The Intervention
I have no idea whether or not Jeff Weintraub is right to think that Israel was secretly hoping to get an international force deployed to Southern Lebanon from the get-go and that all of the statement coming from the Israeli government, from pro-Israel institutions in the United States, and from Israel hawk pundits have all been part of a deliberate deception aimed at securing that end. Frankly, it seeems to me that it would be odd for that to be the case, but who knows -- odd things happen in life.
Intentions aside, though, if that's the outcome Ehud Olmert wanted, he picked a mighty strange way to go about it. He could have, for example, said he wanted this before launching large-scale military strikes in Lebanon and tried to see if he could get what he wanted without firing a shot. That might not have worked, but it very well might have. He also might have responded more positively to suggestions from Tony Blair and others that the conflict be resolved in this manner during the very earliest days of the fighting instead of rejecting them. It seems pretty clear from, for example, this article in Haaretz that the Israeli government is in a process of dynamically shifting its views of what constitutes an acceptable end to the fighting rather than simply accepting the Franco-American proposal with open arms.
All that said, taking the deal would be the smart move here. Israeli war aims, as initially explained, were simply unrealistic and continuing to persue them wasn't going to get anyone anywhere.
"That might not have worked, but it very well might have."
You know of some group of impartial peace-keepers who are willing and able to kick Hezbollah's butt? Because they weren't about to retreat from Israel's border voluntarilly, you know.
August 6, 2006 6:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Weintraub is right. It takes a fine historian's mind to decypher a country's war motives.
For example, we now know that Germany attacked the Soviet Union in 1941 only because it was dying to have the Red Army Choir in Berlin for Fastnacht Karneval.
Also, it's well known that France colonized Africa and the West Indies just to improve the quality of its national soccer team.
Now you have Israel whose security philosophy is based on (1) self-reliance, (2) deterrence, (3) perceived invincibility, sacrificing all 3 so that a bunch of Surrender Monkeys can come protect their sorry asses.
Yep. Makes perfect sense.
August 6, 2006 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
"You know of some group of impartial peace-keepers who are willing and able to kick Hezbollah's butt?"
No, I couldn't name any group before Israeli forces re-entered southern Lebanon. And I can't name one now either!
So what's your point?
August 6, 2006 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
My point is that Matt's "very well might have" is nonsense. Absent a "peace keeping" force capable of defeating Hezbollah in detail, AND actually willing to do the job, there was no way in hell an international force was going to be deployed in Southern Lebanon. Because Hezbollah would wage war against anybody who tried to get between them and the Israelis.
IF, and that's a big if, Israel manages to grind Hezbollah down to an ineffectual remnant of it's current military might, THEN you might be able to put an international force between Israel and Hezbollah. Not before then.
But even then I've got my doubts, because if the Lebanese return to Southern Lebanon, Hezbollah will use the civilian population as cover for reestablishing it's position, and the peace keepers will just end up as living shields if they let it happen, and targets of Hezbollah if they try to stop it.
August 6, 2006 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
The civilian population aren't "a cover", the civilian population are the civilian population. Israel and the United States might have dictated terms to Lebanon before starting a war. That might not have worked but we'll never know. We do know that 700,000 Lebanese are now refuguees and unknown numbers are dead. Israel and the United are responsible. You might be able to brainwash distracted Americans into the idea that the entire population of a country is merely a shield to be kicked aside by brute force, but you won't convince the Lebanese.
Russert was quoting a poll this morning that 80% of Lebanese CHRISTIANS now support Hezbollah. Some victory!
August 6, 2006 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sarcasm aside, the fallacy in Weintraub's argument is simply that the Israeli government knows perfectly well that nobody other than the IDF is willing to fight Hezbollah on their behalf. So does Weintraub unless he is much more stupid than seems plausible.
Thus his real thesis is that Israel launched this war against Hezbollah with the intention of meeting Hezbollah's terms (exchange of prisoners and withdrwal from Chebaa farms area) in a political settlement. After all, Weintraub understands that the stated objectives of crushing Hezbollah directly or by forcing the Lebanese to do so were absurd so he must know that an international force doing so is equally absurd.
Nevertheless he is correct in pointing out that the aim was to achieve an international force right from the start.
That is an important development since it happens to be precisely what is needed for Gaza and the West Bank. That would meet a long standing Palestinian demand for transition from Israeli military occupation to an international force that would protect them from ongoing Israeli violence.
The aim is to make the introduction of an international force acceptable to Hezbollah look like the triumphant imposition of Israeli will so less settlers will have to be shot when the evacuation of West Bank settlements begins.
