Join News Letter

Iraq War

Peak Oil

Climate Change

US Imperialism

Palestine

Communalism

Gender/Feminism

Dalit

Globalisation

Humanrights

Economy

India-pakistan

Kashmir

Environment

Gujarat Pogrom

WSF

Arts/Culture

India Elections

Archives

Links

Submission Policy

Contact Us

Fill out your
e-mail address
to receive our newsletter!
 

Subscribe

Unsubscribe

 

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.

Google
WWW www.countercurrents.org

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Search Our Archive



Our Site

Web