US -- Israeli military monster: Birthing the new Middle Beast

author : Marco Rosaire Rossi topic : Israel Lobby | Palestine

by Marco Rosaire Rossi

In the "official" report, the account reported by the major media outlets in the United States and other Western nations, the timeline for the conflicts between Israel and Hizbullah begins with the capture of two Israeli soldiers on June 25. This perspective is widespread; even mainstream human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch perpetuate the idea by referring to Israel actions against Lebanon as retaliatory. However, the idea that the June 25 kidnapping started the conflict between Israel and Hizbullah is false. Israel did not retaliate -- it escalated. The capture of Israeli soldiers was used as pretext for a US -- Israeli invasion into Lebanon for the grander purpose of restructuring the Middle East to the liking of the United States. This restructuring has two important objectives outside the elimination of Hizbullah: 1) to destroy all Palestinian society, and 2) to use the invasion as a stepping stone for attacking Iran and Syria.

Violence on The Border

In May 2000, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) agreed to withdraw from the southern tip of Lebanon and a draw a "blue line" to separate it from Hizbullah. Before that time, Israel had occupied Lebanon after its illegal and brutal attack on the nation in 1981. The "blue line" was a half-hearted attempt at peace. Both sides ignored the agreement, with the IDF being the main violator. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon reported that the IDF crossed the line "on an almost daily basis." Between the initial withdrawal in 2000 to the recent escalation, small skirmishes of violence were common. In October 2000, the IDF opened fire on Palestinian demonstrators on the border. Three people were killed and 20 were wounded. In retaliation, Hizbullah captured three Israeli soldiers in Israeli territory and fired missiles at an IDF outpost. No massive military response from Israel followed. Instead, continuous small acts of aggression proceeded until the present: In 2003, attacks led to the death of three Israelis and three Lebanese; in 2005, one IDF soldier and two Hizbullah fighters were killed; and in February of 2006, violence took the lives of two Lebanese civilians and three IDF soldiers. None of these acts led to major outbreaks of violence. If anything, the small low-scale warfare was wearing down Hizbullah. Prior to Israel's recent assault, the Hizbullah army had dwindled to about 1,000 armed men.

The capture of the Israeli soldiers on June 25 was, relatively speaking, a mundane affair. Hizbullah was very open about its actions, hoping to exchange the soldiers for 15 prisoners of war that the Israelis captured during its occupation of Lebanon. All things considered, there was no way for Hizbullah to know Israel would react the way it did. Other reasons, separate and distinct from the fighting on the border, played into Israel's decision to escalate.

The Quiet War In Gaza

While much of the world's attention was focused on Lebanon, Israel launched a "quiet" war in Gaza. From late June until early September, over 260 people were killed and around 1,200 injured in Gaza. This assault was titled Operation Summer Rain and was a combination of a massive military offensive with a harsh economic blockade. The number killed in Gaza is roughly one forth of the people killed in Lebanon, but the long-term effects of Operation Summer Rain will be felt for generations.

Operation Summer Rain is a subsection of Operation Samson's Pillars. Since the election of Hamas, the United States and Israel have been doing all they can to debase Palestinian society. Lebanon has working institutions and infrastructure that are able to help rebuild the country. Hizbullah has enough resources and support to help those in need and is willing to contribute. An article in the Washington Post reported that Hizbullah "runs a major hospital as well as schools, discount pharmacies, groceries and an orphanage. It runs a garbage service and a reconstruction program for homes damaged during Israel's invasion. It supports families of young men sent off to their deaths. Altogether, it benefits an estimated 250,000 Lebanese and is the country's second largest employer."

Nothing like that exists in Palestine. Two thirds of the entire population are unemployed. The Hamas-led government has been boycotted and sanctioned into an almost non-existent state. One-thousand-eight-hundred employees of Gaza City haven't been paid since April. Water mains, main power stations, and bridges have been destroyed. Electricity is as infrequent as it is in Baghdad. The situation is so dire that the World Bank has concluded that the West Bank and Gaza have faced "a year of unprecedented economic recession. Real incomes may contract by at least a third in 2006 and poverty to affect close to two thirds of the population." Also unlike Lebanon, the major conflicts in Gaza haven't stopped. The occupation, and all the brutality with it, still pushes along. The situation is so dire that Gaza's mayor, Dr. Magad Abu-Ramadan proclaimed: "It is the worst year for us since 1948."

Planning for the Attack

There is much evidence to show that Israel's attack on Lebanon was premeditated and pushed along by the United States. Renowned journalist Seymor Hersh published an article in The New Yorker in which he states that on May 23 President Bush gave Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert full support in attacking Lebanon as soon as possible. Others have speculated that preparation for the war may go back even further. Gerald Steinberg, a professor of political science of the Bar-llan University, told the San Francisco Chronicle on July 21, that "of all of Israel's wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared. In a sense, the preparation began in May 2000, immediately after the Israeli withdrawal . . . By 2004, the military campaign, scheduled to last about three weeks, that we're seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it's been simulated and rehearsed across the board." The Chronicle also reported that more than a year before the attack, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations to foreign diplomats, journalist, and thinktanks which set out "the plan for the current operation in revealing details." Similar accounts were reported by other newspapers. A "senior Israeli official" told the Washington Post that the capture of the soldiers provided a "unique moment" for wiping out Hizbullah.

Why Israel decided to seize on the recent capture of its soldiers as its "unique moment" has much to do with the prodding of the US. Months before the "unique moment," the US had been encouraging Israel to launch an attack on Lebanon in the hope of destroying Hizbullah, and eventually spreading the conflict to Syria and Iran. In support of the Israeli offensive, the White House Press Secretary released a series of talking points that included references to a Los Angeles Times op-ed piece entitled "It's Time to Let the Israelis Take Off the Gloves." The article, written by Max Boot  --  a senior fellow for the national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations -- urged Israel to "hit the Assad regime, Hard." The pan-Arab paper, al-Hayat, reported that the United States  --  via Israel  --  gave Syria 72 hours to pressure Hizbullah to release the soldiers and stop border violence or face an attack. The White House is not willing to confirm or deny this report. On July 30, shortly after the major violence broke out, the Jerusalem Post reported that President Bush tried to push Israeli forces to spread the conflict to Syria  --  a plan that Israeli military officials apparently thought was crazy.

Also, Seymour Hersh published a series of articles in The New Yorker that concluded that the Israeli attack was to "serve as a prelude to a potential American preemptive attack to destroy Iran's nuclear installations." According to Hersh, "The U.S. Strategic Command, supported by the Air Force, has been drawing up plans, at the President's direction, for a major bombing campaign in Iran." However, Hersh continues, "the bombing campaign . . . could lead to serious economic, political, and military consequences for the United States," which fears losing control in Iraq. It is speculated that a bombing campaign by a proxy US power -- Israel -- would be more militarily successful than a direct US-led attack.

A New Middle East?

On top of the charred remains of a bombed-out building in Lebanon hangs a banner that reads: "The New Middle Beast." The phrase is a dark pun taken for Condoleezza Rice's proclamation that the US-Israeli invasion of Lebanon constituted "the growing pains of a new Middle East." The banner also represents both the tragedy of and resistance to US dominance in the area.

The war in Lebanon and Gaza has no clear-cut winner. On the one hand, Lebanon has been sent back years, and Gaza decades. The recent attacks murdered well over 1,000 people. On the other hand, stronger commitment to the Palestinian cause and resentment toward US-Israeli aggression has grown. Even the international community, which usually remains fairly sanguine on such events, stepped up to condemn the attacks -- at least in rhetoric. Where things will go from here and if peace and democracy will be able to prevail in this "new Middle East" is hard to say. One thing is clear though, without a dramatic increase in protest -- especially from within the United States -- the mayhem and violence will continue at a loss for everyone.