The Guardian: Assault on Lebanon, provoked or premeditated?

[Douglas Carpenter]

link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1839281,00.html

"Israel responded to an unprovoked attack by Hizbullah, right? Wrong

The assault on Lebanon was premeditated - the soldiers' capture simply provided the excuse. It was also unnecessary

George Monbiot
Tuesday August 8, 2006
The Guardian

snip:" The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil) reports that Israeli aircraft crossed the line "on an almost daily basis" between 2001 and 2003, and "persistently" until 2006. These incursions "caused great concern to the civilian population, particularly low-altitude flights that break the sound barrier over populated areas". On some occasions, Hizbullah tried to shoot them down with anti-aircraft guns."

snip:"A "senior Israeli official" told the Washington Post that the raid by Hizbullah provided Israel with a "unique moment" for wiping out the organisation. The New Statesman's editor, John Kampfner, says he was told by more than one official source that the US government knew in advance of Israel's intention to take military action in Lebanon. The Bush administration told the British government.

Israel's assault, then, was premeditated: it was simply waiting for an appropriate excuse. It was also unnecessary. It is true that Hizbullah had been building up munitions close to the border, as its current rocket attacks show. But so had Israel. Just as Israel could assert that it was seeking to deter incursions by Hizbullah, Hizbullah could claim - also with justification - that it was trying to deter incursions by Israel. The Lebanese army is certainly incapable of doing so. Yes, Hizbullah should have been pulled back from the Israeli border by the Lebanese government and disarmed. Yes, the raid and the rocket attack on July 12 were unjustified, stupid and provocative, like just about everything that has taken place around the border for the past six years. But the suggestion that Hizbullah could launch an invasion of Israel or that it constitutes an existential threat to the state is preposterous. Since the occupation ended, all its acts of war have been minor ones, and nearly all of them reactive.

So it is not hard to answer the question of what we would have done. First, stop recruiting enemies, by withdrawing from the occupied territories in Palestine and Syria. Second, stop provoking the armed groups in Lebanon with violations of the blue line - in particular the persistent flights across the border. Third, release the prisoners of war who remain unlawfully incarcerated in Israel. Fourth, continue to defend the border, while maintaining the diplomatic pressure on Lebanon to disarm Hizbullah (as anyone can see, this would be much more feasible if the occupations were to end). Here then is my challenge to the supporters of the Israeli government: do you dare to contend that this programme would have caused more death and destruction than the current adventure has done?"

link to full article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1839281,00.html

[jrd200x]

1. Hardly unnecesary. Trained, armed gang with rockets at the border

If it were the US, with an armed gang of 10,000 trained fighters, with heavy weapons, who were not part of the government that you could negotiate with, we would have blown them away.

So would any country. These are armed terrorists with missles. No country in the world should be forced to live with that next door.

The Guardian should be ashamed.

[joemurphy]

8. Where did you get the figure "10,000 trained fighters"?

According to everything I've seen, Hizbullah is supposed to have around 20,000 "members". Of these around 700 to 1,000 are supposed to be highly trained armed activists. The remainder are supposed to be poorly trained and armed, with most not militarily engaged at all. I realize that estimating numbers with a quasi-guerilla militia is difficult, but I think "10,000 trained fighters" is a stretch.

The Israeli military action against Hizbullah was also something that was planned for around 5 years. The timing of the attack was plainly approved, if not abetted, by the Neocons (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Abrams et al.) presumably with Bush's approval. Hizbullah has had an armed presence on the northern border of Israel for a long time (since 1982), so plainly the situation Israel complains of has, for all practical purposes, always been there. Hizbullah's missile attacks referenced were, insofar as I'm aware, always directed at Israeli military targets until the Israeli bombing of Lebanon began. The abduction of the two Israeli soldiers that supposedly precipitated the bombing came on the heels of an assassination of an Islamic Jihad leader in Lebanon that the Israeli's are suspected of having a hand in and repeated Israeli incursions into the "Blue Zone". The abducted Israelis were held for a prisoner swap -- something that Israel had engaged in with Hizbollah on prior occasions.

Given this, I have to question what it was that was so different or intolerable about the situation in North Lebanon that would justify so massive an Israeli attack, and the targeted destruction of Lebanese infrastructure and civilians. The response does not seem measured, given the past history of the situation and the magnitude of the threat.

[jrd200x]

2. Would you allow the Bloods and the Crypts to arm at the California Border?

Of course not. So why support Hizbollah? They're not government, they're not the military. They're a gang with large weapons. They train openly in the civilian communities. They walk the streets with machine guns.

Why are they different than the Bloods and the Crypts?

[Douglas Carpenter]

4. no but I would not carry out the destruction of the civilian infrastucture

of the neighboring country either. If this was a war against Hezbollah that would be another matter.

[IntiRaymi]

10. Well, Tijuana DOES suck.

On the other hand, I highly doubt that my (american) government is irrational enough to raze Tijuana in an effort to destroy an armed militia.
Get your perspective straight.

