A - I n f o s
a multi-lingual news service by, for, and about anarchists **

News in all languages
Last 40 posts (Homepage) Last two weeks' posts

The last 100 posts, according to language
Castellano_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_ The.Supplement
First few lines of all posts of last 24 hours || of past 30 days | of 2002 | of 2003 | of 2004 | of 2005 | of 2006

Syndication Of A-Infos - including RDF | How to Syndicate A-Infos
Subscribe to the a-infos newsgroups
{Info on A-Infos}

(en) Israel's "new Middle East"* by Tanya Reinhart**

Date Wed, 26 Jul 2006 23:31:06 +0300


Beirut is burning, hundreds of Lebanese die, hundreds of thousands lose
all they ever owned and become refugees, and all the world is doing is
rescuing the "foreign passport" residents of what was just two weeks ago
"the Paris of the Middle East". Lebanon must die now, because "Israel
has the right to defend itself", so goes the U.S. mantra, used to block
any international attempt to impose a cease fire.
Israel, backed by the U.S., portrays its war on Lebanon as a war of self
defense. It is easy to sell this message to mainstream media, because
the residents of the North of Israel are also in shelters, bombarded and
endangered. Israel's claim that no country would let such an attack on
its residents unanswered, finds many sympathetic ears. But let us
reconstruct exactly how it all started.

On Wednesday, July 12, a Hezbollah unit attacked two armored Jeeps of
the Israeli army, patrolling along Israel's border with Lebanon. Three
Israeli soldiers were killed in the attack and two were taken hostage.
In a news conference held in Beirut a couple of hours later, Hezbollah's
leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah explained that their aim was to reach a
prisoner exchange, where in return for the two captured Israeli
soldiers, Israel would return three Lebanese prisoners it had refused to
release in a previous prisoner exchange. Nasrallah declared that "he did
not want to drag the region into war", but added that "our current
restraint is not due to weakness... if they [Israel] choose to confront
us, they must be prepared for surprises." [1]

The Israeli government, however, did not give a single moment for
diplomacy, negotiations, or even cool reflection over the situation. In
a cabinet meeting that same day, it authorized a massive offensive on
Lebanon. As Ha'aretz reported, "In a sharp departure from Israel's
response to previous Hezbollah attacks, the cabinet session unanimously
agreed that the Lebanese government should be held responsible for
yesterday's events." Olmert declared: "This morning's events are not a
terror attack, but the act of a sovereign state that attacked Israel for
no reason and without provocation." He added that "the Lebanese
government, of which Hezbollah is a part, is trying to undermine
regional stability. Lebanon is responsible, and Lebanon will bear the
consequences of its actions." [2]

At the cabinet meeting, "the IDF recommended various operations aimed at
the Lebanese government and strategic targets in Lebanon", as well as a
comprehensive attack on southern Lebanon (where Hezbollah's batteries of
rockets are concentrated). The government immediately approved both
recommendatons. The spirit of the cabinet's decision was succinctly
summarized by Defense Minister Amir Perertz who said: "We're skipping
the stage of threats and going straight to action."[3]

At 21.50 that same day, Ha'aretz internet edition reported that by that
time Israel had already bombarded bridges in central Lebanon and
attacked "Hezbollah's posts" in southern Lebanon. [4] Amnesty
International's press release of the next day (13 July 2006) stated that
in these attacks "some 40 Lebanese civilians have reportedly been
killed... Among the Lebanese victims were a family of ten, including
eight children, who were killed in Dweir village, near Nabatiyeh, and a
family of seven, including a seven-month-old baby, who were killed in
Baflay village near Tyre. More than 60 other civilians were injured in
these or other attacks."

It was at that point, early on Wednesday night, following the first
Israeli attack, that Hezbollah started its rocket attack on the north of
Israel. Later the same night (before the dawn of Thursday), Israel
launched its first attack on Beirut, when Israeli warplanes bombed
Beirut's international airport and killed at least 27 Lebanese civilians
in a series of raids. In response, Hezbollah's rocket attacks
intensified on Thursday, when "more than 100 Katyusha rockets were fired
into Israel from Lebanon in the largest attack of its sort since the
start of the Lebanon War in 1982". Two Israeli civilians were killed in
this attack, and 132 were taken to the hospital [5]. When Israel started
destroying the Shiite quarters of Beirut the following day, including a
failed attempt on Nasrallah's life, Hezbollah extended its rockets
attacks to Haifa.

