Where are the Achievements of This War?

[Redhots]

Where are the Achievements of This War?
The 155th Victim

By Uri Avnery - 8.19.06
Tel Aviv.

WITH A few words, a Lebanese army officer destroyed, the day before yesterday, the illusion that Israel had achieved anything in this war.

At a televised Lebanese army parade that was also broadcast on Israeli TV , the officer read a prepared text to his assembled troops, who were about to be deployed along the Lebanese-Israeli border.

This is what he said in Arabic: "Today, in the name of the comprehensive will of the people, you are preparing to be deployed on the soil of the wounded South, side by side with the forces of your Resistance and your people, which have amazed the world with their steadfastness and blown to pieces the reputation of the army about which it has been said that it is invincible."

In simple language: "the comprehensive will of the people" - the will of all parts of the Lebanese public, including the Shiite community. "Side by side with the Resistance": side by side with Hizbullah. "Which have amazed the world with their steadfastness": the heroism of the Hizbullah fighters. "Blown to pieces the reputation of the army about which it has been said that it is invincible": the Israeli army.

Thus spoke a commander of the Lebanese army, the deployment of which along the border is being celebrated by the Olmert-Peretz government as a huge victory, because this army is supposed to confront Hizbullah and disarm it. Israeli commentators have created the illusion that this army would be at the disposal of the friends of the US and Israel in Beirut, such as Fuad Siniora, Saad Hariri and Walid Jumblatt.

It is no accident that this item was drowned in the deluge of TV blabber, like a stone thrown into a well. After broadcasting the item itself, no meaningful debate about it took place. It was erased from the public mind.

But not only the balloon of the redeeming Lebanese army has been punctured. The same has happened to the multi-colored second balloon that was to serve as an Israeli achievement: the deployment of the international force that would protect Israel from Hizbullah and prevent its re-armament. As the days pass, it becomes increasingly clear that this force will be, at best, a mishmash of small national units, without a clear mandate and "robust" capabilities. The commando raid carried out by our army today, in blatant violation of the cease-fire, will certainly not attract more international volunteers for the job.

So what remains of all the "achievements" of this war? A good question.


* * *

AFTER EVERY failed war, the cry for an official investigation goes up in Israel. Now there is a "trauma", much bitterness, a feeling of defeat and of a missed opportunity. Hence the demand for a strong Commission of Inquiry that will cut off the heads of those responsible.

That's what happened after the first Lebanon war, which reached its climax in the Sabra and Shatila massacre. The government refused any serious inquiry. The masses that gathered in what is now called "Rabin Square" (the mythical 400 thousand) demanded a judicial inquiry. The public mood reached boiling point and in the end the Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, gave in.

The Kahan Commission that investigated the event condemned a number of politicians and army officers for "indirect" responsibility for the massacre, even though its own factual conclusions would have justified a much stronger condemnation. But Ariel Sharon was, at least, removed from the Defense Ministry.

Before that, after the trauma of the Yom Kippur war, the government also refused to appoint a Commission of Inquiry, but public pressure forced its hand. The fate of the Agranat Committee, which included a former Chief-of-Staff and two other senior officers, was rather odd: it conducted a serious investigation, put all the blame on the military, removed from office the Chief-of-Staff, "Dado" Elazar - and acquitted the political leadership of any blame. This caused a spontaneous public uproar. In its wake, Golda Meir and Moshe Dayan - predecessors of Olmert and Peretz as Prime Minister and Minister of Defense - were forced to resign.

This time, too, the political and military leadership is trying to block any serious investigation. Amir Peretz even appointed a whitewash-committee, packed with his cronies. But public pressure is building up, and chances seem good that in the end there will be no way out but to appoint a judicial inquiry committee.

Generally, the one who appoints a commission of inquiry and sets its terms of reference predetermines its conclusions. Under Israeli law, it is the government which decides to appoint such a commission and determines its terms of reference. (As a Member of the Knesset, I voted against these paragraphs.) But the composition of the commission is determined by the President of the Supreme Court. If a commission is set up, I assume the present President of the Court, Aharon Barak, a highly respected chief justice, will appoint himself for the job.

IF INDEED such a commission is set up, what will it investigate?

The politicians and generals will try to restrict the inquiry to the technical aspects of the conduct of the war:

* Why was the army not prepared for a war against guerillas?
* Why were the land forces not sent into the field in the two first weeks?
* Did the military command believe that the war could be won by the Air Force alone?
* What was the quality of the intelligence?
* Why was nothing done to protect the rear, when the rocket threat was known?
* Why were the poor in the North left to their fate, after the well-to-do had left the area?
* Why were the reserve units not ready for the war?
* Why were the emergency arsenals empty?
* Why did the supply system not function?
* Why did the Chief-of-Staff practically depose the Chief of the Northern Command in the middle of the war?
* Why was it decided at the last moment to start a campaign that cost the lives of 33 Israeli soldiers?

The government will probably attempt to widen the investigation and to put part of the blame on its predecessors:

* Why did the Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon governments just look on when Hizbullah was growing?
* Why was nothing done as Hizbullah built up its huge stockpile of rockets?
All these are serious questions, and it is certainly necessary to clear them up. But it is more important to investigate the roots of the war:
* What made the trio Olmert-Peretz-Halutz decide to start a war only a few hours after the capture of the two soldiers?
* Was it agreed with the Americans in advance to go to war the moment a credible pretext presented itself?
* Did the Americans push Israel into the war, and, later on, demand that it go on and on as far as possible?
* Was it Condoleezza Rice who decided in fact when to start and when to stop?
* Did the US want to get us entangled with Syria?
* Did the US use us for its campaign against Iran?

This, too, is not enough. There are more profound and important questions.

THIS WAR has no name. Even after 33 days of fighting and six days of cease-fire, no natural name has been found. The media use a chronological name: Lebanon War II.

This way, the war in Lebanon is separated from the war in the Gaza Strip, which has been conducted simultaneously, and which is going on unabated after the cease-fire in the North. Do these two wars have a common denominator? Are they, perhaps, one and the same war?

The answer is: certainly, yes. And the proper name is: the War for the Settlements.

The war against the Palestinian people is being waged in order to keep the "settlement blocs" and annex large parts of the West Bank. The war in the North was waged, in fact, to keep the settlements on the Golan Heights.
Hizbullah grew up with the support of Syria, which controlled Lebanon at the time. Hafez al-Assad saw the return of the Golan to Syria as the aim of his life - after all, it was he who lost them in the June 1967 war, and who did not succeed in getting them back in the October 1973 war. He did not want to risk another war on the Israel-Syria border, which is so close to Damascus. Therefore, he patronized Hizbullah, so as to convince Israel that it would have no quiet as long as it refused to give the Golan back. Assad jr. is continuing with his fathers legacy. Without the cooperation of Syria, Iran has no direct way of supplying Hizbullah with arms.

The solution is on hand: we have to remove the settlers from there, whatever the cost in wines and mineral water, and give the Golan back to its rightful owners. Ehud Barak almost did so, but, as is his wont, lost his nerve at the last moment.

It has to be said aloud: every one of the 154 Israeli dead of Lebanon War II (until the cease-fire) died for the settlers on the Golan Heights.


* * *

THE 155TH Israeli victim of this war is the "Covergence Plan" - the plan for a unilateral withdrawal from parts of the West Bank.

Ehud Olmert was elected four months ago (hard to believe! only four months!) on the platform of Convergence, much as Amir Peretz was elected on the platform of reducing the army and carrying out far-reaching social reforms.

In the course of the war, Olmert still announced that he would implement the "Convergence". But the day before yesterday he conceded that we could forget about it.

The Convergence was to remove 60 thousand settlers from where they are, but to leave the almost 400 thousand settlers in the West Bank (including the Jerusalem area). Now this plan has also been buried.
What remains? No peace, no negotiations, no solution at all for the historic conflict. Just a complete deadlock for years, at least until we get rid of the duo Olmert & Peretz.

All over Israel, they are already talking about the "Next Round", the war that will at long last eliminate Hizbullah and punish it for besmirching our honor. That has become, so it seems, a self-evident matter. Even Haaretz treats it as such in its editorials.

In the South, they don't speak about the "Next Round" because the present round is endless.

To have any value whatsoever, the investigation must expose the real roots of the war and present the public with the historic choice that has become clear in this war, too: Either the settlements and an endless war, or the return of the occupied territories and peace.

Otherwise, the investigation will only provide more backing for the outlook of the Right, to wit: we only have to expose the mistakes that have been made and correct them, then we can start the next war and win.

http://www.strike-the-root.com/62/avnery/avnery8.html

 

[theHawk]

Well, the war accomplished nothing for the Israelis. But hey, if they are willing to live in a continual state of war as they have been then so be it, no one is forcing them to stay in the ME. What irks me about it is that we have to pay for it in the billions every year.

 

[Annie]

Israel lost the battle, what happens after that is what is going to matter, but this was a serious loss. No doubt, Hizbollah won and has been empowered by it.

 

[onedomino]

Israel lost the battle, what happens after that is what is going to matter, but this was a serious loss. No doubt, Hizbollah won and has been empowered by it.

And what are the reasons for the loss? Failure to immediately send in 30K troops and take a large number of casualities? Or is it the lack of backbone demonstrated by the French and Bush Adim in the UNSC? How is it possible to expect the Israeli military to undo in a month that which Hizbollah has prepared for 6 years? If the fight was never calculated to last longer than a month, then it was lost from the beginning.

 

[Annie]

And what are the reasons for the loss? Failure to immediately send in 30K troops and take a large number of casualities? Or is it the lack of backbone demonstrated by the French and Bush Adim in the UNSC? How is it possible to expect the Israeli military to undo in a month that which Hizbollah has prepared for 6 years? If the fight was never calculated to last longer than a month, then it was lost from the beginning.

My take, worth what you are paying for it: Israel dithered away the time that Bush courageously provided. Fault: Israel.

Then when Israel grew brass, US went French. Fault: US. End game in realpolitcs, only game that counts.

Win: Hizbollah.

 

[trobinett]

My take, worth what you are paying for it: Israel dithered away the time that Bush courageously provided. Fault: Israel.

Then when Israel grew brass, US went French. Fault: US. End game in realpolitcs, only game that counts.

Win: Hizbollah.

First of all, Israel DIDN'T lose ANYTHING, the war, the hearts, and minds, ANYTHING. You people are being mislead by the MSM, truthfully.

The "end game" wasn't won by Hezbollah, it was LOST by the Lebanese people, and those that are to blame are the leaders of Hezbollah.

The Israel's were within their right to defend their country, lets DON'T lose sight of that one VERY important fact.

What happened AFTER the INVATION of Israel, EVERTHING else is POLITICS, got it? Remember it, its very, very important, and DOES make a large difference.

Don't let the surrender monkeys turn this around on you.

 

[Annie]

First of all, Israel DIDN'T lose ANYTHING, the war, the hearts, and minds, ANYTHING. You people are being mislead by the MSM, truthfully.

The "end game" wasn't won by Hezbollah, it was LOST by the Lebanese people, and those that are to blame are the leaders of Hezbollah.

The Israel's were within their right to defend their country, lets DON'T lose sight of that one VERY important fact.

What happened AFTER the INVATION of Israel, EVERTHING else is POLITICS, got it? Remember it, its very, very important, and DOES make a large difference.

Don't let the surrender monkeys turn this around on you.

Considering I usually haven't issues with you, sorry, you are just wrong, dead wrong. Israel lost, big time. Hizbollah won, not because of anything but UN mandated cease fire, which Israel agreed with.

 

[Gunny]

Israel lost the battle, what happens after that is what is going to matter, but this was a serious loss. No doubt, Hizbollah won and has been empowered by it.

I'm not sure I see how Israel lost the battle. IIRC, their goal was to push Hezbollah out of Southern Lebanon beyond their missile-firing range. Since they've pretty-much turned the area in question into a moonscape, I'd say they achieved their goal.

Now they're kicking back and letting the UN prove its usual incompetence.

The only "loss" I see one can attribute to Israel is a political one, thanks to the left/MSM who have turned the focus of war from winning to worrying about how many civilians got killed, and somehow portraying a Nation under daily missile attack as the ruthless aggrssors.

 

[Mr.Conley]

I'm not sure I see how Israel lost the battle. IIRC, their goal was to push Hezbollah out of Southern Lebanon beyond their missile-firing range. Since they've pretty-much turned the area in question into a moonscape, I'd say they achieved their goal.

Now they're kicking back and letting the UN prove its usual incompetence.

The only "loss" I see one can attribute to Israel is a political one, thanks to the left/MSM who have turned the focus of war from winning to worrying about how many civilians got killed, and somehow portraying a Nation under daily missile attack as the ruthless aggrssors.

Sure, they won the military victory, but, as you said, they didn't win the political victory, and in this conflict, that's all that matters. All that's going to happen is that Israel is going to withdraw, the UN or some peacekeeping for is going to come in to prevent Hizbollah from retaking the area, they'll fail, and things will be as they were. They only difference will be that the Muslims will be even more pissed, the Israelis will have wasted a billion dollars, Lebanon will be a steaming pile of rubble, and Hizbollah will have its position on the Arab Street elevated which will result in more money, more people, and more weapons to use against Israel.

 

[Redhots]

In short, it was pointless.

All the death, destruction, and waste of resources have only bought a temporary respite.

Time enough to bury the dead, reload the guns, and start the insanity all over again.

 

[Redhots]

Infact I think the argument can be made that Israel lost on the military front as well because if the number of Hezbollah rockets launched during the conflict, right untill the very end, is any indicator of the damage Israel inflicted on Hezbollah... then i'm not even sure the IDF drew blood.

 

[Redhots]

How is it possible to expect the Israeli military to undo in a month that which Hizbollah has prepared for 6 years? If the fight was never calculated to last longer than a month, then it was lost from the beginning.

Actually, Israel started drawing up plans for this conflict the day they withdrew from Lebanon back in 2000 and yes 30 days was the timetable for disarming Hezbollah.

(07-21) 04:00 PDT Jerusalem -- Israel's military response by air, land and sea to what it considered a provocation last week by Hezbollah militants is unfolding according to a plan finalized more than a year ago.

In the six years since Israel ended its military occupation of southern Lebanon, it watched warily as Hezbollah built up its military presence in the region. When Hezbollah militants kidnapped two Israeli soldiers last week, the Israeli military was ready to react almost instantly.

"Of all of Israel's wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared," said Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University. "In a sense, the preparation began in May 2000, immediately after the Israeli withdrawal, when it became clear the international community was not going to prevent Hezbollah from stockpiling missiles and attacking Israel. By 2004, the military campaign scheduled to last about three weeks that we're seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it's been simulated and rehearsed across the board."

More than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to U.S. and other diplomats, journalists and think tanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail. Under the ground rules of the briefings, the officer could not be identified.

In his talks, the officer described a three-week campaign: The first week concentrated on destroying Hezbollah's heavier long-range missiles, bombing its command-and-control centers, and disrupting transportation and communication arteries. In the second week, the focus shifted to attacks on individual sites of rocket launchers or weapons stores. In the third week, ground forces in large numbers would be introduced, but only in order to knock out targets discovered during reconnaissance missions as the campaign unfolded. There was no plan, according to this scenario, to reoccupy southern Lebanon on a long-term basis.

Israeli officials say their pinpoint commando raids should not be confused with a ground invasion. Nor, they say, do they herald another occupation of southern Lebanon, which Israel maintained from 1982 to 2000 -- in order, it said, to thwart Hezbollah attacks on Israel. Planners anticipated the likelihood of civilian deaths on both sides. Israel says Hezbollah intentionally bases some of its operations in residential areas. And Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, has bragged publicly that the group's arsenal included rockets capable of bombing Haifa, as occurred last week.

Like all plans, the one now unfolding also has been shaped by changing circumstances, said Eran Lerman, a former colonel in Israeli military intelligence who is now director of the Jerusalem office of the American Jewish Committee.

"There are two radical views of how to deal with this challenge, a serious professional debate within the military community over which way to go," said Lerman. "One is the air power school of thought, the other is the land-borne option. They create different dynamics and different timetables. The crucial factor is that the air force concept is very methodical and almost by definition is slower to get results. A ground invasion that sweeps Hezbollah in front of you is quicker, but at a much higher cost in human life and requiring the creation of a presence on the ground."

The advance scenario is now in its second week, and its success or failure is still unfolding. Whether Israel's aerial strikes will be enough to achieve the threefold aim of the campaign -- to remove the Hezbollah military threat; to evict Hezbollah from the border area, allowing the deployment of Lebanese government troops; and to ensure the safe return of the two Israeli soldiers abducted last week -- remains an open question. Israelis are opposed to the thought of reoccupying Lebanon.

