AUTHOR: Redaspie DATE: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 ----- BODY:

Today, Israel has begun the biggest ground offensive of its current war on Lebanon, and according to Channel 4 News, thousands of troops are massing on the border between the two countries. It appears that Israel is playing a long game here, so instead of a sudden escalation of the conflict via a full-scale ground invasion, there is this gradual expansion of the ground offensive. Some posters over at Lenin's Tomb have suggested that control of the waters of the Litani River is an objective. This is quite likely, and news reports have in fact suggested that the current offensive may go that far into Lebanon - which would be a giveaway really. It is also very probable that Israel really would like to neutralise Hezbollah, for obvious reasons. However, the objectives of Israel go much further than that.

Uri Avnery argued in a recent article, which I commented favourably on, that it was a long-standing aim of Israel to control Lebanese politics. He seems to have abandoned this position in his latest article, and seems now to accept the mainstream view that this is only about Hezbollah. I am going by the first conclusion that he came to - that Israel wants a client regime in Lebanon, although whether that is their current aim can be debated. It has also been argued in this article that the war is in part being driven by the demands of the military, who want to use their awesome arsenal in a 'real' war rather than against stone-throwing youths in the Gaza Strip. It is also suggested elsewhere that there is a partnership between Israel and the US to reorder the region. There are certainly real signs that the US may be very interested in Israel attacking Syria, and even Iran.

All of this is quite plausible. However, it's important to remember that political elites are not 'billiard-ball' entities, and there is constant faction-fighting amongst their ranks. In the US, for instance, the so-called 'neo-cons', a term that I have immense problems with, have now 'fallen in love' with the Bush administration again. Clearly, this crisis feeds directly into their agenda, in which the reordering of the Middle East into client states is undoubtedly a part. A war with Syria and Iran would undoubtedly be attractive to them. However, that does not in itself mean that this idea is necessarily shared by the majority in the US adminstration's top echelons, or indeed by Bush himself. Also, although undoubtedly, there will be some in Israel are pushing for such a wide policy to be adopted, whether Olmert and his cronies are genuinely interested in pursuing such a direction at this particular point in time is unclear. This is particularly so in the face of the fact that Hezbollah remains alive and kicking, and Israel has demonstrably failed to destroy its fighting ability - earlier waffle from Israel about having destroyed 50% of Hezbollah's arsenal is clearly guff. Therefore, whatever goals Israel may have had at the start could very well have been scaled back.

However, there is another danger. Avnery makes the very worthwhile point in his latest article that war can carry its own momentum, and Israel could end up at war with Syria even without intending to. Certainly, Pappe's warning about the power and ambition of Israel's military appears to be backed up by this. Pressure from the military elites, therefore, could result in Olmert being pushed much further than he might personally like. Personally I doubt that the Israeli government actually wants a war with Syria - even taking in the likelihood that they are likely to win such a war militarily, politically it's difficult to see how Israel could gain from it. I doubt that they believe that such a war would actually result in the toppling of the Baathists, whatever delusions the maniacs in Washington are labouring under. But miscalculations can happen so easily.

Finally, there is the interesting matter of the rival peace plans being proposed at this moment in time. While Blair and Bush are backing one that centres on the dismantling of Hezbollah under the auspices of an international force and the Lebanese army. France is trying to get an alternative plan put on the agenda, involving an immediate cessation of fighting. It should be noted that France condemned the Israeli response as disproportionate from the start. Some may be tempted to see the French government as a well-meaning party here, but please don't be fooled. They were heavily involved, alongside the US, in supporting the coup in Haiti that deposed Aristide. They are simply cocking a snook at the US in order to safeguard French credibility and influence internationally.

Of course, while engaging in all this fascinating political analysis, it is very important not to lose sight of the most important aspect of this conflict:

-------- COMMENT-AUTHOR: David Baldinger COMMENT-DATE:5:57 AM COMMENT-BODY:Hey. Thanks for the comment on my blog. You have some interesting insights and opinions here. If you are interested in connecting a bit more go to the "contact" page on my website and send me a message. I'll be able to email then.
http://www.dbaldinger.com -------- COMMENT-AUTHOR: Ed COMMENT-DATE:1:04 PM COMMENT-BODY:You've got two comments now!

I think you're right. One of the biggest dangers at the moment is this mooted international 'peacekeeping' force. We all know the Israelis want one to occupy Lebanon for it once they've pulled out. I've seen nothing critical about the idea in the Mainstream media - you often hear a peacekeeping force talked abnout in the same breath as immediate ceasefire, as if the media think that an occupying force would be a neutral party and an unqualified good thing. -------- COMMENT-AUTHOR: Redaspie COMMENT-DATE:2:59 PM COMMENT-BODY:Indeed. This much I would say is obvious. However what I think does need to be pointed out at this stage is that the deployment of a peacekeeping force in the way that has been agreed at the UN would be a defeat for the US and Israel none the less. I understand that France's resolution essentially won the day at the UN, and the US had to back down. In broader terms, the effects of Israel's offensive - from the radicalisation of the Lebanese to further undermining of Tony Blair - are all negative from the point of view of the imperialists. This surely undermines any hopes that they may have had of using this crisis to 'take out' Syria and Iran. -------- COMMENT-AUTHOR: Anonymous COMMENT-DATE:1:27 AM COMMENT-BODY:Wonderful and informative web site. I used information from that site its great. » » » -------- COMMENT-AUTHOR: Anonymous COMMENT-DATE:1:52 AM COMMENT-BODY:I have been looking for sites like this for a long time. Thank you! » » » --------