Between Victory and Defeat
By Israel Shamir
Last hours of the Lebanon War were extremely dramatic, but the
drama did not veil the bottom line: Israeli army was defeated.
Probably for this reason Israel tried to make a good show, and
failed too. The US-drafted and Israel-approved Security Council
resolution was profoundly unfair: the UN troops will be stationed -
not in Galilee to protect weak Lebanon from Jewish fury, but in
South Lebanon in order to protect the strong neighbour. The
defender, not the aggressor, is supposed to be disarmed. This is
unfair, but not unfair enough for the Jews: the moment the
resolution was accepted, the Israeli army swept forward, in order to
grasp as much territory as possible before the official cease-fire
deadline. It was a foul trick, going against the spirit of the UN
resolution, but within its letter: “It is kosher, but stinks”, say
the Jews about such dishonesty.
The Israeli government decision was truly Orwellian, if not
schizophrenic: agree to the cease-fire AND proceed full speed with
the conquest of South Lebanon. In a clarification given by an IDF
Northern Command officer, Israel intended to surround South Lebanon
and keep fighting there AFTER the cease-fire as well, calling it
“mopping-up of terrorists”. But the plan did not work – Israeli
tanks could not cross the deep Wadi X. 12 of these machines burned,
others turned back.
The defeat took place despite active US participation in the war
that was not limited to full diplomatic support and military
supplies to Israel. Endangering their own troops in Iraq, the
Pentagon moved its spy satellite from its positions above Baghdad to
the skies of Lebanon, a move which necessitated a massive transfer
of US soldiers to Baghdad.
Moreover, important Jewish American friends of Israel in
Washington called upon the Israeli government to fight and win, for
a non-victorious Israel is of no use to the Empire. The Washington
Post columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote earlier this week:
“...[Olmert's] search for victory on the cheap has jeopardised not
just the Lebanon operation but America's confidence in Israel as
well.” Max Boot, a Council of Foreign Relations fellow, wrote in the
Los Angeles Times: “Syria is weak and next door. To secure its
borders, Israel needs to hit the [President Bashar] Assad regime.”
American Jews demanded war and victory. “American Jewry is one Red
state [regarding the Jewish wars]”, said a once-liberal editor of
Tikkun.
Moreover, important Jewish American friends of Israel in
Washington
called upon the Israeli
government to fight and win, for a non-victorious Israel is of no
use to the Empire. The Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer
wrote earlier this week: “...[Olmert's] search for victory on the
cheap has jeopardised not just the Lebanon operation but America's
confidence in Israel as well.” Max Boot, a Council of Foreign
Relations fellow, wrote in the Los Angeles Times: “Syria is weak and
next door. To secure its borders, Israel needs to hit the [President
Bashar] Assad regime.” American Jews demanded war and victory.
“American Jewry is one Red state [regarding the Jewish wars]”, said
a once-liberal
editor of Tikkun.
The warlike calls from the JINSA quarter are connected with the
first Jewish American casualty of the conflict: Joseph Lieberman, a
leading pro-war Democrat, was defeated in the Connecticut primaries.
The seismic wave sent by his defeat threatened the bipartisan
support base of Israel in Congress. President Bush expressed his
support of the erstwhile Democrat who was totally devoted to Israel
and to the war in the Middle East. Pro-war forces in the US woke up
to the danger and intensified their efforts to spread the war to the
whole region.
These forces have many allies in Israel, whose leadership is
brooding over its military defeat in what was supposed to be a
short, brilliant campaign, and is looking for a scapegoat. Generals
blame the government which denied them full freedom of action and
mutter about a coup d’état; ministers blame the army; intelligence
officers implausibly claim they knew it would happen. The PM Olmert
must go,
demanded Ari Shavit,
a leading columnist of Haaretz turned a born-again neo-fascist, who
blamed Israeli liberalism for the defeat; while an ad at the
masthead of the liberal Haaretz newspaper calls out to “Ehud
[Olmert] and Amir [Peretz], please nuke Iran!”
This request may still be fulfilled, although blitzkrieg did not
work out so well in Lebanon. The missiles of Hezbullah presented a
counter-threat to Israel to be activated in case of Israeli-American
attack on Iran and Syria. Now, with the threat of missiles removed,
and after a good rest and rearmament, the Israelis may try to
continue with their plans to thrash Damascus and Teheran. It was for
this purpose that they agreed to the cease-fire.
Cease-fire is a secret weapon of Israel. Whenever the IDF suffers
a setback, the Jews roll in the secret weapon and gain a time-out,
and an opportunity to resume fire whenever suitable after rearmament
and rest. The cease-fire weapon was utilised for first time in 1948,
when the UN declared it twice, connected with the weapons embargo.
Both times the nascent Jewish state used it to its full: delivery of
weapons to the Palestinians was embargoed, while the Jews received
fresh supplies of weapons from the ostensibly Stalinist, but
predominantly Jewish, government in Prague. Rearmed and refreshed,
the Jews renewed their offensive when they were ready, and crushed
the Palestinian resistance. The cease-fire was unleashed in 1973,
when it saved the Jewish state from looming defeat, allowed the US
administration under Kissinger’s guidance to rearm the Israelis, and
permitted them to break it whenever needed.
The cease-fire fall-back strategy was built into Israeli war
plans since the very beginning of the War in Lebanon II. The Jews
bombed civilians in Lebanon. While the Kana massacre is the most
notorious, there were dozens of Kanas, as the Deir Yassin massacre
in 1948 was only the most notorious among many others. The Israeli
civilian population suffered as well, and the Palestinians of
Galilee (“Israeli Arabs”) suffered most, because Israeli artillery
shelled Lebanon from their shelter-less villages, expecting and
causing return fire, to the great mirth of Jewish nationalists.
When the world conscience demanded an end to the slaughter of
innocents, Israel presented an ultimatum via its allied superpower,
the US, to wit: if you wish us to cease killing, please, do our job
for us, disarm the resistance, embargo their supply of weapons,
re-colonise Lebanon, so that when we shall be able to resume the war,
Lebanon will fall into our hands like ripe fruit.
Only the Hezballah fighters’ steadfastness and courage moved the
French to improve upon the Israeli-American draft a bit; though it
remained as generous as Shylock’s loan agreement. The Security
Council reminded me of the referee in a short story by Jack London,
The Mexican.
The main character, a lithe Mexican boy, Rivera, is to fight a
great heavyweight boxer, Danny, a Tyson of his time, for a big prize
he needs to buy guns for the Revolution. At first, Danny attacks:
“It was not a fight. It was a slaughter, a massacre. Danny was
certainly showing what he could do--a splendid exhibition. Such was
the certainty of the audience that it failed to take notice that the
Mexican stayed on his feet. It forgot Rivera. It rarely saw him, so
closely was he enveloped in Danny's man-eating attack. Then an
amazing thing happened. Rivera stood alone. Danny, the redoubtable
Danny, lay on his back. The referee circled in between, and Rivera
knew that the seconds he counted were very slow. All Gringos were
against him, even the referee. At "nine" the referee gave Rivera a
sharp thrust back. It was unfair, but it enabled Danny to rise”. And
on every occasion, “the referee worked, tearing him away so that he
could be hit, giving Danny every advantage that an unfair referee
can give”, continues Jack London. Still, despite this advantage,
Tyson was beaten. The slim Mexican’s steadfastness and devotion
allowed him to lick the adversary before the referee and the
policemen could steal his victory.
The Lebanese and Palestinians still can achieve victory, despite
Israel and America’s sheer might. But in real politics we do not
have to push for victory, we may be satisfied with modus vivendi.
More and more Israelis are coming to their senses, even the Peace
Now movement which supported the war from the beginning. The main
danger still comes from the extreme American Zionists who are ready
to fight from their recliners until the last Israeli falls. They
should be cooled off and brought to their senses by their fellow
Americans. In Israel, the battle intoxication fades, but not fast
enough. Destruction of Lebanon is unbelievable: Israeli reporters
compare it with Berlin ’45.
Dozens of Israeli and Lebanese fighters and many Israeli and
Lebanese civilians died in the last days of war because of the
Israeli leadership’s attempt to gain points. The Israeli government
should not be rewarded for its nastiness. The Security Council
resolutions on Lebanon call for disarming forces unauthorised by the
Beirut government. Thus, the Lebanese leadership may integrate
Hezbollah into their state and army machinery and thus undermine the
Zionist plot. The Lebanese can take a leaf from the experience of
1948, when the Jewish terror organisations (Palmach, Haganah, Etzel
etc.) were incorporated and integrated into the Israeli army.
Hezbollah proved its might, its ability to fight the enemy, and to
keep its cards close to its chest. These qualities should not be
disregarded.
This was understood by the Maronite President of Lebanon,
Emile Lahoud, who answered
the usual Zionist complaints from a Western journalist in a fashion
clearly supportive of Hezbullah: “Hezbollah is the force that was
able to liberate the land of the south in the year 2000. Our army is
national, and the resistance is national. You want the national army
to disarm the national resistance, which is complementary to the
army but without having the same operation room? No way”.
But another great achievement of Hezbollah lies in its healing of
Sunni-Shi’a strife, strife created and nourished by al Qaeda. This
murky Afghan-based group, founded by the US to fight the Soviets in
1980s was in mothballs by 2001, when the US policy makers
resurrected it by crediting them with the 9/11 attack, athough even
today, five years later, their involvement is not proven. Whoever
attacked the Twin Towers and Pentagon (and we do not know who did
it) attracted a wave of sympathy mixed with adoration among the
passionate disenchanted of the New World Order from Paris to
Teheran, from Moscow to Oklahoma. The Masters of Discourse were
concerned that this great harvest might be appropriated by an able
and dangerous (for them) group (not necessarily Muslim) and
preferred to credit it to their tame al Qaeda. Since then, Al Qaeda
has proved to be a valuable American tool: they did nothing worth
mentioning, but beheaded tourists on video and dutifully instigated
strife between Sunni and Shi’a in Iraq, bombing mosques and killing
pilgrims. They could attract some good and daring young men on the
basis of their 9/11 credit – and bring them to perdition.
The rise of Hezbollah upset this arrangement. Instead of fighting
fellow Muslims, Hezbollah fights the Judaeo-American Empire. As
opposed to al Qaeda’s fakery, Hezbollah is the real thing, and they
fight a real war, never stopping to pose for a TV crew. The young
and inspired men keen on a good fight for a good cause turned to
Nasrallah.
The deserted stooges of al Qaeda called their followers to fight
Hezbollah, but in vain. The strife between Sunnis and Shi’as is
fading, and the Sunni majority of the Arab world preferred Sayed
Nasrallah, the Defender of the Underprivileged, to the Shari’a
enforcers of bin Laden and Zarkawi. The Heathrow Gunpowder Plot is
apparently a desperate attempt by Al Qaeda’s patrons to refurbish
the faded glory of their creatures by showing that they are not a
completely spent force. This good showing by Hezbollah will have
serious consequences outside Lebanon – it will reunite the Orient
against the Empire.
