transit country.
Is Jordan viable in this respect?
Comment by Griffon — July 26, 2006 @ 1:40 am
Medics, injured civilians under attack
Red Cross trucks in south Lebanon targeted by pilots
Christopher Allbritton, Chronicle Foreign Service
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/07/25/MNGJCK4N0A1.DTL
Comment by Griffon — July 26, 2006 @ 5:04 am
U.S., Iraq moving more troops into Baghdad (from Kuwait)
By TOM RAUM and LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writers Tue Jul 25, 5:20 AM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060725/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq
HMmmmmmm
Good to see young Ted’s on the job, though.
“Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., urged al-Maliki “to move beyond vagaries and develop a viable strategy to deal with the militias and prevent Iraq from descending into full-scale civil war.”
Comment by Griffon — July 26, 2006 @ 5:14 am
Why possibly can you think Israel would go to such trouble and danger for water resources. They have desalination plants. Safer and cheaper than war and occupation. They were being forced, and conceded they must give back land, and now you think they’re going to go try and get more, for the Litani River? That’s a bizaare conclusion.
I think there’s only one goal for them and that is to end the threat from Hizb’ permanently, or so degrade them that there isn’t a threat for quite some time.
It looks to me that it is Hezb’ that has over played its hand, and did not expect such a harsh response. They just expected they could get a prisoner swap again, but it hasn’t worked out well for them and now they face destruction, and they can’t back down. Pretty big mistake. Especially considering they’ve had no support from many of the regional countries like Saudi, Jordan, and Egypt. That really says something.
There’s just Iran and Syria. The region has never trusted Syria and Iran isn’t much better these days. In the end, it’s Hezb’ that is isolated. Again, a big miscalculation they’ve brought on themselves.
They may come out alright if the US uses this as an opportunity to engage with Syria again, but this would invite Syrian influence right back into Lebanon which Lebanon, with US support just recently got rid of… don’t see it happening.
It looks as if Israel has the general concession of most parties (US, Arabs minus Iran/Syria) for a two week free for all.
It’s hard to feel bad for Hezb’here, only for the people of Lebanon who feel their country has been hijacked by these people.
Comment by Jrum — July 26, 2006 @ 9:38 am
Jrum, mate, have we met somewhere before?
So Hizbullah have hijacked their own country now!
And I’m sure everybody in the Middle East will be relieved to know that there’s no problem with water after all.
Unfortunately, the middle east (and the rest of the world) have another problem.
Wouldn’t you know it. Just solve one problem and another bloody problem pops up!
I don’t know. What’s the world coming to?
UK Government Sources Confirm War With Iran Is On
By Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Jul 24, 2006, 01:05
In the last few days, I learned from a credible and informed source that a former senior Labour government minister, who continues to be well-connected to British military and security officials, confirms that Britain and the United States ” . . . will go to war with Iran before the end of the year.”
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1029.shtml
Comment by Griffon — July 26, 2006 @ 9:54 am
Yes we have on markfromireland…
I don’t tolerate liars on my site. No further comments from you will be accepted
markfromireland
Comment by Jrum — July 26, 2006 @ 1:50 pm
Thank you Gor for this info - we really need the insight!
Reports here are suggesting that Israel is a bit startled at the strength of Hizbollah’s response - not sure what to make of that. I go back & forth between thinking Israel sprung this on it’s own machismo and thinks it can just wipe out Hizbollah and Hamas and assuming that this is part of the larger Israel/US strategy to go after Syria and Iran as well. Certainly news in the US is feeding in the “Iran is all behind this” stuff that suggests the second but at the same time US reporters are not quite in lockstep this time and the devastation and civilian deaths in Lebanon seem to be unsettling the usual media cheerleading - and even leading to some connected coverage of Iraq that is startling. Whatever the strategy, american audiences are getting a different perspective than normal - and a poll last night showed almost 80% thinking Israel has gone too far. This will not mean restraint on Washington’s part but the popular attitude is not supportive and that’s a change here.
Comment by siun — July 26, 2006 @ 3:02 pm
I don’t know about that Siun, if they wanted to wipe them out, they could, it’s just doing it within acceptable means. They will be crticized regadless, but they can’t decimate the entire place, or nuke it, or anything like that. Every mistake like the UN stuff, gives them less room to manuever.
