The War on Lebanon

A month has passed, not so quickly, and the savage war that took place in Lebanon is supposedly over. In the aftermath of the war, many people will feign to forget what this war was about. The atrocities committed by the Israelis should not blind us from the real reason this war was waged: the New Middle East. Miss Rice could not hide her elation at the destruction in Lebanon and she shamefacedly commented as innocent children, men and women were slaughtered that we were witnessing the birth of the New Middle East; a bloody and ruthless labor. The intentions of the American administration have been clear from the start and the New Middle East is their ultimate aim to end once and for all the crises that break out every now and then. The American administration does not intend for such a vital region of the world to remain fraught with strife and violence. And of course, the reason remains the same: precious oil. The age of cheap oil is over and many newspapers in the US addressed the energy crisis and commented on how more and more people in the US were using bicycles to commute to and from work this summer. Oil reached a record $80 a barrel and Iran has even compounded the USA’s fears when it announced that if any attempts are made to halt its nuclear program, it will cut off its oil and take the price of oil up to $200 a barrel. Iraq was clearly the US’s first target because of its abundant oil reserves and crumbling regime weary after a decade of siege. Now it seems that Lebanon, and not Syria, was the next target. A report in the San Francisco Chronicle stated that the Israeli plan to strike Lebanon which was carried out now was hatched in the year 2000 shortly after the Israeli withdrawal from the south of Lebanon. The plan was revised and modified up to the year 2004 and it was even passed by the Americans who were privy to the details of the plan. It seems Israel was just waiting for the opportune moment to launch its assault and it came this summer. The Guardian’s George Monibot wonders why Israel decided this particular moment to launch its attack and refuses Israel’s claims that its attacks came as a response to Hezbollah’s abduction of two Israeli soldiers. Monibot recounts various breaches of the border from both Israel and Hezbollah, mostly from Israel, between the year 2000 and now. He even goes to show that Israel violated Lebanese sovereignty weeks before July 12th when Mossad operatives killed two members of the Jihad movement in a car bomb. Why Israel chose this moment to launch such a wide assault is the post-Hariri scenario. After February 14th, 2005, Lebanon was forever changed. The Lebanese populace was now divided into two teams: one with Syria and Hezbollah was among these and the other against Syria. After the withdrawal of the Syrian army from Lebanon most of the members of what was known as the 14th of February coalition began to call for the disarming of Hezbollah and attacking the group because of its pro-Syrian stance. Apparently, Israel was under the illusion, possibly from the US, that if it were to strike with force against the population and infrastructure of Lebanon, that enough of the Lebanese population will rise against Hezbollah and the Israelis will win the war in a few days. Nothing else can explain the lack of planning and the sloppy execution of land operations that we have witnessed. The Israelis weren’t planning on land operations because they often proved costly in Lebanon and thus limited themselves to operations carried out from the air and sea. Many analysts in Israel have criticized Olmert for not launching the land offensive earlier than he did. The reason that Olmert ultimately resorted to a land operation is that his initial plans were thwarted; the Lebanese people stood around the resistance and the Lebanese leaders they were counting on to lead the people against Hezbollah remained in the shadows. Israel, after two weeks of heavy bombing, ran out of targets to hit and with the US saying ‘no’ to an early cease-fire had to launch a land operation. The Israelis’ patience was thin and wanted a swift victory, something that Olmert could not deliver. In addition, with no real direction, and with Hezbollah much better trained in this kind of warfare, the Israeli army suffered humiliating defeats.

What is also striking is the symmetry between this war and Israel’s strikes of 1996. Many have commented that the second Qana massacre came 10 years after the first one. But there are other points in common. In 1996, the prime minister back then was Shimon Peres who was acting PM following the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin allegedly by a Jewish fanatic by the name of Yigal Amir. However, Gordon Thomas reveals in his book Gideon’s Spies that the perpetrators were actually the Mossad, the Israeli secret service. Rabin’s actions clashed with the Mossad’s plans and thus he had to be removed. Olmert is also an acting PM after the sudden illness of Ariel Sharon who has been in a coma for quite some time. A friend of mine who is studying for his MD told me that the way Sharon was handled after he was admitted to hospital may have been the cause of the coma. This quickly brought to mind the case of Rabin who was killed in the ambulance that was taking him to the hospital after he had been hit by a ‘blank’ bullet. Is it possible that Sharon was removed because he wouldn’t have launched this offensive against Lebanon?

However, the war is not over and as was apparent during the war, influential people in the Lebanese government were cooperating with the Israelis in the hope of forever removing Hezbollah from the scene. These people will not stop now and are going to be working in order to eliminate Hezbollah and achieve a Lebanon that is more in concordance with the US plans for the region.