by Idan Landau, via Defend Democracy Press
The writing is already on the wall: Israel will soon launch a military operation in Lebanon. Not a targeted attack on a weapons convoy or factory, but a simultaneous attack on Hezbollah’s missile production and launch sites. The operation will take place at the same time as, or immediately after, a series of assassinations of known Hezbollah operatives. That organization will, of course, react by launching a massive missile barrage at population centers in Israel, and Hamas may contribute its share in the south. Last week we were informed that missile interceptor systems have already been deployed throughout the country as part of a joint “drill” between the IDF and the U.S. military. Washington has already given a green light, or so we learn from Thomas Friedman’s most recent column — a faithful mouthpiece of American foreign policy.
In this well-orchestrated event, Israel’s mouthpieces play a single tune: Iran and Hezbollah have crossed a red line, and if their Russian patron does not restrain them (the crux of Israel-Russia security coordination), Israel will strike hard (and it will do so because the Russians cannot restrain them). Defense Minister Liberman promises that “all of Beirut will be hiding in bomb shelters,” while Minister Naftali Bennett has pledged that (Hebrew) “the Lebanese will pay the price” (an explicit threat to commit war crimes). Of course this is also the finest hour of the retired generals who can now speak freely. “ The IDF is going to use a lot of force. These places will be destroyed almost completely,” promises Maj.-Gen. (res.) Noam Tibon. Maj.-Gen. (res.) Amiram Levin tossed another log into the fire: “Lebanon will be destroyed.”
Which “red line” was crossed this time? According to Israel, it was the establishment of an Iranian missile factory in Lebanese territory. As far as I recall, Israel has at least three factories producing precision-guided missiles (Rafael, IAI and Elbit), but this is apparently not a sufficient pretext for a Lebanese attack. Such pretexts are an Israeli privilege alone. Israel has long warned its neighbor against purchasing arms (long-range, precision-guided missiles), and is careful to destroy convoys that transfer such weapons into Lebanon.
This is nothing short of Orwellian. There is no “balance” between the precision of Israeli missiles and those in the hands of Hezbollah. Weapons “removing the balance of power” in the organization’s hands actually restore balance. But a true balance between Hezbollah’s deterrence capability and that of the IDF is an intolerable thought for the top echelons of the Israeli defense establishment. Therefore, it is necessary to bomb any sign of weapons that “remove the balance of power” — an attack designed to destroy the balance between the two sides. This loop is self-defeating for Israel.
The commentators still see clearly that this is a war of choice. “Israel is climbing up a high horse,” wrote Alex Fishman in Yedioth Ahronoth last month, “and is approaching with giant steps a ‘war of choice’: without mincing words, it’s an initiated war in Lebanon.” Writing on the putative risk of Hezbollah firing first, Maariv‘s Ran Edelist commented: “There is no danger of war, Hezbollah has no motive or intent to go to war against an enemy that will overwhelm it easily after a few days of battle.” Ben Caspit also wrote about a fair prospect of a “war of choice,” while a Haaretz editorial wrote the following:
The Israeli government therefore owes Israeli citizens a precise, pertinent and persuasive explanation as to why a missile factory in Lebanon has changed the strategic balance to the extent that it requires going to war. It must present assessments to the Israeli public as to the expected number of casualties, damage to civilian infrastructure and the economic cost of going to war, as compared with the danger that construction of the missile factory constitutes.
Pay attention to this diffident tone. Remember it, and compare it to the commentators’ tone after the first missile lands and results in causalities. When Israel enters a “war footing,” journalists don their battle vests and salute the flag. Even those who doubted the operation’s initial reasoning will justify it openly in face of fatalities. We were always at war with the Iranian missile factory, they will tell us through clenched teeth. And of course, when the cannons roar, you have to keep quiet. Why? So as not to stop the flow of fatalities.
An anti-war message by ‘Yesh Gvul,’ an organization of Israeli soldiers who refused to serve in the First Lebanon War:
Come down here, airplane
Take us to Lebanon
We’ll fight for Sharon
And return in a coffin.