I haven’t heard so much that “Iran is behind this” as I’ve heard that Iran is a sponsor in that they supply weapons and money, but they don’t control them, neither do the Syrians. Influence, yes, but not puppet strings. I think most Americans will not understand this conflict as a US-Israeli pile-up on some more terrorist Arabs. They won’t see it as so related to US interests so it just looks like Israel having a go at some people they don’t like. Carry this over to US/Iraq or Iran for that matter and looks more like terrorista that hate America and will do anything to kill Americans, at least to your average American. So they would see the two differently.
Comment by Jrum — July 26, 2006 @ 4:19 pm
There’s nothing even slightly bizarre about concluding that they’ll do what they’ve done on every previous occasion.
Comment by markfromireland — July 26, 2006 @ 7:31 pm
I don’t tolerate liars on my site. No further comments from you will be accepted
markfromireland
Comment by Jrum — July 26, 2006 @ 10:45 pm
Ah! Now that you’ve looked at a map and seen where the Litani and its watershed are you’re backing off. Well done.
PS: You’ll find people at Richard’s place are every bit as unsympathetic to casuistry as I am.
Comment by markfromireland — July 26, 2006 @ 10:57 pm
And what do desalination plants run on?
AS Mark says rightly, you can live without oil but you can’t live without water.
It pays to think in basic, basic building blocks. Most of the details we are fed are mainly to obscure the bleedin’ obvious truth
Comment by Griffon — July 26, 2006 @ 11:07 pm
The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil
Michel Chossudovsky, GlobalResearch.ca
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m25077&hd=0&size=1&l=e
“The bombing of Lebanon is part of a carefully planned and coordinated military road map. The extension of the war into Syria and Iran has already been contemplated by US and Israeli military planners. This broader military agenda is intimately related to strategic oil and oil pipelines. It is supported by the Western oil giants which control the pipeline corridors. It ultimately seeks territorial control over the East Mediterranean coastline.”
Comment by Griffon — July 27, 2006 @ 7:26 am
jrum, since you’re civil you’re welcome to hang round my place. And even though I don’t agree with you, from previous ‘comments’ I’ve added to my own site you may have learned that I dont ‘do’ debates. I post things as I see them, invariably backing up my ‘informed’ opinions with reliably sourced cites/links. Then I usually respond/reply and thank [or not]others for their input - particularly, for well researched contribution also in the form of other links to other reliable sources.
Additionally, you may have noticed that most posters at This Old Brit, dont ‘do’ debates either. I can only assume that they, like me, know from past experience that true ‘debate’ online without a ‘chair’ isn’t possible — whilst ‘arguments’ all to often are claimed to be debates.
One more thing though, I had already recognised you as the ‘younger’ Brit of my place and wondered why you needed two monikers.
Comment by Richard — July 27, 2006 @ 4:56 pm
Incidentally, (everyone), my brother and his wife landed here in England yesterday. They flew in from their [retirement] home in the Eastern Med.
They live in a Muslim [secular] country, just abouit a half hour flight from Syria, and 10 or 15 minutes further from Lebanon.
They are here for several weeks, but as they have other [far flung throughout England] family to visit, I’m unsure as to when they’ll fit me into their intinery. I can’t wait to see them — and to talk.
And for what it’s worth, my brother is no dummy nor naieve layman — when he did retire a couple or three years ago, it was from the MOD.
Comment by Richard — July 27, 2006 @ 5:03 pm
I don’t tolerate liars on my site. No further comments from you will be accepted
markfromireland
Comment by Jrum — July 27, 2006 @ 11:35 pm
I don’t tolerate liars on my site. No further comments from you will be accepted
markfromireland
Comment by Jrum — July 28, 2006 @ 12:15 am
I am putting all further comments from you into moderation. Between the disparity in IP addresses, names you use, your behaviour on Richard’s site, and your persistent failure to address points raised I can only conclude that you are not here to argue in good faith. I don’t do trollery and neither do my readers.
mfi
Comment by markfromireland — July 28, 2006 @ 12:22 am
Jrum
I will not under any circumstances whatsoever tolerate deliberate lieing on my site.
No comments from you will be accepted in future.
Comment by markfromireland — August 1, 2006 @ 9:21 pm