Society Issues Talk

VTR · Guest

16 juli 2008

The facts behind the fiction of the Lebanon war of 2006
By Daan de Wit
Translation by Ben Kearney

Today two dead Israeli soldiers have been returned to Israel by Hezbollah who kidnapped them
before the Lebanon war. Their kidnapping was the official reason for the war, but was it also
the factual reason?

On July 12th 2006, Israel invaded Lebanon. The official casus belli were the killings of three
members of the Israeli Army by Hezbollah in Israel and the capture of two others. In actuality
Israel prepared for the war in advance and waited for the opportunity to present itself in
order to justify an attack. Motives such as these keep coming up for both sides in the border
area between the two countries. Critic Noam Chomsky recounts a few of the incidents: 'IDF
kidnapping of civilians on June 24, Hamas capture of a soldier the next day, then the huge
U.S.-Israeli escalation of attacks on Gaza... then the kidnapping of soldiers by Hezbollah,
then the U.S.-Israeli destruction of most of Lebanon, justified by the pretense of outrage over
kidnapping, which – to repeat – is demonstrated, conclusively, to be cynical fraud'. While the
war was still going on, Israel changed the code name by which military operations were being
carried out from Operation Just Cause to Operation Change of Direction.

In March of 2007 Israeli Prime Minister Olmert admitted to the Winograd Commission that
approximately three months before the Lebanon War he gave his permission for the operation by
accepting a plan from his then-chief of staff Dan Halutz. Shortly after the kidnapping and in
the midst of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah, Halutz sold off his shares, and in so
doing avoided the losses that occurred when the market fell by ten percent as a result of the
war that followed. Olmert made his admission to the commission in order to demonstrate that the
dramatic loss of the war was not due to ill preparedness .

In reality, the Lebanon War was even better planned than Prime Minister Olmert would admit to
the commission. In January of 2006, four days after succeeding a comatose Ariel Sharon, Olmert
held an initial conversation on a war against Lebanon. But it might be correct to look back
even further. The war was 'in a sense' already being planned back in 2000, right after Israel
withdrew troops from Lebanon after being there for 18 years, says Professor Gerald Steinberg of
Israel's Bar-Ilan University. According to Steinberg, a war of about three weeks had been
devised by 2004, after which it was simulated and rehearsed. The actual Lebanon War ended up
lasting 34 days, resulting in 159 deaths on the Israeli side and 1125 deaths on the Lebanese
side, of which hundreds were children. America was made aware of Israeli plans to attack
Lebanon. American and other diplomats, journalists and thinktanks were notified approximately
one year prior to the war with the help of a PowerPoint presentation, given by a senior Israeli
army officer, writes the San Fransisco Chronicle. The meetings in which the plans for war were
discussed in detail were held off the record and on the condition that the identity of the
officer be kept secret.
After the war questions arise whether British Prime Minister Tony Blair was aware of Israeli
plans and whether he might not have attempted more in order to avoid bloodshed. Journalist John
Kampfner writes under the headline Blood on his hands: 'I am told that the Israelis informed
George W. Bush in advance of their plans to 'destroy' Hezbollah by bombing villages in southern
Lebanon. The Americans duly informed the British. So Blair knew'.
Kampfner's information is confirmed by an anonymous source from the English Daily Mail which
was quoted in August of 2006 and said that Tony Blair was informed of developments concerning
Lebanon by the U.S. At the same time the newspaper quotes another source, this one by first and
last name - John Pike, director of Global Security: 'Has the U.S. given Israel a green light to
attack Hezbollah and push its troops into southern Lebanon? Yes, of course it has'. According
to Pike there is an agreement between Israel and the U.S. that Iranian nuclear plants would
eventually have to be bombed - 'probably next year' - to stop the development of a nuclear
weapon. Pike feels that once that happens, Iran will order Hezbollah to attack Israel. To him
this explains the attack on Lebanon in July of 2006. Pike believes that there was a secret
agreement between the U.S. and Israel that at some point before the attack on the Iranian
nuclear facilities, Hezbollah had to be disarmed and that as soon as a pretext became
available, Israel should use force. Just as in the case of Iran, Israeli interests run parallel
to those of the United States.
This also appears to be the case in a 2003 report from the reputable Jane's Intelligence Digest
that the U.S. was weighing an attack on Hezbollah. And in 2008 a plan was revealed that was not
only considered, but was also approved and carried out. Approved by President Bush and realized
by his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice - a plan to arm the Palestinian party Fatah. The
goal was to provoke a Palestinian civil war in which the democratically elected Hamas would be
toppled. The result was the complete control of Hamas over the Gaza Strip.

The armies of both Israel and Hezbollah were criticized in a report by Human Rights Watch for
intentionally killing civilians. During the fighting, Israel dropped up to a million cluster
bombs, probably acquired from the world's biggest producer of this type of explosive, as well
as the one that provides Israel with billions of dollars in military aid - the United States.
'We already had a major landmine problem from previous Israeli invasions, but this is far
worse', says Chris Clark of the UN Mine Action Coordination Center, standing before a map
filled with flags indicating bomb sites. Cluster bombs were first used by the Nazis and are
permitted under international law. In January of 2008 the United States resists proposals for
stricter laws relating to cluster bombs and said that the explosives aren't bad as long as they
are used responsibly. In June Defense Secretary Robert Gates states that by 2018 the military
will no longer use cluster weapons with a failure rate greater than 1 percent. In the interim
period the US will deplete its existing stockpiles of cluster munitions with a greater than 1
percent dud rate by exporting them to foreign governments that agree not to use them starting
in 2018.

In the bombing of Lebanon, Israel may have made use - as it has done for decades - of American
intelligence. In the area of psychological warfare, upwards of 700,000 automated voice mails
were delivered to Lebanese citizens in and around the time of the war, and 17 million leaflets
were dropped above Lebanon during 47 missions, some of which for example depicted Hezbollah
leader Hassan Nasrallah as a snake or a scorpion. Israel also interrupted a Hezbollah TV
channel in order to show a dead Hezbollah fighter, accompanied by the message that there will
be many more such bodies to come. After the war was over, the Beirut advertising agency Idea
Creation launched a $100,000 ad campaign at Hezbollah's behest called Divine Victory,
delivering the message of a military victory over Israel .

A Middle East expert familiar with the mindset of both the Israeli and American governments
says in August of 2006 to journalist Seymour Hersh that the White House had several reasons for
supporting the Israeli attack. The most important was Iran. Another source, the neoconservative
Middle East expert Meyrav Wurmser, confims this by saying that the main argument by the White
House for supporting Israel was that the war 'would damage and weaken Hezbollah so that it
would pose less of a threat to Israel in the event of an attack on Iran'. Wurmser is employed
by the conservative thinktank Hudson Institute and is the wife of David Wurmser, who up until
mid-2007 was the Middle East advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney. According to Meyrav Wurmser
some of her colleagues are unhappy over what Israel did: 'The thought in America was that
Israel should fight against the real enemy, the one backing Hizbullah. It was obvious that it
is impossible to fight directly against Iran , but the thought was that its strategic and
important ally Syria should be hit. [...] The neocons are responsible for the fact that Israel
got a lot of time and space [for the execution of the war]'. Wurmser feels that an attack on
Syria would have been a harsh blow to Iran. The great dissatisfaction in the White House -
Wurmser even calls it 'anger' at Israel - over the loss of the war is focused on the fact that
Israel didn't take the fight to Syria. On 6 September 2007 Israël attacked Syria: Operation
Orchard.

http://www.deepjournal.com/p/2/a/en/1628.html