Reform Jews’ biennial will feature ultra-right, Sharansky and Kristol

Israel/Palestine
on 88 Comments

The Union for Reform Judaism, representing the more liberal wing of organized Judaism, has an interesting speakers’ lineup at its Washington biennial in December. Barack Obama, I get that. And a big Zionist rabbi named Richard Hirsch. OK, they’re sold on Zionism– all major American Jewish orgs have the Zionist religion.

But Natan Sharansky? Sharansky is a rightwing Israeli leader who chairs One Jerusalem, which has worked to kill the two-state solution, supposedly precious to liberal Jews. And Bill Kristol– WTF! Kristol is the neoconservative leader who pushed the Iraq war, writing that “Israel’s fight against terrorism is our fight.” Kristol has backed Israeli colonies through the West Bank. 

This demonstrates the conservatism of even Reform Jews when it comes to Israel. Reform Jewish leader Eric Yoffie attacked Richard Goldstone months after the Gaza horror. Reform Jewish leader Rabbi David Saperstein criticized J Street for taking a fairly mild stand against settlements. And J Street has pulled back its criticisms of Israel because it has pitched its tent inside the Jewish community and the Jewish community is reactionary on the Israel question. So it follows that at a time when Israel is losing credibility around the world, Reform circles the wagons, and welcomes rightwingers.

And it’s really no wonder that Barack Obama, who relies on Jewish leaders and donors, has capitulated on his promises to the Palestinians back in 2009.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

88 Responses

  1. Chaos4700
    October 28, 2011, 12:20 am

    Remind me again what “liberal Zionist” is supposed to mean.

    • annie
      October 28, 2011, 12:48 am

      shoot and cry

      • MRW
        October 28, 2011, 1:54 am

        What a witty (and pithy) answer, annie.

      • annie
        October 28, 2011, 3:16 am

        you didn’t like it? they are all about shooting and crying. have you seen the movie?

      • MRW
        October 28, 2011, 7:49 am

        Didn’t like it? Quite the opposite. Thought it was great. Short. And true.

        (don’t tell me the witty word confused you….;-) )

    • Keith
      October 29, 2011, 6:56 pm

      CHAOS- “Remind me again what “liberal Zionist” is supposed to mean.”

      Perhaps liberal Zionist is to Zionist what Reform Judaism is to Judaism.

  2. ehrens
    October 28, 2011, 12:23 am

    It wasn’t always that way in Reform Judaism. The American Council for Judaism maintains a website that still promotes what they refer to as Classical Reform Judaism — Judaism as as religion:

    “Founded in 1942, the ACJ has long offered a distinctive alternative vision of identity and commitment for the American Jewish community. We interpret Judaism as a universal religious faith, rather than an ethnic or nationalist identity.”

    http://www.acjna.org/acjna/default.aspx

    • Elliot
      October 28, 2011, 8:06 am

      The American Council for Judaism was a fascinating, short-lived experiment. The founding of the State of Israel killed the organization. Like Buber and Magnes in Jerusalem, it organized in response to the founding of the State. Once the issue was resolved, almost all folks moved on. For the American Council, this was a lingering death, but by the late 50s, it had ceased to be a force.
      Today, it exists as a PO box and a newsletter.

      • MRW
        November 7, 2011, 9:06 am

        The American Council for Judaism is still a wonderful organization. Allan Brownfeld is a superb editor and publisher of important articles. If I was a billionaire, I would shower $$$ on him.

  3. MRW
    October 28, 2011, 12:25 am

    Obama is speaking there?

    How much congressional and presidential time do these cast of characters use up that the American people need to have them concentrate on more pressing issues? In the olden days, they would have been kicked out of the country. Now, these murder-promoting thugs have a plot of earth they demand obeisance to.

  4. eee
    October 28, 2011, 12:29 am

    Phil,

    I don’t understand why you are surprised. Reform Judaism needs in roads into Israel where it plays a very minor role and has very little influence. Sharansky and Kristol can give Reform Judaism the bona fides it requires in Israel and help change the Israeli view that it is only a “leftist” organization. If Reform Judaism wants to be seen as a movement for Jews of any political persuasion, this is a smart idea. The growth of Judaism is in Israel, and to survive, Reform Judaism needs to find roots in Israel.

    • annie
      October 28, 2011, 1:26 am

      The growth of Judaism is in Israel, and to survive, Reform Judaism needs to find roots in Israel.

      why should the US prez care about the growth of judaism? we’re a secular country. church and state is separate. he represents the state.

    • radii
      October 28, 2011, 2:13 am

      oh please, if the typical israeli found out there were roots of Reform Judaism growing anywhere near them they would stomp them, poison them, cut them out – who who within israel would nurture Reform Judaism

      • Taxi
        October 28, 2011, 3:58 am

        radii,
        “they would stomp them, poison them, cut them out”

        You mean ‘uproot’ them like they keep doing to ancient Palestinian olive trees. (oooh I can’t tell you the surge of violence this diabolical crime inspires in me!)

        Sorry for my passions but trees have NO WAY of defending themselves against human criminals.

    • Elliot
      October 28, 2011, 8:14 am

      eee – unfortunately, your analysis is correct. In order to avoid controversy within the ranks, the Reform movement has focussed its Israel efforts on building up liberal Judaism in Israel. Now, we can all agree on that, can’t we?
      However, this comes at a moral price, as Phil’s article shows.
      Rabbi David Saperstein as head of the Religious Action Center in DC is supposed to be the great moral voice of the movement, and he leads by throwing Israel/Palestine under the bus. He says (in the link provided in the article:) “If you alienate your mainstream support you risk losing everything,”
      So, Israel is too dangerous an issue to take on as a Jew.
      Saperstein et al still boast about the role of American Jews in the civil rights movement half a century ago and they continue to fight for the cutting-edge issues of 10, 20 years ago, such as pro-choice and gay rights.
      But the most burning issue of the day for Jews today gets swept under the rug. Too controversial.

      • eee
        October 28, 2011, 12:06 pm

        Elliot,

        Reform Judaism does not want to be JVP. It wants to be a major movement among Israeli Jews. Therefore, it has to listen to its potential constituents and what they are saying. The issue of Palestine is not swept under the table. It is an issue that each Jew struggles with, but it shouldn’t be one of the main issues for Reform Judaism. Why can’t there be a Reform Likudnik and a Reform Meretz member?

      • Elliot
        October 28, 2011, 8:41 pm

        eee –
        Sure, Reform Judaism does not want to be JVP. Neither does it want to be AIPAC or J Street. Firstly, because different constituencies within the Reform movement live in different places on the Israel/Palestine spectrum. Many Reform Jewish professionals – certainly rabbis – are privately more progressive than their public statements would indicate: JVP rabbis sound like J Streeters; J Streeters keep their heads down – for fear of antagonizing their AIPAC constituency.
        Yet, J Street, and even JVP, continue to grow in the liberal Jewish world. In addition, real world events beyond the Reform Jewish cocoon, are battering at the right-wing status quo within.

        Of course, Israel has been a very important part of Reform Jewish identity, at least since the early 70s. But that is changing. And that is because no consensus can be found. That is why that moral colossus, Rabbi David Saperstein, takes the whole issue of Israel out of his moral calculus. As Saperstein goes, so does the whole Reform movement. Not relating to the burning moral issues of the day makes a mockery of Reform Judaism’s claim to having a moral/religious voice.

        I disagree with you that the American Reform movement does not embrace J Street/JVP because it wants Likudnik Israelis joining Reform temples in Israel. “Israel” serves American Jewish needs, not Israeli needs. For example, take the brouhaha that American Reform Jews engineered to defeat Israel’s Conversion Law.

        But American Reform Jews need a cause to rally around. “Israel” has been that. But it ain’t gonna to last. Again, because of internal divisions and changing perceptions in the general public, into which Reform Jews are fully assimilated. And the dissent in the ranks will only grow.

        The compromise solution of the Reform leadership is to focus (and package) its Israel efforts on improving the status of Reform Jews in Israel. This is reminiscent of the traditional kollels which you may know of. In pre-modern times, Jewish communities around the would favor particular parts of the Yishuv – that is, the Jewish community living in the Land of Israel while ignoring all else.

        The Reform movement in Israel has become a kollel for American Reform Jews. While the Orthodox are the mainstream. More’s the pity. And, I don’t see how this strategy can work. Reform Jews bemoan their declining numbers and seek “relevancy.” Yet they avoid the most relevant issue of the day for Jews as Jews.

    • DBG
      October 28, 2011, 9:23 am

      The growth of Judaism is in Israel, and to survive, Reform Judaism needs to find roots in Israel.

      EEE outside of Israel, Reform Judaism is the most dominant form of Judaism. How are you any better than the anti-Israel ilk who questions Israel’s ability to survive?

      • Taxi
        October 28, 2011, 2:38 pm

        DBG why don’t you ilk up and smell the ilking coffee?! Apartheid israel will fall because of ilking racist religio-fanatic-colonialists like YOU!

      • eee
        October 28, 2011, 6:29 pm

        DBG,

        I don’t understand your question.
        Statistics are showing that in the US the number of Jews is diminishing and that the only growing group in the US are orthodox Jews. How can this not be a worry to the Reform movement long term? On the other hand, the number of Jews in Israel is growing very fast. Why wouldn’t the Reform movement want a good base in Israel? As a secular Jew, I hope they succeed.

      • DBG
        October 29, 2011, 12:37 am

        eee, myself and members of my family have fought for a good base for Reform Judaism in Israel for a long time. We are succeeding.

      • Taxi
        October 29, 2011, 2:01 am

        So like DBG, does that give you more right to hate on arabs and moslems than eee?

        ‘My sect is better than yours’! Nice bit of inter-interfaith you got yourself there.

      • Chaos4700
        October 29, 2011, 2:10 am

        Deluuuusional. Now DBG is insisting he knows what’s going on better than eee does, in Israel.

      • Mooser
        October 28, 2011, 6:37 pm

        DBG and EEE this is very disappointing! Have you no compassion for a Zionist brother? Hows about a little Zionist unity around here?
        Now, it’s very plain to even the meanest observer that you two have much more in common, and all that separate you are minor quibbles.
        So how about a group Zionist hug, huh? Remember, there’s like, I don’t know, a couple billion Arabs in 22 countries, and only one poor beleaguered Israel. So let’s all give a big thumbs up for Israel and sit on it, for the sake of Zionist unity!

      • Mooser
        October 28, 2011, 6:40 pm

        And frankly, DBG, since there’s only us Jews here, let’s speak plain: “EEE” lives in Israel, and he fights the Arab hordes every day to keep Jewish girls safe, while you, DBG, live in America. So by all that’s right, you should be taking orders from him, not giving him any of your non-Aliyah lip. Where the hell were you during Cast Lead? Huh?

      • Mooser
        October 28, 2011, 7:33 pm

        “EEE outside of Israel, Reform Judaism is the most dominant form of Judaism.”

        DBG, how can anything authentically Jewish come from “outside of Israel”? Why, it’s laughable to even consider it!

  5. radii
    October 28, 2011, 12:47 am

    Custer’s last stand for the neocons but they don’t seem to know it

  6. Jeffrey Blankfort
    October 28, 2011, 2:06 am

    It’s a wonder that Kristol has the time for this since at the moment this chicken hawk of chickenhawks is busy promoting the bombing of Iran and a repeat of Libya on Syria. Another leading candidate for a frog march into the Potomac.

    • Taxi
      October 28, 2011, 4:27 am

      Jeffrey,

      There ain’t a chance in hell a war against Syria or Iran is gonna take place.

      Let them waste their billions on their warmongering PROPAGANDA campaigns. Let them in the process expose their unpatriotic ugly criminal faces.

      Sit back and enjoy an Arabian ‘argheeleh’!

      Both the zios and the neocons are frustrated and banging loud drums these days cuz there ain’t NOTHING they can now do about Syria or Iran – and they know it.

      They’ve been check-mated on EVERY front. The only war card they’ve to play with is the Al Aqsa Mosque card. And yes they have their violent fantasies about the golden-domed mosque, but in reality they also know that fucking with that religious structure will bring them hell on earth and the instant annihilation of the zionist Apartheid state of israel. Even the corrupt and despicably self-serving Saudi regime would martyr themselves and ALL THEIR WEALTH to defend this mosque.

      This mosque is THE red line in the Arab-israeli conflict.

      Apartheid israel and American zionist enablers know they can’t logistically attack either Iran or Syria. It’s all hot air over nothing – they can’t admit their incompetency cuz otherwise they lose their JOBS – they’re rendered obsolete. Apartheid israel can’t/doesn’t want to go to war, but they DO want us Americans to go to war on Apartheid israel’s behalf. Yet hard as they try, it simply won’t happen. Not even the neocon mass-murdering cowboy wannabe Bush junior would do it. America would rather just shut them up with extra bunker busters etc as ‘gifts’. But America will not go to WORLD WAR THREE for the sake of israel. They got away with it (so far) in Iraq. But Iran and Syria are more serious. All partisan strategists know this one hundred per cent.

      Soon enough, Iran will have the deterrence of nukes. LOL – just watch how much crow them zionist neocons will be eating in public then.

      • American
        October 28, 2011, 9:56 am

        “There ain’t a chance in hell a war against Syria or Iran is gonna take place.”

        I use to think that also Taxi.
        But remember we are talking about insane people in Israel and US congress.

      • Taxi
        October 28, 2011, 4:20 pm

        Funny thing American, I used to worry about the ‘faces’ of the madmen out there in Apartheid israel and our zionist congress too. But these crazies are not that stupid and won’t start a war they know they presently can’t win. The system they work within has no mechanism to facilitate for an actual mass suicide. Think back here of the real crazy rhetoric during the cold war with USSR – yet nothing ever happened because both knew this would simply be a double mass suicide. The pieces on the chessboard right now clearly indicate that there is far more absolute loss than gambled gain from a war with either Syria or Iran.

        The war drums are all just show, insidious political-media propaganda, psychological warfare aimed both at the masses over here and in the middle east. They wanna keep us all opportunistically in a state of freight till the ‘conditions’ change back in their favor. But that ain’t gonna happen any time soon – not in the least. Iran is firmly the organically rising regional power and it is committed to supporting and defending Syria, and visa-versa. Our illegal war in Iraq made sure of the organic rise of Iran. It’s impossible to now go to war with either of these countries without a regional war blowing up in our faces and the odds are stacked against us especially economically.

