July 18, 2006 12:20 PM

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/dilip_hiro/2006/07/post_232.html

Since it came into being to resist Lebanon's occupation by Israel

after its June 1982 invasion, Hizbullah has a long history of taking

hostages and using them as bargaining chips to achieve its political

aims. After breaking away from the earlier Shia group called Amal,

its leaders formed close links with the contingent of 2,000

Revolutionary Guards sent by Iran to fight the Israeli invaders,

from its base in Baalbekin eastern Lebanon.

As Hizbullah escalated its guerrilla attacks on Israel in southern

Lebanon its military aid from Tehran increased, with Syria acting as

the conduit. Through its (domestic) Martyrs Foundation, Iran sent

funds to Hizbullah to provide health, education and other public

services to the Shia community which, forming two-fifths of the

national population is the largest sectarian group in Lebanon.

Hizbullah assisted Iran by taking western, especially American,

hostages (under such labels as the Organization of the Oppressed of

the Earth) on the basis that their captivity would inhibit US

military intervention in the Iran-Iraq War on the Iraqi side. It

also used American hostages as a means to secure US-made weapons,

clandestinely, for Iran which had been equipped with such arms

before the 1979 revolution.

After the end of the Lebanese civil war in October 1990, Hizbullah

fighters moved to the area adjacent to the Israeli-occupied southern

Lebanon. In late 1991 a three-way swap - involving 450 Lebanese and

Palestinian prisoners, seven dead or captured Israeli soldiers, and

the remaining Western hostages - ended this phase of Hizbullah's

hostage-taking.

Steadily, it increased its attacks on the Israeli and its surrogate

South Lebanon army targets, pushing the total to 1,200 in 1998.

Unable to bear the pressure, Israel withdraw unconditionally from

southern Lebanon in May 2000, except from the disputed Shebaa Farms.

Soon after the start of the second Palestinian intifada in September

2000, Hizbullah abducted a former Israeli colonel from inside

Israel. Following tortuous negotiations, in January 2004 Israeli

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon exchanged 436 Lebanese prisoners and 59

corpses of Lebanese soldiers for one Israeli hostage and three

corpses of Israeli soldiers.

At the last minute Sharon held back three prominent Lebanese

detainees. Since then Hizbullah has talked about getting them

released by abducting Israeli soldiers. A recent poll showed that

more Lebanese were interested in their release than settling the

dispute about the Shebaa Farm with Israel.

Hizbullah's secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah claims that the

leadership had been planning the abduction of Israeli soldiers for

five months. Nonetheless, the flare-up has come at a time when Iran

is under international pressure on its nuclear issue. So mayhem and

diversions in the region suit Tehran. They also provide a foretaste

of what would follow if Israel or America were to mount their

threatened "pinpoint" strikes at Iran's nuclear and military facilities.

Yet, despite repeated Israeli and American claims that Iran and

Syria are behind Hizbullah's moves, no solid evidence has emerged.

That is what led French President Jacques Chirac to say that "I have

the feeling, if not the conviction, that Hamas and Hizbullah would

not have taken the initiative alone."

Quite simply, the alliance between Hizbullah and Iran and Syria is

informal, not institutional. It is part of a broad anti-Washington,

anti-Tel Aviv front led by Tehran in an international context where

the legitimacy of the United Nations Security Council has collapsed

in the Arab and Muslim world.

Washington's vetoing of the Qatari resolution at the Security

Council - which condemned Israel for "disproportionate use of

force", called for the release of the Israeli prisoner and urged the

Palestinians to stop firing rockets at Israel - which won 10 votes,

with four abstentions, was a glaring example of its denigration of

the highest authority on international security.

"The situation in Lebanon and Palestine is a test for international

organizations who claim to be defenders of human rights," said

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "Keeping silent won't solve

any problems."

Those who now invoke Security Council Resolution 1559 of September

2004, passed by the minimum requirement of nine votes, calling on

all Lebanese militias to disarm, lack moral authority. They should

remember that Israel defied Security Council Resolution 425 of March

1978 demanding its unconditional withdrawal from Lebanon for 22 years.

Red Alert: Confusion Before the Storm

By George Friedman

Breaking Intelligence from Stratfor.com

There was some major confusion a couple of hours ago. First, an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) spokesman told the wire services that Israeli troops had entered southern Lebanon. Then IDF officials denied it. Then it was announced that bulldozers had gone in and had been withdrawn. We went from thinking the invasion had begun to that it hadn't to "what in the world is going on?"

