Israel -- 2006 War

SAFOOL

Star
Registered
http://www.theamericancause.org/

Where are the Christians

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

When Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert unleashed his navy and air force on Lebanon, accusing that tiny nation of an "act of war," the last pillar of Bush's Middle East policy collapsed.

First came capitulation on the Bush Doctrine, as Pyongyang and Tehran defied Bush's dictum: The world's worst regimes will not be allowed to acquire the world's worst weapons. Then came suspension of the democracy crusade as Islamic militants exploited free elections to advance to power and office in Egypt, Lebanon, Gaza, the West Bank, Iraq and Iran.

Now Israel's rampage against a defenseless Lebanon -- smashing airport runways, fuel tanks, power plants, gas stations, lighthouses, bridges, roads and the occasional refugee convoy -- has exposed Bush's folly in subcontracting U.S. policy out to Tel Aviv, thus making Israel the custodian of our reputation and interests in the Middle East.

The Lebanon that Israel, with Bush's blessing, is smashing up has a pro-American government, heretofore considered a shining example of his democracy crusade. Yet, asked in St. Petersburg if he would urge Israel to use restraint in its air strikes, Bush sounded less like the leader of the Free World than some bellicose city councilman from Brooklyn Heights.

What Israel is up to was described by its Army Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz when he threatened to "turn back the clock in Lebanon 20 years."

Olmert seized upon Hezbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers to unleash the IDF in a pre-planned attack to make the Lebanese people suffer until the Lebanese government disarms Hezbollah, a task the Israeli army could not accomplish in 18 years of occupation.

Israel is doing the same to the Palestinians. To punish these people for the crime of electing Hamas, Olmert imposed an economic blockade of Gaza and the West Bank and withheld the $50 million in monthly tax and customs receipts due the Palestinians.

Then, Israel instructed the United States to terminate all aid to the Palestinian Authority, though Bush himself had called for the elections and for the participation of Hamas. Our Crawford cowboy meekly complied.

The predictable result: Fatah and Hamas fell to fratricidal fighting, and Hamas militants began launching Qassam rockets over the fence from Gaza into Israel. Hamas then tunneled into Israel, killed two soldiers, captured one, took him back into Gaza, and demanded a prisoner exchange.

Israel's response was to abduct half of the Palestinian cabinet and parliament and blow up a $50 million U.S.-insured power plant. That cut off electricity for half a million Palestinians. Their food spoiled, their water could not be purified, and their families sweltered in the summer heat of the Gaza desert. One family of seven was wiped out on a beach by what the IDF assures us was an errant artillery shell.

Let it be said: Israel has a right to defend herself, a right to counter-attack against Hezbollah and Hamas, a right to clean out bases from which Katyusha or Qassam rockets are being fired and a right to occupy land from which attacks are mounted on her people.

But what Israel is doing is imposing deliberate suffering on civilians, collective punishment on innocent people, to force them to do something they are powerless to do: disarm the gunmen among them. Such a policy violates international law and comports neither with our values nor our interests. It is un-American and un-Christian.

But where are the Christians? Why is Pope Benedict virtually alone among Christian leaders to have spoken out against what is being done to Lebanese Christians and Muslims?

When al Qaeda captured two U.S. soldiers and barbarically butchered them, the U.S. Army did not smash power plants across the Sunni Triangle. Why then is Bush not only silent but openly supportive when Israelis do this?

Democrats attack Bush for crimes of which he is not guilty, including Haditha and Abu Ghraib. Why are they, too, silent when Israel pursues a conscious policy of collective punishment of innocent peoples?

Britain's diplomatic goal in two world wars was to bring the naive cousins in, to "pull their chestnuts out of the fire." Israel and her paid and pro-bono agents here appear determined to expand the Iraq war into Syria and Iran, and have America fight and finish all of Israel's enemies.

That Tel Aviv is maneuvering us to fight its wars is understandable. That Americans are ignorant of, or complicit in this, is deplorable.

Already, Bush is ranting about Syria being behind the Hezbollah capture of the Israeli soldiers. But where is the proof?

Who is whispering in his ear? The same people who told him Iraq was maybe months away from an atom bomb, that an invasion would be a "cakewalk," that he would be Churchill, that U.S. troops would be greeted with candy and flowers, that democracy would break out across the region, that Palestinians and Israelis would then sit down and make peace?

How much must America pay for the education of this man?
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
`

I have to wonder: does either Hezbollah or Israel want a ceasfire, right now ???

`
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="6"><center>Why They Fight</font size>
<font size="4">Israel isn't the only state that might benefit from escalating violence</font size></center>

Los Angeles Times
July 19, 2006

AS ISRAELI FORCES POUND LEBANON with a vengeance, it becomes more obvious that Israel's military strategy is not merely a rescue operation or a punitive lesson. It is moving toward a more far-reaching exercise in preemption, aimed squarely at Hezbollah and its sponsor, Iran. There is increasing evidence that Israel is also trying to improve its position in the event that it decides — weeks, months or years from now — to try to strike at Iran's nuclear facilities.

If you think that's a stretch, imagine for a moment that you are an Israeli military strategist. Just when it appeared that the Hamas government in Gaza was foundering (good) and that Gazans might actually be asked to vote on whether to accept a two-state solution (even better), Hamas changes the subject by attacking Israeli territory and capturing an Israeli soldier. A mini-war ensues, and the referendum is off the agenda (major setback). Next, Hezbollah crosses your border, stages attacks and kidnaps two Israeli soldiers, and when you retaliate, it rains missiles down on Haifa and other Israeli cities. Clearly, you did not expect this. But is it disastrous?

Not necessarily. Israel has long been unhappy with Hezbollah's continuing domination of southern Lebanon, its refusal to disarm (in defiance of the United Nations) and its legitimization as a major force in the Lebanese parliament. Now Hezbollah has handed Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's government the justification to do what it has long wanted to do: Destroy Hezbollah's offensive capabilities and exert pressure on Beirut and the international community to put an end to the group's de facto control of southern Lebanon.

This would all be desirable for Israel under any set of circumstances. But in light of a possible strike against Iran, taking care of Hezbollah is an urgent, strategic imperative. This helps explain the disproportionate scale of the Israeli response. Yes, Israeli troops entered southern Lebanon in search of tunnels and weapons. But Israeli forces also have struck the Beirut airport and apartment buildings in that city and have attacked army barracks in Tripoli and east of Beirut, fuel tanks in Beirut's port, and a truck carrying medical supplies from Damascus to Beirut's suburbs. Israel knows such attacks will inflict major civilian casualties and trigger an international outcry.

Why would Israel widen the war so far? Why risk international outrage just when several Arab states had summoned the courage to denounce Hezbollah for starting the war?

The answer lies in Tehran. For years, Israel has warned the West that Iran is a revolutionary power that seeks to promote the interests of Shiites and destabilize Sunni governments across the Middle East, and that it seeks a hegemonic role in the region commensurate with its expanding influence. Israel has also warned that Iran is secretly developing nuclear weapons far faster than anyone realizes, and it has despaired at the inefficacy of the Bush administration's diplomatic efforts against Iran.

Fearing that a United States stuck in its Iraqi quagmire will not do what is necessary to take on the Iranian nuclear challenge, military planners in Israel may have concluded that they will have to do so. And one of the more worrisome consequences of such an operation is the possibility of a full-scale Hezbollah attack with Iranian-supplied missiles and terrorist infiltration from southern Lebanon.

Hence the vehemence of Israel's reaction. The international uproar is a price Israel is willing to pay for limiting the damage Hezbollah could later inflict in response to a preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear program. On Tuesday, the Israeli army's deputy chief of staff, Maj. Gen. Moshe Kaplinsky, revealingly said that his troops need more time to complete "very clear goals" and that the fighting in Lebanon would end within a few weeks — not days. There is a sense that an immediate cease-fire would thwart Israel's need to disable Hezbollah.

The Bush administration, somewhat understandably, is not keen on forcing Israel to stop pummeling Hezbollah too soon. But what's remarkable is how many other factions on the Middle East chessboard have their own vested interest in seeing this fighting prolonged.

There is Hamas, for starters, and the radical Islamist movement in general, which feared Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' desire to have the Palestinian people vote on a two-state solution. This warfare has provided a great change of topic.

The Sunni monarchies in Saudi Arabia and Jordan, for their part, are not shedding tears over Hezbollah because they have every reason to fear the power of its patron, Iran, to stir up their own Shiite populations, sponsor radical Islamists in their territories and continue challenging their legitimacy.

Syria, Hezbollah's other backer, also stands to gain from the fighting. In the aftermath of the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in February 2005, it was forced to withdraw its military from Lebanon after a 29-year occupation. The current Lebanese government now seems irrelevant. And efforts to isolate Syrian President Bashar Assad, exacerbated by inquiries into his regime's involvement in the Hariri killing, are now being second-guessed by those who'd like to engage Damascus to find a resolution to the crisis. Suddenly, Syria is a player again.

To what extent Syria is acting in concert with Iran is not clear — nor is the likelihood of an Israeli strike against Iran. But the regime in Tehran also has much to gain from continued fighting. The ability of Hamas and Hezbollah to goad Israel into a fight helps galvanize the cause of radical Islamism in the entire region, and it enhances Iran's prestige even in countries ruled by more moderate, pro-Western leaders. And in terms of changing the topic, the fighting deflects some attention from the Iranian nuclear program.