If it seems hard to imagine, remember that Americans with an emotional investment in the Vietnam war had to be persuaded the war aim was to recover all POWs and that Hanoi had to be bombed into permitting the US to get out of Vietnam and take its POWs with it rather than simply admit that the war had been lost.
Israel is now at the "peace with honour" stage of its war for the conqujest of "judea and samaria".
The passion with which Israeli propagandists defend their aggression by claiming they are fighting for national survival against extermination by proxies of nuclear genocide from Iran is very similar to the passion with which pro-Vietnam war Americans defended escalation to bring home every last prisoner.
The increased bellicosity covers a shift in the war aims from an unachievable victory to an achievable defeat.
The Israeli government knows that Hezbollah is a Lebanese national resistance, not a terrorist proxy for Iran, that taking Israeli soldiers prisoner in a cross border raid is an act of war, not of terrorism, and that the war has its origins in the continued refusal to recognize a Palestinian State with Jerusalem as its capital. Killing about 20,000 Lebanese while chasing the PLO out of Lebanon was just a minor incident in that long term war and the subsequent friction with Hezbollah is a consequence, not a cause.
Its only naive propagandists who forget these fundamentals when trying to analyse what's happening.
Matt is naive in thinking there is something odd about the way Ehud Olmert is going about it.
So are you, although your sarcastic description of the oddity has the merit of literary flair:
The whole point is to make Israelis feel that they have forced their enemies to accept them abandoning their security philosophy, just as Americans forced those evil VC to let them leave.
August 6, 2006 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Weintraub is onto something. And then again. I seem to remember a few years ago when Libya foreswore nuclear arms, there ensued a large spate of journalistic hot air telling us all about the success of the Bush approach. Friedman pissed in his pants in the vindication of the puerile democratic dominos theory that he found "neat". I guess the paroxysms of admiration for Bush's brilliance seems to have tapered off. Now Weintraub tells us how cunning "Desert Fox" Udi is. Wait till Friedman runs with this one. Olmert is too busy telling off the Europeans and praisinghis own brilliance to the Israelis, but I am sure he will appreciate Weinberg's brilliant mind.
Josh Marshall directed us a few days ago to William M Arkin's analysis in WaPo, indicating how the 2000 rockets fired by Hezbollah and the 1000 destroyed by Israel seriously degraded their offensive power. In the same way presumably (but of course unmentionned) the Israeli forces may be being degraded since they are firing off plenty of bombs too.
August 6, 2006 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you nailed it, although I am too sad to appreciate the sarcasm.
I think the Weintraub theory is borne of disbelief. The ill-conceived strategy, the excess of caution, the spotty execution -- none of this is what we expect from the IDF. I am still in shock about it.
But it's real all the same.
August 6, 2006 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've seen speculation that the end goal is to make Lebanon into an Israeli/US/EU-friendly protectorate.
Given reports that Israelis were running around DC and Europe showing off Power Point demos of their war plans, one has to wonder. Not to mention the complete targeted destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure, economic and manufacturing bases. If this were all about Hezbollah and helping Lebanon to finally gain control, why completely destroy her capabilities?
Ynet reported the Israli officials are trying to "hide their excitment" over the latest UN headfake and that their main concern is the makeup of the international forces. Olmert's telling EU leaders to STFU about civilian casualties may reflect his confidence in how things are proceeding.
I was struck by DOS spokesperson Scott MacCormack telling the world last thursday that we would be "training and equipping" the new Lebanese army and that the plan was approved by Condi and Rummy. The DOD spokesman Whitman later "corrected" the statement to say we will be supplying the army with spare parts.
Did Scott just jump the gun?
This am on "Reliable Sources", Tom Ricks told Howie that he's heard from military analysts that Israel is deliberately allowing Hezbollah cells to fire away:
" KURTZ: All right, Matthew Chance, stand by, thank you for that report. We will come back to you.
And joining us now here Washington Anne Compton who covers the White House for ABC News, and Thomas Ricks, Pentagon reporter for "The Washington Post" and author of the new book "Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq."
Tom Ricks, you've covered a number of military conflicts, including Iraq, as I just mentioned. Is civilian casualties increasingly going to be a major media issue? In conflicts where you don't have two standing armies shooting at each other? THOMAS RICKS, REPORTER, "THE WASHINGTON POST": I think it will be. But I think civilian casualties are also part of the battlefield play for both sides here. One of the things that is going on, according to some U.S. military analysts, is that Israel purposely has left pockets of Hezbollah rockets in Lebanon, because as long as they're being rocketed, they can continue to have a sort of moral equivalency in their operations in Lebanon.
