For What did the Bell Toll
Many in Israel now believe that the US government's role has not been to moderate Israeli militaristic tendencies, and that it may really have been interested, possibly directly involved, in fostering them. There is not only apprehension of some about the possible loss of American confidencc and largesse following the Lebanon failures, but also the misgivings of those who resent that this is what the vaunted hard won independence has come to.
The New york Times' Steven Erlanger reported on August 13 that "Itamar Rabinovich, a former ambassador to Washington, said bluntly: Two notions have died. First, unilateralism, and second, separation by the fence. Missiles dwarf the fence. Israelis also fear there has been damage done to their relationship with the United States, where some may complain that the Israelis were given time to clobber Hezbollah and did not get the job done. Mr. Rabinovich is more sanguine. Part of the reckoning will be our reputation as a strategic partner, when we tell the Americans, Give us the tools and we’ll do the job,’ he said".
Doron Rosenblum asserts in Haaretz: "Israel is not Sparta, and this is a good thing. It was not established in order to be a spearhead against global Islam, or in order to serve as an alert squad for the Western world. It was established in order to live in it" (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/751959.html) .
The converse, also in Haaretz http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/749293.html: "For decades, Israel has enjoyed an extremely close relationship with the United States. These ties have grown even stronger during George W. Bush's presidency. Israeli leaders should not, however, take American support for granted. There is, of course, a tremendous reservoir of good will and genuine affection for Israel among Americans; but sentiment and habit alone are not a sufficient basis for an enduring U.S.-Israel alliance. The hard truth is that Israel must appear to be, and be, a winner in order to remain a valuable strategic partner for the United States". The authors of that are apparently not Israeli, but what in current parlance are called "friends of Israel", in Washington, DC. But Israeli examples, not much less brutally stated, to this effect also abound.
Comment #10 to that article came from Langley (probably the one outside Vancouver): "Title: puppet army? Name: Duncan City: Langley State: Canada: "Israel has to win, to remain uncle sam`s favourite puppet? Most nations would be deeply offended by this article. Imagine your sons and daughters are dying to maintain Israel`s fielty to its overlord in Washington. If Israel made peace with its neighbours, it could do without Washington`s blood money".
Many believe that the liberation of the two soldiers abducted by Hezbullah was not the reason, but rather the pretext, for Israeli operations planned well (though badly) in advance and for the benefit largely of American military strategists, possibly with them. That could have been to show that a regular army can defeat a guerrilla one, contrary to predominant thinking / experience; and that an aerial bombing campaign can be militarily decisive by itself. That would also help explain why an air force officer (Halutz) had been picked as Tzahal's Chief of Staff for the first time ever.
Following a very difficult operation with most casualties (33 killed), started after passage of the UN cease fire resolution (1701), there was griping "when the soldiers heard the words of several senior officers. 'This was a Battle of Awareness against the Hizbullah' an unnamed senior officer told Yediot Aharonot two days ago [August 14]. 'We have proven that this legend, as if a regular army cannot fight guerillas, is not true'."
American investigative reporter Seymour Hersh does not hide that Hizbullah's largely Iranian armaments presented a real danger, but he also writes ( http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact ) in the New Yorker: "despite calls from several governments for the United States to take the lead in negotiations to end the fighting, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that a ceasefire should be put off until "the conditions are conducive." The Bush Administration, however, was closely involved in the planning of Israel's retaliatory attacks. President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney were convinced, current and former intelligence and diplomatic officials told me, that a successful Israeli Air Force bombing campaign against Hezbollah's heavily fortified underground-missile and command-and-control complexes in Lebanon could ease Israel's security concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential American preëmptive attack to destroy Iran's nuclear installations, some of which are also buried deep underground".
Uri Avnery asks ( http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1156064172 ): "What made the trio Olmert-Peretz-Halutz decide to start a war only a few hours after the capture of the two soldiers? - Was it agreed with the Americans in advance to go to war the moment a credible pretext presented itself? - Did the Americans push Israel into the war, and, later on, demand that it go on and on as far as possible? - Was it Condoleezza Rice who decided in fact when to start and when to stop? - Did the US want to get us entangled with Syria? - Did the US use us for its campaign against Iran?"
Elsewhere ( http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1156640109 ) he calls for serious consideration of Syrian president Assad's statement that "Every new Arab generation hates Israel more than the previous one." ....(later on, Avnery again) ....The Second Lebanon War is considered by many as a "War by Proxy". That's to say: Hizbullah is the Dobermann of Iran, we are the Rottweiler of America. Hizbullah gets money, rockets and support from the Islamic Republic, we get money, cluster bombs and support from the United States of America" (which he concedes to be an exaggeration).
"What interest do we have to get involved in this struggle? What interest do we have in being regarded - accurately - as the servants of the greatest enemy of the Muslim world in general and the Arab world in particular? We want to live here in 100 years, in 500 years. Our most basic national interests demand that we extend our hands to the Arab nations that accept us, and act together with them for the rehabilitation of this region. That was true 59 years ago, and that will be true 59 years hence".