Israel has a long history of fabricating “grounds for war.” The Israeli-British-French conspiracy (the Protocol of Sèvres) that led to the Sinai Campaign was hidden from the public for many years; instead the government resorted to the excuse of “preventing infiltration of terrorists from Sinai.” The Oranim battle plan (Hebrew) for the First Lebanon war, which sought to replace the government in Beirut, was hidden from the public. Instead the pretext for the invasion was said to be the removal of Fatah from the area 40 kilometers north of the border.
The escalation that led to the Six-Day War was largely the fruit of Israel’s aggression against Syria – as evidenced by statements made by Defense Minister Moshe Dayan and David Ben Gurion in the weeks before the war (documented in Tom Segev’s book, 1967, and in Guy Laron’s research). The official cause was Nasser’s closure of the Straits of Tiran. But IDF Chief of Staff Rabin revealed to the Eshkol government that Nasser had promised to allow Israeli ships to pass through the straits accompanied by American warships, and stressed to the members of the government that this was “top secret” information that should not be leaked, since it would undermine the “basis” for the war to a large extent.
Let’s return to the lie of “deterrence” against Hezbollah. In Fishman’s article, he notes: “Classical deterrence is when you threaten an enemy not to harm you in your territory, but here Israel demands that the enemy refrain from doing something in its own territory, otherwise Israel will harm it. From a historical perspective and from the perspective of international legitimacy, the chances of this threat being accepted as valid, leading to the cessation of enemy activities in its own territory, are slim.” I have previously written about the distorted perception of “Israeli deterrence”:
What other country in the world sees the armament of its rivals as a pretext for military attack? There is almost no such example in Israel’s military history before the 2000s. For many years, Arab armies equipped themselves cheek by jowl alongside Israeli armament (sometimes from Uncle Sam’s swollen pockets). Israel has never considered this a pretext to bomb Cairo or Damascus. Only Hamas and Hezbollah have to make do with bows and arrows against the lethal technology of the IDF. Countries that feel threatened by the arming of their enemies do one of the following: either they better arm themselves (and Israel faces no competitors in this regard) or they reduce the level of risk by means of reconciliation and non-aggression agreements (in this regard, we are ignoramuses.) The audacity to demand that the enemy not dare arm itself is a unique Israeli chutzpah.
You will say: long-range missiles that endanger the civilian population have changed the rules of the game and our level of tolerance. But again, this game is mutual, and Israel also possesses such weapons — often more effective and lethal than those of its opponents. Somehow, Israel’s acquisition of weapons that endanger the lives of every Arab in the Middle East is not perceived by Arab countries as a “upending the balance of power” that justifies launching missiles at Ben-Gurion Airport or the Kirya defense headquarters in the heart of Tel Aviv.
Consider the following subversive thought: in the absence of a non-belligerence agreement between Israel and Hezbollah, the latter’s military consolidation reduces the risk of war in the north. Simple logic is derived from game theory. As long as there is a huge power gap between the IDF and Hezbollah, Israel can afford to attack targets in Syria and Lebanon dozens of times without fear of endangering the home front.
This is an illusion, a strategic rigidity whose bounds are narrow as the crosshairs of a rifle. These attacks raise the level of hostility and fuel the enemy’s motivation to exact revenge — a factor that is never understood well enough by the defense establishment. Israel’s aggressive “deterrence,” the utter contempt for Lebanese sovereignty, sows future calamity. And so, we have reached this explosive situation in which Hezbollah has every reason to strike back. And therefore, of course, a pre-emptive strike is needed again — this time much larger, which risks leading to war.
On the other hand, in a scenario in which Hezbollah acquires capabilities to actually threaten Israel’s home front — hundreds and thousands of long-range precision missiles — the IDF will fear striking first. The unbearable lightness of violating Lebanese sovereignty through air strikes and bombardments will stop. Finally, Israel will be deterred. Incidentally, Hezbollah itself will have fewer reasons to attack us, and the feelings of hostility and retaliation will not burn as brightly as they do today.