KURTZ: Hold on, you're suggesting that Israel has deliberately allowed Hezbollah to retain some of it's fire power, essentially for PR purposes, because having Israeli civilians killed helps them in the public relations war here?
RICKS: Yes, that's what military analysts have told me.
KURTZ: That's an extraordinary testament to the notion that having people on your own side killed actually works to your benefit in that nobody wants to see your own citizens killed but it works to your benefit in terms of the battle of perceptions here.
RICKS: Exactly. It helps you with the moral high ground problem, because you know your operations in Lebanon are going to be killing civilians as well."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/06/rs.01.html
Am I missing something here? Like Howie even questioning the veracity of this speculation or the reliability of Rick's sources?
August 6, 2006 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
And trees are trees, but if you hid among them, they're still cover. Civilians might not be merely shields, but that won't stop Hezbollah from using them that way.
August 6, 2006 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Friendly protectorate? More likely hostile imperial colony. CNN reports that 700 Lebanese are dead and 90 of them are Hezbollah. What kind of friendly protector kills 8.5 civilians for every combatant?
August 6, 2006 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
So follow the logic just one step further.
You know, and the Israeli government knows, that no international force is going to get between Hezbollah and the IDF while they are fighting each other.
THEREFORE either Israel is going to resume its long term occupation of south Lebanon (which would be ridiculous)
OR Israel is going to accept Hezbollah's terms for peace so they are no longer fighting each other and an international force can be put in place acceptable to Hezbollah (which is unthinkable).
But the latter is only unthinkable if you believe that stuff about Hezbollah being a terrorist group whose whole purpose is killing jews.
If you are the Israeli government you are less likely to be taken in by your own propaganda.
Hezbollah's terms for peace were a prisoner exchange and return of the Chebaa farms area.
The Palestinian terms for peace are more complex since they include a Palestinian State with Jerusalem as its capital. Both sets of terms will have to be met before there can be peace and the Israeli government already knows it even if many of its people do not.
August 6, 2006 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
The kind that's fighting an enemy that makes it clear to organizations like CNN that they either take Hezbollah press releases at face value, or start paying death benefits to their reporters' families?
You DO remember, don't you, how CNN admitted after Saddam was taken down, that they'd been passing on Iraqi propaganda as fact in order to protect their reporters' lives?
http://www.cultureshocktv.com/internews/2002/apr11200308090.shtml
Do you really think they're not doing the same service for Hezbollah today? Or any of a dozen or more other murderous groups and governments?
It's one of the fundamental asymetries free societies face in their conflict with repressive regimes and murderous organizations like Hezbollah: It's safe to report the good guys' offenses. But the media censor their reports of just how bad the bad guys are, out of stark fear of the reprisals they'd face if they reported honestly.
August 6, 2006 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
It depends on whether or not a suitable government can be installed and/or coerced into accepting guidance from the protectors.
Jordan is considered a protectorate of Israel by some because of Israeli promises to maintain Hashemite control of the country.
Since when does collateral damage manage to the big thinkers midwifing the new middle east?
BTW...I use "friendly' in the geopolitical sense.
Not saying that such ambitions are rational or even realistic. Such petty considerations don't appear to enter into the calculations of those having visions.
August 6, 2006 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The idea that Israel was planning all along to bring in in a MNF is possible. But it clearly can't happen unless and until Hezbollah is taken down.
It's always been clear that Israels goals have been to 1) stop the Hezbollah shootings and kidnappings, 2) restore Lebanese soveriegnty over southern Lebanon, and 3) get back their kidnapped soldiers. Even if you think this is unrealistic Israel can't really have different goals. I don't see which part is unrealistic. Difficult, maybe, but possible.
Arthur Dent refers to the return of Chebaa Farms to Lebanon or Hezbollah. Chebaa Farms can only be returned to Syria, which is unlikely.
If Israel continues to pursue it's aims Hezbollah is in big trouble and Israel will benefit. Yglesias' claim of not getting anyone anywhere is just sour grapes. While Israel has changed it's position and now says UNIFIL can stay; This is not a compromise of the 3 obvious goals above.
Yglesias seems to not realize that Hezbellah is his enemy too.
August 6, 2006 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, CNN has already pulled most of their stars out of Lebanon so they can report the politically correct war news from Israel. It's just hard for any reporter to report on hundreds of thousands of people uprooted and to see scores of city blocks leveled without reporting the facts from a human perspective. It's only when the news gets Foxified and sanitized of any content that shows the other side as human, that we get video game war reporting. Bunker buster bombs never kill civilians. Bridges get blown up without harming civilians. Apartment building dissolve without harming civilians. Hospitals, schools, shops, disappear with no civilian damage. That's the kind of war we're supposed to see. That's not the way any modern war is fought. That works to brainwash Americans. Too bad, it doesn't work on the people we are fighting, their families, neighbors, friends, or on the hundreds of millions with which they share cultural ties. We only fool ourselves. In the long run, that's a very bad way to run a war.