Our best guess at the moment is that the bulldozers went in to clear mines and other obstacles prior to the main body of Israeli forces crossing over tonight. Another explanation might be that this was a probe designed to draw Hezbollah fire. The Israelis are clearly worried that Hezbollah has obtained advanced weaponry from Iran via the sea and Syria. They don't seem to be sure what has arrived and what has deployed with Hezbollah forces, but they don't want to push across the border only to have their armor caught in a hail of advanced anti-tank missiles or trapped by advanced anti-tank mines. There also could be an element of psychological warfare in this confusion. Hezbollah knows Israel is coming but doesn't know when -- and Israel wants to rattle its fighters as much as possible.

All of this is possible, but the fact is that major Israeli forces have not crossed the border into Lebanon as of afternoon July 17, local time. The Israelis did announce they were calling up a reserve division over the weekend. Meanwhile, Israeli aircraft are continuing intense operations over Lebanon. More Hezbollah rockets started hitting Israel after daybreak July 17. This obviously creates some urgency for the Israelis. The airstrikes have not succeeded in shutting down rockets that can reach as far as Haifa, and the Israelis have acknowledged that Tel Aviv is at risk as well. Therefore, where we have expected Israel to move as soon as possible, it has not yet committed forces on the ground.

One explanation could be that the Israelis simply are not ready to move yet. Deploying a force suitable for the mission takes time. The call-up of the reserve division by headquarters indicates that this is to be a substantial operation. The Israelis might not want ground forces to go until they are completely ready, and thus are prepared to absorb the additional hours or days of missile attack to make sure the attack is decisive.

A second possible explanation is that although the Israelis have lost any element of strategic surprise -- Hezbollah certainly knows they are coming -- they are hoping for some tactical surprise. The longer they delay, the less certain and more weary Hezbollah becomes. It is not clear, however, whether the advantage tied to any possibility of tactical surprise is worth the incoming missiles.

Third, it could be that the air campaign is not yet complete. Israel, like the United States, likes to shape the battlefield by running extensive air campaigns. There could be too many targets for such a campaign to have run its course yet, or the targets might be more robust than expected. The Israelis could be hunting for the longer-range missiles that Hezbollah has, fearing that an invasion before these are destroyed would invite a launch at Tel Aviv -- something they don't want to see.

Yet another reason for the delay might be something that Russian President Vladimir Putin hinted at July 16, when he said Russians had been negotiating for the release of the three kidnapped Israeli soldiers and that he did not feel the negotiations had been unsuccessful. Israel does want the soldiers returned. But while Hamas might consider releasing the captives in its custody, it is hard to believe Hezbollah would -- not if, after releasing them, Hezbollah would still face attacks.

There is massive diplomacy under way, and Israel is doing well. Not only is the United States lining up with Israel, but the sense at the G-8 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, was much less hostile to Israel than normal. In addition, both the Saudis and Egyptians have made it clear that they hold Hezbollah responsible for what has happened. Given this, it is not inconceivable that some diplomatic process is actually moving forward.

The problem with that scenario is that any diplomatic settlement to the crisis not only would preserve Hezbollah in some way, but would depend on Hezbollah implementing an agreement. The Israelis see the situation that has erupted in recent days as a rare opportunity to deal with Hezbollah, and they have no trust in diplomatic arrangements or their enforcement by mediators. They do want their soldiers back, but not at the risk of leaving Hezbollah in place.

The fighting is hardly tapering off. Israel's aircraft are ranging over Lebanon, a blockade is in place, and Hezbollah is firing at northern Israel quite effectively. Israel will not willingly leave Hezbollah in place while it has such capabilities. The Israelis might leave all this to airpower, but the fact is that the Israeli army has no confidence in the air force's ability to definitively destroy Hezbollah. The view is that, in the end, they will have to go in on the ground.

It is interesting to note, however, that the United States is being surprisingly relaxed about getting American citizens out of Beirut. Obviously, it can't get everyone out, but unlike other countries, the United States has been slow to move, in spite of the obvious risk of hostage-taking. U.S. Embassy officials in Beirut seem to be acting as if they have more time -- and certainly the United States knows if and when Israel is going to invade.

Our view is this: Israel will not accept the bombardment that is under way. Any cease-fire, from the Israeli point of view, would simply be a postponement of the issue. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's government does not have the political freedom for action that a cease-fire requires. There is rare consensus in Israel that Hezbollah must be attacked. If Olmert settles for a diplomatic solution, he will have serious problems in the Knesset.

Therefore, it follows that the most likely explanation for the delay in a ground assault is that the Israelis are going to take some more time in deploying their forces at the border, allow the air campaign to continue for another day or two, accept the civilian casualties from Hezbollah's rockets and strike back some time this week. But with those rockets coming in, they don't have that many days to wait. Israel's government is not fractious. There is no sense of unease about the situation. Therefore, we have to stay with the view that a broader ground attack is likely early this week.