        Don’t get me wrong, I believe the neocons would go to war in a second. But they know they can’t. Only they can’t admit this in public or to their followers. So what do they do instead to hide this? They wear ugly scary masks and growl berserk and beat their hairy chests like cavemen. It’s an old old old trick. And personally I ain’t falling for it. Not in this instance, not right now, not any time soon either.

        The only thing that would push us tomorrow to go to war with either Iran or Syria is if they fired the first shot. And they ain’t gonna be doing that now are they? Cuz within their system too, there ain’t a mechanism that would allow for the facilitation of a mass suicide either.

        Self-preservation? Why even a madman runs out of a burning building to save his coocoo ass.

        Beware the insidious saturation of propaganda practiced on the masses. It is really a smart evil. But it ain’t smarter than me. And I ain’t scared of shadows on a wall either.

        Plato’s cave allegory is apt here for a stoic comparable contemplation for a minute or two.

      • eee
        October 28, 2011, 6:32 pm

        Wishful thinking as usual from Taxi. Syria is on the verge of civil war and Iran is in a woeful economic state with a very good chance of the Arab spring arriving at its doors. The two countries are growing weaker by the day.

      • Taxi
        October 29, 2011, 1:27 am

        Oh that’s right eee with your “Since Assad will be gone in 6-24 months”.

        Wow your analyzing crystal balls is fascinating: 6-24 months eh?

        Why you wouldn’t know what ‘geopolitical strategy’ meant even if it smacked you right between the eyeballs!

        But I don’t blame you for this sidewalk-cafe 6-24 months analysis in the slightest.

        I expect you to believe the last speaker on your block like the good weeping ‘mama the hizb kicked my nuts’ soldier that you are.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        October 28, 2011, 5:28 pm

        Taxi,
        On Monday, the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), the reincarnations of PNAC, put out a joint bulletin calling for an attack on Syria in response to calls for intervention by their agents in the “Syrian National Council” and today WINEP put out a position paper justifying the same thing. If past is prologue, it will happen. As it did in Iraq, pushed by the same folks, which may prove to be the biggest foreign policy mistake in US history. Have those who orchestrated that war paid at all for it? Not a whit. Why even some folks who post on this site continue to run cover for them by pretending it was a war for oil. No need to mention names.

        Re Iran, it is not likely that the US will attack because the Pentagon has long opposed it but an increasingly isolated Israel, knowing it has nothing to worry about from a spineless president and confident of the backing of Congress, is very likely to do so and drag the US, willy-nilly into the fray.

      • Taxi
        October 28, 2011, 6:30 pm

        Jeffrey,

        Hitting Syria is same as hitting Iran – you attack one and in effect you’re hitting both as both will attack back, therefore dragging the region into full-on war in tel aviv, in the Palestinian OT, in beirut, in oman, iraq, afghanistan, possibly even turkey- and also not forgetting the wild and unpredictable card of the arab spring countries especially egypt.

        This is not 2003 and this is not about lone iraq – there is NO 9/11 to sell to the aggrieved misty-eyed american masses.

        All this pnac hoopla is bluff, evil propaganda. Well what else are they gonna do at their offices, Jeffrey? Make home-made marmalade?

        Not forgetting also the show the neocons are putting on for their voting followers.

        Simply, it ain’t gonna happen. Not because they don’t want it to, but because they actually can’t.

        Did I mention Russia’s attachment to Syria and Iran? China’s attachment to Iran?

        Did I mention Russia’s hosting of Hizbollah for three days just this week? What do you think they talked about, Jeffrey?

      • Bumblebye
        October 28, 2011, 8:02 pm

        Jeffrey
        Yeah but, no but, you must admit they tried awfullyawfully hard to give it that ‘alternative’ vision, from Operation Iraqi Liberation (oops! hadda change that!) to attempts to liberate the black gold for US oil barons.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        October 29, 2011, 2:51 am

        Taxi,

        Hitting Syria is not the same as hitting Iran although that is not the reason that the Obama administration, his Valkerie at the state department being the exception, is loathe to do it. The resistance in Syria is not at the same level as was that in Libya and there does not appear to be much appetite for overthrowing the regime in Damascus or Aleppo, its two biggest cities.

        As far as the Europeans are concerned, since they have no oil interests there, they will not support a resolution similar to what was passed for Libya which turned out to be open-ended and they, like the US, are aware that Syria’s geopolitical position is far more critical than is Libya’s despite the fertile imagination of some Gaddafi afficianados who insist that it is the pathway for US and Western imperialism to re-colonise all of Africa.

        Hezbollah, for reasons of realpolitik, has been obliged to back Assad, its long time benefactor, and this had put it in a difficult position both in Syria and Lebanon, but I firmly believe that it will not act, nor will Iran, if the West moves on Syria.

        The statements by the FDD and FPI are not intended for the general public any more than were those of PNAC which were so well hidden that they had to be discovered by some friends in Glasgow which gave the story to Scottish Sunday Herald. Most Americans, including Left activists are not aware of either organization, but they are well known by members of Congress and the beltway cognoscenti which is their target audience. What they are trying to insure is that should Israel attack Iran, that members of Congress and the Washington media will not only support it and frame it as doing a service for the US. Ironically, Chomsky will take the same position.

        If Israel attacks Iran, the question is what will Hezbollah do, and that depends both on the extent of the attack, whether Israel does something to provoke Hezbollah, and the situation in Syria at the time. But Israel is the only country that is likely to initiate a new war. This is why I have said and written on more than one occasion, that Israel presents the greatest danger to the future of the planet and it needs to be stopped. Period or as Robert Fisk would say, “Full stop!”

      • Taxi
        October 29, 2011, 5:01 am

        Jeffrey,

        Syria, Iran and Hizbollah have a military pact: attack one of them and they have publicly declared numerous times that all three will immediately strike back – hard at Apartheid israel especially.

        Not possible no more to just strike out at a single one of these entities without igniting full-on regional war. They’re prepared to take a massive hit so long as tel aviv is destroyed with all it’s zionist civic and military headquarters based there. Iran will also simultaneously immediately close the Harmouz Straight, crippling our economy within the hour.

        If Apartheid israel and usa zionist-neocons thought they could handle such a response, they woulda struck Iran even while Bush was still in power.

        As of last year Iran unmanned drones can carry out long-range attacks up to 1,000 kilometers carrying a 200-kilogram bomb. The distance between Tel Aviv and Tehran is 993 miles (there are many closer points to tel aviv that Iran could launch from). Also it is clear now that Hizbollah has an arsenal of smaller drones, small in size, super fast and low flying to avoid instant radar detection. Even as far back as 2006, post their victory over the idf in southern Lebanon, they sent out a ‘bait drone’ over the Haifa coast which was shot down by the isaeli navy:
        http://www.haaretz.com/news/idf-shoots-down-hezbollah-drone-over-sea-near-haifa-coast-1.194556

        Syria is prepared to use it’s stock of chemical warfare on israel if either usa or israel deployed small nukes on them or on Iran.

        Everybody’s checked: till the israeliz and the usa regain some of their lost deterrence. Which ain’t gonna happen any time soon.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        October 29, 2011, 3:14 pm

        Taxi, with all due respect, your post reminds me of the statements of Saddam Hussein’s military spokesperson on the eve of the 2003 war. When Lebanon and Hezbollah were under attack in 2006, both Syria and Iran stood by and did nothing.

        Even if they have since signed a military agreement to come to one anothers aid, this would be in response to an Israeli attack and even then I would have my doubts. But I can assure you that neither Hezbollah nor Iran will launch attacks on Israel should NATO initiate a UN authorized attack similar or close to what it did in Libya. They are simply not suicidal and it is the brothers Assad who have provoked the current situation in which Syria finds itself.

        Israel and the US would like nothing better than for Hez and Iran to come to Assad’s aid, particularly when much of the world will be supporting the NATO intervention. And both Hez and Iran know it.

        The reason that Israel has not attacked Iran before now is that the Pentagon has strongly told them not to and it is questionable whether it has the means by itself to take out Iran’s reactors. With the bunker busters provided by Obama they might have that the moment and that is why the level of debate about it is what it is in Israel at the moment.
        http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-4140625,00.html

      • Am_America
        October 29, 2011, 10:04 pm

        As of last year Iran unmanned drones can carry out long-range attacks up to 1,000 kilometers carrying a 200-kilogram bomb.

        Even if such a drone exists and it can actually get airborne, there isn’t a chance it would get near Israel. Once it leaves Iranian airspace it would be taken down by one of many anti-aircraft defense systems.

        As for the Hezbolllah ‘victory’ you have a weird way to gauge success. Lebanon was decimated and Hezbollah hasn’t touched Israel since the conflict. How was this successful for Hezbollah? If they ever had to fight a war where they couldn’t hind behind civilians, they would be destroyed.

      • Taxi
        October 30, 2011, 1:49 am

        I’m sorry Jeffrey but linking me to the uber propagandist ynetnews is tantamount to linking me to a toilet bowl where sad sheep drink from.

        A NATO strike in the middle east is considered a USA strike by the people of the region: FULL STOP (as you and mister Fisk like to say). And Iran and Syria and Hizbollah consider Nato operations in their neck of the wood to be a USA strike to benefit ONLY isreal. In other words: Nato=USA=israel. You think people in the mideast are fooled by the ‘Nato’ set up? You think that Assad wouldn’t instantly widen the conflict right to the heart of israel if his back is up against the wall? Honestly, I thought you knew better and deeper than this. And who pray tell will immediately take over from Assad? Minnie Mouse with a daisy in her hair? You think the MASSIVE ISLAMIST POPULATION OF SYRIA WOULD SIDE WITH ISRAEL AND AMERICA like the whoring Libyan so-called ‘rebels’ who had not an inch of their land occupied by the frigging israelis? Only a fool would think that Libya is just like (petroleum-free) Syrian. I think perhaps you’ve been watching too much CNN with their stream of ‘intellectual, secular Syrians’ spilling out their angst before the world – these same intellectuals who by the way are not trusted in the slightest by the majority ISLAMIST SYRIANS – these Islamic-Wahabi-indoctrinated Syrians who by the way have the liberation of the Golan as their first and foremost foreign policy objective.

        The reason why israel hasn’t attacked Syria yet is because the risk to a tel aviv attack is TOO HIGH. Full Stop. The israelis couldn’t even put out a frigging forest fire in the Carmel mountains by themselves! You think bunker busters can stop an omnidirectional missile attack on tel aviv? Not in a million years buddy. In fact it would only legitimize and facilitate it.

        “When Lebanon and Hezbollah were under attack in 2006, both Syria and Iran stood by and did nothing.”

        With all due respect, you sound just like that dumbass eee here – in fact he’s made this exact statement practically word for word on several occasions. Fact is, they WERE involved in pretty much every single way except for the actual fighting on the battlefield. And the reason Syria and Iran, according to you and eee, seemingly, cowardly, “stood by” during the 2006 war in south Lebanon, was because HIZBOLLAH DIDN’T NEED THEIR HELP – evidently so my friend! In fact they requested that no help on the battlefield be given at the time so as to contain the conflict right there on their boarders – as clearly was the case. It was a militarily smart move despite the hits they took as it COMPLETELY DESTROYED israel’s DETERRENCE muscle – it proved not just to the Arab world, but to the world at large, that israel is an IDIOT SOLDIER. Let’s not forget here that 2000 fighting hizbollah men outsmarted AND outfought some 30,000 idf soldiers with all the latest hi-tec military gear and their frigging murderous F-16’s.

        Also, for your information, the military pact between the hizb, syria and iran includes ANY ATTACK BY ANY FOREIGN NATION, not just an attack by israel or usa.

        You overestimate the israeli propaganda and you underestimate the intelligence of Iran, Hizbollah and Syria – also you underestimate their combined military power.

        And that, my friend, is indeed your prerogative.

        Yes israel and the zionist arm of usa want to hit at syria, at iran and at the hizb, but they DO NOT DESIRE a regional war that would erupt, uncontainable, smack in their faces. Why? Cause they know that THAT would facilitate the ending of Apartheid israel.

        Yes there will be a regional war at some stage in the middle east – but the conditions currently are not in israel/usa’s favor. And that’s why I say all this hoopla is fake. And when the war starts, it will be because israel will fire the first shot, directly or through usa/nato, out of extreme weakness, not because of syrian anti-Assad intellectuals being hosted by CNN.

        By the way, I ain’t a friend of the Bashar or Iranian regimes. But I do support their legitimate military resistance against isreal and the usa – as I would support the right of any natives (whatever geographical location or religion they are) to protect their families, their livelihoods, their lands and their personal safety.

        I respect your knowledge and experience and time spent on arab land, Jeffrey, but it’s a very different middle east today. The victory of hizbollah in 2006 has sealed this change. The Arab Spring is a shocking reminder of this continuing change. A change that neither israel or usa are comfortable with or desire. Iran and Egypt are friends now and the ‘peace treaty’ with israel is hanging by oh two or three threads.

        Israel’s never known such bad and weaker days. And this they know only too well. Beating their chest hard and loud through the bought-and-paid-for media won’t change this fact one bit. They’ve been checked and the last card in their hand is the masada card. Full Stop.

      • Taxi
        October 30, 2011, 2:50 am

        Am_America,

        You mean ‘Am_israel’, no doubt.

        “Even if such a drone exists”.

        Go back to school. Sheesh, the ignorace, the hubris, the stupidity!

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        October 30, 2011, 12:30 pm

        Am-American Zionist, you are probably right about what would happen to that Iranian drone but if you think the same would happen should Israel attack Lebanon and Hezbollah would respond in numbers with something far more lethal, you won’t find many Israelis who will agree with you.

        As for who “won,” in 2006, on BOTH sides of the border, it was generally agreed that Hezbollah’s ability to not only withstand an Israeli ground invasion but its ability to keep the over-rated Israeli ground troops from advancing, coupled with the rocket barrage it was able to rain down on the northern half Israel which the latter’s vaunted defenses were unable to stop and caused Israelis, for the first time en masse, to leave their homes and hide in shelters, made Hezbollah the winner and left Israel’s ” deterrence”plan in shambles. Long sentence, but that explains it.

        That was one the reasons it launched Operation Cast Lead in an futile attempt to foster the illusion that defeating Hamas which is nowhere in the same league as Hezbollah could compensate for their second humiliation by the latter in Lebanon.

        I would have enjoyed taking you through the crowded museum Hez had opened in Beirut in 2007 in which they displayed military vehicles including a complete Merkava tank that had been abandoned by its scared occupants who, like the rest of the Israeli military, were more used to facing unarmed Palestinians, than Lebanese with guns.