August 6, 2006 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reality check:
CNN In was under threat of being kicked out of Israel entirely several years ago because of their "biased" reporting. Those carrying their signals were not going to renew contracts...that kind of thing.
They managed to make all nice and now have a reporter "embedded" with the IDF and get tons of exclusive video.
Perhaps FOX also has similiar exclusive access....I wouldn't know about that. MSNBC doesn't.
Although it's rarely if ever mentioned, both domestic and foreign media in Israel operate under very strict military censorship rules. Their rules are far more onerous than those imposed on media embedding with US forces in Iraq.
August 6, 2006 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it doesn't matter at all.  They're either all utopian lunatics or short-sighted politicians. But we've got three sets of utopians clashing here, Zionists, American neocons, and Islamists. The Zionists are hugely outnumbered. The American neocons are so blinded by their visions they can't see the facts on the ground.  The Islamists have the advantage of being cultural kin to hundreds of millions in the region ripe for trans-national revolution. And we are doing everything in our power to do exactly what they want - light the fires of a regional crusade.  Iraq already demonstates how incapable we are dealing with irrational blood feuds. You can't defeat people who are willing to have their whole family die just to defeat you, not on their territory you can't. Not without WWIII numbers. And when the Gingrichs and Woolseys casually encourage WWIII why shouldn't we assume that's what they mean?
August 6, 2006 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I take them at their word.
I also try to watch their moves and decipher their roadmaps to hell and back.
Not only do I think our bravehearts dismiss the bloody capacities of their enraged Islamofascit enemies, I think they are ignoring what pissed-off governments in all sorts of place can do to f~@% them/US up.
The outrage over this war is going global. Bigtime.
August 6, 2006 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Israeli government is bending over backward to be helpful to our media:
Sunday, August 6, 2006 Text: Ministry of Foreign Affairs pitches ideas for journalists covering war Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Haifa Communication Center
Updated 06/08/06
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Communications Center is able to assis foreign press with obtaining human interest stories.
Highlight stories-
1. Prof. Mully Lahad and his teams are treating the inhabitants of the north suffering from Post - Trauma - Syndrome (PST).
More than 2500 persons - including children and youngsters - have been reported suffering from pst.
For a special briefing with Prof. Lahad and a tour of shelters where the
teams are treating civilians - please call the Haifa Press Center for
registration.
2. Dr. Michael Kafka, Director of the Bnai Zion Emergency room (ER), whose house was hit twice by katusha rockets is available for interviews through the Press Center. Please call.
3. Israeli refugees: since the 12th of July, almost 250,000 Israeli citizens were forced to leave their homes and move south.
Hundreds of Israeli families volunteered to host them and NGO`s arranged special camps.
- Regarding special camps for Arab and Jewish children who had to
leave their homes, contact Michael from the Jewish Agency, 052-xxxxxx.
- Regarding families who live in "Nizanim" beach, near Ashkelon,
contacts of evacuated families available at the communication center.
- Regarding families from Kiryat Shemonah, separated and spread out
all over Israel, contact Shosh Peretz, 052-xxxxxxx.
- For an interview with a person who had to abandon her home,
contacts available at the communication center.
- About "Israel Together", a NGO that helps families and children
who had to leave their homes, contact Tamar, 052-xxxxxxx.
4. Israeli former captive soldiers - describing their experiences of
captivity, and their feelings in light of the kidnapping of the three
Israeli soldiers, contacts for former captives available at communication center.
5. Convent "The Sacred Heart" in Haifa takes care of disabled children and needs to deal with their anxieties during the missile strikes. Contact Neta,spokesperson of Haifa municipality, 054-xxxxxx.
6. Second generation to suffer from Katyusha Rockets- in Kiryat Shmonah, in some families the parents have suffered Katyusha attacks as children and now they are facing the same experiences as parents with their children. Some families are even third generation to the Katyusha attacks. The story is available in English, French and Spanish.
Please contact the Communications Center for details.
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=30508
August 6, 2006 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would be far more impressed if the Israelis released military information that is of no particular value to the other side, but would allow expert technical analysis of what they are doing and not doing.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
August 6, 2006 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a lot of US/Israeli cooperation, coordination and cross-training in Israel but gaining access to even the most basic information seems to be difficult, not to mention the kind of details (?) you're seeking.