CHRIS PARSONS WRITES: "It started with the bombing of a Palestinian Picnic"

BECKY: I assume he means the exlosion that killed several members of a family on a Gaza Beach in June 2006?

CONSIDER THIS: B'tselem which is often quoted on these pages as a reputable source says this:

"The statistics relate to the period of 20/05/2006 – 21/06/2006, and do not include the members of the Ghaliah family, in regard to whom B'Tselem cannot currently confirm with certainty who is responsible for their deaths."

found at: http://www.btselem.org/english/Press_Releases/20060622.asp

BECKY: So Chris, you have assumed facts not in evidence. There is ample proof that the IDF was not responsible for those deaths and that the PA clearly attempted to distort the coverage in order to falsely blame Israel.

…if this report from YnetNews.com is correct, Hezbollah is trying to maximize Lebanese civilian deaths, presumably for its own propaganda purposes:

The IDF [Israel Defense Forces] has found that Hizbullah is preventing civilians from leaving villages in southern Lebanon. Roadblocks have been set up outside some of the villages to prevent residents from leaving, while in other villages Hizbullah is preventing UN representatives from entering, who are trying to help residents leave. In two villages, exchanges of fire between residents and Hizbullah have broken out….

Schtarker and Shetizdayin should appreviated their names the Scht. and Shet. to match the stuff that they and Becky are posting here.

The capture of the Israeli soldiers merely gave Israel a convenient excuse to do what it was planning to do anyway. Massive invasions like these would have taken weeks to organize.

Prisoner exhanges have taken place in the past and could have taken place this time and saved a good deal of bloodshed. Israeli atrocities in Gaza and Lebanon have actually increased the danger that the captured soldiers are in; obviously the lives of these young men are considered expenible by the zionist leaders.

London's ad hominem definitely attests to his unease at witnessing Jewish power being officially unleashed on a state level to retaliate for the naked aggression perpetrated by Hamas and Hizballah and attempt to stop it and facilitate the release of the Israeli hostages or captives without capitulating to the Islamonazi pirates' demands.

I've seen no evidence to indicate that Israel had planned to cripple Hizballah militarily to render it incapable of causing Israel any harm at all, drive them out of Southern Lebanon and have the Lebanese military deploy on the Purple Line. That you're calling these *small scale* surgical or precision ground incursions conducted within 1.5 kil. of the international border with Lebanon massive invasions shows you have little idea what you're saying.



In the past Israel shortsightedly traded hundreds of Arab prisoners/detainees for 4 or less captives or bodies, which emboldened Hizballah to try even more, thereby motivating it to shed even more Israeli blood and damage yet more Israeli property which London cares nothing for since it's Jewish lives or property. London was happier with this Israeli modus operandi as it didn't entail the loss of Arab lives. This time Israel changed tack and decided not to negotiate with these pirates and is incurring the wrath of London, Pete Nice and their ilk, not to mention the rabid anti-Zionists. (Curiously though, we're haven't heard from JA and Wendy Klanbell 8 days now. What gives?)



I'm a bit bewildered to witness London suddenly expressing "concern" for the lives of the Israeli captives. This ploy isn't working. If he had cared for the lives of the Israeli civilians and soldiers whom Hizballah and Palestinian terrorists have been targetting for decades now, maybe his point would have been worth addressing seriously.

Israeli atrocities a-la London = every Israeli military action London has a problem with.

Could the kidnapping (not to mention the bombings) just have been the straw that broke the camels back? Israel has given back and given in for a very long time. Could it have been that they finally said enough is enough?

There already are - by the IDF and the Mossad.

The supposed innocent people picked up by IDF and border police troops plann massacre and mayhem against innocents.

Hamas claims that the first Israeli soldier captured had been involved in tank fire on civilian targets. In other words, he had been involved in terrorism.

You take Hamas' word -- assuming this is even true (with the further caviet of the often false reports given by Palestinians)-- as the gospel truth and expect everyone to believe it...

I find no reason at all to assume that the IDF and the Mossad are more truthful than Hamas. Clearly, Israel's lies about running over Rachel Corey with a bulldozer do not inspire confidence in its truthfulness.

Trust the IDF both to tell the truth and to win.

When the ISM lied, Rachel Corrie died. They came out and admitted that she was worth more dead than alive to them.

I have a strong suspicion that the captured Israeli soldiers are worth more dead to the zionist leadership dead than alive; certainly Israeli actions so far have not seemed likely to enhance their safety.