        What was particularly impressive as one entered the museum was a floor to ceiling blow-up of a photo taken of group of Israeli soldiers clustered together and holding on to each other in apparent fright. I suspect that the very thought of returning to Lebanon for another round with Hezbollah makes their bowels quiver (as would yours if asked to join them.)

        The accusation that Hezbollah was hiding behind civilians is pure bullshit, the kind of big lies that Israel and its supporters have circulated since before the founding of the state. Had they done so they would not enjoy the support of the people and the residents of Southern Lebanon who I met while visiting there in 2007.

        If anyone is hiding it is those American Jews who, under the skirts of Israel, talk tough, as your ignorant post exemplifies, and call for the destruction of any country and people that refuses to subject itself to Israeli dictates.

        True, Hezbollah hasn’t “touched” Israel since the conflict because it is not the one looking for war, but they have fortified themselves for the next one, should Israel start it. It would be, by the way, the third war Israel has launched on Lebanon, plus countless other bombing raid and major incursions over the last half century. In 2006, Israel got its first real taste of what that was like and I don’t think the majority of its population is eager for a second helping.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        October 30, 2011, 1:07 pm

        Taxi, no disrespect meant but I think you are exaggerating the abilities of Syria to counter a US/NATO “no fly or anything else” campaign against the Assad regime and the willingness of Iran and Hezbollah to come to its assistance or, in turn, launch attacks against Israel which would enable both the US and Israel to respond with the full force of its air power on both. What is important to understand is that while the majority of Lebanese, excepting those in Washington’s embrace, supported Hez in its resistance to Israel, they would not do so if it chose to start a war with Israel in defense of Assad. Nor would the people of Iran be willing to have their country devastated for the same reason. Should they choose to do so which, I assure you, they won’t, it would be the greatest gift to Israel that I can imagine.

        There seem to be three reasons that Syria has until now been immune from US/NATO intervention is (1) that Syria is situated in the hub of a highly volatile and geopolitically strategic area. Should Assad fall there is no guarantee as to who and what will replace him and his regime and, to this point, Washington and Brussels are not willing to take any chances, and that applies to Israel as well, whatever statements it may make and (2) it would require US/NATO boots on the ground since there is nothing comparable to the Libyan rebels to do the fighting on the ground and (3) Damascus and Aleppo, the two largest cities have been relatively quiet. Fear of what Iran and Hezbollah might do in response is not one of them.

        BTW, I don’t watch CNN. Where I live there is no TV reception without a satellite which is what I have for the net where I can watch Al-Jazeera (as it goes down the tubes, another casualty of the Arab spring and big-time payoffs), Press TV, Russia Today, France 24, ITV, etc. None of them, however, do I consider reliable sources. I base my judgment about what I know and read and my experiences in the region over 40 years.

      • Taxi
        October 31, 2011, 2:41 am

        Thanks for expounding further Jeffrey.

        Did you see this statement from Bashar two days ago: “”Syria is the hub now in this region. It is the fault line, and if you play with the ground, you will cause an earthquake,” Assad said. “Do you want to see another Afghanistan, or tens of Afghanistans?”
        http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/52813152-68/assad-syria-region-sunday.html.csp

        Also, if Iran were to bombard tel aviv with say 1,000 consecutive drones, one assumes that at least one will strike a bullseye – apart from some of the wreckage falling randomly over israel. The israelis are cowards and they would flee using their second passports as there will be no safe refuge indefinitely in israel. We know this cuz Hizbollah so easily emptied out the whole of the norther region in 2006 war – one third of the country of israel approx. and they are better armed now for the next round.

        The hizb is purported to now possess a large stock of anti-aircraft missiles too – if this is true, which is highly likely (one of the “surprises” Nasrallah promised?) then they sure will be picking them israeli F16’s like sparrows from the lebanese sky – fallen Idf pilots will be captured dead or alive. This israel already knows and now for the first time, fears.

        The israelis have clearly lost their deterrence Jeffrey. Even if the whole world is behind them (stretching everyone’s imagination here, I know), tel aviv will still be hit with a force it’s never seen before. Not even a masada war can save them.

        As far as I’m concerned, israel is finished already. Just a question of time and unfortunately how many people both from the region and possibly americans they’re prepared to sacrifice on their losing behalf.

        Again, thanks for being, as usual, so engaging.

        We can disagree on stuff, Jeffrey, but truth be told, I always learn something useful from you.

      • Taxi
        October 31, 2011, 3:32 am
      • Robert Werdine
        October 31, 2011, 3:22 pm

        AmAmerican,

        Said you:

        “Even if such a drone exists and it can actually get airborne, there isn’t a chance it would get near Israel. Once it leaves Iranian airspace it would be taken down by one of many anti-aircraft defense systems.”

        You can say that again. The idea of the Syrians or the Iranians getting a drone or anything else into Israeli airspace is pretty unlikely. The Syrians have had trouble enough defending their own space.

        On April 7, 1967, two Israeli tractors were operating near Tel Katzir in Galilee near the Syrian border. The Syrians opened up with 37mm cannon fire on the tractors. Israeli tanks then returned fire, and the Syrians responded not by shooting the tanks but by bombing the nearby Israeli civilian settlements with 81mm and 120mm mortar fire.

        The Golan was now flooded with cannon and machinegun fire, and by 1:30pm UN observers had noted that some 247 Syrian shells had hit the Gadot Kibbutz, where several buildings were destroyed. The Israeli Air Force now scrambled into action, hitting Syrian bunkers and artillery positions. Syrian MiG-21’s now met the IAF Mirage fighters in the skies over Damascus and in thirty seconds the IAF downed six MiG’s, and established complete supremacy over Syrian airspace. To emphasize their triumph, the IAF Mirages then did a victory loop around Damascus.

        On June 9-11, 1982, three days after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, the Israeli Air Force again routed the Syrians in one of the most lopsided air battles in military history. On the afternoon of June 9, Israeli F-4 Phantoms first began demolishing the Soviet built Syrian SA-2, SA-3, and SA-6 surface to air missile batteries concentrated in the West Bekaa Valley of Lebanon with virtual impunity, 17 out of 19 being destroyed within 10-20 minutes.

        The following morning, the F-4’s returned to dispatch the remaining two, and the Syrians scrambled some 60 of their Soviet-made MiG-21 and MiG-23 fighters to take the Phantoms out and establish Syrian air superiority of the Bekaa. The IAF tracked them the moment they left their runways, and got their birds in the air within minutes. The Israelis flew in a carefully layered formation of American-made F-15 Eagle fighters, with their superb look-down capability and sophisticated radar, flying at 30,000 ft, and American-made F-16 Falcon and their own Kfir fighters flying below them where their smaller-bore radars worked best on targets silhouetted against the sky.

        As the Syrian fighters flew into the valley at about 2:15pm, they were hit by a shit storm of electronic jamming, courtesy of an E-2C ECM reconnaissance craft that was directing the Israeli fighters to their soon-to-be downed prey. The Syrian pilots, who almost totally relied on ground control, were now cut off and began to flounder. Then the Israelis arrived at the scene, and the turkey shoot began. The Soviet made MiG-21 and MiG-23’s were simply no match for the American made F-15’s and F-16’s, and their airborne radars and air-to-air missiles were found to be even more inferior. Even worse, the Syrians were using rigid, unimaginative Soviet tactics of flying in massed groups designed to destroy enemy formations by shock, weight of numbers, and closeness of formation.

        Vectored by the E-2C’s, Israeli F-15’s and F-16’s put 25 Syrian MiG fighters and 3 helicopters to the bottom of the Bekaa, and the following day downed another 18. By the end of June 1982, the Israelis had shot down 85 Syrian Mig’s—19% of Syria’s total combat planes. 40 had fallen to American–made F-15 Eagles, 44 by American-made F-16 Falcons, and one had been downed by an American-made F-4 Phantom. Not a single Israeli fighter plane was lost in air combat.

        Then, predictably, came the blame game. The Soviets blamed the Syrians for having shitty pilots, and the Syrians blamed the Soviets for the shitty Soviet planes. But the Syrians were closer to the truth. Their Soviet sponsors had given them the planes, had trained their pilots, and tutored them in their best available tactics. Pilots, being only human, can only perform as well as they are trained and equipped, and on this count the Soviets set up their Syrian clients for disaster. Had they better planes and equipment, and been trained in more flexible tactics, the Syrians surely could have met the Israelis on more or less equal terms, though I have my doubts that even the best RAF or USAF pilots would have been a match for the cool tactical cunning displayed by the IAF over West Bekaa in 1982.

        Anwar al-Sadat was one of the first Arab military officers to note the inferior quality of Soviet tactics and equipment even before the 1967 war. He knew crap when he saw it. He weeded out Nasser’s political cronies in favor of merit based promotions, stressed initiative and responsibility in small unit leadership in training, and his bold and correct decision to jettison the Soviet playbook for more flexible tactics made possible his startling initial gains of the 1973 war. The Egyptians, the Jordanians, and the Saudis have all since partaken of American and European approaches to weapons and tactics.

        What lessons the Syrians drew from their experience over West Bekaa in 1982 is not known. What is known is that most of their equipment is still Russian/Soviet made and their tactical doctrine is still drawn from the same source, albeit supplemented by the Iranians and the Chinese. This does not bode well for the Syrians in a future air encounter with the Israelis. Neither of these nations have much of an air force tradition, and much of their command structures are top heavy with political appointees. Of course the best solution to Syria’s air force dilemma would be to make peace with Israel, but the likelihood of that seems as distant as ever.

        “As for the Hezbolllah ‘victory’ you have a weird way to gauge success. Lebanon was decimated and Hezbollah hasn’t touched Israel since the conflict. How was this successful for Hezbollah? If they ever had to fight a war where they couldn’t hind behind civilians, they would be destroyed.”

        How true, how true. For the IDF, the war unquestionably exposed failures in planning, intelligence, counterintelligence, command, mobilization, execution, and logistics. But where was this Hezbollah “victory?”

        In the most recent election before the war Hezbollah won only 12 of the 27 seats allocated to Shiites in the 128-seat National Assembly – despite having made alliances with Christian and Druze parties and pouring much Iranian cash into vote-buying. But the messy niceties of democracy pose no problem for Hezbollah; they rule by the gun, and the gun alone is their legitimacy. The 2006 war, however, put even this into jeopardy, and almost all of the Lebanese factions renewed their calls for Hezbollah’s disarmament. This was illustrated in an interview with Hezbollah chief Hasan Nasrallah, who once airily observed that gathering Jews in Palestine would make unnecessary the task of getting at them elsewhere. While boasting of a “divine victory,” he had this to say:

        “We did not think, even 1 percent, that the capture would lead to a war at this time and of this magnitude. You ask me, if I had known on July 11 . . . that the operation would lead to such a war, would I do it? I say no, absolutely not.”

        These are not the words of a victor. They are the words of a blunderer who knows all too well that he came within a hair of disaster, and who knows what death and destruction his actions have wreaked on the Sh’ia community of South Lebanon. And they reek with the guilty knowledge that knows that everyone there knows it as well.

        There was no air war in the 2006 war, only the IAF pounding Hezbollah targets with utter impunity.

        The ground engagements fought between the IDF and Hezbollah at Maroun al-Ras, Bint JBail, Ayta ash-Shab, and Wadi Saluki were certainly contested with the utmost obstinacy and tenacity by Hezbollah militants—and the IDF accounts give them full credit for it, but all were eventually secured by the IDF, albeit after heavy fighting. In Bint J’Bail, the Israelis learned, as the Germans had learned in Stalingrad, that close quarter fighting in built up urban areas puts superiority in tactics and mobility at a discount, but the IDF cleared the town of militants.

        Hezbollah thus did not “win” a single engagement they fought. They sat by helplessly while the IAF pulverized their equipment and infrastructure, lost 500 of their best fighters and were driven back in every ground engagement, fired off most of the missiles not destroyed by the IAF to negligible effect, cowardly and deliberately targeted Israeli civilians and used Lebanese civilians and civilian areas for shielding purposes, booby trapped homes, used mosques, hospitals and other civilian infrastructure for military purposes, and instigated a war that brought death and destruction to South Lebanon unlike anything seen since the Civil War. This was a victory?

        Politically, the most striking evidence of the chastening effect of the 2006 war on Hezbollah was how passively they sat out the 2008/9 Gaza war. When a salvo of Katyusha rockets were fired from South Lebanon into Nahariya on January 9, 2009 during the Gaza conflict, Nasrallah couldn’t distance himself from the attack fast enough.

        So let him do his little dance of bluster and bravado from the basements and underground shelters where he now bustles to and fro to escape assassination. He knows the truth. And he knows what the Lebanese Sh’ia really think of him and Hezbollah. As Amir Taheri has written:

        “Hizbullah is also criticized from within the Lebanese Shiite community, which accounts for some 40% of the population. Sayyed Ali al-Amin, the grand old man of Lebanese Shiism, has broken years of silence to criticize Hizbullah for provoking the war, and called for its disarmament. In an interview granted to the Beirut An-Nahar, he rejected the claim that Hizbullah represented the whole of the Shiite community. “I don’t believe Hizbullah asked the Shiite community what they thought about [starting the] war,” Mr. al-Amin said. “The fact that the masses [of Shiites] fled from the south is proof that they rejected the war. The Shiite community never gave anyone the right to wage war in its name.”

        There were even sharper attacks. Mona Fayed, a prominent Shiite academic in Beirut, wrote an article also published by An-Nahar last week. She asks: Who is a Shiite in Lebanon today? She provides a sarcastic answer: A Shiite is he who takes his instructions from Iran, terrorizes fellow believers into silence, and leads the nation into catastrophe without consulting anyone. Another academic, Zubair Abboud, writing in Elaph, a popular Arabic-language online newspaper, attacks Hizbullah as “one of the worst things to happen to Arabs in a long time.” He accuses Mr. Nasrallah of risking Lebanon’s existence in the service of Iran’s regional ambitions.

        “If Hizbullah won a victory, it was a Pyrrhic one,” says Walid Abi-Mershed, a leading Lebanese columnist. “They made Lebanon pay too high a price – for which they must be held accountable.”

        (“Hizbullah Didn’t Win: Arab Writers are Beginning to Lift the Veil on What Really Happened in Lebanon.” Amir Taheri, The Wall Street Journal, August 25, 2006)

        http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008847

      • Taxi
        October 31, 2011, 4:08 pm

        Wow Werdine, you’re sooooo shia-ty!

        Especially when you give Am_israel such soldier to soldier comfort eh?

        Keep repeating: we’re winning we’re winning this is 1967 and we’re winning! It’s cool to have the racist lotta you so deluded.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        October 31, 2011, 4:52 pm

        Wierdine, it seems your fellow Zionists are not paying you by the line but providing you with the material to post here. The least you can do is give them credit for it, since I assume, if you were to do the research required here, you wouldnot simply do it to make a point on Mondoweiss.

        I don’t need any research to tell you that your description of the 2006 war in Lebanon would be considered a joke in Israel where the media acknowledged that the Israeli invasion into Lebanon was a failure.

        Not only did it require Israel to use helicopters to move troops northward because they could not advance against Hezbollah on the ground but neither Israel’s air force nor army could stop Hezbollah from firing its rockets into Israel, causing thousands to flee southward or hide in shelters, something that I would say was a fate they fully deserved since the people of Southern Lebanon had been forced to do the same a number of times over the past several decades at the hands of Israel.

        The “blight unto the nations” response was to drop thousands of cluster bombs on Southern Lebanon before leaving once again as they did in 2000, with theiir tails between their legs.

        As for Hezbollah’s popularity, they and their Shia allies in Amal swept every electoral seat in Southern Lebanon and combined with their Maronite Christian allies they won 55% of the popular vote. Were this a true democracy, that coalition would be ruling the country and Said Hariri and the leaders of March 8th would be at home in Saudi Arabia.

        Unlike you, I had an opportunity to spend time in Southern Lebanon and the Shia quarter of Beirut to see for myself how Hezbollah was loved and not because of the gun but because of the services they have provided for the people and their defense against Israeli aggression. Remember, Hezbollah did not even exist when Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, killing over 18,000 Lebanese and Palestinian civilians. It arose as a resistance movement against the Israeli occupiers and their outfront sadism and 18 years later, its head, bloodied but unbowed, it sent the Israelis unconditonally packing.

        The Israeli army of the last decade or so is not the Israeli army of 1973. Occupation has turned the IDF into a bunch of arrogant thugs who have grown soft pushing Palestinians around. They are simply not up to the caliber of Hezbollah fighters and they will prove that once again should they meet. I assure you, the punks in IDF uniforms who served there last time are not looking forward to a return match no matter what their generals say.

        As for Nasrallah, he was simply being quite honest, a character trait foreign to Zionists, when he said that he didn’t think the capture of an Israeli soldier would lead to a war since it hadn’t happened before and had he known it would he wouldn’t have done it.

        Snce that war, Hezbollah has not been letting the grass grow under its feet. They have been rearming for the day that Israel will attack again and for sure it will because making war is what Israel is all about. I don’t think, however, the Israeli people, are looking forward to it. Unlike Gaza and Cast Lead, it won’t be a turkey shoot.

        BTW, Amer Taheri and the other “experts” you quote have no credibility in the Arab word but like yourself, are willing bootlickers to the Zionist necons and their Israeli allies. If the image of bootlicker doesn’t appeal to you, how about lickspittle?

      • Shingo
        October 31, 2011, 7:21 pm

        I think Nasrallah’s own words and actions during caste-lead prove this.

        I think you shold go home to your mommy and leave this debate to the adults Am_America. This stuff is clearly above your pay grade.

      • Shingo
        October 31, 2011, 9:04 pm

        Jeffrey has already roundly smashed Werdine’s latest comedy hour episode, but I felt compelled to chip in and comment about his Likudnick version of events.

        On April 7, 1967, two Israeli tractors were operating near Tel Katzir in Galilee near the Syrian border.

        Operating as in doing whatever they could to provoke Syria into firing on them, which led to Israel beign responsible for 80% of the exchanges with Syrian, as Dayan explained to us.

        …though I have my doubts that even the best RAF or USAF pilots would have been a match for the cool tactical cunning displayed by the IAF over West Bekaa in 1982.

        Wow, just listen to Robert Werdine drool over the IAF, an outfit who specializes is cooking children.

        Anwar al-Sadat was one of the first Arab military officers to note the inferior quality of Soviet tactics and equipment even before the 1967 war. He knew crap when he saw it.

        Sadat wouldn’t have known any different seeing as he only ever had Soviet equipment. As for crap, throughout the cold war, US pilots were told that if they ever found themselves facing Soviet Migs, that they were to “get the hell out of there”, because the Pentagon aknowleged that US fighter jets were no match for the Migs.

        The Egyptians, the Jordanians, and the Saudis have all since partaken of American and European approaches to weapons and tactics.

        The Egyptians, the Jordanians, and the Saudis are all client states of the US and most of these weapons sales are little more than a gravy train to maintain the bottom line of US weapons manufacturers. It is worth nothing that none of these states have used their planes in combat since taking deliveries. As for weapons and tactics, the only times we’ve seen these used was to quell popular uprisings.

        In the most recent election before the war Hezbollah won only 12 of the 27 seats allocated to Shiites in the 128-seat National Assembly – despite having made alliances with Christian and Druze parties and pouring much Iranian cash into vote-buying.

        The Iranian cash would have been a pittance compared to the hundreds of million the Bush administration poured into the last 2 Lebanese elections to buy votes for the Hariri leadership.

        Neither of these nations have much of an air force tradition

        Neither does Hezbollah who beat kicked Israel’s ass twice.

        Lebanon was decimated and Hezbollah hasn’t touched Israel since the conflict.

        I always find this argument rather amusing. Israel hasn’t touched Lebanon or Hezbollah since the conflict either, a fact Israeli propagandists seem to overlook. There’s no point denying that Israel were defeated. Olmert was forced to appoint the Winograd Commission to investigate why Israel performed so poorly.

        Success in war comes down to achieving strategic goals. Israel’s was to:

        1. destroy Hezbollah
        2. turn the population of Lebanon against Hezbollah

        Israel failed spectacularly to achieve either one of these. As Robert Risk noted on the last day of the war:
        “Israeli military authorities talked of ‘cleaning’ and ‘mopping up’ operations by their soldiers south of the Litany river but, to the Lebanese, it seems as if it is the Hizbollah that have been doing the ‘mopping up’. By last night, the Israelis had not even been able to reach the dead crew of a helicopter – shot down on Saturday night – which crashed into a Lebanese valley.”

        Olivier Roy of the Financial Times wrote:

        “For the first time, the Israel Defence Forces were unable to prevail in an all-out war.”

        Hezbollah’s objective was to:
        1. Survive Israel’s onslaught
        2. Keep Israelie forces out of Lebanon

        Uri Avnery noted that:

        “Hizbollah has remained as it was. It has not been destroyed, nor disarmed, nor even removed from where it was. Its fighters have proved themselves in battle and have even garnered compliments from Israeli soldiers … In Israel, there is now a general atmosphere of disappointment and despondency.”

        Polls taken after the conflict showed that the majority of Israelis accepted that Hezbollah won the war. Not only did Hezbollah succeed spectacularly in this regard, but their popularity in Lebanon and throughout the Arab world exploded.

        And now, thanks to Israel, Hezbollah is now part of the ruling coalition in Lebanon.

        If they ever had to fight a war where they couldn’t hind behind civilians, they would be destroyed.”

        Of course, not only did Hezbollah fight the war hiding behind civilians, but as the Dahlian doctrine revealed, hiding behind civilians would not have provided any advantage anyway. This Israeli BS has been repeatedly debunked regardless

        Amnesty and HRW Claims Discredited in Detailed Report
        http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/amnesty_and_hrw_claims_discredited_in_detailed_report

        Human Rights Watch: Troubling Report
        http://www.nysun.com/opinion/human-rights-watch-troubling-report/46037/

        Israeli ‘human shield’ claim is full of holes
        http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090113/FOREIGN/591536290/1002

        But the messy niceties of democracy pose no problem for Hezbollah; they rule by the gun, and the gun alone is their legitimacy.

        False again. Hebollah’s legitimacy was actually cemented during the mass demonstrations against the US backed Signorina government, when Nasrallah ordered his followers to not respond vit any violence, even after a number of them were shot and killed by government forces.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/04/AR2006120401225.html
        http://www.euronews.net/2006/12/01/beirut-braces-for-mass-demonstration/

        The 2006 war, however, put even this into jeopardy, and almost all of the Lebanese factions renewed their calls for Hezbollah’s disarmament.

        Quite the contrary. After the 2006 war, Hezbollah’s popularity sky rocketed.
        http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HJ14Ak01.html
        Even Harriri was forced to rejected calls from the West to disarm Hezbollah and defended Hezbollah as an essential component of Lebanon’s defense forces.

        These are not the words of a victor.

        Actually, those words ended press reports that Hezbollah set out purposely to provoke a war with Israel and that the abductions had been part of a plan approved by Hezbollah and Iran. Nasrallah had himself long signaled Hezbollah’s intent to kidnap Israeli soldiers, after former prime minister Ariel Sharon reneged on fulfilling his agreement to release all Hezbollah prisoners – three in all – during the last Hezbollah-Israeli prisoner exchange.

        These are the words of a leader who makes it clear he did no want a war but when faced with no choice, fought it and won. If you want to hear words of a victor, there are plenty from the aftermath of the war.
        http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3289572,00.html
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/14/AR2006081400514.html

        There was no air war in the 2006 war, only the IAF pounding Hezbollah targets with utter impunity.

        There was no air war in 2006 becasue Hezbollah has no air force. As for the targets, Israel pounded civlian targets with impunity indeed (striking that tissue production factory must have been a real boost for IDF morale) , but utterly failed to strike Hezbollah targets. In fact, the IDF were apoplectic at having utterly failed to disable Hezbollah’s television network, which ran uninterrupted throughout the conflict. In fact, I heard from people in Israel that Israelis were tuning into Hezbollah’s television station because they trusted it more than Israeli media during the conflict.
        Israel’s frustration at being unable to strike at Hezbollah were made apparent during the last 72 hours before the agreed ceasefire, when Israel cowardly dumped 1 million cluster bombs over Southern Lebanon in a desperate and spiteful attempt o unless more harm on the civilian population.
        The claims that Hezbollah used homes, mosques, hospitals and other civilian infrastructure for military purposes was already soundly debunked.
        “In fact, of the 24 incidents they document, HRW researchers could find no evidence that Hizbullah was operating in or near the areas that were attacked by the Israeli air force. Roth states: “The image that Israel has promoted of such [human] shielding as the cause of so high a civilian death toll is wrong. In the many cases of civilian deaths examined by Human Rights Watch, the location of Hezbollah troops and arms had nothing to do with the deaths because there was no Hezbollah around.”
        The impression that Hizbullah is using civilians as human shields has been reinforced, according to HRW, by official Israeli statements that have “blurred the distinction between civilians and combatants, arguing that only people associated with Hezbollah remain in southern Lebanon, so all are legitimate targets of attack.”

        http://www.jkcook.net/Articles2/0269.htm
        HRW’s executive director, Kenneth Roth, blamed Israel for targeting civilians indiscriminately in Lebanon.
        “The pattern of attacks shows the Israeli military’s disturbing disregard for the lives of Lebanese civilians. Our research shows that Israel’s claim that Hezbollah [sic] fighters are hiding among civilians does not explain, let alone justify, Israel’s indiscriminate warfare.”
        And…
        “Giving the lie to the “human shields” theory, HRW says its researchers “found numerous cases in which the IDF [Israeli army] launched artillery and air attacks with limited or dubious military objectives but excessive civilian cost. In many cases, Israeli forces struck an area with no apparent military target. In some instances, Israeli forces appear to have deliberately targeted civilians.”

        The ground engagements fought between the IDF and Hezbollah at Maroun al-Ras, Bint JBail, Ayta ash-Shab, and Wadi Saluki were certainly contested with the utmost obstinacy and tenacity by Hezbollah militants—and the IDF accounts give them full credit for it, but all were eventually secured by the IDF…

        Contested? Yeah right. As was reported by Hani Shukrallah , managing editor of the influential Cairo-based Al-Ahram Weekly:
        “Week one passed into week two, into week three, Lebanon did not fracture … Seventeen days after the start of the Israeli attack on Lebanon, Israel was withdrawing its elite Golani Brigade from the southern Lebanese town of Bint Jbeil, which they had claimed to have taken a week earlier”.

        Adn…
        “Hizbollah’s head seemed ‘ripe for the picking’. A year before, a great section of the Lebanese people had risen up in rebellion against Syria’s political and military sway over their country … Washington had found a willing, if uncommon ally in Paris, the erstwhile ‘old Europe’s’ supreme representative … The Arab regimes had reasons of their own for wishing Hizbollah to simply go away … muttering darkly about the growing threat of a ‘Shiite arc’ in their midst … So confident were the Americans and Israelis of the success of this strategy, they initially gave it a week to work”.

        In every account, Israel were defeated. In fact, in spite of repeated threats to cross the border and reach the Litani, the post mortem by Robert Fisk revealed that Israel barely crossed the border and secured no territory whatsoever. They cleared none of the towns of militants.
        The Pentagon’s J-8 Directorate for Force Structure Resources and Assessment, which among other duties conducts analysis, assessments, and evaluates strategies for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and some special American friends, agrees with Israeli military planners and Hezbollah on at least one subject– The next Hezbollah-Israel war will not see Israel using many ground forces outside of armored personnel carriers once they enter Lebanon. The reason is that all three agree with the Pentagon’s J-8 Directorates’ opinion that based on previous battlefield performance, it will likely require 5 Israeli soldiers to offset one Hezbollah defender’s battlefield acumen.

        Hezbollah comprehensively won every engagement they fought. Among the examples of Israel’s massive failure in 2006 still discussed in Dahiyeh, and presumably in Tel Aviv and Washington, include the Hezbollah forces routing of the Israeli “elite” Golani, Egoz and Magland Brigades at Maron al Ras on the Lebanese-Palestine border between July 25-30, 2006.
        The Battle of Bint Jbeil which Dan Halutz called Israel’s planned “Web of Steel’, was expected to take less than 48 hours to defeat Hezbollah forces starting on July 24. By July 30, the much battered Golani forces withdrew and the Israeli air force renewed indiscriminate aerial bombardment.
        In Aita al-Shaab, Israel lost 26 soldiers and more than 100 severely injured without gaining an inch of territory. Shortly before Israel agreed to a ceasefire, its forces experienced the catastrophe at Wadi Slouqi, a ravine through which a column of Israeli tanks were sent to link up with airlifted troops at Ghandouriyah village. The Israeli plan, read by Hezbollah forces from the onset, was to move toward Tyre and head north. “They (Hezbollah forces) jumped up out of the ground all around us” one Israeli at the scene testified later. Hezbollah hit more than a dozen tanks, quickly killing 17 Israelis and wounding more than fifty. It became known in Israeli military circles as “the Black Sabbath, the goddamned Sabbath”, as one Israeli war room officer commented.
        The Israelis themselves talking about being sent home in coffins. Increasingly during the 33 day July 2006 War, Israeli forces refused orders to advance against Hezbollah fighters, happily opting for 14 day jail sentences for failure to obey orders. Concerning IDF recruitment and AWOL problems, according to IDF Captain Arye Shalicar of the IDF Recruitment Fraud unit, it is US taxpayers who foot the bill for eight companies of private investigators recently hired to track down Israeli draft dodgers.

        They sat by helplessly while the IAF pulverized their equipment and infrastructure, lost 500 of their best fighters

        500 of their best fighters Robert? According to whom? Oh that’s right, the IDF. Well, according to other sources, the number was barely more than 100 and as Avnery pointed out, Israel barely laid a mark on their equipment. As for infrastructure, yes, Israel did indeed destroy a great deal of Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure, but none of Hezbollah’s, which is why Hezbollah’s television and communication network continued to function flawlessly for all 33 days.
        In fact, Israel were so ineffective that “the Israelis, who initially had spoken of crushing Hizbollah, were now talking of keeping Hizbollah’s rockets out of range of northern Israeli towns.”. They even failed to achieve that with rocket attacks on Israeli towns unrelenting for all 33 days.

        Politically, the most striking evidence of the chastening effect of the 2006 war on Hezbollah was how passively they sat out the 2008/9 Gaza war.

        Hezbollah’s stratergy in 2006 had nothing to do with the Gaza’s or Palestinians either. The claim that Hezbollah started the war is false and the claim that Hezbollah started the war because Israel’s assault on the Palestinians at the time is equally false.
        Nasrallah has never feared assassination from the Lebanese Sh’ia. As Sy Hersh reported at the time, when he went to interview Nasrallah, he asked Nasrallah if the reason for the heightened security was to protect him from Israeli asassins. Nasrallah said that the Israelis were not his concern, but the extremist Sunni Jihadist groups being backed by the Saudis.
        I think Ethan Bronner best summed up the degree to which Israel weer humiliated in 2006, when he explained that the turkey shoot in Gaza in 2008/2009 was considered by Israeli leaders as an opportunity to regain Israel’s deterrence capability, which they clearly believe they had lost.

        How pathetic is that? This amounts to a street gang having their asses handed to them by a rival gang and then mugging some school kids to regain their street cred.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        October 31, 2011, 11:27 pm

        A long but excellent post, Shingo. I think the problem for Israelis and their supporters abroad is that they have viscerally been unable accept the fact that their gods on earth, the IDF, have been humiliated by a Lebanese militia group not once, but twice and perhaps, as a Maronite friend in Beirut who is a strong supporter of Hez (actually all my Lebanese friends are) has told me, they will do it again the next time.

      • Shingo
        November 1, 2011, 12:28 am

        Thank you Jeffrey,

        I do agree about the inability of the inability fo Israelis to come to terms with the reality of 2006. I remember reading a number of reports by Avenry and Levy (among others) about the level of collective anxietyand despression that had consumed the state of Israel over the realization that they had lost their belief in their invincibility and superiority.

        As for what might happen next time, it remains to be seen. While Hezbollah clearly has Israel’s number in conventiona warfare, I can’t help but wonder if the collective insanity of the manic and derranged Israeli leadership would push them to over the edge and opt for saddistic measures. If it looks like de ja vu the third time around, it wouldn’t be beyond the realms of possibility for them to opt for something like chemical/bio weapons or tactical nukes. After all, even though it will be castrophic for the US, we know that Congress will unanimously endorse it.

      • Shingo
        November 1, 2011, 12:30 am

        BTW. PLease excuse a mistake I made in my post. It was meant to read:

        Of course, not only did Hezbollah NOT fight the war hiding behind civilians, but as the Dahlian doctrine revealed, hiding behind civilians would not have provided any advantage anyway. This Israeli BS has been repeatedly debunked regardless.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        November 1, 2011, 1:45 am

        Shingo, sadism would seem to be the second nature to the Israelis judging from what I have seen of their wehrmacht in action in Lebanon in 1983 and in visits to the West Bank and Gaza.

        It was that sadism, ironically, which was a catalyst to the creation of Hezbollah. At the beginning of the Israeli invasion, the majority of Shia apparently welcomed the Israeli troops anticipating they would push out the PLO and go home, the Shia being overtired of the Palestinians fighting a war of resistance from their soil which led to Israel’s retaliatory attacks on their villages, an earlier version of the settler’s “price tags” of today.

        Look how they love us, an Israeli officer crowed to Timor Goksel, then the UN officer stationed near the Lebanese Israeli border. If you’re still here in three months those rose petals will turn into bullets, Goksel said her replied.

        The problem for the Israelis was that they have been so indoctrinated with anti-Arab racism, “with their mother’s milk,” to borrow a phrase from Yitzhak Shamir, that they were unable to treat the Shia any different than they treated the Palestinians. They put oil in their flour, flour in their oil and shit in their mosques and went out of their way to make their lives miserable. That’s how they were taught to treat Arabs.

        So, yes, there is no limit to what they will do if pushed against a wall or faced with a military defeat which they insist will lead to their annihilation. Let’s face it. Israel in the West’s Frankenstein monster.

      • annie
        November 1, 2011, 3:33 am

        They put oil in their flour, flour in their oil and shit in their mosques and went out of their way to make their lives miserable.

        poetic. thanks

      • seafoid
        November 1, 2011, 4:27 am

        “they were unable to treat the Shia any different than they treated the Palestinians”

        Chas Freeman :

        They must craft their own modus vivendi and achieve their own reconciliation with Palestinians and Lebanese, whom they have heretofore treated with contemptuous cruelty and disrespect.”

      • Keith
        October 29, 2011, 8:14 pm

        TAXI- “There ain’t a chance in hell a war against Syria or Iran is gonna take place.”

        With Obama in the White House, betting against war is risky. This guy is a neocon’s neocon! We are in a very volatile period. Our sociopathic fat cats appear to be trying to lock in imperial control during a brief window of opportunity. Who could have predicted that the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt would provide an opportunity for US/NATO to instigate an uprising and militarily intervene in Libya? I’m not saying that the US or Israel will attack either Syria or Iran (the US is covertly involved in both countries), but that it can’t be ruled out. There is a certain reckless abandon to current US foreign policy that fills me with dark foreboding.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        October 30, 2011, 12:37 pm

        Keith, the US/NATO didn’t instigate the uprising in Libya which began with protests by the families of the 1200 prisoners who Gaddafi had murdered in the Tripoli prison in 1996 (which, judging from photos, made Guantanamo look like a Sunday school), they co-opted it early on, with the assistance of opportunists on the ground.

      • Keith
        October 30, 2011, 2:32 pm

        JEFFREY BLANKFORT- There is abundant evidence that US/NATO had been preparing for some time to destabilize Libya and overthrow Gaddafi. Too many CIA assets involved not to conclude that the uprising was “encouraged” by Western sources, including Bernard-Henri Levy, media reports notwithstanding. A few quotes and links.

        “Abdul-Jalil gained his job in the Libyan government in January 2007, when he was named Secretary of the General People’s Committee for Justice (the equivalent of Justice Minister). He has been paving the way for NATO’s military and economic conquest of Libya ever since.” (Dan Glazebrook)
        http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/09/mustafa-abdul-jalil-and-mahmoud-jibril-have-been-paving-the-way-for-nato%E2%80%99s-conquest-since-2007-2/

        “That it is a coup by a gang of Muammar Gaddafi’s ex cronies and spooks in collusion with Nato is hardly news. The self-appointed “rebel leader”, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, was Gaddafi’s feared justice minister. The CIA runs or bankrolls most of the rest, including America’s old friends, the Mujadeen Islamists who spawned al-Qaeda.” (John Pilger)
        http://www.zcommunications.org/hail-to-the-true-victors-of-ruperts-revolution-by-john-pilger

        “But there are several reasons to question this analysis in favor of seeing the Libyan rebels’ uprising as a planned and violent attempt to take power in behalf of their own political movement, however heterogeneous that movement might appear to be in its early stage. For example:
        They soon began flying the flag of the monarchy that Gaddafi had overthrown
        They were an armed and violent rebellion almost from the beginning; within a few days, we could read of “citizens armed with weapons seized from army bases”3 and of “the policemen who had participated in the clash were caught and hanged by protesters”4
        Their revolt took place not in the capital but in the heart of the country’s oil region; they then began oil production and declared that foreign countries would be rewarded oil-wise in relation to how much each country aided their cause
        They soon set up a Central Bank, a rather bizarre thing for a protest movement
        International support came quickly, even beforehand, from Qatar and al Jazeera to the CIA and French intelligence.” (Bill Blum)
        http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer97.html

      • Keith
        October 30, 2011, 3:54 pm

        JEFFREY BLANKFORT- You might want to check out Walid’s comments and links on the “Arab Spring @ 9 months” thread.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        October 30, 2011, 8:52 pm

        Keith, I have read just about everything that has been written about this, invariably by individuals who believe Gaddafi was something other than a dictator and who, following human nature, have looked for evidence that justifies their position while ignoring facts that don’t and, of course, I may be accused of doing the same. What is amusing is that many who were either quiet about Al Quaeda or believed it was a fictitious organization created by the CIA, have, since the Libyan uprising made comments about it that could have been uttered by Bush or Cheney. I guess if Gaddafi believes it exists and he’s against it, or was against it, so are they.

        Since 2003, Gaddafi had been a key player in the US “war on terror,” taking part in its rendition program which was reported in some detail in the NY Times and may have accounted for the initial reluctance on the part of the US to intervene. This may also have been due to the fact that it was Britain’s BP, France’s Total, and Italy’s ENI that had received the major oil concessions from Gaddafi and had both the most to lose and to win. In fact, all of Libya’s oil had been contracted out to foreign oil companies, although the primarily US owned ones had smaller stakes. I have seen barely a trace of either of these facts in the numerous articles that have appeared on web defending Gaddafi and describing the Libyans who were putting their lives on the line fighting him as NATO stooges. Pretty easy to say from Western armchairs in which, sadly, most of my friends in Europe and the US happen to be sitting.

        While it is clear that Gaddafi would not have been overthrown without the help of the US and NATO and that many of the rebels for reasons of their own have turn out to be pretty vicious as well as racist, that in no way delegitimized their struggle to overthrow a 42 year dictatorship in which political dissent was met with imprisonment, torture, and death. If you have seen the photographs of the Abu Salim prison that were published in the NYT, where Gaddafi had 1200 political prisoners murdered in 1996 when they struck for better conditions, it makes Guantanamo seem like a strict Sunday school. That happened without, I assure you, a single word of criticism from those who have rallied to his side since February.

        The anti-black pogroms that the rebels have carried our against either black Libyans or immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa can certainly be traced in part to Gaddafi having publicly favored them and sub Saharan Africa in reaction to his being snubbed in his attempts to become the Arab world’s second Nasser. Indeed, this megalomaniac who had has many costume changes as the spellings of his name, proudly demanded that he be called the “King of Kings” of Africa and he showered money there right and left to buy people’s support as he did to a lesser degree certain American activists.

        Political activists in the US and Europe pay little attention to sub Saharan Africa with the exception of South Africa (and that, too, has been largely ignored since the end of apartheid). Hence, they have been unaware that Gaddafi was a key backer of Charles Taylor and Foday Sankoh who were responsible for some of the worst crimes of the century in Sierra Leone and who are under indictment by the ICC. Perhaps, the reason for its quick move against Gaddafi before he had committed any crimes against the rebels warranting such a charge was because, apparently due to pressure from the UK and France, he was spared being indicted for crimes against humanity in Sierra Leone.

        According to Aroun Rashid Deen, “Gaddafi instituted a program of guerilla warfare in Libya for a group of disgruntled West Africans, including a group of Sierra Leoneans he had invited to Tripoli to undergo training. The men who led the war on Sierra Leone — former Liberian leader and warlord, Charles Taylor and Sierra Leone’s rebel leader, Foday Sankoh, and The Gambian Fugitive, Kukoi Samba Sanyang — were among those who trained in Libya.http://www.shout-africa.com/top-story/libya-indict-muammar-gaddafi-now-for-war-crimes-in-sierra-leone/

        I know that people who have sided with Gaddafi really don’t know what and who they are talking about when they (1) cite all the wonderful benefits that Gaddafi reportedly bestowed on the Libyan people and (2) when they want us to believe that Gaddafi had actually turned power over to “the Libyan people,” in 1977. I am old enough to remember when apologists for Stalin and the Soviets’ East Bloc police state satellites came up with stuff like that and it doesn’t sound or smell any better in this case.

        Sure, the US and the UK and France had contingency plans for taking Gaddafi out as they have for other situations, but how does one explain the gushing over the King of Kings by Tony Blair, both of the Clintons, John McCain, Joe Lieberman and the promise of trade deals that were widely reported and photographed in the international media, or his hiring of the Monitor Group in Washington and the likes of Richard Perle to burnish his image in the US?

        Here’s an interesting piece, “The Man Who Knew Too Much,” by David Rieff in Foreign Policy which explains why the US and NATO wanted Gaddafi dead and nowhere near the Hague. Curiously, he didn’t mention Perle, but the information presented speaks for itself.www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/…/the_man_who_knew_too_much

        Re the rebels discarding Gaddafi’s green flag for “the flag of the monarchy,” I find that a bit of a stretch. Obviously, that flag represented not Libya to them but the man they hated and that flag is hardly distinguishable from flags of other Arab countries. The suggestion that the people of Libya want a return to a monarchy is not borne out by any evidence and believe me, going back to the pre-Gaddafi flag doesn’t fit that bill.

      • Keith
        October 31, 2011, 6:19 pm

        JEFFREY BLANKFORT- A rather long post which in no way contradicts my original contention that the uprising was instigated/encouraged by US/NATO. No doubt many of the people involved had, or thought they had, legitimate grievances. An ideal situation for CIA assets and agent provocateurs to stir things up. Regardless of one’s opinion of Gaddafi, there is way too much evidence of prior intent and prior planning to believe that this was the fortuitous implementation of some dormant contingency plan. The events in Tunisia and Egypt created a huge impetus to implement current plans for reshaping the Middle East, as well as respond to the challenge of the uprisings. Timing is critical, hence, I seriously doubt the covert operations guys sat around twiddling their thumbs waiting for something to happen on its own. Too much occurred way too fast not to have been orchestrated.

        As for Gaddafi’s record, I don’t see anything in your laundry list that indicates that he was worse than Uncle Sam or Israel, both of whom engage in low intensity conflict and outright wars of aggression all of the time. You might at least acknowledge that one of the “terrorists” that he supported was Nelson Mandela, that Libya under Gaddafi had a relatively high standard of living for Africa, free education, etc, all of which are likely gone as a consequence of this US/NATO intervention. Or that he resisted empire’s designs on Africa, seeking African unity and independence. To reference Libya’s development index, the highest in Africa, indicates that we don’t know what we are talking about? This even as you criticize others for one-sided analyses. Two of the quotes I provided were from John Pilger and Bill Blum, two sources that I have confidence in.

        “…describing the Libyans who were putting their lives on the line fighting him as NATO stooges.” Fighting him? Who the hell was fighting him? How many US/NATO sorties were there? How many bombs dropped and missiles fired? How many US/NATO special operations forces on the ground despite denials? Qatar mercenaries? Cruise missile fired? Drones, etc? Any sane person looking at the imbalance in firepower quickly realizes that the Libyan defensive militias were hopelessly outgunned. Yet, they fought on for 8 months against the US/NATO aggression. Have you seen pictures of Sirte? Of all of the bodies being put into mass graves? This is “saving lives?” Funny, for a tyrant, there were a lot of people that preferred living in a Gaddafi ruled Libya than a US/NATO imposed neoliberal colony of empire. Libya has been destroyed. If you choose to interpret this as a glorious victory for the rebel forces and for liberty, have at it. I continue to view this as an imperial abomination.

        A final comment in regards to US/NATO’s plans and intentions. I offer a quote referencing US plans after Iraq. Of course, Iraq didn’t go as smoothly as planned, putting the whole timetable back, however, look at the countries mentioned. Do you see any correlation with what is going on now?

        “…in the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan…. (Wesley Clark, Winning Modern Wars, p. 130).
        http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23605

    • Kathleen
      October 28, 2011, 3:57 pm

      Kristol needs to be in an orange jump suit behind bars for his part in the illegal invasion of Iraq.

  7. seafoid
    October 28, 2011, 4:14 am

    Re : Obama

    According to Monthly Review, in 2007 the richest one per cent of Americans owned 37% of all assets.
    The 2012 election will cost $2bn .
    Who will sponsor it? The ones that have all the money.
    That’s the system. It works real well.

  8. Sin Nombre
    October 28, 2011, 6:03 am

    “But Natan Sharansky? Sharansky is a rightwing Israeli leader who…”

    It’s interesting watching the necessary dynamic: As Israel has gotten itself into ever deeper waters its reliance on the U.S. has gotten ever greater of course, and so too one sees ever more open, official Israeli involvement in U.S. politics, U.S. political groups and etc.. Thus one sees more and more Israeli officials such as Sharansky … making aliyah here, so to speak. And thus too one sees Israeli newspapers as well having to devote ever more space to happenings in the U.S. as well; indeed it can sometimes seem that the J-Post especially is a U.S. paper, just with some special but side-light interest in reporting on what’s going on in Israel.

    Just how far can this go, you have to wonder? Both practically and from an appearance/psychological perspective?

    I.e., Israel is dancing merrily about Washington’s love for it today and the benefits that it lavishes over it, but what country wants to put its fortunes so intimately in the hands of another?

    At some point you become a slave doing this it seems to me.

    And then there’s that appearance/quasi-psych perspective. Again after awhile aren’t the Americans gonna, um, notice that Israelis are just crawling all over our political process constantly? And what about the idea that the more you put yourself at the mercy of someone else the more they will eventually come to regard you as nothing but constant, pathetic beggars?

    Not to mention what this does to Israelis: They fret about deligitimization, but what’s to be said of a country that seemingly can’t stand on its own for the most part and only exists by being propped up—not just militarily but economically too, including via incredible amounts of commercial espionage, on a chronic annual if not monthly basis—by some Big Brother? Where’s Israeli pride gonna go eventually after its recognized that this is the situation and is looking to necessarily continue ad infinitum?

    I dunno that I could have much pride in my country if it got itself to the point where its everyday survival much less fortunes were dependent on either the gullibility or the pity of another.

    Seems to me that while Israel thinks that it has so changed the U.S.’s political landscape in its favor, that by riding this horse so hard it’s neglecting a reality that this is probably also changing itself too in an even more profound way. Who wants to be an eternal schemer or beggar, grubbing every day to graft of another in this or that way?

    That self-reliant “miracle in the desert” understanding just might end up turning into one more resembling a beggar’s bowl perched precariously and entirely contingently at the whim of another in the sand.

    • Elliot
      October 28, 2011, 10:57 pm

      It can sometimes seem that the J-Post especially is a U.S. paper, just with some special but side-light interest in reporting on what’s going on in Israel.
      I’ve posted this before but it should be stressed that the Jerusalem Post is not the Israeli paper that you think it is. It is run by English-speaking immigrants and serves the immigrant population. Many of them have at least one foot in their native countries.
      The Jerusalem Post enjoys far more prominence in America than it deserves. Take it from the Israelis – they don’t respect it. It’s a rag.

  9. pabelmont
    October 28, 2011, 8:13 am

    Mike Dukakis, at the time governor of MA and married to a Jewish woman, hosted a breakfast for Boston’s (Massachusetts’s) Arab (Arab-American) community. Very nice breakfast. POLS DO THIS SORT OF THING! THEY MAKE NICE WITH IMPORTANT CONSTITUENTS.

    Of course, that said, things about Israel have got WAY out of hand. We can but hope (and work: BDS) for better times.

    • seafoid
      October 28, 2011, 9:22 am

      “things about Israel have got WAY out of hand”

      The problem is that Israel has taken the Jewish community intellectually hostage . So either Israel gets what it wants or the whole thing explodes all over Judaism. Where is Mr Wolf ?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANPsHKpti48

  10. seafoid
    October 28, 2011, 8:23 am

    “Seems to me that while Israel thinks that it has so changed the U.S.’s political landscape in its favor, that by riding this horse so hard it’s neglecting a reality that this is probably also changing itself too in an even more profound way.”

    So much of Zionist diplomatic activity is based on the abuse of power. This has to be covered up. But it’s impossible to protect Israel’s image. So the coercion intensifies. The pressure on Greece over the Gaza 2 flotilla was instructive. And now it gets worse.

    The problem with Israel is that it takes too much work.

  11. Dan Crowther
    October 28, 2011, 10:51 am

    So, there are about 1.5 million reform jews in America.

    Obama is front and center.

    There are about 3 million Indian Americans in America, and they have a PAC themselves – USINPAC – I see no record of Obama speaking to a gathering of theirs

  12. Sand
    October 28, 2011, 12:34 pm

    Reform Jewish leader Eric Yoffie *cough splutter* the “liberal wing of organized Judaism.” Liberal in what sense? I think this is his ‘Parting Shot’ — his loud and clear message who is really is, and what the URJ has stood for all along. This conference looks like his cause célèbre before he seeks greener pastures, or getting a job where he can help burn down some more nice green olive trees?

    What I’m more interested in is his successor — J-Streeter — Rabbi Richard Jacobs? ZOA back in March were a tad concerned, but really do they need to be?!

    http://www.zoa.org/sitedocuments/pressrelease_view.asp?pressreleaseID=2021

    Also, Jacob’s will hold prominent positions in other sheres of political Jewish influence:

    “…However, as president of the URJ, the statement said, Jacobs “will assume many new official posts on Jewish communal organizations, including the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the Jewish Agency for Israel and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.”…”

    So, will he turn like all the others — made to look a sham all in the name and action of being “Pro-Israel”?

    http://www.stljewishlight.com/news/nation/article_dd9dc4bc-9761-11e0-9219-001cc4c002e0.html

    • Elliot
      October 28, 2011, 11:02 pm

      Of course he will! The quote from that press release was pure corporate diktat. The Chief Rabbi of Reform Judaism was forced to relinquish all his dodgy alliances (read: J Street). He will be far too busy tending to important business (read: right wing Jewish organizations dominated by Jewish Deep Pockets and Israel).

  13. DICKERSON3870
    October 28, 2011, 9:09 pm

    RE: “Reform Jews’ biennial will feature ultra-right, [Natan]
    Sharansky…” ~ Cap’n Weiss

    ALSO SEE: Board member of MEMRI– beneficiary of State Department grant– seems to approve racist claptrap, By Philip Weiss, 8/15/11

    (excerpt) Many of you have checked out the GangreenTV videos of Israeli government ministers saying things that– if they were American public officials saying this stuff, they would be out of office tomorrow. In the second video, the Israeli Justice Minister Ya’akov Ne’eman says that African immigrants converting to Judaism are the great threat to Israel, whereas in the U.S. it’s all the Jews marrying non-Jews that’s the threat– “accomplish [ing] what the accursed Hitler did not.”

    Well Natan Sharansky shares a stage with both ministers making these repellent remarks, and in the second instance, he appears to approve the message, clapping Ne’eman on the back at the end of his statement against Africans (4:06)…

    SOURCE – http://mondoweiss.net/2011/08/more-about-memri-the-state-departments-grantee-and-natan-sharansky.html

  14. Keith
    October 29, 2011, 7:50 pm

    PHIL- “…all major American Jewish orgs have the Zionist religion.”

    Indeed they do! In this regard it should be noted while opinion polls among individual Jews may suggest disenchantment with Israel, the actions of the major American Jewish organizations indicate continuing support for Israel. Since these organizations are the agencies of Jewish power, this means that the Jewish elites continue to support Israel. Why would that be? I would suggest that these elites perceive Israel and, in particular, Zionism as important to their power-seeking activities. Zionism, Israel, the Holocaust, anti-Semitism, these are the basis for the ideological bonding of the various strands of organized Jewry, which is a significant component of Jewish power. It would appear that the Reform Jewish elites prefer Jewish solidarity over other considerations.

  15. Jeffrey Blankfort
    October 30, 2011, 1:22 pm

    Keith, organized Jewry is the base of Jewish power. As far as its leaders are concerned the others, the non-affiliated, don’t count. Taking polls of what Jews think, which seems to rank just under baseball as a national pastime, is therefore not only meaningless but, I believe, is designed to confuse, making people believe that American Jews are, by and large, progressive which, whether true or not, is irrelevant. What counts is what organized Jewry believes and does and that we don’t hear or read so much about.

    • Robert Werdine
      November 6, 2011, 9:54 am

      Jeffrey Blankfort,

      In addressing the 2006 war, I was not discussing whether the war was a victory for Israel; I was addressing claims stated above to the effect that it was a “victory” for Hezbollah. And it was not.

      Said you:

      “Not only did it require Israel to use helicopters to move troops northward because they could not advance against Hezbollah on the ground …”

      You have to be kidding with this. In modern mobile warfare, basic strategy dictates three approaches of forced entry into a field of operations: troops advancing by land, by sea, and by the air. The purpose of advancing large units of troops from the air is to insert them into a theater of operations where they can accomplish tasks such as securing strategically important positions, getting into the enemy’s rear and HQ, and disrupting his communications. The purpose is to wage a war behind the lines that will disorient the enemy, draw off his reserves, and alleviate pressure and resistance faced by the troops advancing by land and/or sea. That was the purpose for which the IDF deployed the Nahal Brigade and the 98th Paratrooper Division behind the lines, though the manner of their deployment was the subject of some well founded criticism. To what tactical advantage would it have been to focus all of their forces at the border where Hezbollah resistance would be the strongest? So more of their soldiers could be killed?

      In such a war as the one fought between Israel and Hezbollah in 2006, the use of the term “victory” to describe the outcome of either belligerent is inapt and misleading, for the simple reason that neither side “won.” It was an inconclusive war, cut short by an internationally imposed cease-fire. But if victory in this conflict cannot be unambiguously discerned, the question remains: How did each side perform, and how well did it achieve its objectives?

      The Israeli campaign in response to the Hezbollah provocation has been much criticized, and rightly so. As I said before, the war unquestionably exposed failures in planning, intelligence, counterintelligence, command, mobilization, execution, and logistics. The Israelis wished, to the greatest possible extent, to destroy Hezbollah’s infrastructure and weaponry, neutralize them as a military force, and force their removal north of the Litani. They also hoped that a favorable political diminishment of Hezbollah within Lebanon would follow the successful military campaign. On July 24, 2006 the MFA enumerated the following goals:

      “First, regarding southern Lebanon, Israel wishes to preserve the gains of the current military campaign, whereby Hizbullah has been removed from the border region.

      Second, regarding the Hizbullah’s long-range missiles which are fired at Israeli civilians from beyond the border zone – unless Hizbullah disarms itself willingly, this threat must be clearly addressed.

      Third, the Hizbullah must be prevented from re-arming. This will require close monitoring of the possible routes into Lebanon from Syria or elsewhere.”

      It must be said without exception that none of these goals were achieved.
      The Israelis had a contingency plan consisting of an air assault (code-named ICE BREAKER) to be complemented with a massive ground assault 72 hours later (code named MEY MAROM). Yet the IDF Chief of Staff, Lt. General Dan Halutz, eschewed both for an improvised air assault punctuated by pinpointed “surgical” forays at Hezbollah militants along the border. Halutz was repeatedly told by both military and intelligence analysts that such an approach would be wholly inadequate to eject Hezbollah from south Lebanon, but he ignored them.

      After a week of air assaults and commando raids that had undoubtedly inflicted much punishment on Hezbollah’s infrastructure and logistics, the decisive victory promised by Halutz was, however, nowhere in sight. Hezbollah was just as firmly entrenched along the border and south of the Litani as they ever were, and rockets were still popping into northern Israel at 100 or more a day. Halutz, realizing that air assault alone was not doing the job, now consented to the ground operation he had previously dismissed as unnecessary. Yet even here he equivocated; instead of the full-scale ground invasion envisaged by MEY MAROM, the IDF would deploy battalion and company size units in “raids.”

      On July 19, at the Shaked outpost between Avivim and Maroun al-Ras, the IDF took fire from a Hezbollah detachment of 20 fighters situated on a hillcrest. For 12 hours a brutal firefight raged until the IDF brought up reinforcements, surrounded the position, and killed all 20 militants in place.

      Next, the IDF engaged Hezbollah at the stronghold of Maroun al-Ras on July 20, and they were shook by the ferocity of the resistance they encountered. The main roadway junction up to the village was heavily mined, and an IED explosion ignited by the Israelis brought a hailstorm of fire on the Israeli advance guard. The village was mined, booby-trapped, and well fortified. Hezbollah militants made excellent use of direct and indirect small arms and anti-tank fire from concealed positions, and they worked their elaborate tunnel system to maximal effect, hitting the IDF advance guard from multiple emplacements. The Hezbollah defenders’ fire control was excellent and well coordinated.

      After some initial missteps in which an infantry platoon from the Maglan brigade found itself temporarily surrounded, a reinforcement of an infantry company and an armored platoon was brought up, and a 5-7 hour firefight ensued in which all of the Hezbollah defenders were killed in place. Later in the day, some 15-30 Hezbollah militants counterattacked an Israeli company deployed in buildings on a hillcrest within the secured perimeter; the company was surprised, and there ensued some brutal hand to hand fighting before a score of the militants were killed, and the rest put to flight. The Israelis lost 8 killed and Hezbollah lost 24, and, though sniping from outside the village continued for some days afterward, the Israelis secured the village, if not the entire surrounding area.

      On July 26 the IDF advanced on the Hezbollah stronghold of Bint J’Bail for a “raid,” and the Hezbollah defenders there had prepared a warm welcome for them that would even excel the one the IDF received at Maroun al Ras. The town had been the chief rocket-launching area, and had long been a heavily fortified Hezbollah HQ. Hezbollah had reinforced the 60 man garrison in the town to about 100-150, about 40 of which included members of the Unit Nasr from the Special Forces skilled in sabotage and anti-tank defense; all were armed to the teeth. As with Maroun al-Ras but even more so, Bint J’Bail was heavily mined and booby-trapped, and the advance guard of Companies A and C from the 51st Battalion came under withering fire.

      Once again, Hezbollah militants made excellent use of direct and indirect small arms and anti-tank fire from concealed positions in the town’s elevated buildings, and 30 of C Company’s troops were hit, including the Deputy commander Major Roi Klein, who was killed. Company C was now in danger of being outflanked and cut to pieces; Company A now moved up to reinforce, and gave cover while Company C evacuated their wounded. The firefight had lasted 5-7 bitter hours, and the IDF lost 8 killed and 27 wounded while inflicting about 20 dead on the defenders, but the IDF had gained a foothold within the town by the end of the day. (On this occasion, the IDF stretcher bearers, who traversed in and out of the killing zone for several hours while the battle raged to tend and evacuate the wounded, showed particular heroism). The next two days would see sporadic fighting in and around the town, with areas see-sawing back and forth, and the IDF did not really secure the town until August 14, by which time the Israelis had lost 14 killed and 31 wounded, and Hezbollah had lost about 80 men killed. Bint J’Bail was the most fiercely fought battle of the war.

      Up until the end of July the IDF made no attempt to occupy territory for more than raiding purposes. By the 1st of August, the IDF now decided to increase the forces on the ground and by August 11 Operation Change Direction 11, a westward drive of an armored column from At Tayyibeh to link up with elements of the Nahal Brigade that had been airlifted into position there near Ghanduriyih, had commenced. The launch of this operation at this time, defied all common sense and logic. UNSC Resolution 1701 had just passed marking the cease-fire to be implemented on the 14th. What could possibly have been accomplished until then?

      As Yaakov Katz of the Jerusalem Post wrote:

      “Late Friday night, just hours before the resolution [1701] was passed, Armored Brigade 401 began moving its tanks across the Litani – facing fierce Hizbullah resistance – in what has become known as the “Battle of the Saluki.” Crossing the Saluki required that the troops and tanks climb a steep hill overlooked by mountains in every direction. Understanding the risk at which he would be putting his tanks, Brig.-Gen. Zur deployed the Nahal Brigade on the outskirts of the villages of Andouriya and Farun to take up positions on the high ground and to provide cover for the armored column moving below.

      Under the command of Col. Moti Kidor, then commander of Brigade 401, the Merkava tanks had been waiting for the push to the Litani for close to a week. They had received orders to begin rolling twice. When they began to move, however, they were immediately ordered to stop. But on Friday, August 11, at close to 5 p.m., the orders came again, and by 8 p.m. the tanks began rolling. Hizbullah had meanwhile made its preparations. Kidor’s men had been in the field on standby for almost a week and Hizbullah knew that the only passage West was through the Saluki. At least 100 guerrillas took up positions with the most advanced anti-tank missile – the Russian-made Cornet – and waited. By early Sunday morning, just 24 hours before the cease-fire went into effect, Kidor had finally succeeded in crossing the wadi and climbing the hill – albeit after paying a heavy price. Twelve soldiers were killed – eight in tanks and four infantry – and 44 were wounded.

      But then came the orders to stop the advance and to begin returning. Kidor and his men were left wondering what they had been sent out to achieve in the first place. Why were they dispatched to cross the Saluki when it was clear that the cease-fire would pass? What did these 33 soldiers die for? The battle of the Saluki is a microcosm of possibly all of the mishaps that occurred during the war. For a week, soldiers were like sitting ducks waiting for orders that were received and twice cancelled, signifying a total lack of clarity and confidence on the part of the diplomatic echelon in general, and particularly its head – Olmert. When the orders finally came, they made no sense. Why push to the Litani hours before the UN was set to approve a cease-fire? What was the point of the brief and very bloody operation, especially considering that two days after crossing the Saluki, they crossed it again – this time heading home?”

      http://www.jpost.com/Features/FrontLines/Article.aspx?id=88476

      The use of tanks on such a narrow incline at Wadi Saluki defies all logic, but, sure enough, the same could be said of the entire operation. No possible excuse existed for the latter part of the operation from August 11-14, and the first part was of doubtful necessity. Olmert and Halutz spun the operation as having weakened Hezbollah and made the passage of Resolution 1701 possible, but this was self-serving cant. The truth is that 24 soldiers died to no purpose or benefit in an operation that should never have been launched. There was no getting around it: the entire ground offensive launched on July 19 and concluded on August 14, had failed to achieve any of the strategic goals that had been set.

      The ground campaign was conducted on the fly with inadequate, ill-equipped formations, senior commanders and brigade commanders who had not trained in maneuvering large mobile formations in years, regulars and reservists who had received little or no training, and soldiers and tank crewmen whose only experience was patrolling the West Bank and Gaza. Matt Matthews, in his study on the 2006 war, correctly points out that the IDF focus on low-intensity, counter-insurgency actions in the territories in the last two decades, had unquestionably reduced their combat proficiency in the conventional sphere. (See “We Were Caught Unprepared: The 2006 Hezbollah-Israeli War,” Matt Matthews, 2008, Combat Studies Institute, pp. 36-67)

      Yet even these deficiencies could have been compensated for by a sound, straightforward strategy and leadership from the top. And of this there was none to speak of.

      There was a strong whiff of Westmorland’s “search and destroy” strategy here in Halutz’s approach, and the weaknesses inherent in it were obvious: instead of being deployed in force at all points along the border and coast of south Lebanon for a full scale ground assault, IDF units were sallying here and there into south Lebanon aimlessly milling about in search of Hezbollah cadres to engage and destroy, without occupying ground, clearing it, and minding each others flanks. That even the lowliest, most incompetent staff officer could have consented to such a strategy and deployment is incredible, and, indeed, Halutz was warned by many that this too would be wholly inadequate for the task. The Halutz strategy most signally violated at least three of the ten recognized axioms of war: Selection and Maintenance of the Aim, Concentration of Force, and Cooperation, and, on some level, it probably violated Security, Administration, and Flexibility as well.

      Running tandem with Halutz’s hubris and incompetence, one discerns the trembling, unmasterful hand of Ehud Olmert. They had both set out to destroy Hezbollah’s infrastructure and weaponry, neutralize them as a military force, and force their removal north of the Litani. Yet any plausible attempt to do this was going to be a long, messy affair. The situation was totally unlike 1982 when the PLO militias were scattered in isolated positions throughout the south, and where IDF armored columns sliced through them with ease. Hezbollah had spent six years fortifying virtually every major population center south of the Litani into a major stronghold, each with a sophisticated network of bunkers, minefields, booby-trapped dwellings, arms caches, and anti-tank gun emplacements. Their fighters were well trained in the arts of ambush and defensive concealment, fiercely motivated, and armed to the teeth. There was a rough consensus in military and intelligence circles that this was just not going to get done in several weeks with the strategy in place and the forces that had been allocated.

      Yet, dismissing the need for an overwhelming combined arms assault, Halutz first opted for an improvised air assault punctuated with small-bore border forays. Then, when that was found to be inadequate, he deployed company and battalion sized assaults to raid and engage Hezbollah strongholds. Then, when that was found wanting, he poured more forces into the mix piecemeal to utter negligible effect.

      War must never be waged on a string of improvised half measures. It must be waged swiftly, decisively, forcefully, and with a strategy apparent to all from the Brigadier down to the buck private. What was needed was a combined-arms operation to hit the enemy where he was weakest, attacking in force all along the border areas at divergent axes, supplemented by sea and airborne assaults, compelling them to scatter their forces, and outflank them from every direction with shock, speed, and surprise, not engage in a series of scattered, costly slugfests to little strategic or even tactical benefit in built up urban areas where the defenders were strongest and had the advantage. Given Hezbollah’s penchant for static defense, this would have been a more than viable strategy. It would have involved a maneuver operation to secure areas where Hezbollah was not in strong possession, and securing the strongholds of the major population centers would have taken at least a month, maybe longer. It would undoubtedly have been a long, bloody affair. If the Israelis were going to achieve the strategic goals they set for themselves, that is, at the very least, what it would have required. If they were unable or unwilling to do this, then they should have opted for a more limited response and more modest goals.

      Yet these Israeli deficiencies, bad as they were, do not in any way vindicate Hezbollah. True, they made excellent use of direct and indirect small arms and anti-tank fire from concealed positions, they worked their elaborate tunnel system effectively, and their small arms fire control was excellent and well coordinated. But they showed no ability to conduct the kind of mobile defense that would have enabled them to fight a long, protracted battle and avoid heavy casualties. The defenders at Shaked post, at Maroun al-Ras, and Bint J’Bail all stood their ground obstinately, made no attempt to withdraw, and were all killed in place. At Aytarum and Markaba Hezbollah defenders again fought in place until killed, and even allowed the IDF units to outflank them and surround them, rendering their positions tactically irrelevant. Even in Ghanduriyih, where the defenders had an escape route, they opted to remain fighting in place until decimated. The defenders here all showed unquestionable courage and self-sacrifice, but to what purpose? At best they harassed the enemy and slowed his advance; they did not repel him.

      The platoon sized Hezbollah counterattacks on hill 951 at Maroun al-Ras, and on hill 850 at Bint J’Bail were both made with main and secondary attacks supplemented with ATGM fire, but both were beaten back, albeit after several hours of heavy fighting. Similar squad and platoon-sized counterattacks launched by Hezbollah at Ayta ash-Shab, Muhaybib, Ghanduriyih, Dayr Siryan, and Tayyibah all failed to regain lost ground seized by the attackers.

      The Hezbollah defenders, in short, showed they were prepared to extract a steep price for the loss of real estate to their attackers, but once they lost it they allocated no resources and had no plan of action to retake it. Having no defense in depth from which to counter-concentrate and regroup, their cadres simply fought in place until overwhelmed, and their counterattacks floundered and squandered lives to no effect or benefit.

      Marksmanship was mediocre. Even in the Saluki Valley, the Hezbollah Anti-Tank Guided Missile operators fired dozens of salvos for every direct hit. (It was estimated that 8% of all Hezbollah ATGM fire hit their targets throughout the war) At Maroun al-Ras the Hezbollah defenders lost 24 killed to 8 IDF; 80 to 14 at Bint J’Bai, 50 to 13 at Ayta ash-Shab, and 80 to 12 at Saluki Valley. These were, simply put, appalling loss exchange ratios, especially given their home court advantages of fortified terrain and defensive concealment.

      (For a more detailed study of Hezbollah tactics in the 2006 war see “THE 2006 LEBANON CAMPAIGN AND THE FUTURE OF WARFARE: IMPLICATIONS FOR ARMY AND DEFENSE POLICY,” Stephen Biddle, Jeffrey A. Friedman, September 2008, pp. 33-45, and pp. 69-72)

      http://www.scribd.com/doc/30632694/THE-2006-LEBANON-CAMPAIGN-AND-THE-FUTURE-OF-WARFARE-IMPLICATIONS-FOR-ARMY-AND-DEFENSE-POLICY-Stephen-Biddle-Jeffrey-A-Friedman

      And as Edward Luttwak has written:

      “Many commentators repeated and endorsed Nasrallah’s claim that his Hezbollah fighters fought much more bravely than the regular soldiers of Arab states in previous wars with Israel. In 1973 after crossing the Suez Canal, Egyptian infantrymen by the thousand stood their ground unflinchingly against advancing 50-ton Israeli tanks, attacking them successfully with their puny hand-held weapons. They were in the open, flat desert, with none of the cover and protection that the Hezbollah had in their stone-built villages in Lebanon’s rugged terrain. Later, within the few square miles of the so-called “Chinese farm” near the Suez Canal, the Israelis lost more soldiers against the Egyptians in a single day and night than the 116 – including the victims of accidents and friendly fire – killed in a month of war in Lebanon. Hezbollah certainly did not run away and did hold their ground, but their mediocrity is revealed by the casualties they inflicted, which were very few.”

      http://www.lebanonwire.com/0708MLN/07082405FP.asp

      The IDF, in the course of its meandering and unfocused campaign, hit Hezbollah not where they were weakest, but where they were strongest. Hezbollah were saved first and foremost by an Israeli strategy that was confused, inadequately resourced, and incompetently executed, and lastly by the weight of international pressure to end the conflict and effect an Israeli withdrawal.

      • Chaos4700
        November 6, 2011, 10:10 am

        Distraction, distortion, contortion….

        I still find it amusing that people launching projectiles with no electrionic guidance systems can be “targeting civilians,” because they can’t exclude civilian victims. Whereas well-oiled war machines with the most accurate targetting systems known to man, when they choose not to exclude civilians, can’t be held accountable.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        November 6, 2011, 3:43 pm

        Wordine, brevity is not your strong suit particularly when it comes to your obsession with the need to minimize Hezbollah’s remarkable achievement against the world’s fourth or fifth most powerful military.

        My comment that at one point Israel used helicopters to transport its troops to a position that they were unable to access by land because of Hezbollah’s resistance was reported in the Israeli press at the time.

        Your long-winded response, probably out of the IDF playbook, had nothing to do with it. But let’s take a look at it:
        You wrote:

        “The purpose of advancing large units of troops from the air is to insert them into a theater of operations where they can accomplish tasks such as securing strategically important positions, getting into the enemy’s rear and HQ, and disrupting his communications. The purpose is to wage a war behind the lines that will disorient the enemy, draw off his reserves, and alleviate pressure and resistance faced by the troops advancing by land and/or sea.”

        Did Israel succeed in accomplishing any of those tasks? As for “disrupting his communications,” that was where your Israeli friends failed most miserably. Hezbollah had set up its own self-contained fibre optic network which the Israelis, with all those brilliant Jewish brains, could not penetrate. Hezbollah, on the other hand, was apparently able to monitor’s Israel communications system.

        The failed attempt to break up Hezbollah’s fibre network by the Lebanese government at the behest of Washington, acting on instructions from its bosses in West Jerusalem which led to fighting in Beirut in 2008 was just an extension of Israel’s efforts to destroy Hezbollah as was/is the phony special UN tribunal to find the killer of Rafik Hariri.

        Why is it phony? When, in all the history of assassinations of sitting or flying heads of state by the US or anyone else, when the guilty party has been known, has the UN conducted an investigation? And in this case. Hariri was an ex-official and, technically, nothing more than a private citizen.

      • Shingo
        November 6, 2011, 9:32 pm

        Excellent response Jeffrey,

        Werdine’s posts are becoming increasingly weirder.

        Not only is he backing away from him claim that Hezbollah were defeated, but now he blames the international community from snatching victory from Israel’s grasp by imposing a the ceasefire, when as you pointed out, the ceasefire only passed a vote at the UN because the Israelis were desperate to implement it by that state.

        I also love how Werdine keep repeating the vaccuous mantra that Israel had “undoubtedly inflicted much punishment on Hezbollah’s infrastructure and logistics” , when as you and i have pointed out, the evidence proves otherwise.

        1. Hezbollah’s rockets attacks were constant and unrelenting throughout the conflict
        2. IDF were being killed in increasing numbers throughout the conflict
        3. The IDF were not able to lay a hand on Hezbollah’s communications network on even it’s television broadcasts throughout the conflict

        So that begs the question, what Hezbollah infrastructure and logistics were “undoubtedly punished”? The answer is simple, it wasn’t. The only infrastructure Israel punished was Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure – namely roads, bridges, apartment buildings, tissue manufacturing plans and Beirut Airport.

        I noticed that the revisionism over 2006 began about the same time Tom Friedman came out with an op-ed that argued that Israel won because it inflicted sufficient harm on Lebanese civilians to deter Hezbollah from attacking Israel again.

        As Glenn Greenwald subsequently pointed out, the supreme irony of this is that what Friedman had described was the literal definition of terrorism on Israel’s part.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        November 7, 2011, 12:21 am

        Weirdine’s posts reflect his deep connection to Israel, either officially or emotionally. They simply still cannot deal with the fact that their “people’s army” is something less than invincible. For Israelis across the spectrum, from the secular to the religious wackos, the army is worshipped to a degree that does not exist anywhere else on the planet.

        When I first went to Israel I was stunned to see the magazine racks filled with magazine after magazine devoted to various units of the military like its so-called “elite” brigades, Golani and Givati, and the war toys for the Israeli kids and even a giant cigarette lighter that looked like an Uzi.

        The fact of the matter is that their boys got their lunch handed to them, stuffed down their throats, and deep down they know that the murderous turkey shoot over Gaza did not erase that memory.

      • Shingo
        November 7, 2011, 6:08 am

        So right you are Jeffrey,

        They face a dilemma much like America’s Vietnam syndrome. On one hand they desperately want that decisive victory over Hezbollah that will put to bed the bad dream of 2006 and 2000, but as Frankenstein has observed, Israelis have become soft and pampered and thus unable to take on the challenge.

        I saw Matti Peled speaking recently and he made an interesting observation about how pathetic and deluded the IDF have become. In Israel, the IDF describe the West Bank as a war zone and he shakes his head. These boys haven’t got the faintest idea what a war zone looks like. There are no artillery batteries, no canons, now fighter planes or attack helicopters hitting Israel, so how can it be a warzone.

        In the OT he attends anti occupation demonstrations, and faces down IDF thugs posing with their guns against unarmed demonstrators and cannot believe that they take themselves seriously.

        Israel still believes the IDF is the IDF of 1967, when as the DOD has observed, they are ill prepared, ill disciplined and trigger happy.

      • MRW
        November 7, 2011, 8:49 am

        Shingo,

        Can you imagine the IDF trying to take on the highly disciplined Iranian military forces? No wonder they are begging the US to do it for them.

        The contempt that the US military has for Israeli military capability is funny when you get them to hold forth.

      • Shingo
        November 7, 2011, 9:02 am

        I don’t know how disciplined Iranian military forces are. I suspect not that much, but they are armed, tenacious and resourceful.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        November 7, 2011, 3:01 pm

        Shingo, I believe you are referring to Matti Peled’s son, Miko, who has taken up from where his late father, Matti, left off, in speaking about Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians. Matti, who I came to know in the US, when I arranged speaking engagements and press interviews for him in the SF Bay Area in 1984 when that, unlike today was quite easy to do, was the ONLY Israeli general, as far as I know, who, upon retiring, did not join one of Israel’s weapons manufacturers, become an arms salesman on his own, or become a hawk in one of Israel’s political parties.

        Already, in 1984, he was calling for stopping aid to Israel, a message Jewish audiences, across the political spectrum, did not want to hear. He, like most of that tiny minority of Israeli Jews who had committed themselves to justice for the Palestinians, came away with contempt for American Jews, even those on the Left who were afraid to raise the subject. He also had contempt as well for those Israeli groups, such as Peace Now, which wanted to eat their cake and have it, too.

        Were he alive today, he would be very proud of his son and justly so..

      • Shingo
        November 6, 2011, 10:19 pm

        Your posts are becomming increasingly depsrate and more incoherent Robert,

        As you yourself admit, victory in war is defeined by the acheivement of one’s strategic objectives.

        You admit that Israel failed miserably to achieve any of it’s objectives, but noticeably skirted around addressing the question of whether Hezbollah acheved theirs. As I demomstrated to you, there si no disputing they did just that.

        Jeffrey has already exposed the absurdity of your explanatino abot dropping IDF troops behind Hezbollah’s battle lines. The fact is that even the helicopters were not able to get hbehind Hezbollah’s battle lines without the troops retrnign to Israel in body bags.

        It was an inconclusive war, cut short by an internationally imposed cease-fire.

        A blantant lie.

        The war was not cut short by an imposed cease-fire. The US were vetoing all calls for a ceasefire throughout the war (as per Israel’s request) and would have contnued to veto these calls indefinitely had the war been going according to plan. We all remember Rice describing he carnage as the bith pangs of democracy and Siniora being forced to humiliater himself during photo ops with her.

        The Israeli campaign in response to the Hezbollah provocation has been much criticized, and rightly so.

        First of all, the war was not an Israeli response to the Hezbollah provocation. teh Winograd report concluded that Israel intiated the war, not Hezbollah.

        You admit that Israel failed in every regard and yet, cannot bring yourself to admit that the war was a loss for Israel.

        The reason Halutz eschewed teh ground invasin was becasue the air assault (which was indeed massive) was proving totally ineffective otehr than to destroye Lebanese infrastructure. A massive ground assault would only have resulted in massive casualties for Israel and Halutz knew it.

        After a week of air assaults and commando raids that had undoubtedly inflicted much punishment on Hezbollah’s infrastructure and logistics, the decisive victory promised by Halutz was, however, nowhere in sight.

        That’s becasue the commando raids (if you can call them that) utterly failed to inflicted any punishment on Hezbollah’s infrastructure and logistics. After all, how does one measure succes in destroying infrastructure and logistics other than phsycial evidence that the enemy’s ability to fight and continue fighting has somehow been diminshed? As you admit, rockets were still popping into northern Israel at 100 or more a day and Hezbollah’s communicatios network was untouched.

        For 12 hours a brutal firefight raged until the IDF brought up reinforcements, surrounded the position, and killed all 20 militants in place.

        False. Among the examples of Israel’s massive failure in 2006 still discussed in Dahiyeh, and presumably in Tel Aviv and Washington, include the Hezbollah forces routing of the Israeli “elite” Golani, Egoz and Magland Brigades at Maron al Ras on the Lebanese-Palestine border between July 25-30, 2006.

        The Battle of Bint Jbeil which Dan Halutz called Israel’s planned “Web of Steel’, was expected to take less than 48 hours to defeat Hezbollah forces starting on July 24. By July 30, the much battered Golani forces withdrew and the Israeli air force renewed indiscriminate aerial bombardment.

        There were no IDF reinforcements to speak of.

        The firefight had lasted 5-7 bitter hours, and the IDF lost 8 killed and 27 wounded while inflicting about 20 dead on the defenders, but the IDF had gained a foothold within the town by the end of the day.

        That was more like a fingernail hold. Israel were only able to hodl their positions there for 24 hours before being driven back. The IDF neve secured the town, unless yo regard indiscriminant aerial bmobaredment (while greounds troops wihdrew) as securing it.

        Up until the end of July the IDF made no attempt to occupy territory for more than raiding purposes.

        Correction. The IDF were not able to occupy territory for more than raiding purposes becauser they wee simply unable to hold it. As Robert Fisk reporte in the aftermath of the war, what was supposed to be an IDF mop up operation turned out to be a Hezbllah mop up operation.

        The launch of this operation at this time, defied all common sense and logic. UNSC Resolution 1701 had just passed marking the cease-fire to be implemented on the 14th. What could possibly have been accomplished until then?

        Good question. Knowing they were defeated and humiliated, Israel responded with a spiteful aerial blitz to cover the South with cluster bombs.

        As Yaakov Katz of the Jerusalem Post wrote:

        Under the command of Col. Moti Kidor, then commander of Brigade 401, the Merkava tanks had been waiting for the push to the Litani for close to a week.

        Correction. The Merkava tanks had been waiting for teh coast to be cleard for close to a week, havign witnessed over 20 Merkava’s turned into smouldering wrecks. As your link admits, teh tabnks nly began rolling but never corssed the Litani, even though the IDF had been promising this symbolic event for weeks. Hezbollah didn’t need the time to make preparations. As your link admits, Hezbollah had spent six years fortifying virtually every major population center south of the Litani into a major stronghold. They had anicipated this strategy from Israel and were prepared. As the report admits, the the only passage West was through the Saluki, so Israel were proceeding into an obviosu trap.

        The battle of the Saluki is a microcosm of possibly all of the mishaps that occurred during the war.

        No Robert, the battle of the Saluki is a microcosm of the 2006 war.

        War must never be waged on a string of improvised half measures. It must be waged swiftly, decisively, forcefully, and with a strategy apparent to all from the Brigadier down to the buck private.

        Very true, but the IDF had been weakend by the occuaption. There is a saying in war that when one fights a weak opponent, one becomes weak.

        Yet these Israeli deficiencies, bad as they were, do not in any way vindicate Hezbollah.

        Of course they did, how coudl Israel’s failure not vindicate Hezbollah? Wars are decided by which side cracks and makes the mistakes. Which side has a coherent strategy. Hezbollah did not make mistakes and it had a very discipline and coherent strategy.

        But they showed no ability to conduct the kind of mobile defense that would have enabled them to fight a long, protracted battle and avoid heavy casualties.

        Oh conriare Mr Werdione, that is exactly what Hezbollah did demonstrate. Hezbollah were preapred for a long and protacted battle and incured very few heavy casualties.

        Those that remains at Shaked, at Maroun al-Ras, and Bint J’Bail all stood their ground and achieved their purpose. They were not all killed, otehrwise Israel would not have been forced to retreat.

        The platoon sized Hezbollah counterattacks on hill 951 at Maroun al-Ras, and on hill 850 at Bint J’Bail were both made with main and secondary attacks supplemented with ATGM fire, but both were beaten back, albeit after several hours of heavy fighting.

        False. As I explained, it was Israel that withdrew, not Hezbollah.

        Having no defense in depth from which to counter-concentrate and regroup, their cadres simply fought in place until overwhelmed, and their counterattacks floundered and squandered lives to no effect or benefit.

        On the contrary. Israeli troops that were returing in tears (those thathadn’t gone AWOL), spoke of he ferocity with which the Hezbollah fighters fought. I recal a report by Avnery (at least I think it was Avnery) that expained one of the reasons for Israel’s humiating defeat. That the difference between IDF and Hezbollah fighters was that Hezbollah fighers were not afaid to die while the IDF troops were not prepared to die for their government or their country.

        Hezbollah’s marksmanship was cosidered outstanding and exceeeded Israel’s manic and indiscriminate firing and bmobardment.

        Edward Luttwak’s piece is beyind pathetic.

        He comopains that the Hezbollah fighters didn’t stand unflinchingly against advancing 50-ton Israeli tanks, but he leaves out one very important disinction. Egypt were defeated, while Hezbollah was victorious.

        The IDF, in the course of its meandering and unfocused campaign, hit Hezbollah not where they were weakest, but where they were strongest.

        That is unavoidable for the simple fact that the IDF is always going to be fighing on Hezbollah’s territory and therefore on Hezbollah’s terms.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        November 7, 2011, 12:05 am

        Well done, Shingo.

        Here are two more items worth mentioning. Prior to the war, Israel had been planning on making major sales of its “indestructable” Merkava tank to some NATO countries. Things looked bad for those sales immediately when, in pursuit of the Hezbollah fighters who had captured the two Israelis, the IDF sent one of those tanks across the border at which point it came in contact with an anti-take mine that had been planted by Hezbollah for such a moment and it blew the tank and the soldiers within it to, as they used to say, “kingdom come.”

        The Merkavas were exposed by Hezbollah fighters as something less than indestructible time and again and I don’t recall reading any reports of sales of the overrated mechanical Israeli beast in the months following the war.

        On a sadder note, in 2007, I visited what is left of Khiam prison, a torture and interrogation center in Southern Lebanon. There the Israeli sadists had kept their prisoners during the years of occupation in what appeared to be dog cages in which those stuffed within them were unable to stand or even lie down. http://electronicintifada.net/content/photostory-khiam-detention-camp/9479

        To borrow a phrase from Sinclair Lewis’s 1935 novel, “It Can’t Happen Here,” (worth reading today!), “Forgive them not, Lord, for they know what in they do!” That applies to Israel, across the board.

  16. MRW
    November 7, 2011, 8:43 am

    Well done, both Shingo and Jeffrey Blankfort.

Leave a Reply