Friday, August 11, 2006
Arabs in "can use computers" shock. posted by Richard Seymour
Classic bit of effrontery from Conal Urqhart in The Guardian today:Israeli forces have been astonished at the discovery of networks of bunkers and computerised weapons in Hizbullah positions, according to officials.
Troops have found air-conditioned bunkers 40 metres (125ft) below the ground and anti-tank weapons that originate in France, the US and Russia in southern Lebanon.
Many of the tactics and weapons employed by Hizbullah have neutralised Israel's military superiority and made a complete victory difficult to achieve.
Ironically, this report corroborates what Jonathan Cook has been saying: that Hezbollah's strategy is to take out Israel's military installations. For instance, it goes on:
The first major shock was when Hizbullah narrowly missed sinking an Israeli destroyer with a Chinese shore-to-sea missile. Four were killed in the attack.
"There were some weapons we did not know about," said General Ido Nehushtan. "There were others such as the unmanned aerial vehicles which we had detected before."
The revelations have increased since Israeli ground forces invaded southern Lebanon. "The main threat is the use of sophisticated anti-tank weapons against our armoured vehicles. One of the most effective is the Kornet which was supplied by Russia to Iran and then to Hizbullah," said Lieutenant Colonel Olivier Rafowicz.
Their tanks are being hit hard as they try to advance in the south, some of them destroyed, causing an Israeli retreat. The only place the IDF can march in Lebanon unmolested is the Lebanese army barracks. (Does anyone still need to ask why the Israelis want the Lebanese army deployed in the south?) Because of this "Gen Nehushtan said: 'We have to recognise that we will be dealing with new definitions of victory. There will be no white flags being raised on this battlefield'." The new definition of victory now appears to be working with Siniora to get an "international force" in there alongside Israeli forces that may eventually withdraw if the Imperial Mission Force can handle the task alone.
Of course, the Israelis are now trying to persuade the world that it is a matter of weaponry, as if they themselves are not one of the best equipped armies in the world. As if they are not immensely superior in terms of troops, tanks, missiles, nukes, aircraft etc. They are also patently lying when they claim their ship wasn't hit.
Commentators in the Israeli press are starting to place their hopes in 'the international community'. Bradley Burston writes for Haaretz that "On paper, Hezbollah couldn't lose" - as if - but since "the world is scared of Hezbollah", an international force might really really disarm Hezbollah and then they'll have to answer to fellow Arabs for their actions, and then they'll look silly. Burston is floating out beyond the crystalline spheres, in another cosmos. The idea that most Arabs are doing anything but applauding Hezbollah is feverish fantasy. As Zaid Al-Ali reports, support for Hezbollah across the Middle East has been skyrocketing, and it is easy to see why:
[I]n 1967, the Israelis conquered the joint armies of Egypt, Syria and Jordan, and occupied enormous tracks of land in a mere six days; in 1973, the Israelis defeated these same armies, who were joined that time by Iraq, in twenty days; at the time of writing, Israel does not seem anywhere near defeating Hizbollah, a small guerrilla army of at most 5,000 fighters, although the conflict is now almost a month old.
And as Paul Rogers writes, Israel's 'deterrent' capabilities have been substantially weakened.
One matters of peace, negotiations and settlements, a few things for your attention. An excellent article by the historian Joel Beinin explains the positions of Hezbollah and Hamas regarding Israel, while Nichola Roe describes how a lasting peace between Israel, Syria and Lebanon was available in 2000. Israeli historians such as Ilan Pappe, Baruch Kimmerling, Avi Shlaim and Beinin have destroyed the myth that Israel has ever wanted peace with surrounding Arab states or with Palestine. Other writers like David Hirst, Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein have also torn this notion to shreds. Yet it remains an implicit assumption in all of the media's reporting and in too much of the output of Bloggery's confederate of wafflers that Israel only ever reacts, is only ever provoked, and that Israel's enemies are the real problem, the "cancer" even, if not downright "evil".
And lest we forget: The Reign of Terror Continues in Palestine.