Unfortunately, Israel's government, in announcing that it is giving up the blockade of Lebanon to uncertain (to say the least) UN promises to stop the further importation of Hizbullah weaponry (see two Debka reports, below), continues to show an incredible flexibility in the face of its principles that can easily be confused with spinelessness and indecision, but more importantly hurts Israel in ways that were not conceivable several months ago, namely:
--it reinforces Arab opinion that not only has Israel's military been degraded in capability, as demonstrated by its ineffectiveness in Lebanon (more a crisis of leadership and training that will undoubtably be fixed), but that Israel also lacks any political will and moral strength to stand by its demands and core values -- in this case, the release of Israeli soldiers whose abduction started this war. All of this, of course, leads to a marked deterioration in Israel's deterrence capability, as I have written about before on this blog; and
--more importantly, and I don't see any Western or Israeli commentators discussing this, is the impact on Western (especially US) confidence in Israel's ability and determination to do what it says it is going to do and to achieve its objectives. Why is this important? Israel relies upon US support for its very survival today, particularly the confidence and support of George Bush and the Christian right. The US is under enormous pressure from our European allies to throw Israel over the side of the boat at every turn (anyone who has read the "private" views, as well as public declarations, of European policymakers and looked at their changing national demographics will not doubt this statement). While the history of statements and fatwas by Islamo-Fascist leaders of both the Sunni and Shiite pursuasion would convincingly argue that Israel is merely one irritant in the clash of cultures between the West and the Islamic world, and not its root cause, it is all too easy for our Arab moderate friends and Europeans alike to focus on Israel rather than face the broader problem of the ugly truth of anti-Christian, anti-Western dimentia that holds sway among broad swaths of the Muslim world that has little to do with Israel.
Here is the problem: President Bush faces a fateful appointment with destiny over the next year as to how to deal with Iran's nuclear arms program if diplomacy doesn't work (see my recent peace on this blog, on September 3rd, "Global Predictions, Part 2"). The pressure to do nothing and learn to live with Iranian nukes, hoping that democracy and cooler heads ultimately overtakes the Iranian revolution, is going to be great. President Bush knows that Israel's survival, and the stability of the Middle East and our oil supplies, is at stake. However, if he has any doubt in Israel's ability to be an effective and dependable ally militarily in that conflict, both from a capabilities and determination viewpoint, he has got to rethink how he will confront the Iranian nuclear threat.
However, there is not only an Israeli cooperative element to influencing US policy, per the above, but a coercive one as well, where President Bush's arm can be twisted by the belief in Israel's intent to independently and unilaterally adhere to its historical model of defending itself and attacking disproportionately, come hell or high water, regardless of popular opinion in the UN. If the Iranian's miscalculate (or correctly calculate) Western and Islamic world response, and detonate a small nuclear device in Haifa harbor, or if Hizbullah missiles armed with sarin gas hit Tel Aviv, is Israel willing to unleash WW III in the Mideast, attack Iran and Syria with missiles armed either conventionally or with who-knows-what, and seek to take out its leaders, or does it simply hit Hizbullah strongholds in Lebanon and go wimpering to the UN like the historical Jewish victim crying for peace? If a weakened President Bush and other Western leaders believe that the Olmert government (if still in power) is capable of the former, strong, possibly reckless, traditional Israeli response borne of its roots in the Holocaust, then the odds of the US itself taking a more vigorous approach to Iranian nukes is more likely, in order to avoid the Middle East's (and the world's oil supply) being plunged into darkness by Israel's response. On the other hand, if Israel took the latter course and acted like it did during the Lebanese conflict, indecisive and incrementralist, relying upon an after-the-fact, undoubtably ineffective multilateralist solution to assure its own security, President Bush would have to be less likely to take on the Iranians because the alternative would be more palatable.
Israel's conduct of the war in Lebanon throws into doubt future Israeli action, and could lead to dangerous miscalculations by all concerned. Because of this, ironically, global stability in the coming days of fateful decisions over Iran, may best be served by the election in Israel of a "predicatable" right-wing government.
* * * * * * *
DEBKAfile: Israel lifts its air, sea and land embargo of Lebanon Thursday. Olmert reneges on his war commitments and responsiblity for kidnapped soldiers
"September 6, 2006, 10:53 PM (GMT+02:00)
The embargo which was in any case fading will be lifted at 1500 GMT Thursday, 7 Sept. 7. Prime minister Ehud Olmert and defense minister Amir Peretz folded under intense pressure from UN Secretary General Kofi Annan without the UN, Lebanon or Hizballah meeting any of Israel’s six conditions for ending the embargo (and accepting the August ceasefire):
1. No sign of life was elicited from Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, whose abduction by Hizballah July 11, triggered the Lebanon war – or even a Red Cross visit. This has left a bad feeling in the army over the fate of men falling into enemy hands.
2. Hizballah will not be evacuated from South Lebanon or disarmed.
3. The deployment of UNIFIL-2 and its European components in South Lebanon is being used by Olmert and foreign minister Tzipi Livni as a ploy to pull Israel’s troops out of Lebanon without achieving any of their avowed goals.
4. The prime minister’s office in Jerusalem Wednesday night, Sept. 6, cited the UN and US as assuring Israel that UN forces are prepared to begin executing their mission. No mission description was attached to the notice, because the European contingents have made it abundantly clear that they have no intention of disarming Hizballah.
5. Neither are the “peacekeepers” lifting a finger to halt Iranian and Syrian weapons consignments to Hizballah. Indeed the flow of arms has increased since their arrival, making a mockery of UN Resolution 1701 which ordered an embargo on such arms at the same time as it mandated their deployment.
DEBKAfile’s military sources report that the smuggled arms supplies to Hizballah, far from halting have been stepped up. Iran and Hizballah are further pumping arms into the Gaza Strip. This week alone, Palestinian terrorists took delivery of 400 RPG anti-tank rockets and 15 Grad missiles.
Egyptian border forces and European monitors posted at the Rafah terminal provided no bar to the traffic.
Given the missed goals of Israel’s venture into the Lebanon war, it is no wonder that Binyamin Ben Eliezer, minister of infrastructure in the Olmert cabinet and a former defense minister, said bluntly Wednesday Sept. 6 that this was Israel’s worst defeat in all the wars it fought. Domestic criticism of the government spreads day by day as the bizarre, muddled and incomprehensible nature of the prime minister’s war decisions continues to mark his actions three weeks later."
DebkaFile report #2: German Chancellor’s office contradicts Israeli government claim that German naval forces are ready to secure the Lebanese coast under UN flag
September 7, 2006, 10:56 AM (GMT+02:00)
London similarly denied that British naval units would take part in monitoring Lebanese shores against arms smuggling.
DEBKAfile adds: Confusing preconditions and delays by the Lebanese government are holding up the German deployment. Berlin has offered to lead the UNIFIL naval component securing the Lebanese coast but the Siniora government under Hizballah pressure only agrees to its deployment seven miles offshore and therefore unable to search for arms smugglers. Beirut is also holding back its formal application for this force to the UN and the German government – claiming to be waiting for the Israeli embargo to be lifted. The Olmert government agreed to end the embargo Thursday claiming UN assurances that international monitors were ready to take over embargo missions. This is far from the case and the lifting of the embargo was therefore opposed by the Israeli military.
Germany insists on a clear request from Beirut, coupled with a robust mandate from the United Nations, to prevent sea-based arms smuggling mainly from Syria to Hezbollah militants, before submitting the request to parliamentary approval.
Berlin is reportedly prepared to allocate up to 3,000 sea and air troops and some 13 vessels to the task. Even then, two weeks would be needed to bring them to the Middle East.
Merkel, in an address to the Bundestag, indicated that the German forces' main task would be monitoring the sea exits. She would wait for several days before taking a final decision on their deployment. She stressed that the national forces must not be put "in confusing conditions or at risks. German troops, the Chancellor said, should not be engaged in combat missions "or open fire at the Israelis."
German experts are due in Lebanon by the end of this week to arrange logistics with the Lebanese army, but the defense ministry in Berlin stated they are not an advance contingent to prepare for the main mission.
No comments:
Post a Comment