So many players, so many reasons to fight — while the people of Lebanon bear the brunt with their suffering. Poland — frequently annexed and partitioned — was once the proxy battlefield for Europe's great powers. It falls to Lebanon to play that role in the Middle East today. No amount of cynical realpolitik can afford to lose sight of that tragedy.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-mideast19jul19,0,4184059.story?coll=la-opinion-leftrail
 

African Herbsman

Star
Registered
Dobbs: Not so smart when it comes to the Middle East

By Lou Dobbs
CNN
Wednesday, July 19, 2006; Posted: 9:53 a.m. EDT (13:53 GMT)

NEW YORK (CNN) -- We Americans like to think we're a pretty smart people, even when evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. And nowhere is that evidence more overwhelming than in the Middle East. History in the Middle East is everything, and we Americans seem to learn nothing from it.

President Harry Truman took about 20 minutes to recognize the state of Israel when it declared independence in 1948. Since then, more than 58 years of war, terrorism and blood-letting have led to the events of the past week.

Even now, as Katyusha rockets rain down on northern Israel and Israeli fighter jets blast Hezbollah targets in southern Lebanon, we simultaneously decry radical Islamist terrorism and Israel's lack of restraint in defending itself.

And the U.S. government, which wants no part of a cease-fire until Israel is given every opportunity to rescue its kidnapped soldiers and destroy as many Hezbollah and Hezbollah armaments as possible, urges caution in the interest of preserving a nascent and fragile democratic government in Lebanon. Could we be more conflicted?

While the United States provides about $2.5 billion in military and economic aid to Israel each year, U.S. aid to Lebanon amounts to no more than $40 million. This despite the fact that the per capita GDP of Israel is among the highest in the world at $24,600, nearly four times as high as Lebanon's GDP per capita of $6,200.

Lebanon's lack of wealth is matched by the Palestinians -- three out of every four Palestinians live below the poverty line. Yet the vast majority of our giving in the region flows to Israel. This kind of geopolitical inconsistency and shortsightedness has contributed to the Arab-Israeli conflict that the Western world seems content to allow to perpetuate endlessly.

After a week of escalating violence, around two dozen Israelis and roughly 200 Lebanese have died. That has been sufficient bloodshed for United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to join in the call for an international security force, ignoring the fact that a U.N. force is already in Southern Lebanon, having failed to secure the border against Hezbollah's incursions and attacks and the murder and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers.

As our airwaves fill with images and sounds of exploding Hezbollah rockets and Israeli bombs, this seven-day conflict has completely displaced from our view another war in which 10 Americans and more than 300 Iraqis have died during the same week. And it is a conflict now of more than three years duration that has claimed almost 15,000 lives so far this year alone.

An estimated 50,000 Iraqis and more than 2,500 American troops have been killed since the insurgency began in March of 2003, which by some estimates is more than the number of dead on both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict over the past 58 years of wars and intifadas.

Yet we have seen no rescue ships moving up the Euphrates for Iraqis who are dying in their streets, markets and mosques each day. French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin has not leaped to Baghdad as he did Beirut. And there are no meetings of the Arab League, and no U.S. diplomacy with Egypt, Syria and Jordan directed at ending the Iraqi conflict.

In the Middle East, where is our sense of proportion? Where is our sense of perspective? Where is our sense of decency? And, finally, just how smart are we?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/18/dobbs.july19/index.html
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>Hizballah has shot 1,600 rockets into Israel
in eight days, 34 on Thursday </font size></center>



Lebanon.jpg



DEBKAFile
July 20, 2006, 10:07 PM (GMT+02:00)

Katyusha fire from Lebanon resumed over Tiberias, Carmiel, Rosh Pinah and Galilee Thursday morning, Day Nine of the Hizballah war.

Wednesday night, a Katyusha rocket killed two brothers aged 3 and 7, Rabiya and Mahmoud Taluzi, as they played outside their home in Nazareth. Twenty-seven people were injured. Up to 200 Katyusha rockets in wave after furious wave struck Galilee Wednesday afternoon, singling out Haifa, Carmiel, Tiberias, Nahariya and Safed, where there were four casualties and substantial damage. The smaller villages of Reches Ramim, Givat Avni and Kiryat Tivon also took punishment. Rockets started several fires and caused heavy damage to the Hula Valley’s farm crops and orchards at peak picking season. A main water pipe was damaged in Afula, leaving large area without water.

One third of Israel is a warfront. Thousands of refugees have gone south out of harm’s way. Central Israeli towns, kibbutzim and moshavim have opened their homes to host refugees. More than a million civilians with many children are incarcerated in bomb shelters on the ninth day of Hizballah rocket fire. As a result, civilian casualties have been kept down to 15 dead. Israel’s third largest city Haifa is a ghost town, its key port and universities closed. Businesses, shops and summer schools are shut; factories and farms have suffered heavy damage. The tourist season at its peak is disrupted. Emergency teams and police are working overtime.

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=2916
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
DEBKAfile Exclusive:

<font size="5"><center>Jordan alerts Israel to a Hamas team
heading for a large-scale terror attack in Israel
prompts West Bank closure Thursday</font size></center>



DEBKAFile
July 20, 2006, 11:57 PM (GMT+02:00)

Jordanian military intelligence relayed information that Hamas had recruited a bomb team in the kingdom. It was on its way to cross into Israel for the strike. Israeli and Jordanian border troops are on a high state of preparedness. The potential targets are the southern port of Eilat, its Arava main road link to the north, the Dead Sea, or the Beit Shean Valley on the Jordan River. This information led defense minister Amir Peretz to announce the closure of the West Bank Thursday, July 20.

Israeli security officials have grounds to suspect that the latest Hamas terror initiative is coordinated with Hizballah’s war in the north via the Lebanese group’s operational officers stationed in Nablus and Gaza

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=2931
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>Rice Outlines Plan for Mideast Solution</font size></center>

Jul 21, 2:09 PM (ET)
Associated Press
By ANNE GEARAN

WASHINGTON (AP) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, heading for a weekend trip to the troubled Middle East, said Friday she would work with allies in the region to help create conditions for "stability and lasting peace."

She ruled out a quick cease-fire as a "false promise" and defended her decision not to talk to officials from Hezbollah or Syria.

"Syria knows what it needs to do and Hezbollah is the source of the problem," Rice said at the State Department as she outlined U.S. hopes for a diplomatic solution to the current crisis.

Rice said she was meeting not only with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert but also with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas as well as with allies at a gathering in Rome.

Asked why she didn't go earlier and engage in quick-hit diplomacy to try to end the death and destruction that has gripped the region, she replied, "I could have gotten on a plane and rushed over and started shuttling and it wouldn't have been clear what I was shuttling to do."

Rice said the United States was committed to ending the bloodshed, but didn't want to do it before certain conditions were met. The United States has said all along that Hezbollah must first turn over the two Israeli soldiers who were captured and stop firing missiles into Israel.

"We do seek an end to the current violence, we seek it urgently. We also seek to address the root causes of that violence," she said. "A cease-fire would be a false promise if it simply returns us to the status quo."

Rice said that it was important to deal with the "root cause" of the violence, echoing what has been the U.S. position since last week.

Rice is also expected to meet with European foreign ministers and representatives from Arab nations that have been unusually critical of Hezbollah. That meeting would take place somewhere in the Mideast, but the location is not set.

Rice's mission would be the first U.S. diplomatic effort on the ground since the Israeli onslaught against Lebanon began.

The Rice initiative likely would be designed to give the United States a major role in brokering peace there. She is not expected to try to get a signed deal during her brief visit, however, and she risks laying out the U.S. goals only to have either side refuse to bargain.

http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20060721/D8J0HHD82.html?PG=home&SEC=news
 

SAFOOL

Star
Registered
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51164
No, this is not 'our war'
Posted: July 20, 2006
8:36 p.m. Eastern

© 2006

My country has been "torn to shreds," said Fouad Siniora, the prime minister of Lebanon, as the death toll among his people passed 300 civilian dead, 1,000 wounded, with half a million homeless.

Israel must pay for the "barbaric destruction," said Siniora.

To the contrary, says columnist Lawrence Kudlow, "Israel is doing the Lord's work."

On American TV, former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu says the ruination of Lebanon is Hezbollah's doing. But is it Hezbollah that is using U.S.-built F-16s, with precision-guided bombs and 155-mm artillery pieces to wreak death and devastation on Lebanon?

No, Israel is doing this, with the blessing and without a peep of protest from President Bush. And we wonder why they hate us.

"Today, we are all Israelis!" brayed Ken Mehlman of the Republican National Committee to a gathering of Christians United for Israel.

One wonders if these Christians care about what is happening to our Christian brethren in Lebanon and Gaza, who have had all power cut off by Israeli airstrikes, an outlawed form of collective punishment, that has left them with no sanitation, rotting food, impure water and days without light or electricity in the horrible heat of July.

When summer power outrages occur in America, it means a rising rate of death among our sick and elderly, and women and infants. One can only imagine what a hell it must be today in Gaza City and Beirut.

But all this carnage and destruction has only piqued the blood lust of the hairy-chested warriors at the Weekly Standard. In a signed editorial, "It's Our War," William Kristol calls for America to play her rightful role in this war by "countering this act of aggression by Iran with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait?"