The following are the two scenarios that we face at the moment:
1. In the current scenario, Hezbollah already has around 130,000 missiles, of which only a few dozen are precision-guided. Israel’s relentless provocation (approximately 100 bombings over five years) has emboldened a bitter enemy across the border that is looking for an opportunity for revenge. When war breaks out, the IDF plans to launch a “pre-emptive strike” on all known concentrations of missiles. Israel’s Air Force commander admits that “it will not be over in three hours.”
The defense minister mutters something about “casualties.” Allow me to translate: for several hours, perhaps a few days, thousands of missiles will be launched into Israel. According to assessments, Hezbollah is believed to have the capability to launch 1,200 rockets a day. There is no defense system capable of responding to such a threat. Yes, there will be very many losses. How many? The same assessments speaks of hundreds of Israelis killed. Yes, on the Lebanese side there will be even more losses, villages will be crushed, but this is very small comfort for our bereaved families. They will explain to us, over and over, that this was necessary to prevent Hezbollah from acquiring accurate missiles.
I am sure that anyone struck dead by a non-guided “dumb” missile will, in their last breath, let out a sigh of relief, knowing that in their death they prevented the enemy from acquiring precision-guided missiles.
2. In the second scenario, which is completely imaginary, Israel comes down from its high horse and stops dictating which weapons its neighbors are and are not allowed to have — just as our neighbors do not stick their noses in Israel’s arsenals. As a result, every state and armed group in the region will know that as long as they refrain from violating the sovereignty of their neighbor, that neighbor will do the same. That is classical deterrence between rivals whose mutual destructive capacity is so hideous it does not even cross their minds to press the button.
After so many years of military stockpiling, which exhausts the entire civilian budget and makes no use other than for “deterrence,” fresh faced politicians are appearing on both sides of the border with the strange idea that, perhaps, it is possible to achieve the same quiet with a smaller army. Perhaps it is possible to sign a non-aggression pact and store all those glittering missiles in the museum?
An imaginary scenario, of course. Its main drawback is that civilians are not sacrificed. There is no unnecessary spill of blood, no fire and smoke, the blood does not rush to the head, and in short: there is nothing to conceal the veneer of the political leadership. The public is not led to slaughter, is not called to the flag, is not required to unite against an imaginary enemy, and may still demand from its leaders accountability for their own actions.
If that’s the choice, war it is.
Idan Landau is a professor of linguistics at Ben-Gurion University. This article was first published in Hebrew on his blog. Translated by Yoni Molad for the Middle East News Service, edited by Sol Salbe, Melbourne, Australia. Photo: Hezbollah parade (Haitham Moussawi).
For direct-transfer bank details click here.
Another war, I was under the impression hostilities haven’t ceased since Palestine was occupied. One could even argue since the carve up of the former Ottoman empire.
The time is soon coming when no-one alive will know what happened in WWII. The tolerance toward zionists will decrease markedly and Israel may get its comeuppance.
I have no interest in a Greater Israel, no belief that the Jews are God’s Chosen People any more than I think that Islam and Christianity are uniquely superior religions.
The rest of the Middle East WILL eventually get nuclear bombs, which Israel already has huge numbers of (against NNPT, but when did US and Israel ever abide by treaties they see as annoying?) And one day, if the Zionists are not careful, they WILL be the next Hiroshima.
I do not want any nuclear explosions in the Middle East.
But Israel cannot go on the way it has been and expect to be spared. Moses leading his people to safety is a train which stopped running centuries ago…..
Are you serious Mr./Proff Landau or your hatred towards Israel drove you out of your mind? Do you really think/believe that the Israeli people will wait to have the Arabs bombs falling on our heads and destroying our outstanding state? No, you can admire the Arabs, although I don’t see the reason for. Yes, we prepare ourselves to, the worst. If it comes-we fight. If not we turn the tanks tpo tractors and the arms to shovels. Anyway, the one that comes to kill us-will be killed 1st. In sp[ite of all yoiur support to the Arabs-if the day comes nobody will ask you how loyal you were to the Arabs. they will kill youn in cold blood.
Cool story, Bro. Full of blood and guts and all that jazz. Very invigorating.
