In Lebanon, IDF plans a ‘ferocious land grab’
Ambitions for Eretz Israel are apparently still being expressed as a matter of military planning and policy. Check out this revealing quote from the IDF’s deputy chief of staff from the new preface to Norman Finkelstein’s book, This Time We Went Too Far (I’ve embedded the DefenseNews link to the article and bold emphasis is mine):
On the same day as the [Turkish] flotilla bloodbath, DefenseNews was reporting that a prospective Israeli assault on Lebanon “would include attacks on national infrastructure, a total maritime blockade, and interdiction strikes on bridges, highways,” while “land forces would execute a ferocious land grab well beyond the Litani River.” The essence of Israeli strategic doctrine, the IDF deputy chief of staff elaborated, was that “each new round” of fighting “brings worse results than the last” to Israel’s enemies.
It’s cited by Charles Glass in Not Another War on Lebanon over at TakiMag which is worth reading. As the hafrada regime and rogue state ratchets up the war drums against Iran and pressures the US Congress to withhold military assistance to Lebanon in the wake of the border skirmish — amid its large litany of crimes in Palestine and elsewhere — does anyone reasonable out there still think it isn’t deliberately pursuing mad dog policies? While Israeli designs on southern Lebanon and the Litani have long been known, I haven’t seen a clearer current expression of the IOF openly admitting it plans a “ferocious land grab” in the event of war — even while hasbaranik reporters frame Hezbollah’s land purchases as “land grabs”. Projection, much?
Addendum: Richard Silverstein reports the following:
Israel has decided to rattle sabers after losing one of its senior officers in the tree-trimming incident on the Lebanese border. In a story that was removed from the IDF website, it published an article about the maneuvers, reporting that the army is engaged in a major exercise all the way from the central Beit Shean region to the far north, with troops and armor rolling down Highway 71.
Haaretz is also reporting a related escalation by Israel regarding armored vehicles sent to Shebaa Farms, one of the most highly disputed pieces of territory outside Jerusalem. The Lebanese army was placed on high alert as a result.
The land-grab policies have always been there. The absolute, unqualified support of Israel’s Western allies has emboldened the Israeli politicians and spokespersons into openly admitting what the Lebanese citizens of the coveted territory have always known. Will the world’s citizens stand by and watch the pre-meditated plundering play out?
This raises a question — is there a respectable difference between this worsening returns idea and outright conquest? Is there ever a point at which this moral system asks something of its own people, or is every onus to be transferred one way or another to outsiders?
On April 18, 2010 – I posted an article, titled US Embassy in Lebanon: an Israeli Espionage Network. Now, according to Israeli daily YNet (August 27, 2010) that Frederick Hof, a senior adviser to US special envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell, has threatened Lebanese Army Christian commander Jean Kahwajim that should his soldiers kill another Israeli Lt. Col. Dov Harari in a border clash – Israel Occupation Force (IOF) would annihiliate Lebanese army to its last soldier within four hours.
During 34-day Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Lebanese army did not take part for two reasons; first Lebanon doesn’t have a regular army but security force, second Lebanese government knew that Hizbullah fighters can defeat the IOF soldiers – which they did.
In August 2006, an American Christian writer and women right activist, Joanna Francis, posted on her blog; Hezbollah 2, Israel 0:
“Make no mistake about it – the Israelis are getting their tails kicked in Lebanon! Just like they did in May 2000, when Hezbollah sent them scurrying back across the border with their tails between their legs. The Israelis never forgot that stinging defeat and have now demanded a rematch with Hezbollah. And much to their surprise, Israel has already managed to lose the rematch too. Considering the disparity in numbers and weaponry between Israel and Hezbollah, Israel should have achieved a decisive victory by now. But they haven’t. And it doesn’t help their case any that they have had to resort to bombing the entire country, killing women and children, to try to save face. It only makes them look more pathetic. They will never be able to swagger quite so arrogantly again, or instill fear in the groveling leaders of their neighboring countries in quite the same way. The Israelis have been outfoxed at every turn by an irregular army using prehistoric weaponry, with little to no support from neighboring countries (the leaders, that is), but who have proven themselves to be unwavering in their determination. Hezbollah are fighting against the best weaponry American money can buy. And they are winning….”
George Mitchell has recommended to Ben Obama that the United States should no longer pursue a direct confrontation strategy with the Hezbollah, which enjoys majority support among the population, but should seek to isolate it instead. In other words, Washington should pretend to interpret an Israeli war against Lebanon as a police operation against the Hezbollah and refrain from intervening openly. Washington’s new ambassador to Lebanon, Maura Connelly, has been assigned with that job. Saudi King Abdullah has set-aside US$500 million to run a covert operation against Hizbullah.
On his part, de facto President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas sent a message to the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon asking them not to leave their camps during the offensive slated for this autumn. These instructions correspond to the points of consensus prevailing in Washington. Any attempt to use the Palestinians (mainly sunni) against the Hezbollah (mainly shiite) would be counterproductive for the interests of the United States in Lebanon and could spawn negative effects throughout the region.
In Washington, two powerful Jewish think tanks, Saban Center (Brookings) and Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) published opposing views in July 2010. According to the first one, Israel should be given complete leeway. The second report recommends, instead, that the Obama Administration should exert pressure on Netanyahu before, during and after the conflict with a view to containing it.
Back in United State, George Mitchell, tried to counter low expectations for renewed Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations by harking back to his experience as a mediator in Northern Ireland.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/08/31/israel-in-2006-we-played-nice-guys/