[papau]

3. George Monbiot is a great writer and the Lebanon assault was planned -but

every country plans every possible future action.

George asserts Israel was "simply waiting for an appropriate excuse." - I disagree.

George asserts "It was also unnecessary." - I disagree.

George notes that Israel can assert that the attack was to "deter incursions by Hizbullah", but then equates Israeli overflights of an area not policed by the Lebanese government as incursions that poor Hizbullah "could claim - also with justification - that it was trying to deter" - and that is bullshit - IMHO. Hizbullah acts of war since the occupation ended 6 years ago "have been minor ones, and nearly all of them reactive" is more bullshit -IMO.


THEN HE ASSERTS THAT ATTACKS AIMED AT ELIMINATING ISRAEL CAN BE NEGOTIATED AWAY - Amazing.


He has a solution that depends on only Israel it seems - unilateral withdrawel from undefined occupied territories in Palestine and Syria so as to "stop recruiting enemies", stop overflights since that only provokes those defenders of their nation like the terrorists, release the prisoners of war because the terrorists say they are "unlawfully incarcerated" And indeed this would cause less "death and destruction than the current adventure has done" over the same time period - and who cares about the effect on Israel's ability to exist as a Jewish State - they have no right to exist as a Jewish State, while not said by Monbiot, seems to be the premise for his list of actions.

[Douglas Carpenter]

5. am questioning the disproportionate response

-- 44% to 50% of American agree -- a response which has wrecked a whole country, killed hundreds of innocent civilians, destabilized a region and will quite likely sow the seeds of hatred and terrorism for a long time to come.

If Israel and everyone else for that matter started observing their internally recognized borders - well established by international law, affirmed by numerous UN resolutions and world court decisions - it would do a lot to lesson hatred and terrorism.

lets just have everybody move back to their internationally recognized borders -- the world court is fairly clear about where these borders are. This would be a a good start

If one is going to justify terrror on one side whether Lebanoese, Palestinian or even Israeli -- it gives license to the other side. Lebanonese and Palestinians - just like Israelis - are human beings too.

[papau]

9. I agree on the idea- but blue line (the Leb border) does not give the hill

called "Sheba Farms" to Lebanon - it is occupied by Israel Syrian land - but Hez claims it for Leb.

The overflights of the areas that rockets were being stored and then moving south and then being fired from in Lebanon were required by the lawlessness relative to international and Lebanese law caused by the Lebanese government being afraid to challenge the gang rule by Hez (and I and my family understand the Lebanese citizen in South Lebanon view on this perhaps a bit better than most since it is an analogue to the Al Capone/Chicago/food kitchen for everyone/social help days when Al was a guest in our Chicago apartment -and later our Lake county apartment - and Al was more popular than any politician of the day - including FDR).

the disproportionate response is easy to reject - and I'm into talk/talk for everything also - but, continuing with the Capone analogy, the US Fed response and its limited civilian deaths was only possible because of the local government not fighting/preventing under "states rights" the process needed to stop Al. There was no one to talk to about stopping the rockets in Lebanon. And there was no way to avoid "disproportionate" deaths in the population hiding Hez (even though most were not Hez in any wat shape or form).

recognized borders - well established by international law, affirmed by numerous UN resolutions and world court decisions - exist only for the borders with Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt.

And Hez refused to abide by the decision relative to Lebanon - see the "Sheba Farms" comment above.

[Douglas Carpenter]

11. according to both the Syrian government and Lebanese government

Sheba Farms belongs to Lebanon; but either way it does not belong to Israel.

The World Court in its 27 July 2004 decision reaffirmed the principle that all the land occupied after 4 June 1967 is occupied land. This decision also clearly and unambiguously (15 to 0 on this specific matter) described the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem as Occupied Palestinian Land. -- link: http://www.globalpolicy.org/wldcourt/icj/2004/0727utmost.htm

Regarding the proportionality issue I thought the article below by Professor Tanya Reinhart of Tel Aviv University was interesting. Also the reports from B'Tselem - the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights - link:
http://www.btselem.org/english/special/20060723_Lebanon.asp
Human Rights Watch - link: http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/02/lebano13902.htm
and Amnesty International - link: http://web.amnesty.org/pages/lbn-210706-action-eng

Israel's "new Middle East" by Professor Tanya Reinhart

link:

http://www.nimn.org/articles/whats_new/000547.php

snip: "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 recommendations. 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. "

link to full article:

http://www.nimn.org/articles/whats_new/000547.php

[papau]

12. Thanks for the links - everyone agrees Sheba Farms does not belong to

Israel - but why is a Lebanese terrorist saying he is defending Lebanese soil - does he need an excuse to shoot rockets at Israel and to go into Israel to kidnap and kill?

Is "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." wrong in any way?

Does "skipping the stage of threats" make sense when the government on the other side says it can't respond, and Hez is holding parades to celebrate the start of a new bigger and better stage in the plan that will accomplish the goal to end the existence of Israel and as Arafat said - also from Lebanon - to drive every Jew into the sea?

