Now,
The Theater Of War
Moves To The UN
By Jonathan Cook
in Nazareth
08 August, 2006
Countercurrents.org
If there were any remaining illusions
about the purpose of Israel’s war against Lebanon, the draft United
Nations Security Council resolution calling for a “cessation of
major hostilities” published at the weekend should finally dispel
them. This entirely one-sided document was drafted, noted the Hebrew-language
media, with close Israeli involvement. The top adviser to the Israeli
Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, talked through the resolution with the
US and French teams, while the Israeli Foreign Ministry had its man
alongside John Bolton at the UN building in New York.
The only thing preventing Israeli officials from jumping up and down
with glee, according Aluf Benn of the daily Haaretz newspaper, was the
fear that “demonstrated Israeli enthusiasm for the draft could
influence support among Security Council members, who could demand a
change in wording that may adversely affect Israel.” So no celebration
parties till the resolution is passed.
Instead, in a cynical ploy familiar from previous negotiating processes,
Israel submitted to the US a list of requests for amendments to the
resolution. When Israel agrees to forgo these amendments, it will, of
course, be able to take credit for its flexibility and desire to compromise;
Lebanon and Hizbullah, on the other hand, will be cast as villains,
rejecting international peace-making efforts.
The reason for Israel’s barely concealed pleasure is that Hizbullah
now faces an international diplomatic and public relations assault in
place of the unsuccessful Israeli military one. Israel, and the United
States, are trying to set a series of traps for Hizbullah -- and Lebanon
too -- that will justify Israel’s reoccupation of south Lebanon,
the further ethnic cleansing of the country, and a widening of the war
to include Iran, and possibly Syria.
The clues were not hard to decode. The US Secretary of State, Condoleezza
Rice, characterised the aim of the resolution as clarifying who is acting
in good faith. “We're going to know who really did want to stop
the violence and who didn't,” she said. Or, in other words, we
are going to be able to blame Hizbullah for the hostilities because
we have offered them terms of surrender we know they will never agree
to.
The main sticking point for Hizbullah is to be found in the resolution’s
requirement that it must stop fighting and begin a process of disarmament
at a time when Israeli forces are still occupying Lebanese territory
and when there may be a lengthy, if not interminable, wait for their
replacement by international peacekeepers. Not only that, but the resolution
allows Israel to continue its military operations for defensive purposes:
Hizbullah only has to look to Gaza or the West Bank to see what Israel
is likely to consider falling under the rubric of “defensive”.
Hizbullah has been stockpiling weapons since Israel’s withdrawal
in May 2000 precisely to create a “balance of deterrence”,
to make Israel more cautious about sating its demonstrated appetite
for occupying its neighbours’ lands, particularly when the neighbour
is a small country like Lebanon without a proper army and divided into
many sectarian groups, some of which, for a price, may be willing to
collaborate with Israel.
This time, however, as Israeli troops struggle back towards the Litani
River and their initial goal of creating a “buffer zone”
similar to the one they held on to for nearly two decades, the Lebanese
are rallying behind Hizbullah, convinced that the Shiite militia is
their only protection against Western machinations for a “new
Middle East”.
Israel and Washington, however, may hope that, given time, they can
break that national solidarity by provoking a civil war in Lebanon to
deplete local energies, similar to Israel’s attempts at engineering
feuds between Hamas and Fatah in the occupied Palestinian territories.
Certainly, it is difficult to make sense otherwise of Israel’s
bombing for the first time of Christian neighbourhoods in Beirut and
what looks like the intended ethnic cleansing of Sunni Muslims from
Sidon, which was leafletted by Israeli war planes at the weekend.
On the US-Israeli view, a nation of refugees living in an open-air prison
cut off from the outside world and deprived of food and aid -- a more
ambitious version of the Gaza model -- may eventually be persuaded to
take their wrath out on their Shiite defenders.
Hizbullah understands that the proposal to bring in a force of international
peacekeepers is another trap. Either the foreign troops will never arrive,
because on these Israeli-imposed terms there can be no ceasefire, or,
if they do arrive, they will quickly become a proxy occupation army.
Israel will have its new South Lebanon Army, supplied direct this time
from the UN and subsidised by the West. If Hizbullah fights, it will
be killing foreign peacekeepers not Israeli soldiers.
But Israel knows the international force is almost certainly a non-starter,
which seems to be the main reason it has now, belatedly, become so enthusiastic
for it. Senior Israeli government officials were saying as much in the
Hebrew-language media on Sunday.
Israel’s Justice Minister, the increasingly hawkish Haim Ramon,
summed up the view from Tel Aviv: “Even if it is passed, it is
doubtful that Hezbollah will honor the resolution and halt its fire.
Therefore we have to continue fighting, continue hitting anyone we can
hit in Hezbollah, and I assume that as long as that goes on, Israel's
standing, diplomatically and militarily, will improve.”
Israel hopes it will be able to keep hitting Hizbullah harder -- at
less cost to its troops and civilians, and with improved diplomatic
standing -- because in the next phase, after the resolution is passed,
the Shiite militia will find that one arm has been tied, figuratively
speaking, behind its back.
Not only will Washington and Israel blame Hizbullah for refusing to
agree to the ceasefire but they will seek to use any retaliation against
Israeli “defensive” aggression -- including, presumably,
further invasion -- as a pretext for widening the war and dragging in
the real target of their belligerence: Iran.
This subterfuge was voiced at the weekend by Israel’s ambassador
to the UN, Dan Gillerman, who told the BBC that if Hizbullah fired at
Tel Aviv -- which it has threatened to do if Israel continues attacking
Beirut -- this would be tantamount to an “act of war” that
could only have been ordered by Iran. In other words, at some point
soon Israel may stop blaming Hizbullah and turn its fire -- defensively,
of course -- on Iran.
This linkage is being carefully prepared by Olmert. On Monday, according
to the Hebrew-language press, he told some 50 government spokespeople
what message to deliver to the foreign media: “Our enemy is not
Hezbollah, but Iran, which employs Hezbollah as its agent.” According
to Haaretz, he urged the spokespeople “not to be ashamed to express
emotion and appeal to feelings”.
So in the coming days, in the wake of this US-Israeli concoction of
an impossible peace, we are going to be hearing a lot more nonsense
from Israel and the White House about Iran’s role in supposedly
initiating and expanding this war, its desire to “wipe Israel
off the map” and the nuclear weapons it is developing so that
it can achieve its aim.
The capture of two Israeli soldiers on 12 July will be decoupled from
Hizbullah’s domestic objectives. No one will talk of those soldiers
as bargaining chips in the prisoner swap Hizbullah has been demanding;
or as an attempt by Hizbullah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, to deflect
US-inspired political pressure on him to disarm his militia and leave
Lebanon defenceless to Israel’s long-planned invasion; or as a
populist show of solidarity by Hizbullah with the oppressed Palestinians
of Gaza.
Those real causes of hostilities will be ignored as more, mostly Lebanese,
civilians die, and Israel and the US expand the theatre of war. Instead
we will hear much of the rockets that are still landing in northern
Israel and how they have been supplied by Iran. The fact that Hizbullah
attacks followed rather precipitated Israel’s massive bombardment
of Lebanon will be forgotten. Rockets fired by Hizbullah to stop Israeli
aggression against Lebanon will be retold as an Iranian-inspired war
to destroy the Jewish state. The nuclear-armed Goliath of Israel will,
once again, be transformed into a plucky little David. Or at least such
is the Israeli and US scenario.
Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth,
Israel. His book, “Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish
and Democratic State”, is published by Pluto Press. His website
is www.jkcook.net