Sorry, Amir, but your very typical Talmudic hatred will only get Israel destroyed, but that is precisely what your type really want, is it not. There is a fraction of Israeli society, and its allies in the Jewish Diaspora, that actually desire a New Masada, out of a perverted type of ‘survivor guilt’ at not having been consumed in the Nazi Judeocide. That monstrous crime was certain to twist many minds, not just of the survivors but those who came after, in often bizarre manner. The insane hatred of the Arabs, Moslems and the Palestinians is obvious enough, but the immense self-hatred of many Israelis often escapes notice.
With Israeli PM Nuttyahoo facing arrest for his multiple counts of corruption, a war against Lebanon might take the heat off Bibi and let him continue his fanatical grip on power.
If this happens, it will be after the “I Love Israel more than my own Nation” lovefest, the AIPAC coven gathering starting March 4. Or maybe when the Zionist witches are stirring their DC brew, to let all the corrupt, back-stabbing American politicians show their loyalty to and love of Israel over the USA by squawking, “Israel has the right to defend itself” while Beirut hospitals, schools and markets are getting blown to bits by US supplied bombs.
This may not be the right place, but I’ve got a prediction, that in contrast to the visit of the sister of the North Korean leader to the winter Olympics, which was routinely and widely labelled as a ‘charm offensive’ in our media, no one will employ the same term in relation to Trump’s lovely daughter when she’s in South Korea, attempting damage limitation after Pence’s disasterous appearance. And they won’t call it ‘damage limitation’ either.
Is this supposed to read like a parody? Probably not. Are we merely take this text at face value? It seems to be tailor-made to appeal to middle-class western values, playing all the right strings. Whatever happened to healthy scepticism in wartime in relation to sources? The Guardian doesn’t appear at all concerned, like the rest of our media, that they’ve deposited so much of their coverage of events in the hands of people telling stories the Guardian has no way of actually verifying the truth of. Yet the keep on doing it, regardless. Now, God help us, from a gender specific and feminist perspective!
Good God-can the Fraudian get any more filthy? They had a screed from the jihadists. favourite MOSSAD propagandist, Chulov too, today, sneering at Putin for ‘falling into a trap’ or some such garbage. I mean where else would you find such sterling ‘feminist’ ‘activists’ than in a redoubt of al-Nusra Front by its various aliases? I bet they have their branch of MeToo, and the Syrian Friends of Israel as well.
Israel’s best chance to occupy Lebanon was under the great general Ariel Sharon, and even that old Lion grew tired after 10 years, andbecame the first to cry, Let’s Quit!
“A young war is likea young whore; all the young men run after her.
An old war is like an old whore; her oldest clients are the least interested” — Arab Jewish poet, general Shmuel Ha’Nagiv
Sharon, a ‘great general’??!! It is to laugh!! A grand butcher, of women and children, yes, but a great general?
I’m not sure where this BTL exchange goes, so I’ll just chuck it in here; from today’s Indie “Corbyn Tightens Grip”:
taidelsouryi 8 hours ago
“Dan Hodges, (from The Daily Mail – surprise, surprise)” What do you mean? Do you really think that only Guardian journalists have a valid opinion and the right to be believed?
Public opinion needs to be prepared for war, even more war and even bigger and bloodier war. One way to do that is to lower the burden of proof that war is necessary and the enemy is guilty and needs to be attacked.
I think the allegations against Assange, Weinstein and men in general, and Russian interference, serve this purpose too; creating an atmosphere or culture, where the presentation of mere allegations, without real evidence, let alone proof; are enough to justify destroying the enemy who is attacking us. One creates a climate of fear and managed hysteria, a surrogate for warfare, using the language of warfare, which can easily be utilized when conflict is being planned and considered.
“One creates a climate of fear and managed hysteria, a surrogate for warfare, using the language of warfare, which can easily be utilized when conflict is being planned and considered.
Excellent post and a solid reminder that the MSM is the enemy of the People by sowing the seeds of chaos. And yet these BigMedia cronies are not in jail – or worse.
A welcome voice of sanity, usually inaudible in a sea of warhawks.