The New york Times' Steven Erlanger reported on August 13 that "Itamar Rabinovich, a former ambassador to Washington, said bluntly: Two notions have died. First, unilateralism, and second, separation by the fence. Missiles dwarf the fence. Israelis also fear there has been damage done to their relationship with the United States, where some may complain that the Israelis were given time to clobber Hezbollah and did not get the job done. Mr. Rabinovich is more sanguine. Part of the reckoning will be our reputation as a strategic partner, when we tell the Americans, Give us the tools and we’ll do the job,’ he said".
Doron Rosenblum asserts in Haaretz: "Israel is not Sparta, and this is a good thing. It was not established in order to be a spearhead against global Islam, or in order to serve as an alert squad for the Western world. It was established in order to live in it" (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/751959.html) .
The converse, also in Haaretz http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/749293.html: "For decades, Israel has enjoyed an extremely close relationship with the United States. These ties have grown even stronger during George W. Bush's presidency. Israeli leaders should not, however, take American support for granted. There is, of course, a tremendous reservoir of good will and genuine affection for Israel among Americans; but sentiment and habit alone are not a sufficient basis for an enduring U.S.-Israel alliance. The hard truth is that Israel must appear to be, and be, a winner in order to remain a valuable strategic partner for the United States". The authors of that are apparently not Israeli, but what in current parlance are called "friends of Israel", in Washington, DC. But Israeli examples, not much less brutally stated, to this effect also abound.
Comment #10 to that article came from Langley (probably the one outside Vancouver): "Title: puppet army? Name: Duncan City: Langley State: Canada: "Israel has to win, to remain uncle sam`s favourite puppet? Most nations would be deeply offended by this article. Imagine your sons and daughters are dying to maintain Israel`s fielty to its overlord in Washington. If Israel made peace with its neighbours, it could do without Washington`s blood money".
Many believe that the liberation of the two soldiers abducted by Hezbullah was not the reason, but rather the pretext, for Israeli operations planned well (though badly) in advance and for the benefit largely of American military strategists, possibly with them. That could have been to show that a regular army can defeat a guerrilla one, contrary to predominant thinking / experience; and that an aerial bombing campaign can be militarily decisive by itself. That would also help explain why an air force officer (Halutz) had been picked as Tzahal's Chief of Staff for the first time ever.
Following a very difficult operation with most casualties (33 killed), started after passage of the UN cease fire resolution (1701), there was griping "when the soldiers heard the words of several senior officers. 'This was a Battle of Awareness against the Hizbullah' an unnamed senior officer told Yediot Aharonot two days ago [August 14]. 'We have proven that this legend, as if a regular army cannot fight guerillas, is not true'."
American investigative reporter Seymour Hersh does not hide that Hizbullah's largely Iranian armaments presented a real danger, but he also writes ( http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact ) in the New Yorker: "despite calls from several governments for the United States to take the lead in negotiations to end the fighting, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that a ceasefire should be put off until "the conditions are conducive." The Bush Administration, however, was closely involved in the planning of Israel's retaliatory attacks. President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney were convinced, current and former intelligence and diplomatic officials told me, that a successful Israeli Air Force bombing campaign against Hezbollah's heavily fortified underground-missile and command-and-control complexes in Lebanon could ease Israel's security concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential American preëmptive attack to destroy Iran's nuclear installations, some of which are also buried deep underground".
Uri Avnery asks ( http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1156064172 ): "What made the trio Olmert-Peretz-Halutz decide to start a war only a few hours after the capture of the two soldiers? - Was it agreed with the Americans in advance to go to war the moment a credible pretext presented itself? - Did the Americans push Israel into the war, and, later on, demand that it go on and on as far as possible? - Was it Condoleezza Rice who decided in fact when to start and when to stop? - Did the US want to get us entangled with Syria? - Did the US use us for its campaign against Iran?"
Elsewhere ( http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1156640109 ) he calls for serious consideration of Syrian president Assad's statement that "Every new Arab generation hates Israel more than the previous one." ....(later on, Avnery again) ....The Second Lebanon War is considered by many as a "War by Proxy". That's to say: Hizbullah is the Dobermann of Iran, we are the Rottweiler of America. Hizbullah gets money, rockets and support from the Islamic Republic, we get money, cluster bombs and support from the United States of America" (which he concedes to be an exaggeration).
"What interest do we have to get involved in this struggle? What interest do we have in being regarded - accurately - as the servants of the greatest enemy of the Muslim world in general and the Arab world in particular? We want to live here in 100 years, in 500 years. Our most basic national interests demand that we extend our hands to the Arab nations that accept us, and act together with them for the rehabilitation of this region. That was true 59 years ago, and that will be true 59 years hence".
posted by solar_sol | 3:17 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home