Last hours of the Lebanon War were extremely dramatic, but the drama did not veil the bottom line: Israeli army was defeated. Probably for this reason Israel tried to make a good show, and failed too. The US-drafted and Israel-approved Security Council resolution was profoundly unfair: the UN troops will be stationed – not in Galilee to protect weak Lebanon from Jewish fury, but in South Lebanon in order to protect the strong neighbour. The defender, not the aggressor, is supposed to be disarmed. This is unfair, but not unfair enough for the Jews: the moment the resolution was accepted, the Israeli army swept forward, in order to grasp as much territory as possible before the official cease-fire deadline. It was a foul trick, going against the spirit of the UN resolution, but within its letter: “It is kosher, but stinks”, say the Jews about such dishonesty.

The Israeli government decision was truly Orwellian, if not schizophrenic: agree to the cease-fire AND proceed full speed with the conquest of South Lebanon. In a clarification given by an IDF Northern Command officer, Israel intended to surround South Lebanon and keep fighting there AFTER the cease-fire as well, calling it “mopping-up of terrorists”. But the plan did not work – Israeli tanks could not cross the deep Wadi X. 12 of these machines burned, others turned back.
The defeat took place despite active US participation in the war that was not limited to full diplomatic support and military supplies to Israel. Endangering their own troops in Iraq, the Pentagon moved its spy satellite from its positions above Baghdad to the skies of Lebanon, a move which necessitated a massive transfer of US soldiers to Baghdad.

Moreover, important Jewish American friends of Israel in Washington called upon the Israeli government to fight and win, for a non-victorious Israel is of no use to the Empire. The Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote earlier this week: “…[Olmert’s] search for victory on the cheap has jeopardised not just the Lebanon operation but America’s confidence in Israel as well.” Max Boot, a Council of Foreign Relations fellow, wrote in the Los Angeles Times: “Syria is weak and next door. To secure its borders, Israel needs to hit the [President Bashar] Assad regime.” American Jews demanded war and victory. “American Jewry is one Red state [regarding the Jewish wars]”, said a once-liberal editor of Tikkun.

Moreover, important Jewish American friends of Israel in Washington called upon the Israeli government to fight and win, for a non-victorious Israel is of no use to the Empire. The Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote earlier this week: “…[Olmert’s] search for victory on the cheap has jeopardised not just the Lebanon operation but America’s confidence in Israel as well.” Max Boot, a Council of Foreign Relations fellow, wrote in the Los Angeles Times: “Syria is weak and next door. To secure its borders, Israel needs to hit the [President Bashar] Assad regime.” American Jews demanded war and victory. “American Jewry is one Red state [regarding the Jewish wars]”, said a once-liberal editor of Tikkun.

The warlike calls from the JINSA quarter are connected with the first Jewish American casualty of the conflict: Joseph Lieberman, a leading pro-war Democrat, was defeated in the Connecticut primaries. The seismic wave sent by his defeat threatened the bipartisan support base of Israel in Congress. President Bush expressed his support of the erstwhile Democrat who was totally devoted to Israel and to the war in the Middle East. Pro-war forces in the US woke up to the danger and intensified their efforts to spread the war to the whole region.

These forces have many allies in Israel, whose leadership is brooding over its military defeat in what was supposed to be a short, brilliant campaign, and is looking for a scapegoat. Generals blame the government which denied them full freedom of action and mutter about a coup d’état; ministers blame the army; intelligence officers implausibly claim they knew it would happen. The PM Olmert must go,demanded Ari Shavit, a leading columnist of Haaretz turned a born-again neo-fascist, who blamed Israeli liberalism for the defeat; while an ad at the masthead of the liberal “国土报” newspaper calls out to “Ehud [Olmert] and Amir [Peretz], please nuke Iran!”

This request may still be fulfilled, although blitzkrieg did not work out so well in Lebanon. The missiles of Hezbullah presented a counter-threat to Israel to be activated in case of Israeli-American attack on Iran and Syria. Now, with the threat of missiles removed, and after a good rest and rearmament, the Israelis may try to continue with their plans to thrash Damascus and Teheran. It was for this purpose that they agreed to the cease-fire.

Cease-fire is a secret weapon of Israel. Whenever the IDF suffers a setback, the Jews roll in the secret weapon and gain a time-out, and an opportunity to resume fire whenever suitable after rearmament and rest. The cease-fire weapon was utilised for first time in 1948, when the UN declared it twice, connected with the weapons embargo. Both times the nascent Jewish state used it to its full: delivery of weapons to the Palestinians was embargoed, while the Jews received fresh supplies of weapons from the ostensibly Stalinist, but predominantly Jewish, government in Prague. Rearmed and refreshed, the Jews renewed their offensive when they were ready, and crushed the Palestinian resistance. The cease-fire was unleashed in 1973, when it saved the Jewish state from looming defeat, allowed the US administration under Kissinger’s guidance to rearm the Israelis, and permitted them to break it whenever needed.

立即订购

The cease-fire fall-back strategy was built into Israeli war plans since the very beginning of the War in Lebanon II. The Jews bombed civilians in Lebanon. While the Kana massacre is the most notorious, there were dozens of Kanas, as the Deir Yassin massacre in 1948 was only the most notorious among many others. The Israeli civilian population suffered as well, and the Palestinians of Galilee (“Israeli Arabs”) suffered most, because Israeli artillery shelled Lebanon from their shelter-less villages, expecting and causing return fire, to the great mirth of Jewish nationalists.

When the world conscience demanded an end to the slaughter of innocents, Israel presented an ultimatum via its allied superpower, the US, to wit: if you wish us to cease killing, please, do our job for us, disarm the resistance, embargo their supply of weapons, re-colonise Lebanon, so that when we shall be able to resume the war, Lebanon will fall into our hands like ripe fruit.

Only the Hezballah fighters’ steadfastness and courage moved the French to improve upon the Israeli-American draft a bit; though it remained as generous as Shylock’s loan agreement. The Security Council reminded me of the referee in a short story by Jack London, 墨西哥.

The main character, a lithe Mexican boy, Rivera, is to fight a great heavyweight boxer, Danny, a Tyson of his time, for a big prize he needs to buy guns for the Revolution. At first, Danny attacks: “It was not a fight. It was a slaughter, a massacre. Danny was certainly showing what he could do–a splendid exhibition. Such was the certainty of the audience that it failed to take notice that the Mexican stayed on his feet. It forgot Rivera. It rarely saw him, so closely was he enveloped in Danny’s man-eating attack. Then an amazing thing happened. Rivera stood alone. Danny, the redoubtable Danny, lay on his back. The referee circled in between, and Rivera knew that the seconds he counted were very slow. All Gringos were against him, even the referee. At “nine” the referee gave Rivera a sharp thrust back. It was unfair, but it enabled Danny to rise”. And on every occasion, “the referee worked, tearing him away so that he could be hit, giving Danny every advantage that an unfair referee can give”, continues Jack London. Still, despite this advantage, Tyson was beaten. The slim Mexican’s steadfastness and devotion allowed him to lick the adversary before the referee and the policemen could steal his victory.

The Lebanese and Palestinians still can achieve victory, despite Israel and America’s sheer might. But in real politics we do not have to push for victory, we may be satisfied with modus vivendi. More and more Israelis are coming to their senses, even the Peace Now movement which supported the war from the beginning. The main danger still comes from the extreme American Zionists who are ready to fight from their recliners until the last Israeli falls. They should be cooled off and brought to their senses by their fellow Americans. In Israel, the battle intoxication fades, but not fast enough. Destruction of Lebanon is unbelievable: Israeli reporters compare it with Berlin ’45.

Dozens of Israeli and Lebanese fighters and many Israeli and Lebanese civilians died in the last days of war because of the Israeli leadership’s attempt to gain points. The Israeli government should not be rewarded for its nastiness. The Security Council resolutions on Lebanon call for disarming forces unauthorised by the Beirut government. Thus, the Lebanese leadership may integrate Hezbollah into their state and army machinery and thus undermine the Zionist plot. The Lebanese can take a leaf from the experience of 1948, when the Jewish terror organisations (Palmach, Haganah, Etzel etc.) were incorporated and integrated into the Israeli army. Hezbollah proved its might, its ability to fight the enemy, and to keep its cards close to its chest. These qualities should not be disregarded.

This was understood by the Maronite President of Lebanon, Emile Lahoud, who answered the usual Zionist complaints from a Western journalist in a fashion clearly supportive of Hezbullah: “Hezbollah is the force that was able to liberate the land of the south in the year 2000. Our army is national, and the resistance is national. You want the national army to disarm the national resistance, which is complementary to the army but without having the same operation room? No way”.

But another great achievement of Hezbollah lies in its healing of Sunni-Shi’a strife, strife created and nourished by al Qaeda. This murky Afghan-based group, founded by the US to fight the Soviets in 1980s was in mothballs by 2001, when the US policy makers resurrected it by crediting them with the 9/11 attack, athough even today, five years later, their involvement is not proven. Whoever attacked the Twin Towers and Pentagon (and we do not know who did it) attracted a wave of sympathy mixed with adoration among the passionate disenchanted of the New World Order from Paris to Teheran, from Moscow to Oklahoma. The Masters of Discourse were concerned that this great harvest might be appropriated by an able and dangerous (for them) group (not necessarily Muslim) and preferred to credit it to their tame al Qaeda. Since then, Al Qaeda has proved to be a valuable American tool: they did nothing worth mentioning, but beheaded tourists on video and dutifully instigated strife between Sunni and Shi’a in Iraq, bombing mosques and killing pilgrims. They could attract some good and daring young men on the basis of their 9/11 credit – and bring them to perdition.

The rise of Hezbollah upset this arrangement. Instead of fighting fellow Muslims, Hezbollah fights the Judaeo-American Empire. As opposed to al Qaeda’s fakery, Hezbollah is the real thing, and they fight a real war, never stopping to pose for a TV crew. The young and inspired men keen on a good fight for a good cause turned to Nasrallah.

The deserted stooges of al Qaeda called their followers to fight Hezbollah, but in vain. The strife between Sunnis and Shi’as is fading, and the Sunni majority of the Arab world preferred Sayed Nasrallah, the Defender of the Underprivileged, to the Shari’a enforcers of bin Laden and Zarkawi. The Heathrow Gunpowder Plot is apparently a desperate attempt by Al Qaeda’s patrons to refurbish the faded glory of their creatures by showing that they are not a completely spent force. This good showing by Hezbollah will have serious consequences outside Lebanon – it will reunite the Orient against the Empire.