"Why wait?" Well, one reason is that the United States has not been attacked. A second is a small thing called the Constitution. Where does George W. Bush get the authority to launch a war on Iran? When did Congress declare war or authorize a war on Iran?

Answer: It never did. But these neoconservatives care no more about the Constitution than they cared about the truth when they lied into war in Iraq.

"Why wait?" How about thinking of the fate of those 25,000 Americans in Lebanon if we launch an unprovoked war on Iran. How many would wind up dead or hostages of Hezbollah if Iran gave the order to retaliate for the slaughter of their citizens by U.S. bombs? What would happen to the 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, if Shiites and Iranian "volunteers" joined forces to exact revenge on our soldiers?

What about America? Richard Armitage, who did four tours in Nam and knows a bit about war, says that, in its ability to attack Western targets, al-Qaida is the B Team, Hezbollah the A Team. If Bush bombs Iran, what prevents Hezbollah from launching retaliatory attacks inside the United States?

None of this is written in defense of Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran.

But none of them has attacked our country, nor has Syria, whom Bush I made an ally in the Gulf War and to whom the most decorated soldier in Israeli history, Ehud Barak, offered 99 percent of the Golan Heights. If Nixon, Bush I and Clinton could deal with Hafez al-Assad, a tougher customer than son Bashar, what is the matter with George W. Bush?

The last superpower is impotent in this war because we have allowed Israel to dictate to whom we may and may not talk. Thus, Bush winds up cussing in frustration in St. Petersburg that somebody should tell the Syrians to stop it. Why not pick up the phone, Mr. President?

What is Kristol's moral and legal ground for a war on Iran? It is the "Iranian act of aggression" against Israel and that Iran is on the road to nuclear weapons – and we can't have that.

But there is no evidence Iran has any tighter control over Hezbollah than we have over Israel, whose response to the capture of two soldiers had all the spontaneity of the Schlieffen Plan. And, again, Hezbollah attacked Israel, not us. And there is no solid proof Iran is in violation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which it has signed, but Israel refuses to sign.

If Iran's nuclear program justifies war, why cannot the neocons make that case in the constitutional way, instead of prodding Bush to launch a Pearl Harbor attack? Do they fear they have no credibility left after pushing Bush into this bloody quagmire in Iraq that has cost almost 2,600 dead and 18,000 wounded Americans?

No, Kenny boy, we are not "all Israelis." Some of us still think of ourselves as Americans, first, last and always

And, no, Mr. Kristol, this is not "our war." It's your war.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>Red Alert: The Battle Joined</font size>
<font size="4">The ground war has begun -- Strategies of Hezbollah and Israel</font size></center>

Strategic Forecasting
Intelligence Report
July 21, 2006

The ground war has begun. Several Israeli brigades now appear to be operating between the Lebanese border and the Litani River. According to reports, Hezbollah forces are dispersed in multiple bunker complexes and are launching rockets from these and other locations.

Hezbollah's strategy appears to be threefold.

First, force Israel into costly attacks against prepared fortifications.

Second, draw Israeli troops as deeply into Lebanon as possible, forcing them to fight on extended supply lines.

Third, move into an Iraqi-style insurgency from which Israel -- out of fear of a resumption of rocket attacks -- cannot withdraw, but which the Israelis also cannot endure because of extended long-term casualties. This appears to have been a carefully planned strategy, built around a threat to Israeli cities that Israel can't afford. The war has begun at Hezbollah's time and choosing.​

Israel is caught between three strategic imperatives.

First, it must end the threat to Israeli cities, which must involve the destruction of Hezbollah's launch capabilities south of the Litani River.

Second, it must try to destroy Hezbollah's infrastructure, which means it must move into the Bekaa Valley and as far as the southern suburbs of Beirut.

Third, it must do so in such a way that it is not dragged into a long-term, unsustainable occupation against a capable insurgency.​

Hezbollah has implemented its strategy by turning southern Lebanon into a military stronghold, consisting of well-designed bunkers that serve both as fire bases and launch facilities for rockets. The militants appear to be armed with anti-tank weapons and probably anti-aircraft weapons, some of which appear to be of American origin, raising the question of how they were acquired. Hezbollah wants to draw Israel into protracted fighting in this area in order to inflict maximum casualties and to change the psychological equation for both military and political reasons.

Israelis historically do not like to fight positional warfare. Their tendency has been to bypass fortified areas, pushing the fight to the rear in order to disrupt logistics, isolate fortifications and wait for capitulation. This has worked in the past. It is not clear that it will work here. The great unknown is the resilience of Hezbollah's fighters. To this point, there is no reason to doubt it. Israel could be fighting the most resilient and well-motivated opposition force in its history. But the truth is that neither Israel nor Hezbollah really knows what performance will be like under pressure.

Simply occupying the border-Litani area will not achieve any of Israel's strategic goals. Hezbollah still would be able to use rockets against Israel. And even if, for Hezbollah, this area is lost, its capabilities in the Bekaa Valley and southern Beirut will remain intact. Therefore, a battle that focuses solely on the south is not an option for Israel, unless the Israelis feel a defeat here will sap Hezbollah's will to resist. We doubt this to be the case.

The key to the campaign is to understand that Hezbollah has made its strategic decisions. It will not be fighting a mobile war. Israel has lost the strategic initiative: It must fight when Hezbollah has chosen and deal with Hezbollah's challenge. However, given this, Israel does have an operational choice. It can move in a sequential fashion, dealing first with southern Lebanon and then with other issues. It can bypass southern Lebanon and move into the rear areas, returning to southern Lebanon when it is ready. It can attempt to deal with southern Lebanon in detail, while mounting mobile operations in the Bekaa Valley, in the coastal regions and toward south Beirut, or both at the same time.

There are resource and logistical issues involved. Moving simultaneously on all three fronts will put substantial strains on Israel's logistical capability. An encirclement westward on the north side of the Litani, followed by a move toward Beirut while the southern side of the Litani is not secured, poses a serious challenge in re-supply. Moving into the Bekaa means leaving a flank open to the Syrians. We doubt Syria will hit that flank, but then, we don't have to live with the consequences of an intelligence failure. Israel will be sending a lot of force on that line if it chooses that method. Again, since many roads in south Lebanon will not be secure, that limits logistics.

Israel is caught on the horns of a dilemma. Hezbollah has created a situation in which Israel must fight the kind of war it likes the least -- attritional, tactical operations against prepared forces -- or go to the war it prefers, mobile operations, with logistical constraints that make these operations more difficult and dangerous. Moreover, if it does this, it increases the time during which Israeli cities remain under threat. Given clear failures in appreciating Hezbollah's capabilities, Israel must take seriously the possibility that Hezbollah has longer-ranged, anti-personnel rockets that it will use while under attack.

Israel has been trying to break the back of Hezbollah resistance in the south through air attack, special operations and probing attacks. This clearly hasn't worked thus far. That does not mean it won't work, as Israel applies more force to the problem and starts to master the architecture of Hezbollah's tactical and operational structure; however, Israel can't count on a rapid resolution of that problem.

The Israelis have by now thought the problem through. They don't like operational compromises -- preferring highly focused solutions at the center of gravity of an enemy. Hezbollah has tried to deny Israel a center of gravity and may have succeeded, forcing Israel into a compromise position. Repeated assaults against prepared positions are simply not something the Israelis can do, because they cannot afford casualties. They always have preferred mobile encirclement or attacks at the center of gravity of a defensive position. But at this moment, viewed from the outside, this is not an option.

An extended engagement in southern Lebanon is the least likely path, in our opinion. More likely -- and this is a guess -- is a five-part strategy:

1. Insert airmobile and airborne forces north of the Litani to seal the rear of Hezbollah forces in southern Lebanon. Apply air power and engineering forces to reduce the fortifications, and infantry to attack forces not in fortified positions. Bottle them up, and systematically reduce the force with limited exposure to the attackers.

2. Secure roads along the eastern flank for an armored thrust deep into the Bekaa Valley to engage the main Hezbollah force and infrastructure there. This would involve a move from Qiryat Shimona north into the Bekaa, bypassing the Litani to the west, and would probably require sending airmobile and special forces to secure the high ground. It also would leave the right flank exposed to Syria.

3. Use air power and special forces to undermine Hezbollah capabilities in the southern Beirut area. The Israelis would consider a move into this area after roads through southern Lebanon are cleared and Bekaa relatively secured, moving into the area, only if absolutely necessary, on two axes of attack.

4. Having defeated Hezbollah in detail, withdraw under a political settlement shifting defense responsibility to the Lebanese government.

5. Do all of this while the United States is still able to provide top cover against diplomatic initiatives that will create an increasingly difficult international environment.​

There can be many variations on this theme, but these elements are inevitable:[

1. Hezbollah cannot be defeated without entering the Bekaa Valley, at the very least.

2. At some point, resistance in southern Lebanon must be dealt with, regardless of the cost.

3. Rocket attacks against northern Israel and even Tel Aviv must be accepted while the campaign unfolds.

4. The real challenge will come when Israel tries to withdraw.​

No. 4 is the real challenge. Destruction of Hezbollah's infrastructure does not mean annihilation of the force. If Israel withdraws, Hezbollah or a successor organization will regroup. If Israel remains, it can wind up in the position the United States is in Iraq. This is exactly what Hezbollah wants. So, Israel can buy time, or Israel can occupy and pay the cost. One or the other.