They are so secretive.
About 2 or so months ago, Ynet had a little item about top US military brass visiting their counterparts in Israel. It vanished before I realised that I should have grabbed it right away as some names were included. I was naturally thinking "Iran?".
August 6, 2006 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to be cultural. Hezbollah certainly knows it's being bombed. If they have people with any weapons effect knowledge, they can tell what was used.
Without details of what ordnance was used and what was targeted, it becomes very difficult to confirm or deny their claims of military necessity. I hate to fall into the mental sloppiness of saying that they have something to hide, but, at some emotional level, I'm feeling that. I want to know if they used an unguided Mark 84 when a light bomb with JDAM could have been used. I want to know what they are targeting.
They use enough US equipment that they have to be using a good deal of doctrine. My impression is that they are using Firefinder radar, but using aircraft for counterbattery strikes rather than cannon. If so, that's irresponsible, because unless the aircraft happens to be over the launcher, by the time the aircraft gets there, the launcher is probably gone -- you are talking 30-90 seconds. Dedicated counterbattery artillery can fire before the incoming rocket hits.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
August 6, 2006 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The draft Security Council resolution proposes a political settlement in which Israel withdraws from the Chebaa farms area and the UN determines who it belongs to (a foregone conclusion since now Syria as well as Lebanon agree that it is Lebanese and Israel has never claimed it).
The three Israeli goals mentioned are entirely achievable and realistic since all that is required to achieve them is acceptance of Hezbollah's terms (Chebaa farms and get back Lebanese prisoners in a prisoner exchange). Hezbollah signed on to Lebanese accords for restoring Lebanese sovereignty over south Lebanon long ago - they remain unimplemented because of Hezbollah's status as a national resistance defending south Lebanon from Israeli aggression, a status which will end when Israel withdraws from Chebaa farms and exchanges prisoners.
Instead of simply achieving those goals, by accepting Hezbollah's terms, Israel announced an unachievable goal of crushing Hezbollah knowing that it had already failed to achieve that aim and been forced to retreat under fire 6 years ago after an 18 year occupation of south Lebanon.
The (predictable) result is that an international force will be required to enable Israeli exit. No such force is available without a political settlement acceptable to Hezbollah, ie prisoner exchange and withdrawal from Chebaa farms.
If Hezbollah could be "taken down" by Israel there would be no need for an international force. Unless it is taken down or agrees there will be no international force. Therefore the international force is predicated on Israel accepting Hezbollah's terms.
That is so puzzling that all kinds of speculations are being developed to explain what appears to be wildly irrational Israeli behaviour.
But it is simple enough once you understand that Israel has always opposed having serious international forces at its borders as a potential constraint on its expansionism.
By now demanding them, the Israeli government is preparing its own public for accepting a similar force in Gaza and the West Bank ie for accepting Israeli defeat and evacuation of the settlements. It needs to redefine the war for conquest of the West Bank as a war against terrorism in the same way that Nixon needed to redefine the war against Vietnam as a war for recovery of American POWs.
By focusing on Iran as the "mortal threat" to Israel, defeat by the Palestinians can be presented as a tactical move to better face the threat from Iran. This keeps Zionism afloat for a while, instead of starkly facing the Israeli public with its total bankruptcy.
August 6, 2006 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But it is simple enough once you understand that Israel has always opposed having serious international forces at its borders as a potential constraint on its expansionism."
Oh Bullshit! What a completely loaded statement. Are you seriusly alleging the reason Israel took it to Hiz'bullah is because it wants to expand?
August 7, 2006 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
"This keeps Zionism afloat for a while, instead of starkly facing the Israeli public with its total bankruptcy."
Oh I see, it's about Zionism! Those dastardly jews and their plots again! Your first comment makes sense now.
August 7, 2006 2:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Having read him for several days , I don't think it's fair to call Arthur Dent an anti semite. More of an anti simple explanationite.
Thanks to Thomas Ricks I know that Clausewitz said in war it's required
"not to take the first step without considering the last" . So it's a little tortuous but conceivable that the IDF planners , knowing Hezbollah's capability , anticipated both that this particular war would end with an outside military force in southern Lebanon and that - since no outside force would come without Hezbollah ageement - some of Hezbollah's demands would have to be granted. Seems not unreasonable for Dent to reach that same conclusion.
As to his further thoughts about the West Bank and Gaza , that's above my grade in pay. But if I read him correctly his desired (or maybe just expected ) outcome is two states living in peace , not Isreal driven into the sea.
August 7, 2006 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink