Operation
Change Of Direction: Toward Israeli Military Action
In Syria And Iran
By Ira Glunts
18 July, 2006
Countercurrents.org
Israel,
displaying a tin ear for the language of irony, a penchant for biblical
phrasing, and its usual disregard for international criticism (other
than American), originally named its disproportionate military response
to recent Hezbollah attacks, “Operation Appropriate Retribution.”
Later it changed the name to the more prosaic and ambiguous “Operation
Change of Direction.”
Maybe the change of direction
refers to the shift in policy regarding major military confrontation
with Hezbollah. In an article in the Israeli daily Ha’aretz (July
15) titled, “There Are Days When The Country Says Enough,”
Aluf Benn wrote that the new Israeli leadership is not continuing the
policies of the Barak and Sharon governments, but rather acting with
a “previously unseen lack of restraint” in regard to its
use of military force in Lebanon. Benn points out that both Barak and
Sharon avoided significant direct confrontation with Hezbollah, despite
the latter’s occasional shelling of Israeli northern towns and
its attacks upon Israeli soldiers. Barak threatened action, but in the
end ignored a Hezbollah attack in 2000. Sharon responded with limited
force, mainly directed against Syria, and negotiated a prisoner exchange
with Hezbollah leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrullah. The present Israeli reaction
represents a clear escalation in the use of force and a renunciation
of the past strategy of negotiation for its captured citizens.
The massive military response
in Gaza and Lebanon by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his Defense Minister
Amir Peretz, may be influenced by a desire to counter the criticism
that they lack the military experience necessary to effectively defend
the country. Additionally, because neither have significant military
credentials, they may be transferring policy decisions to a military
establishment which has in recent years become ever more willing and
eager to use force to reshape political reality in the region. Also,
the government may be feeling increased pressure from right wing criticism
which has warned against withdrawing the army from Gaza in 2005 and
Lebanon in 2000 and is presently claiming that the present crisis is
a direct result of those withdrawals.
In spite of the significant
internal political realities that are driving the Israeli aggression
(including wide public support), the role of the United States is absolutely
crucial in the present crisis . Israel seldom takes major military action
without the consent of its American patron. The declarations of President
Bush and other US government officials indicating that the US has no
intention of pressuring Israel into accepting a cease-fire in either
Gaza or Lebanon portend no quick end to the present Middle East fighting.
Robin Wright reports in The Washington Post, (July 16) that “Israel,
with U.S. support, intends to resist calls for a cease-fire and continue
a longer-term strategy of punishing Hezbollah, which is likely to include
several weeks of precision bombing in Lebanon, according to senior Israeli
and U.S. officials.”
Israeli “precision
bombing” which has already killed over 150 Lebanese civilians,
will not help resolve the current violence. Israel is demanding that
the Lebanese disarm Hezbollah. But the democratically elected Lebanese
government, in which Hezbollah is a member, does not have a sufficiently
strong army to disarm Sheik Nasrullah’s guerilla fighters. This
army is extemely well armed and widely supported by the local Shiite
population, who make up the largest ethnic voting bloc in Lebanon. Israel’s
previous 17 year presence in Lebanon did not eradicate Hezbollah and
it is unlikely to fare any better this time around. Just as in Gaza,
Israeli unilateral military action against infrastructure and those
whom it considers appropriate targets for assasination will only lead
to the usual high number of innocent civilian deaths and unending hardship.
Real progress is only possible when all sides negotiate a solution to
the primary cause of conflict, which is the Israeli occupation of Gaza,
the West Bank and the Golan Heights. Such negotiations are unlikely
to happen soon, but at the present moment all sides must recognize a
cease-fire in order to avoid further escalation and destruction.
The ominous American declaration
that it will not request that Israel agree to cease-fire agreements
in Lebanon and Gaza may be the key to the logic of Olmert’s policy.
It may be that the US senses the time is right to turn up the pressure
on either or both Syria and Iran by using the Israeli army as its proxy.
Israel in its present bellicose mood, may leap at the chance to hit
Syria and Iran with even tacit US backing. It is no secret that many
in the US government supported by the same neocons who helped bring
us the war in Iraq, are advocating regime change in both Syria and Iran.
(For a very recent declaration see “Why Bush Should Go To Tel
Aviv and Confront Iran ” by William Kristol.) Both countries exercise
what the US sees as a negative influence on the American efforts in
Iraq. America is involved in an ongoing bitter dispute with the Iranians
over nuclear proliferation. Both Syria and Iran through their support
of Hamas are seen as an obstacle to a US- brokered Israeli/Palestinian
settlement. It is instructive to note that not only are the Americans
not criticizing Israel, but US official statements invariably echo the
Israelis’ claim that both Syria and Iran are the parties responsible
for the present escalation in violence in the region. Ze’ev Shiff,
the military correspondent for Ha’aretz, helped intensify the
war cries by writing that according to Israeli unnamed military sources,
Iran directly planned the recent Hezbollah attacks and kidnapping of
Israeli soldiers.
If America backs a prolonged
Israeli assault on Hezbollah and Hamas, the suffering of many innocent
Lebanese and the Palestinians will poison American relations with Arab
countries in the Middle East, as well as mortally wound any hope of
regional reconciliation. Moreover, if America raises the stakes in the
Middle East by allowing Israel to expand its military targets to Syria
or Iran, even on a limited basis, the prospects for all-out regional
war will be exponentially increased.
Ira Glunts first
visited the Middle East in 1972, where he taught English and physical
education in a small rural community in Israel. He was a volunteer in
the Israeli Defense Forces in 1992. Mr. Glunts lives in Madison, New
York where he operates a used and rare book business.