The other solution is to shift the occupational burden to another power that is motivated to prevent the re-emergence of an anti-Israeli military force -- as that is what Hezbollah has become. The Lebanese government is the only possible alternative, but not a particularly capable one, reflecting the deep rifts in Lebanon.

Israel has one other choice, which is to extend the campaign to defeat Syria as well. Israel can do this, but the successor regime to Syrian President Bashar al Assad likely would be much worse for Israel than al Assad has been. Israel can imagine occupying Syria; it can't do it. Syria is too big and the Arabs have learned from the Iraqis how to deal with an occupation. Israel cannot live with a successor to al Assad and it cannot take control of Syria. It will have to live with al Assad. And that means an occupation of Lebanon would always be hostage to Syrian support for insurgents.

Hezbollah has dealt Israel a difficult hand. It has thought through the battle problem as well as the political dimension carefully. Somewhere in this, there has been either an Israeli intelligence failure or a political failure to listen to intelligence. Hezbollah's capabilities have posed a problem for Israel that allowed Hezbollah to start a war at a time and in a way of its choosing. The inquest will come later in Israel. And Hezbollah will likely be shattered regardless of its planning. The correlation of forces does not favor it. But if it forces Israel not only to defeat its main force but also to occupy, Hezbollah will have achieved its goals.

Stratfor.com
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>Arab world deeply split over Hezbollah</font size></center>

SALAH NASRAWI
Associated Press
July 21, 2006

CAIRO, Egypt - The fighting between Israel and Hezbollah exposed divisions across the Arab world, not only between Shiites and Sunnis but also between Arab governments and their citizens.

Key Arab allies of the United States, predominantly Sunni countries such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, fear the rising power of Shiites in the region: Hezbollah militants who virtually control southern Lebanon, Iraq's majority Shiite government, and - most worrisome - the Shiite theocracy that has run Iran for decades.

Yet many ordinary people, Sunnis as well as Shiites, are cheering the Lebanese guerrillas because of their willingness to stand up to Israel.

Sitting in the shade as he sold figs in downtown Cairo, Hasan Salem Hasan, a 25-year-old Sunni, summed up a prevailing attitude of the so-called Arab street: "Although Hezbollah is a Shiite party, we are all Muslims, and all Arabs will defiantly support them and fight the Jews."

On the one hand, predominantly Sunni Arab states are tacitly encouraging the destruction of Hezbollah, concerned it could stage attacks and create militant cells outside of Lebanon. There is also fear that militant Sunnis could join with Hezbollah - as the Palestinian militant group Hamas has done - to build a super terrorist network.

"Whenever there is a paramount cause which can bring them together, such as a jihad against the Zionists, they will be united," Gamal Sultan, editor of the Cairo-based Islamic monthly Al Mannar Al Jadid, said of the Sunni and Shiite militants.

Yet on the other hand, Arab governments also fear their own populations will turn on them if they look weak and unable to challenge Israeli aggression against a fellow Arab state.

Saudi Arabia - the bulwark of the Sunni Arab world - has tried to balance both concerns, criticizing Iran and Hezbollah for provoking Israel but also condemning the Jewish state. Israel started bombing south Lebanon, Hezbollah's base, after the guerrillas kidnapped two Israeli soldiers July 12.

The Saudi foreign minister, Saudi Al Faisal, on Tuesday blasted what he called "non-Arab intervention in the Arab world" - a clear reference to Iran, Hezbollah's main backer along with Syria.

Saudi media were even more outspoken.

"We are facing a fierce Iranian offensive against the region. We see that clearly in Iraq where Iran is becoming the major player and in Lebanon through its agent, Hezbollah," columnist Mishari Al Thaydi wrote in the Saudi-owned London-based Asharq Al Awsat newspaper.

Yet on Thursday, Saudi Crown Prince Sultan Bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud lashed out at Israel for its punishing airstrikes.

"We cannot tolerate Israel's playing with the lives of citizens, civilians, women, the elderly and children," he said after meeting with French President Jacques Chirac in Paris.

Other Sunni Arab leaders fear that growing Shiite power in Lebanon and Iraq will awaken Shiite minorities at home.

In April, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak angered Shiite leaders by saying Shiites across the Middle East were more loyal to Iran than to their own countries.

Former Jordanian information minister Saleh al-Qalab has described Hezbollah as an Iranian "land mine" in the Arab world. And Jordan's King Abdullah II warned of a Shiite crescent forming in the region.

Some blame Washington's Middle East policies for upsetting the region's sectarian balance.

"The whole problem started with the American invasion of Iraq with the cooperation of Shiites," said Mamdouh Ismail, an Islamic activist and lawyer who defends Muslim militants in Egyptian courts. "This will certainly resonate throughout the whole region, in the Gulf ... in Saudi Arabia," he added.

Yet events in Lebanon have further mobilized the Shiites across the Muslim world and, if Hezbollah survives the current Israeli onslaught, the sect stands to become even stronger.

In Iraq, the Hezbollah-Israel conflict has proved a rallying point for Sunnis and Shiites otherwise riven by sectarian violence.

On Thursday, Iraqis staged an anti-Israel protest with banners reading "Shiites and Sunnis unite" in the city of Samarra, where the bombing of a Shiite shrine in February brought the country to the brink of civil war.

Earlier this week, about 4,000 Iraqis answered the call of Shiite clerics to rally in the holy city of Karbala in protest of Israeli attacks, raising Iraqi and Lebanese flags.

In Iraq on Friday, radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr urged Sunnis and Shiites to unite so Muslims could defeat Israel - even without weapons. He predicted the Jewish state would collapse just as the World Trade Center did in the Sept. 11 attacks.

"We promise you all that we will not forget our people in Lebanon despite our suffering from the American occupation. I will continue defending my Shiite and Sunni brothers and I tell them that if we unite, we will defeat Israel without the use of weapons," he said.

"I want to remind you of a very important thing. The collapse of the World Trade Center towers in America" was almost five years ago, al-Sadr said. "The same way America's idol collapsed, another idol will fall, and it is called Israel."

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki - a Shiite - also condemned the Israeli destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure.

"I call on the Arab League foreign ministers meeting in Cairo to take quick action to stop these aggressions. We call on the world to take quick stands to stop the Israeli aggression," he said.

On Tuesday, thousands of Shiites demonstrated in the Gulf kingdom of Bahrain in support of Hezbollah, two days after some 300 prominent Saudi Shiites wrote to the Bahraini government urging support to the Lebanese Shiite group.

Both moves were seen as an assertion of increasing Shiite solidarity across the Arab world.

Adding to the Shiite power base, the sect's faithful share a coherent religious view. Since splitting from their Sunni brethren in the 7th century over who should replace the Prophet Muhammad as Muslim ruler, they have developed distinct concepts of Islamic law and practices.

Shiites account for some 160 million of the Islamic world's population of 1.3 billion people. Shiites account about 90 percent of Iran's population, more than 60 percent of Iraq's, and some 50 percent of the people living in the arc of territory from Lebanon to India.

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/nation/15093100.htm
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="4"><center>
What is the CBS's Position on the 2006 Arab - Israel War ?
<font size></center>



<font size="4">
Here are the members of the Congressional Black Caucus:

<font size>
[frame]http://www.house.gov/watt/cbc/cbcmember.htm[/frame]
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: congressional Black Caucus & 2006 Arab-Israeli War

<font size="4">

On July 20, 2006, a Resolution No. 921 was introduced in the United States Congress: "Condemning the recent attacks against the State of Israel, holding terrorists and their state-sponsors accountable for such attacks, supporting Israel's right to defend itself, and for other purposes."

THE RESOLUTION:

</font size>

HRES 921 IH

<center>
109th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. RES. 921
Condemning the recent attacks against the State of Israel, holding terrorists and their state-sponsors accountable for such attacks, supporting Israel's right to defend itself, and for other purposes.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 18, 2006
Mr. BOEHNER (for himself, Mr. HYDE, and Mr. LANTOS) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</font size>

RESOLUTION
</center>

Condemning the recent attacks against the State of Israel, holding terrorists and their state-sponsors accountable for such attacks, supporting Israel's right to defend itself, and for other purposes.