"I have the feeling that the end is not clear here. I have no idea how this movie is going to end," said Daniel Ben-Simon, a military analyst for the daily Haaretz newspaper.

Thursday's clashes in southern Lebanon occurred near an outpost abandoned more than six years ago by the retreating Israeli army. The place was identified using satellite photographs of a Hezbollah bunker, but only from the ground was Israel able to discover that it served as the entrance to a previously unknown underground network of caves and bunkers stuffed with missiles aimed at northern Israel, said Israeli army spokesman Miri Regev.

"We knew about the network, but it was fully revealed (Wednesday) by the ground operation of our forces," said Regev. "This is one of the purposes of the pinpoint ground operations -- to locate and try to destroy the terrorist infrastructure from where they can fire at Israeli citizens."

Israeli military officials say as much as 50 percent of Hezbollah's missile capability has been destroyed, mainly by aerial attacks on targets identified from intelligence reports. But missiles continue to be fired at towns and cities across northern Israel.

"We were not surprised that the firing has continued," said Tzachi Hanegbi, chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. "Hezbollah separated its leadership command-and-control system from its field organization. It created a network of tiny cells in each village that had no operational mission except to wait for the moment when they should activate the Katyusha rocket launchers hidden in local houses, using coordinates programmed long ago to hit Nahariya or Kiryat Shemona, or the kibbutzim and villages."

"From the start of this operation, we have also been active on the ground across the width of Lebanon," said Brig. Gen. Ron Friedman, head of Northern Command headquarters. "These missions are designed to support our current actions. Unfortunately, one of the many missions which we have carried out in recent days met with slightly fiercer resistance."

Israel didn't need sophisticated intelligence to discover the huge buildup of Iranian weapons supplies to Hezbollah by way of Syria, because Hezbollah's patrons boasted about it openly in the pages of the Arabic press. As recently as June 16, less than four weeks before the Hezbollah border raid that sparked the current crisis, the Syrian defense minister publicly announced the extension of existing agreements allowing the passage of trucks shipping Iranian weapons into Lebanon.

But to destroy them, Israel needed to map the location of each missile.

"We need a lot of patience," said Hanegbi. "The (Israeli Defense Forces) action at the moment is incapable of finding the very last Katyusha, or the last rocket launcher primed for use hidden inside a house in some village."

Moshe Marzuk, a former head of the Lebanon desk for Israeli Military Intelligence who now is a researcher at the Institute for Counter-Terrorism in Herzliya, said Israel had learned from past conflicts in Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza -- as well as the recent U.S. experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq -- that a traditional military campaign would be counter-effective.

"A big invasion is not suitable here," said Marzuk. "We are not fighting an army, but guerrillas. It would be a mistake to enter and expose ourselves to fighters who will hide, fire off a missile and run away. If we are to be on the ground at all, we need to use commandos and special forces."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/21/MNG2QK396D1.DTL

 

[trobinett]

Ok, this is much more than a war, but on the other side of the coin, its much more than a political issue.

This is much BIGGER, its about survival of a whole people, a culture.

The Lebanese are not in danger of extinction, but the Israeli's are.

To assign a win or lose label to this contest of "survival", is to lessen the drama we see playing out between these cultures.

Personally, I don't think the land should have been taken from one people's, and given to another, THAT is wrong. But, having said that, the Jew's DO have some history in that area of the world, and depending on who you belive, they were the rightful owners of that land.

So, here we are, reasonable people, using reasonable means, and with a goal in mind, could work this problem out, but there isn't ANYTHING reasonable about this issue.

What gets me hot, is all the labeling going on by the MSM, and others, and trying to assign blame to the Israeli's. If you want to assign blame, blame the Allies, and the United Nations, hell, their is plenty of blame to go around.

Being a business owner, I've always like percentages. I'd say the Israeli's could be labeled with about 20% of the blame, the Arab(Muslim)community with about 50%, and the rest of the world 30%.

Doesn't solve a damn thing, but it does point out what a tangled web that has been woven in that part of the world.

I think the blame game, or who lost or won what, isn't productive, and will never help solve the many problems facing us all.

At lease that's how I see it.:huh: