User:International/The Israeli trap

The Israeli trap? {{editorial}} The analysts quickly lost themselves in conjectures about the catastrophic extent of the sudden Israeli attack in Lebanon, in reprisals so that the Prime Minister Ehud Olmert qualified "acte of war", the removal of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah. Some saw there a plot of néocons (William Kristoll it immediately did not exclaim besides: "It is our war" in an article of Weekly Standard). The plan of "a three week old war" would have been revealed one year ago by an Israeli senior officer in front of several Think Tanks in Washington and the Israeli attack would have been planned at the time of a secret meeting, June the 17 and 18 during the Conference of American Enterprise Institute de Beaver Creek in Colorado, between the American Vice-president Dick Cheney and the Israeli leader of Likoud, Benjamin Netanyahou. At the time of this meeting the American would have given to the Israeli his green light to destroy on the first occasion Hamas and Hezbollah and Netanyahou would have reflected the American agreement with the Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, and with the Israeli army. The fact that neither Ehud Olmert, nor its Minister for Defense are former military veterans would have reinforced the political weight of the Israeli army to force an immediate decision after the removal of the Israeli soldiers. The plan of attack would also have been studied in conjunction with Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon to allow immediate restockings of the Israeli army out of weapons and bombs of high precision guided by laser. That the Israeli army follows a plan carefully predetermined appears obvious. This is not, moreover, the permanent work of the soldiers to prepare plans of war answering all the possible scenarios. The plan carried out by the Israeli air forces, with the methodical and systematic destruction of the Lebanese infrastructures and the terrestrial, maritime and air blockade to the country, testifies however to a systemic choice to targets and objectives to war without inevitably direct relationship with Hezbollah. The plan aims initially the destruction of the Lebanese State as such and besides Ehud Olmert confirmed it itself at the first hours of the Israeli attack: "I want that it is clear that the events of this morning are not an act of terror but the act of a sovereign state which attacked Israel without reason". Is it necessary to see in this plan a consent of impotence to fight Hezbollah directly that Israel did not succeed in disarming in 18 years of occupation of South-Lebanon and an indirect strategy, inevitably registered in medium term, of rupture of the capacities of Hezbollah by destruction of its logistics and peripheral communication? Is necessary it to see in this plan a "pentagonesque" drift of the Israeli army whose doctrines would be, it also, invaded by the influence of the American concept of "schock & awe": large-scale use of aviation and the weapons and bombs of high precision to carry the decision as much by destroying power that by psychological terror? The consequences of such a plan are in any case terrible for Lebanon, and indirectly for Israel, as well it is obvious as its effectiveness can only very quickly be degraded by the insupportable consequences of the collateral damage, misidentifyings of targets... assembled multiplication of the civil victims... criticisms international... And less than two weeks after the beginning of the offensive, the Israeli army seems already undecided, dubious besides, in front of what it would already be necessary to call its failure, the insufficiency of the air operation to only reduce the forces and capacities of Hezbollah and the fast rise of the calls to the cease-fire of the international diplomacy whereas rockets and missiles of Hezbollah rain each day on the Israeli city of Haïfa. The timid mobilization of a few thousands of reservists and the hesitant accumulation of terrestrial forces at the border of South-Lebanon badly hide the will to avoid the stagnation and the risks of a terrestrial invasion having already failed in the past. Besides Tsahal seems more to seek to force the population of South-Lebanon to give up her grounds to take refuge more in North that to precipitate from the point of view of a war of long-term resistance to the image for the fact that it occurs each day to Iraq (what was probably the trap tended by Hezbollah). South-Lebanon would then leave place with vast No-man' s-Land where could spread an international force putting Israel out of carried of an Hezbollah enraciné within the Lebanese civil population. Is it then necessary to see in the Israeli plan of attack, a trap, a will deliberated to force the international community D-to intervene in completely destroyed Lebanon and to militarily occupy South-Lebanon for, finally, fighting and forcing with the disarmament of Hezbollah and to prevent the terrorist risk that Israel could not have avoided in the event of montéedes tensions with Iran? Only George W. Bush, then, would not have included/understood! Trapped by a camera and a microphone of television at the time of the top of G8 with Saint Petersbourg, it went back from there completely in Condoleeza Rice, "It will go there, I believe that Condi will go there rather quickly", and gave to the crisis an explanation for him limpid, "what they must do, it is to lead Syria to make so that Hezbollah ceases sowing the shit, and it will be finished". Condoleeza Rice, it, included/understood perfectly and went there. It already declared that the United States was opened with the new Israeli proposal (this is a coincidence) of Ehud Olmert and its Minister for Defense affirming now that Israel wishes that an international force occupy South-Lebanon and disarms Hezbollah. The United States and Israel even already let hear that this force, 10.000 to 20.000 men, could be made up French soldiers and Turkish, the United States not being able to intervene bus too being in addition engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. And John Bolton, ambassador of the United States with UNO, even declared that the Bush administration would support the idea of an international force "perhaps authorized by the Security Council but not carrying the helmet of UNO", adding to the evocation of a possible supervision of NATO "it is a new idea to be taken very in serious" the Condoleeza Rice comes as for it to describe the torments of Lebanon like "the pains of birth of the new Middle East", adding "it is the Average different East. It is the new Middle East. It is hard, we pass by times violent one very ". "the new" Middle East however supposes a prior political agreement and no international force will be able to succeed without prior political agreement.

Jean-Philippe Miginiac "Le piège israélien ?". La nouvelle république, July 31, 2006