The way it started, there was nothing in Hezbollah's military act,
whatever one may think of it, to justify Israel's massive
disproportionate response. Lebanon has had a long-standing border
dispute with Israel: In 2000, when Israel, under Prime Minister Ehud
Barak, withdrew from Southern Lebanon, Israel kept a small piece of land
known as the Shaba farms (near Mount Dov), which it claims belonged
historically to Syria and not to Lebanon, though both Syria and Lebanon
deny that. The Lebanese government has frequently appealed to the U.S.
and others for Israel’s withdrawal also from this land, which has
remained the center of friction in Southern Lebanon, in order to ease
the tension in the area and to help the Lebanese internal negotiations
over implementing UN resolutions. The most recent such appeal was in
mid-April 2006, in a Washington meeting between Lebanon's Prime Minister
Fouad Siniora and George Bush.[6] In the six years since Israel
withdrew, there have been frequent border incidents between Hezbollah
and the Israeli army, and cease-fire violations of the type committed
now by Hezbollah, have occurred before, initiated by either side, and
more frequently by Israel. None of the previous incidents resulted in
Katyusha shelling of the north of Israel, which has enjoyed full calm
since Israel's withdrawal. It was possible for Israel to handle this
incident as all its predecessors, with at most a local retaliation, or a
prisoner exchange, or even better, with an attempt to solve this border
dispute once and for all. Instead, Israel opted for a global war. As
Peretz put it: "The goal is for this incident to end with Hezbollah so
badly beaten that not a man in it does not regret having launched this
incident [sic]."[7]

The Israeli government knew right from the start that launching its
offensive would expose the north of Israel to heavy Katyusha rockets
attacks. This was openly discussed at this first government's meeting on
Wednesday: "Hezbollah is likely to respond to the Israeli attacks with
massive rocket launches at Israel, and in that case, the IDF might move
ground forces into Lebanon".[8] One cannot avoid the conclusion that
for the Israeli army and government, endangering the lives of residents
of northern Israel was a price worth paying in order to justify the
planned ground offensive. They started preparing Israelis on that same
Wednesday for what may be ahead: "'We may be facing a completely
different reality, in which hundreds of thousands of Israelis will, for
a short time, find themselves in danger from Hezbollah's rockets', said
a senior defense official. 'These include residents of the center of the
country.'" [9] For the Israeli military leadership, not only the
Lebanese and the Palestinians, but also the Israelis are just pawns in
some big military vision.

The speed at which everything happened (along with many other pieces of
information) indicates that Israel has been waiting for a long time for
'the international conditions to ripen' for the massive war on Lebanon
it has been planning. In fact, one does not need to speculate on this,
since right from the start, Israeli and U.S. official sources have been
pretty open in this regard. As a Senior Israeli official explained to
the Washington Post on July 16, "Hezbollah's cross-border raid has
provided a 'unique moment' with a 'convergence of interests'."[10] The
paper goes on to explain what this convergence of interests is:

For the United States, the broader goal is to strangle the axis of
Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran, which the Bush administration
believes is pooling resources to change the strategic playing field
in the Middle East, U.S. officials say.[11]

For the U.S., the Middle East is a "strategic playing field", where the
game is establishing full U.S. domination. The U.S. already controls
Iraq and Afghanistan, and considers Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and a
few other states as friendly cooperating regimes. But even with this
massive foothold, full U.S. domination is still far from established.
Iran has only been strengthened by the Iraq war and refuses to accept
the decrees of the master. Throughout the Arab world, including in the
"friendly regimes", there is boiling anger at the U.S., at the heart of
which is not only the occupation of Iraq, but the brutal oppression of
the Palestinians, and the U.S. backing of Israel's policies. The new
axis of the four enemies of the Bush administration (Hamas, Hezbollah,
Syria and Iran) are bodies viewed by the Arab world as resisting U.S. or
Israel's rule, and standing for Arab liberation. From Bush's
perspective, he only has two years to consolidate his vision of complete
U.S. control of the Middle East, and to do that, all seeds of resistance
should be crushed in a devastating blow that will make it clear to every
single Arab that obeying the master is the only way to stay alive. If
Israel is willing to do the job, and crush not only the Palestinians,
but also Lebanon and Hezbollah, then the U.S., torn from the inside by
growing resentment over Bush's wars, and perhaps unable to send new
soldiers to be killed for this cause right now, will give Israel all the
backing it can. As Rice announced in her visit in Jerusalem on July 25,
what is at stakes is "a new Middle East". "We will prevail" - she
promised Olmert.