Again As to war crimes - "Disproportionate" deaths in the civilian population is the only thing on the table - and while a serious and very real and plausible war crime - it remains as the Scots say - "not proven" to have been "disproportionate" given the developing rules for operating against a terrorist organization hidden in and supported (see the election and the 2 dozen Hez MP'S from the south) by the local population, and when the governing authority for the country had announced that they were not going to challenge Hez to abide by the 6 year old UN resolution that ended the Israeli occupation of Lebanon and established the Blue Line border - and indeed they were not going to try to establish national government authority in the area, period.

[Douglas Carpenter]

13. Thank you for your very polite response. I'm not going to defend Hezbolla

Let us all hope and pray that the cease holds and that a just and lasting peace in the region will not continue to allude us all. However we can see that things have not been quite on the border for a long time and this issue has not been one sided. We should also remember the Hezbollah came into existence and influence during the period of Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanon beginning in 1982. An invasion and occupation that that brought a the death of at least 17,000 Lebanese and Palestinian civilians along with countless more atrocities, kidnappings and torture by the invading and occupying power.

As Uri Avnery of Gush Shalom points out "That happened in 1982, when the Shiites in the south of Lebanon , until then as docile as a doormat, stood up against the Israeli occupiers and created the Hizbullah, which has become the strongest force in the country. " Mr. Avnery also reminds us; "ON THE eve of the 1982 invasion, Secretary of State Alexander Haig told Ariel Sharon that, before starting it, it was necessary to have a "clear provocation," which would be accepted by the world.
The provocation indeed took place--exactly at the appropriate time--when Abu-Nidal's terror gang tried to assassinate the Israeli ambassador in London . This had no connection with Lebanon , and even less with the PLO (the enemy of Abu-Nidal), but it served its purpose. link:

http://www.nimn.org/articles/whats_new/000539.php
_______________________

snip:"Since Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000, there have been hundreds of violations of the "blue line" between the two countries. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil) reports that Israeli aircraft crossed the line "on an almost daily basis" between 2001 and 2003, and "persistently" until 2006. These incursions "caused great concern to the civilian population, particularly low-altitude flights that break the sound barrier over populated areas". On some occasions, Hizbullah tried to shoot them down with anti-aircraft guns.

In October 2000, the Israel Defence Forces shot at unarmed Palestinian demonstrators on the border, killing three and wounding 20. In response, Hizbullah crossed the line and kidnapped three Israeli soldiers. On several occasions, Hizbullah fired missiles and mortar rounds at IDF positions, and the IDF responded with heavy artillery and sometimes aerial bombardment. Incidents like this killed three Israelis and three Lebanese in 2003; one Israeli soldier and two Hizbullah fighters in 2005; and two Lebanese people and three Israeli soldiers in February 2006. Rockets were fired from Lebanon into Israel several times in 2004, 2005 and 2006, on some occasions by Hizbullah. But, the UN records, "none of the incidents resulted in a military escalation".

On May 26 this year, two officials of Islamic Jihad - Nidal and Mahmoud Majzoub - were killed by a car bomb in the Lebanese city of Sidon. This was widely assumed in Lebanon and Israel to be the work of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency. In June, a man named Mahmoud Rafeh confessed to the killings and admitted that he had been working for Mossad since 1994. Militants in southern Lebanon responded, on the day of the bombing, by launching eight rockets into Israel. One soldier was lightly wounded. There was a major bust-up on the border, during which one member of Hizbullah was killed and several wounded, and one Israeli soldier wounded. But while the border region "remained tense and volatile", Unifil says it was "generally quiet" until July 12."

snip:"But there is no serious debate about why the two soldiers were captured: Hizbullah was seeking to exchange them for the 15 prisoners of war taken by the Israelis during the occupation of Lebanon and (in breach of article 118 of the third Geneva convention) never released. It seems clear that if Israel had handed over the prisoners, it would - without the spillage of any more blood - have retrieved its men and reduced the likelihood of further kidnappings. But the Israeli government refused to negotiate. Instead - well, we all know what happened instead. Almost 1,000 Lebanese and 33 Israeli civilians have been killed so far, and a million Lebanese displaced from their homes."

link to full article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1839281,00.html

[papau]

14. An excellent reminder of how we got here via a 1982 remove the PLO from

Lebanon move by Israel.

As to the "exchange for the 15 prisoners of war taken by the Israelis during the occupation of Lebanon and (in breach of article 118 of the third Geneva convention", only the gruesome murderer of the father and his daughter was really wanted by Hez and the reason was to show Hez's power to get back even the most awful terrorist killers. It had as usual nothing to do with UN resolutions. I guess the devil is in the details always applies in these discussions.

In any case I join with you in your statement that "Let us all hope and pray that the cease fire holds and that it begins a just and lasting peace".

peace

:-)

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. See this DU thread for more discussion of the premeditated nature

of the attack, and its ties to Cheney's plans to bomb Iran, based on an article in the New Yorker by Seymour Hersh: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x228765

[Douglas Carpenter]

7. thank you