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.