Whereas on September 12, 2005, Israel completed its unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, demonstrating its willingness to make sacrifices for the sake of peace;

Whereas more than 1,000 rockets have been launched from Gaza into Israel since Israel's disengagement;

Whereas in a completely unprovoked attack that occurred in undisputed Israeli territory on June 25, 2006, Israeli Defense Forces Corporal Gilad Shalit was kidnapped and is being held hostage in Gaza by a Palestinian terrorist group which includes members of Hamas;

Whereas Hamas political leader Khaled Meshaal, in Damascus, Syria, has acknowledged the role of Hamas in holding Corporal Shalit hostage;

Whereas in a completely unprovoked attack that occurred in undisputed Israeli territory on July 12, 2006, operatives of the terrorist group Hezbollah operating out of southern Lebanon killed three Israeli soldiers and took two others hostage;

Whereas Israel fully complied with United Nations Security Council Resolution 425 (1978) by completely withdrawing its forces from Lebanon, as certified by the United Nations Security Council and affirmed by United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan on June 16, 2000, when he said, `Israel has withdrawn from [Lebanon] in full compliance with Security Council Resolution 425.';

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 (2004) calls for the complete withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon and the dismantlement of all independent militias in Lebanon;

Whereas despite the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559, the Government of Lebanon has failed to disband and disarm Hezbollah, allowing Hezbollah instead to amass 13,000 rockets, including rockets that are more destructive, longer-range and more accurate than rockets previously used by Hezbollah, and has integrated Hezbollah into the Lebanese Government;

Whereas the Government of Israel has previously shown great restraint despite the fact that Hezbollah has launched at least four separate attacks into Israel using rockets and ground forces over the past year;

Whereas the failure of the Government of Lebanon to implement all aspects of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 and to extend its authority throughout its territory has enabled Hezbollah to launch armed attacks against Israel and recently to kidnap Israeli soldiers;

Whereas Hezbollah's strength derives significantly from the direct financial, military, and political support it receives from Syria and Iran, and Hezbollah also receives important support from sources within Lebanon;

Whereas Iranian Revolutionary Guards continue to operate in southern Lebanon, providing support to Hezbollah and reportedly controlling its operational activities;

Whereas the Government of the United States has enacted several laws, including the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-175) and the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-172), which call for the imposition of sanctions on Syria and Iran for, among other things, their support for terrorism and terrorist organizations;

Whereas the House of Representatives has repeatedly called for full implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559;

Whereas section 1224 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-228) withholds certain assistance to Lebanon contingent on the deployment of the Lebanese armed forces to the internationally recognized border between Lebanon and Israel and its effective assertion of authority in the border area in order, among other reasons, to prevent cross-border infiltration by terrorists, precisely the criminal activity that has provoked the current crisis;

Whereas President George W. Bush stated on July 12, 2006, `Hezbollah's terrorist operations threaten Lebanon's security and are an affront to the sovereignty of the Lebanese Government. Hezbollah's actions are not in the interest of the Lebanese people, whose welfare should not be held hostage to the interests of the Syrian and Iranian regimes.', and has repeatedly affirmed that Syria and Iran must be held to account for their shared responsibility in the recent attacks;

Whereas the United States recognizes that some members of the democratically-elected Lebanese parliament are working to build an autonomous and sovereign Lebanon and supports their efforts; and

Whereas both Hezbollah and Hamas refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist and call for the destruction of Israel: Now, therefore, be it


Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) reaffirms its steadfast support for the State of Israel;

(2) condemns Hamas and Hezbollah for engaging in unprovoked and reprehensible armed attacks against Israel on undisputed Israeli territory, for taking hostages, for killing Israeli soldiers, and for continuing to indiscriminately target Israeli civilian populations with their rockets and missiles;

(3) further condemns Hamas and Hezbollah for cynically exploiting civilian populations as shields, locating their equipment and bases of operation, including their rockets and other armaments, amidst civilian populations, including in homes and mosques;

(4) recognizes Israel's longstanding commitment to minimizing civilian loss and welcomes Israel's continued efforts to prevent civilian casualties;

(5) demands the Governments of Iran and Syria to direct Hamas and Hezbollah to immediately and unconditionally release Israeli soldiers which they hold captive;

(6) affirms that all governments that have provided continued support to Hamas or Hezbollah share responsibility for the hostage-taking and attacks against Israel and, as such, should be held accountable for their actions;

(7) condemns the Governments of Iran and Syria for their continued support for Hezbollah and Hamas in their armed attacks against Israelis and their other terrorist activities;

(8) supports Israel's right to take appropriate action to defend itself, including to conduct operations both in Israel and in the territory of nations which pose a threat to it, which is in accordance with international law, including Article 51 of the United Nations Charter;

(9) commends the President of the United States for fully supporting Israel as it responds to these armed attacks by terrorist organizations and their state sponsors;

(10) urges the President of the United States to bring the full force of political, diplomatic, and economic sanctions available to the Government of the United States against the Governments of Syria and Iran;

(11) demands the Government of Lebanon to do everything in its power to find and free the kidnapped Israeli soldiers being held in the territory of Lebanon;

(12) calls on the United Nations Security Council to condemn these unprovoked acts and to take action to ensure full and immediate implementation of United Nations Security Council 1559 (2004), which requires Hezbollah to be dismantled and the departure of all Syrian personnel and Iranian Revolutionary Guards from Lebanon;

(13) expresses its condolences to all families of innocent victims of recent violence; and

(14) declares its continued commitment to working with Israel and other United States allies in combating terrorism worldwide.​

See, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c109kjHy4Y::
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: congressional Black Caucus & 2006 Arab-Israeli War

<font size="5">
THE VOTE:


</font size>

[frame]http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll391.xml[/frame]
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: congressional Black Caucus & 2006 Arab-Israeli War

<font size="5">
HOW DID THE BLACK CONGRESS VOTE?


</FONT SIZE>

<u>NO</u>

- Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (founding member) MICHIGAN


<U>Present</u>

- Rep. Maxine Waters, CALIFORNIA

<u>NOT VOTING</u>

- Rep. Cynthia McKinney, GEORGIA


<U>YES</u>

- Everyone Else


`</font size>
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Arab world deeply split over Hezbollah

<font size="5"><center>Saudi sheik issues fatwa against Hezbollah</font size></center>

United Press International (UPI)
Jul. 21, 2006 at 7:37AM

Saudi Arabian Wahhabi Sheik Abdullah bin Jabreen has declared it illegal for Muslims to join, support, or pray for militant group Hezbollah.

Jabreen declared a fatwa against the group for its actions against Israel, revealing a divide among Sunni Muslims over the issue of the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, the New York Sun reported Friday.

The Wahhabi sects have largely come out against Hezbollah's actions in the region but some Sunni fundamentalist groups, including the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, have pledged support for the Shiite militant group. The brotherhood was planning a rally Friday to support the militants at Cairo's Al-Azhar mosque.

Sheik Hamid al-Ali, in Kuwait, issued a statement July 13, the day after two Israeli soldiers were abducted by Hezbollah, condemning the organization's actions and describing the conflict as a result of Iran's imperialistic ambitions in Israel.

The governments of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia have also condemned the actions of Hezbollah.

http://www.washtimes.com/upi/20060721-072851-1816r.htm
 

nittie

Star
Registered
Re: Arab world deeply split over Hezbollah

The Arab world should be pissed at Hezbollah. If Hezbollah succeeds at repelling Israel their natural enemy Al Qeada will start making moves in Lebanon, that means a all out civil war in the region at a time when it is just beginning to see dividends from going Democratic or more importantly Capitalistic.
 

mc2

Rising Star
Registered
Re: Arab world deeply split over Hezbollah

Israel is the real terrorists in this situation. They have destroyed numerous civilian targets in Lebanon causing a humanitarian crisis for the people. I am ashamed that the US government continues to back Israel.

The correct response would have been to send a team of commandos to get their soldiers back, not destroy Lebanon......

Fuck Israel
 

VegasGuy

Star
OG Investor
Re: Arab world deeply split over Hezbollah

What it seems to me about the silence from the arab street is they are watching those who are supporting Humas and the shit they are doing. Namely Iran and Syria. If Humas succeeds in dominating that part of the world, what is to stop them from attacking them. They don't know what to do at this point.

-VG
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Arab world deeply split over Hezbollah

<font size="4">
Some interesting excerpts from an AP news story (url below) which leave me
more convinced that Hezbollah started this conflict, intentionally. These simple comments from Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, to me at least, paint an interesting picture:

"I don't want to raise expectations. I never said that the Israelis cannot reach any place in southern Lebanon," ... "Our dogma and strategy is when the Israelis come, they must pay a high price. This is what we promise and this is what we will achieve, God willing." "We love martyrdom," he said on Friday. "But we take precautions to deny the enemy an easy victory."​

In other words, while he would like for Hezbollah to rip the Israelis a new one, he realizes that might not happen and has established a Hezbollah WIN as <u>just facing off with the Isrealis</u>. Since it doesn't appear that the Isrealis were concerned with taking Hezbollah on until the kidnapping & killings and the subsequent rocket volleys into Isreal, Hezbollah gave Israel an invitation. An invitation to what? - whatever fight that ensued, since any fight at all to Hezbollah <u>makes them a winner</u>, damn the outcome, so long as they aren't wiped out and Israel takes losses, the more losses the better. And, any Muslim that takes Isreal on, perhaps, regardless of the result -- is damn near crowned "SMH" Super Muslim Hero, or, Shaking My Head -- because this mofo knew that many Lebanese civilians would die in his self-manufactured war.
</font size>

http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20060723/D8J1D7KG2.html?PG=home&SEC=news
 

VegasGuy

Star
OG Investor
Re: Arab world deeply split over Hezbollah

But if you watch the stories coming out on the local media you'd swear Israel's fault. But this is what happens when you kiss a terrorists ass. Hezbollah was able to form a political party and now run everything. Now they wage war against Israel.

-VG
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>US rushing arms to Israel amid Lebanon bombings</font size></center>

(AFP)
Khaleej Times
23 July 2006



WASHINGTON - The United States is expediting a shipment of precision bombs to Israel from an arms deal struck last year amid the Jewish state’s ongoing assault on Lebanon, a US official said Saturday.


A decision to rush the delivery of the weapons following an Israeli request was made around the time Israel began pounding Lebanon by air and sea on July 12 after the capture of two Israeli soldiers by the Hezbollah militia, the official said.

“It’s part of an arms sale that was made in 2005,” the official told AFP on condition of anonymity.

The official said the shipment “has either been made or is in the process of being delivered” but refused to specify whether it was being delivered by air or by sea.

Last year’s arms deal allows Israel—which agreed to purchase about one billion dollars in US military equipment in 2005, according to a congressional report—to tap into the package depending on need.

It was not immediately clear if Israel requested the new shipments following the start of the Lebanon campaign or while it was still in the peak of an air offensive in the Palestinian Gaza Strip on its southern border.

The US official told AFP the shipment was negotiated by Israeli officials with the State Department and other agencies that have also refused to make public comment, highlighting the sensitivity of the decision.

“We do not, under a law, disclose sensitive information about foreign military sales,” a Pentagon spokesman said.

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/Display...uly/middleeast_July473.xml&section=middleeast
 

SAFOOL

Star
Registered
July 24, 2006
US Complicit in Destruction of Lebanon
by Paul Craig Roberts

There never was any doubt of the Bush regime's complicity in Israel's naked aggression against the Lebanese civilian population. Bush has protected Israel from world condemnation. Bush has blocked those who attempted to bring a stop to Israel's bombing of residential neighborhoods and civilian infrastructure, and now Bush rushes more bombs for Israel to drop on Lebanon.

On July 22, the New York Times revealed the full extent of the Bush regime's participation in the heinous war crimes being inflicted on the Lebanese people:

"The Bush administration is rushing a delivery of precision-guided bombs to Israel, which requested the expedited shipment last week after beginning its air campaign. … The decision to quickly ship the weapons to Israel was made with relatively little debate within the Bush administration, the officials said."

Obviously, Bush and his government do not think Israel has yet murdered enough Lebanese. Bush denounces Syria and Iran for allegedly arming Hezbollah, while he rushes more deadly weapons to Israel.

The entire world is appalled at the Bush regime's support for Israel's policy of expanding its borders through naked aggression.

Every Arab and Muslim now knows that the U.S. is Israel's enabler. Arab hopes are dead that the U.S. will pressure Israel to behave more humanely toward people not armed with American fighter planes, tanks, and high explosives.

America's complicity in Israel's war crimes is more than America's UK lapdog can stand. According to the French news service, AFP, "The United States is starting to look isolated in its refusal to rein in Israel's attacks on Lebanon with key ally Britain criticizing the wholesale killing of Lebanese civilians and widespread destruction."

AFP reports that Britain's deputy foreign minister Kim Howells "questioned Israel's military tactics and slammed Israel's killing of 'so many children and so many people. If Israel is chasing Hezbollah, then go for Hezbollah. You don't go for the entire Lebanese nation.'"

But is Israel after Hezbollah, or is Israel after the real estate that comprises southern Lebanon?

Right-wing Israelis say Israel needs southern Lebanon as a buffer against Hezbollah. If Israel were to succeed in driving Hezbollah out of southern Lebanon, Israel would then want a buffer for southern Lebanon, where Israeli settlements would quickly spring up, and after that buffer, another, just as Israel has gobbled up Palestine.

The American people need to understand what everyone else in the world understands: The Bush regime is empowering the Israeli state to push out its borders by stealing land from other people.

This Israeli policy is the source of the Middle East conflict.

It is ignorant and immoral to blame the conflict on Hamas and Hezbollah. These organizations were created by Israeli aggression. Lacking American jet fighters, tanks, ordinance, and resupply, these organizations resort to terror, which is the only weapon that they have. Otherwise, the world would pay no attention as Arabs are ground under by Israeli expansion.

The fault is America's more than Israel's. The American government and the brainwashed American public are the source of the conflict. If America did not enable Israeli aggression, Israel would have to behave responsibly and endeavor to coexist with its neighbors.

Israel is an artificial state created in Arab lands by European colonial powers after World War II. Instead of working to win acceptance and overcoming Arab hostility to Europe shipping off "the Jewish problem" to the Middle East, Israel has antagonized its Middle East neighbors. Israel can play the bully-boy role because the U.S. acts as Israel's big brother. With its policy of fang and claw, Israel endangers its own right to exist.

Many distinguished Israelis came to this conclusion long before I did. I am only repeating what can be read in more eloquent writings of distinguished Israelis.

Israel's greatest friends are its own peace movement and those few in America who dare to criticize Israel's self-destructive policies. It is not anti-Semitic to hold Israel to the same standards as other civilized countries or to report facts instead of Israeli propaganda.

Israel's greatest enemies are the American neoconservatives, who hold the power in the Bush regime. What we are witnessing in the Middle East is the unfolding of the neocon plan to destroy all vestiges of Arab/Muslim independence and to remove all opposition to Israel's agenda. Can 5 million Israelis, even when backed by the United States, forever suppress hundreds of millions of humiliated Muslims stewing in their humiliation?

This is a recipe for perpetual conflict and the eventual destruction of Israel.

Neocons believe that deception of the American public is a legitimate way for them to achieve their plan. Bush's so-called "war on terror" is the cloak for neocon deception.

Bush's war is not on terror. Bush's war is on Muslim states not ruled by American puppets.

http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=9392
 

African Herbsman

Star
Registered
Israel's war on civilians
Many Western leaders' perceptions of Israel's two wars reek of hyprocrisy.

hamas and Hezbollah long have been recognized for using terrorist tactics, but now they are attacking military targets and kidnapping soldiers. They are not bombing popular sites and attacking civilians. In this conflict, Israel has emerged as the terrorist, responding with mass punishment and heavy attacks on civilian-congested areas.

Israel really has no sense of whom it is attacking, often attacking targets that are outside of Hezbollah's center. As it stands, approximately 230 Lebanese have been killed, a considerable majority of which were civilian deaths. Twelve Israeli civilians and 249 Palestinians in Gaza also have lost their lives.

Before the abduction of a soldier, Israel had been engaging in intense shelling and raiding escapades in Gaza. Few knew of these attacks. Western media often ignore the deaths of Arabs, and people now are surprised that Arabs are defending themselves against what they perceive as Israeli aggression.

Many mark the beginning of the conflict with the day that Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers, overlooking the preceding assault on Gaza by Israeli forces after Israel refused to exchange an abducted soldier for the numerous Arab prisoners in Israeli cells. Hezbollah acted on its own accord, in part to swap the soldiers in exchange for Arabs, including its own detained by Israel.

Many Americans view the situation as an episode of Arab rage, and because of the tremendous terror stigma attached to Hamas and Hezbollah, too many have been blind to the fact these two groups have largely honored the laws of warfare.

There is a psychological component to this conflict, propped by biased journalism and lofty vocabulary. Employing the word terrorism is a political strategy aimed at painting an enemy, and consequently creating a victim. More importantly, to condemn the Syria-Hezbollah allegiance while turning away from the U.S.-Israel relationship is simply irrational.

In the end, Israel, Hamas and Hezbollah cannot be absolved of their wrongdoings. Instead of selectively punishing people, more rational and less hypocritical diplomacy is necessary to prevent further chaos.


http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2006/07/12/68600
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>
Hezbollah: Israeli Onslaught Surprise Us</font size></center>


Jul 25, 7:38 PM (ET)
Associated Press
By SCHEHEREZADE FARAMARZI

BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) - A senior Hezbollah official said Tuesday the guerrillas did not expect Israel to react with an all-out offensive after the capture of two soldiers, the first acknowledgment by the group that it had miscalculated the consequences of the raid two weeks ago.

Mahmoud Komati, deputy chief of the Hezbollah's political arm, also told The Associated Press in an interview that the Shiite militant group will not lay down arms.

"The truth is - let me say this clearly - we didn't even expect (this) response ... that (Israel) would exploit this operation for this big war against us," said Komati.

He said Hezbollah had expected "the usual, limited response" from Israel after the two soldiers were seized by guerrillas on Israel's side of the border on July 12.

In the past, he said, Israeli responses to Hezbollah actions included sending commandos into Lebanon, seizing Hezbollah officials and briefly targeting specific strongholds in southern Lebanon.

Komati said his group had anticipated negotiations to swap the Israeli soldiers for three Lebanese held in Israeli jails, with Germany acting as a mediator as it has in past prisoner exchanges.

He said Hezbollah captured the Israeli soldiers from a military area, but charged that Israelis had taken Hezbollah leaders from their homes at night.

"The response is unjustified," Komati said. He claimed the Israeli offensive was planned in advance, and Israel was only "waiting for the right time" to carry it out.

Asked about reports that Hezbollah has been firing Iranian-made missiles on Israel, Komati said: "We don't deny nor confirm. We believe where the weapons come from is irrelevant."

Hezbollah leaders previously have denied that Iran was supplying them with weapons.

Komati said Hezbollah has weapons made in various countries, including the United States, France, China and Russia.

"Some of our fighters carry M16s. So you think we buy them from America?" he asked.

Komati said Hezbollah demanded an immediate end to Israeli attacks before agreeing to negotiate and rejected a plan proposed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during her visit to Beirut.

The plan calls for the deployment of international and Lebanese troops in southern Lebanon to prevent Hezbollah attacks on Israel before a cease-fire.

"No one can talk about politics while the fire rages, and killings occur," Komati said.