But Israel is not sacrificing its soldiers and citizens only to please
the Bush administration. The "new Middle East" has been a dream of the
Israeli ruling military circles since at least 1982, when Sharon led the
country to the first Lebanon war with precisely this declared goal.
Hezbollah's leaders have argued for years that its real long-term role
is to protect Lebanon, whose army is too weak to do this. They have said
that Israel has never given up its aspirations for Lebanon and that the
only reason it pulled out of Southern Lebanon in 2000 is because
Hezbollah's resistance has made maintaining the occupation too costly.
Lebanon's people know what every Israeli old enough to remember knows -
that in the vision of Ben Gurion, Israel's founding leader, Israel's
border should be "natural", that is - the Jordan river in the East, and
the Litani river of Lebanon in the north. In 1967, Israel gained
control over the Jordan river, in the occupied Palestinian land, but all
its attempts to establish the Litani border have failed so far.

As I argued in Israel/Palestine, already when the Israeli army left
Southern Lebanon in 2000, the plans to return were ready.[12] But in
Israel's military vision, in the next round, the land should be first
"cleaned" of its residents, as Israel did when it occupied the Syrian
Golan Heights in 1967, and as it is doing now in southern Lebanon. To
enable Israel's eventual realization of Ben Gurion's vision, it is
necessary to establish a "friendly regime" in Lebanon, one that will
collaborate in crushing any resistance. To do this, it is necessary
first to destroy the country, as in the U.S. model of Iraq. These were
precisely Sharon's declared aims in the first Lebanon war. Israel and
the U.S. believe that now conditions have ripened enough that these aims
can finally be realized.

Tanya Reinhart is Professor Emeritus of linguistics and media
studies at Tel Aviv University and a frequent op-ed writer for the
Israeli evening paper 'Yediot Aharonot'. The second edition of her
2002 book Israel/Palestine - how to end the war of 1948 has appeared
last year (Seven Stories), and her new book: The Road Map to
Nowhere, will appear in September (Verso).

==========
* Edited by Mark Marshall.
[1] Yoav Stern, 'Nasrallah: Only deal will free kidnapped soliders,'
Ha'aretz July 13, 2006.
[2] Amos Harel, Aluf Benn and Gideon Alon, 'Gov't okays massive strikes
on Lebanon,' Ha'aretz, July 13, 2006.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Amos Har'el, 'Israel prepares for widespread military escalation',
Ha'aretz internet edition, Last update - 21:50 12/07/2006.
[5] Amos Harel, Jack Khoury and Nir Hasson, Over 100 Katyushas hit
north, Ha'aretz July 14, 2006.
[6]'Lebanese PM to lobby Pres. Bush on Israeli withdrawal from Shaba',
by Reuters, Ha'aretz, April 16, 2006 :

"Lebanon's prime minister [is] asking U.S. President George Bush to
put pressure on Israel to pull out of a border strip and thus enable
his government to extend its authority over all Lebanese land...
'Israel has to withdraw from the Shaba Farms and has to stop
violating our airspace and water,' Siniora said. This was essential
if the Lebanese government was 'to become the sole monopoly of
holding weapons in the country'.., he added. 'Very important as well
is to seek the support of President Bush so that Lebanon will not
become in any way a ball in the courtyard of others or... a
courtyard for the confrontations of others in the region,' Siniora
said. Lebanon's rival leaders are engaged in a 'national dialogue'
aimed at resolving the country's political crisis, the worst since
the end of the 1975-1990 civil war. One key issue is the disarming
of Hezbollah... The Shi'ite Muslim group says its weapons are still
required to liberate Shaba Farms and to defend Lebanon against any
Israeli threats."

[7] Amos Harel, Aluf Benn and Gideon Alon, 'Gov't okays massive strikes
on Lebanon', Ha'aretz, July 13, 2006.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Robin Wright, 'Strikes Are Called Part of Broad Strategy',
Washington Post, Sunday, July 16, 2006; A15.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Tanya Reinhart Israel-Palestine - how to end the war of 1948, Seven
Stories press 2002, 2005, p. 83-87. See 'How Israel left Lebanon'
http://www.tau.ac.il/~reinhart (Media articles section, as of Thursday).

http://www.tau.ac.il/~reinhart
=================================
** The author is an anarchist professor long time activist
_______________________________________________
A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
http://ainfos.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en


A-Infos Information Center