He was adamant about Hezbollah's refusal to disarm because of what he said was Israeli occupation of Lebanese land, the "threat of Israeli aggression" and the Lebanese held in Israeli jails.



http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20060725/D8J3ANK00.html?PG=home&SEC=news
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>Washington Expected an IDF
Grand Slam to Dispose of Hizballah </font size></center>



1188.jpg



DEBKAfile Special Report

July 23, 2006, 6:22 PM (GMT+02:00)

US officials are not yet saying so out loud, but in private and “on condition of anonymity,” White House circles are signaling disappointment.

It arises from the expectation that the Israeli Defense Forces, the most effective Middle East army, would dispose of Hassan Nasrallah and his Hizballah in a few days, presenting the Bush administration and Sunni Muslim Arab rulers with a dearly hoped-for smash victory against Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. Now, after 12 days of Israeli air, sea and ground assaults, it is beginning to look as though it will take a long, sustained effort to break Hizballah.

Therefore, US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice is coming to the Middle East Monday, July 24, brandishing a whip in the form of an implied deadline. She will assess the situation at close hand, talk to allies in Rome Wednesday and go back to Washington after setting a date to return in the week beginning July 30.

A really quick, crushing victory over the Hizballah could be achieved by the landing of American forces in northern Lebanon – at the invitation of the Beirut government. Nasrallah’s forces could then be strangled between US forces and the Israeli army coming up from the south.

But this is not on the cards for the simple reason that America is willing to fight in Lebanon to the last Israeli soldier, just as Iran is ready to fight to the last Hizballah combatant. Israel must beware of being hustled into taking imprudent steps by the proxy contest between the Washington and Tehran. Israel and its armed forces must pursue their own national agenda which is to cripple the Hizballah and inflict a defeat on Tehran, both of whom are sworn to destroy the Jewish state. It is necessary for Israeli commanders to proceed cautiously and set a pace that is commensurate with their military capabilities. Their best fighting men must not be place needlessly in harm’s way and Lebanese civilian casualties have to be avoided as far as possible in a situation in which Hizballah stores its men and weapons in domestic cellars, kitchens and banana groves. Above all, Israel must beware of being drawn into tailoring its arduous and dangerous campaign to the pressures of Washington’s disappointment. After four years in Iraq, US forces know the score and understand the challenges besetting Israel.

On Day Twelve of the war, Israel faces two major tactical difficulties:

1. The enemy the IDF is pursuing is not a regular army which moves divisions around, but a small militia of 4,000 hardened, highly trained jihadist guerrillas, who have reduced their offensive against Israel to two simple tactics: shooting rockets at population centers and lying in wait for a chance to take Israeli troops unawares.

It therefore behooves Israeli forces, which Saturday, July 22, launched a large-scale offensive to sanitize South Lebanon, to beat Hizballah at the game of catching the opposition unawares. There is no doubt that the Israeli army is badly in need of a success – and not only to impress the Americans. Israel’s home front, though solidly behind its servicemen, needs to be assured that the war is on course and will be fought “until the job is finished.” This is the mantra heard up and down Israel, most insistently from the one-third of the population taking the punishment of lives lost or disrupted and homes destroyed by daily rocket attacks, with very little complaint.

This assurance is beginning to wear thin as the Hizballah rocket blitz intensifies day by day. Saturday, they shot a record 160 rockets at dozens of towns and communities. Sunday, July 23, the ball bearings packed in the Katyusha warheads punched hundreds of holes in a car and a workshop, killing two men on the spot. Sirens were heard for the first time in Binyamina, Zichron Yaacov and Kfar Ada, 70 km from the Lebanese border and the deepest south yet. The buildings of Israel’s third largest city, Haifa, and many other towns of northern Israel, are severely battered and bear the scars of blasts which scatter the metal balls designed to maximize human injuries.

The week’s grace that Rice appears to be granting the Israeli government and armed forces for bringing the war to a successful conclusion is also a boon for Tehran, Syria and Hizballlah. It gives them time to engineer a nasty surprise to greet the US secretary’s second visit, hitting Israel at the very moment that the diplomats weigh in to start the process for ending hostilities. Israel will then be told to hold back on reprisals. This dead-end maneuver will be painfully familiar to the many peacemakers who tried their luck with the Palestinians, notably Condoleezza Rice’s predecessor, Colon Powell.

While Syrian officials angle for direct talks with the United States and call for a ceasefire, Damascus is preparing to step into the war. Damascus is preparing to step into the war. Syrian information minister Mohsein Bilal warned Sunday, July 23, that Syria will join the conflict if Israeli ground forces in Lebanon approach the Syrian border. But Bashar Assad also prefers to hide behind the back of a proxy. The ruling Syrian Baath suddenly “discovered” Sunday a new organization called the “Front for the Liberation of Golan,” claiming it launched its first attack last Thursday, July 20, on an Israeli army post. It was said to have killed 8 Israeli soldiers and taken two hostages to be held in Syria against the release of Golan Druzes in Israeli jails. The tale is made of whole cloth, but it is a straw that shows which way the wind is blowing in Damascus.

Neither Damascus nor Tehran – and certainly not the Hizballah - have any intention of leaving the diplomatic initiative in the hands of the US secretary of state. They will do their utmost to stay one step ahead of any American-led steps and keep Israeli forces from running away with a victory. The way events are going now, both the Americans and Israelis will soon be confronted with the necessity to cut both Syria and Iran down to size.

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1188
 

African Herbsman

Star
Registered
Cheney Unleashes The Dogs of War
by Dean Andromidas

Vice President Dick Cheney has ignited a new Middle East war that threatens to spread from Israel and Lebanon, to Syria and Iran. As EIR recently exposed, (EIR June 30, "Cheney and Netanyahu Conspiring for War"), this latest war was planned at a secret meeting between Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Likud chairman Benjamin Netanyahu, during a conference organized by the American Enterprise Institute in June at Beaver Creek, Colorado.

This war is not intended to make Israel safe from Hamas, Hezbollah terrorism, or Iran's alleged intentions to build nuclear weapons, but is rather a drive by the synarchist financial forces represented by the likes of George Shultz and Felix Rohatyn, who stand behind Cheney and Netanyahu. Their aim is to escalate a global clash of civilizations, to maintain their political and financial hegemony, as their own global financial system crumbles.

Israel is their chosen instrument to launch a war against Syria and Iran, now that U.S. military forces are bogged down in Cheney's insane Iraq war. Their war plan is well known to readers of EIR, and is the policy the Bush Administration has been implementing, with disastrous results, for the last three years. This is based on the notorious policy paper, "A Clean Break: New Strategy for Securing the Realm," which was presented to Netanyahu when he became Israeli Prime Minister in 1996. Its authors included the "Prince of Darkness" Richard Perle, former Defense Department official Douglas Feith, and neo-conservative fanatics such as David and Meyrav Wurmser. That document called for a "clean break from the slogan 'comprehensive peace' to a traditional balance of power." They called for Israel to "seize the initiative along its northern border," against Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran, including "striking at select targets in Syria proper" (emphasis in the original).

Hezbollah is a Lebanese umbrella organization of Islamic Shi'ite groups, and the Shi'ites are the largest religious bloc in Lebanon.
Israel's War Policy

Netanyahu came back from his meeting on the weekend of June 17-18 with Cheney at Beaver Creek, and announced that Israel must reject any form of negotiations with the Palestinians, and instead reassert its military "deterrence." This policy has been embraced by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, a former Likudnik who enjoys many of the same U.S. financial supporters as does Netanyahu. The June 25 capture of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, by Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip, served as a pretext to launch Netanyahu's policy of "rebuilding Israel's deterrence" against the Palestinians, by destroying Hamas. After rejecting political negotiations with the Hamas government of Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyah, as well as President Abu Mazen, the Gaza Strip was reoccupied, after chunks of its infrastructure were destroyed, leading to a humanitarian catastrophe.

Now a second front has been opened on the Israel-Lebanon border. Contrary to media reports, Hezbollah members did not cross into Israeli territory to "kidnap" two Israeli soldiers, as the media spin claims. The captured Israeli soldiers were part of a group patrolling inside Lebanese territory. Like the capture of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, their capture became a pretext to launch a large military operation against Hezbollah. Another factor to be considered is that, according to the July 13 Jerusalem Post, the high-alert status that the northern border had been under since the capture of Shalit three weeks ago, was lifted only three days prior to the Hezbollah capture of two Israeli soldiers.

According to a report in the July 13 Israeli daily Ha'aretz, the Israel military had approved a plan for a major exercise along the Israeli-Lebanese border, based on a scenario of a Hezbollah capture of Israeli solders, after which Israel would respond with a heavy air and land assault into southern Lebanon to destroy Hezbollah. It is this plan which is now being carried out. As of this writing, Israel has begun to mobilize its reserves, including a full division, to be deployed on the already heavily fortified northern border.

The Israeli military has similar contingency plans for a strike against Syria. These plans have been the basis of exercises for the last two to three years.

While Israel has bombed targets in Beirut and put the entire country under a siege by air and sea, Hezbollah forces have launched Katyusha rockets into Israeli towns in northern Israel. The head of Hezbollah, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, has declared that the Israeli soldiers will be released only in an exchange of prisoners.

The conflict is now vectored to escalate, and spread to Syria. Israel's intention to attack Syria and Iran has been mooted by several Bush Administration spokesmen, each of whom immediately blamed Syria and Iran. Bush himself, while meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on July 13, declared that "Israel has a right to self-defense."

The most obvious proof that the Bush Administration wants a new war does not lie in its bellicose statements against Iran, Syria, Hamas, or Hezbollah, however. It lies in the fact that it has not lifted a finger either to stop, or even mediate the crisis. Through its Ambassador to the United Nations, the non-confirmable neo-con zealot John Bolton, the Bush Administration is even preventing the issue from being brought before the United Nations Security Council.
No Military Solution

In comments to EIR, veteran Israeli military historian Col. Meir Pa'il (ret.) confirmed that a broad military escalation can be expected. From a military standpoint, Pa'il said, Israel will now have no choice but to occupy southern Lebanon up to the Litani River, which means a return to the so-called "security zone" from which Israel unilaterally withdrew in 2000. Nonetheless, Israel will not be able to sustain a broad land war in Lebanon, as in 1982, or even a permanent occupation of the old security zone.

Although he doubted that Syria would offer Israel a pretext for an attack, he feared that if such a pretext presented itself, a military strike could not be ruled out. While asserting that Israel is not capable of launching a major land war against Syria, and thus would not do it, Colonel Pa'il warned that there has always been a "dream" held by a faction in the military security establishment to put Damascus within range of Israeli artillery. Since the Syrian capital is less than 40 kilometers from the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, such an event is very much within the realm of possibility.

Colonel Pa'il warned that "the real problem is that Israeli leaders are only thinking in military terms," while what needs to be done is to build a political peace with Israel's Arab neighbors. Pa'il, who is a member of the pro-peace Meretz-Yahad party, said that the value of Israel's massive military superiority is to demonstrate to the Arab world that Israel cannot be defeated militarily. Nonetheless, that military must serve to set the stage for a real peace process. "The real issue is to raise the flag of a solution to the problem. I am crying and weeping because of the fact that this government has no political orientation to deal with the Arab world."

While the ex-lawyer Ehud Olmert and the ex-furniture salesman Benjamin Netanyahu are trying to sound like the ex-general Ariel Sharon, there are serious doubts within the Israeli security establishment over their drive to push Israel into a three-front, or even four-front war with the Palestinians, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran. Even prior to the new crisis with Hezbollah, Ha'aretz cited security sources who have dealt with these situations, saying that Olmert's policy of non-negotiation "infuriates" them. Ha'aretz even quoted slain Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who said, "When there is no military option, we do everything, including negotiations with the kidnappers, to free hostages."

Former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy expressed similar doubts, when speaking before a business luncheon on July 11. Asked how he would have acted in the current Israeli prisoner crisis, he replied, "I believe that one should never underestimate the enemy, and it always helps and never harms, when you approach your greatest tests with just a grain of humility."
A Basis for Negotiations

Many Israelis also know that the Bush Administration has given Israel a green light to crush Hamas, and now Hezbollah.

Hamas knows this also. Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyah, in a op-ed published in the July 11 Washington Post, under the title "Aggression Under False Pretenses," charged that both Olmert and the Bush Administration were colluding to destroy the Hamas government.

"The current Gaza invasion is only the latest effort to destroy the results of fair and free elections held early this year," Haniyah charged. "It is the explosive follow-up to a five-month campaign of economic and diplomatic warfare directed by the United States and Israel. The stated intention of that strategy was to force the average Palestinian to 'reconsider' his or her vote when faced with deepening hardship; its failure was predictable, and the new overt military aggression and collective punishment are its logical fulfillment.

"The 'kidnapped' Israeli Cpl. Gilad Shalit is only a pretext for a job scheduled months ago. In addition to removing our democratically elected government, Israel wants to sow dissent among Palestinians by claiming that there is a serious leadership rivalry among us. I am compelled to dispel this notion definitively. The Palestinian leadership is firmly embedded in the concept of Islamic shura, or mutual consultation; suffice it to say that while we may have differing opinions, we are united in mutual respect and focused on the goal of serving our people....

"We want what Americans enjoy—democratic rights, economic sovereignty and justice. We thought our pride in conducting the fairest elections in the Arab world might resonate with the United States and its citizens. Instead, our new government was met from the very beginning by acts of explicit, declared sabotage by the White House. Now this aggression continues against 3.9 million civilians living in the world's largest prison camps. America's complacency in the face of these war crimes is, as usual, embedded in the coded rhetorical 'green light': 'Israel has a right to defend itself.' Was Israel defending itself when it killed eight family members on a Gaza beach last month, or three members of the Hajjaj family on Saturday, among them 6-year-old Rawan? I refuse to believe that such inhumanity sits well with the American public."

Haniyah called for a prisoner exchange and put forward the principles for a negotiating process, writing that, "Palestinian priorities include recognition of the core dispute over the land of historical Palestine, and the rights of all its people; resolution of the refugee issue from 1948; reclaiming all lands occupied in 1967; and stopping Israeli attacks, assassinations and military expansion....

"Contrary to popular depictions of the crisis in the American media, the dispute is not only about Gaza and the West Bank; it is a wider national conflict that can be resolved only by addressing the full dimensions of Palestinian national rights in an integrated manner. This means statehood for the West Bank and Gaza, a capital in Arab East Jerusalem, and resolving the 1948 Palestinian refugee issue fairly, on the basis of international legitimacy and established law. "

Haniyah concluded, "If Israel is prepared to negotiate seriously and fairly, and resolve the core 1948 issues, rather than the secondary ones from 1967, a fair and permanent peace is possible. Based on a hudna (comprehensive cessation of hostilities for an agreed time), the Holy Land still has an opportunity to be a peaceful and stable economic powerhouse for all the Semitic people of the region. If Americans only knew the truth, possibility might become reality."

Olmert thinks his hard-line policies, backed by the Bush Administration, will create a new "balance of power" in the region. But Israel is facing an asymmetric war like the one the United States is conducting and losing in Iraq and Afghanistan, where there are no "balances." Already the Israeli military is warning that these operations could continue for many months, and for the first time, put hundreds of thousands of Israeli civilians in the line of fire. Can Israel sustain this, economically and politically? The 1982 Lebanon War bankrupted Israel. Israel avoided bankruptcy in the six-year-long second Intifada of 2000 to 2005 only because the Bush Administration provided $10 billion in loan guarantees. Now, with the United States itself nearly bankrupt, will there be another bailout?

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2006/3329isr_palestine_war.html
 

African Herbsman

Star
Registered
It's quiet in here.


UN accuses Israelis of deliberate attack
BEN LYNFIELD IN JERUSALEM

AN ISRAELI air raid in south Lebanon killed four UN military observers yesterday, in an attack that Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretary-general, said was "apparently deliberate".

The four observers were part of the UN peacekeeping mission, UN and Lebanese officials said.
Click to learn more...

Their deaths came as senior Hezbollah figures admitted they had not predicted the strength of Israel's response to cross-border raids, but vowed to step up their attacks into Israel.

Speaking after yesterday's attack on the UN site, Milos Strugar, a spokesman for the UNIFIL peacekeeping force, said: "One aerial bomb directly impacted the building and shelter in the base of the United Nations Observer Group in Lebanon in the area of Khiyam."

Mr Strugar said attacks had continued in the area as rescuers attempted to reach the wounded.

"There were 14 other incidents of firing close to this position in the afternoon from the Israeli side, and the firing continued during the rescue operation," he added.

In a statement issued at UN headquarters in New York, Mr Annan said: "I am shocked and deeply distressed by the apparently deliberate targeting by Israeli defence forces of a UN observer post in southern Lebanon.

"This co-ordinated artillery and aerial attack on a long-established and clearly marked UN post at Khiyam occurred despite personal assurances given to me by prime minister Ehud Olmert that UN positions would be spared Israeli fire," Mr Annan added.

UNIFIL was created in 1978 after Israel's first major invasion of southern Lebanon and has been there ever since.

An Israeli tank shell hit a UNIFIL position in southern Lebanon on Monday, wounding four Ghanaian soldiers.

Shrapnel from tank shells fired from the Israeli side seriously wounded an Indian soldier last week, and Hezbollah fire wounded an Italian observer on the border on Sunday.

In Jerusalem, an Israeli army spokeswoman said the military was investigating the report of yesterday's deaths.

Those killed included observers from Austria, Canada, China and Finland, a senior Lebanese military official said.

Reports also emerged from the Israeli army yesterday that it had killed the "senior Hezbollah militant", Abu Jafr.

The claims came as Mahmoud Komati, the deputy chief of the Hezbollah politburo, suggested the group had miscalculated Israel's response to its raids.

"The truth is - let me say this clearly - we didn't even expect [this] response... that [Israel] would exploit this operation for this big war against us," said Mr Komati.

But last night Hezbollah's principal leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, vowed his fighters would now begin firing rockets deeper into Israel, beyond the northern port of Haifa.

And the Shiite cleric claimed Israel's two-week-long offensive was linked to a US-Israeli plan for "a new Middle East", a term used repeatedly by the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, on her visit to the region.

Earlier yesterday, Israel vowed to pursue its war against Hezbollah and establish a no-go zone for the guerrillas in southern Lebanon until an international force arrives.

A total of 418 people in Lebanon and 42 Israelis have been killed in a conflict that erupted after Hezbollah abducted two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid on 12 July.

Yesterday, the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, warned that the conflict could sweep through the Middle East like "a hurricane".


http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1084162006
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
SAFOOL said:
I'm rooting for the people. It would be nice if every child had a chance to live in peace.
I agree. Arab and Jew alike. But its people that are warring.

QueEx
 
Top