Posted on 03/13/2008 11:54:34 AM PDT by maquiladora
One veteran diplomat at the United Nations in New York outlines the following hypothetical but plausible scenario. Ehud Olmert, Israel's prime minister, finds he can no longer resist pressure to end the rocket fire, a job that military men say can be achieved, if at all, only by a ground invasion. But ground warfare against Hamas's guerrilla fighters in the teeming confines of Gaza will certainly kill many Palestinian civilians. That will tempt Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hizbullah in Lebanon, to help his fellow Islamists by opening a second front from Lebanon. Since Hizbullah's own “divine victory” against Israel in the summer of 2006, its arsenal of rockets is reported to have been more than replenished by its Syrian and Iranian mentors—and beefed up with sophisticated longer-range missiles.
Since that war, an international buffer force of almost 15,000 peacekeeping soldiers has been installed in southern Lebanon. But don't be soothed. They, in the private view of many of the providing governments, would become little more than hostages in the event of serious fighting. Hizbullah has kept most of its new rockets north of the Litani river, from where they can simply be fired into Israel over the peacekeepers' heads. At most, the peacekeepers would complicate another Israeli effort to defeat Hizbullah by launching another ground invasion of Lebanon.
Here is where this worst-case scenario turns truly nightmarish. Mr Olmert learnt in Lebanon that a guerrilla army, especially one as well trained and armed as Hizbullah's, is hard to destroy. So there is in Israel a school of thought that advocates counter-attacking not only against Hizbullah but also against Syria, Mr Nasrallah's helper and armourer. The government of a state, goes the argument, will find it a lot harder than a non-state actor like Hizbullah did in 2006 to shrug off the sort of damage Israel inflicted on Lebanon's infrastructure. Syria's armed forces, moreover, are conventional—the kind that Israel thinks it knows how to beat. Israel's mysterious air raid in Syria last September may have been designed to show that it is not afraid of taking the Syrians on.
Will any of the foregoing really happen? A cynic might dismiss such apocalyptic speculation as an Israeli design to scare Hamas and its friends in Lebanon, Syria and Iran into stopping the rocket fire. Israel's defence minister, Ehud Barak, has after all been talking for months about the possibility of a “big operation” in Gaza, yet no such operation has materialised so far. He, Mr Olmert and Israel's generals are painfully aware that Gaza could become a quagmire for Israel, as south Lebanon did until Mr Barak, as prime minister, pulled Israel out in 2000.
On the other hand, even without the rocket fire, the prospect of Hamas building up a Hizbullah-like army in the Gaza Strip frightens many Israeli policymakers. That would give two potent militias officially dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish state the option of starting hostilities on two fronts at a time of their own choosing. As for the quagmire, some reports have it that Israel is already investigating the possibility of turning a Gaza “liberated” from Hamas over to a multinational force.
The danger in Gaza may explain an acceleration in diplomacy. Hard on the heels of Condoleezza Rice, America's secretary of state, Dick Cheney, its vice-president, is to visit the region on March 16th to meet the Saudi king as well as Messrs Olmert and Abbas. George Bush is talking once again about securing his “vision” of an independent Palestine at peace with Israel before he leaves office. But the talks between Mr Olmert and Mr Abbas that started after Mr Bush's get-together in Annapolis last November have been fitful, not least because they take place against a backdrop of disruptive violence.
On March 6th, for example, a Palestinian resident of Jerusalem entered a Jewish seminary with a machinegun and killed eight students. This week Israeli soldiers killed four Palestinian gunmen in Bethlehem, who Israel said were members of Islamic Jihad, one of the most violent Palestinian groups—whose response was a new rocket barrage from Gaza. Hamas insists that any ceasefire in Gaza must extend to the West Bank as well. But Israel claims it has a right to arrest and if necessary kill those who plan or mount lethal attacks on its citizens. Not for the first time, the military clock in the Middle East may be ticking faster than the political one.
Ping
BUMP!
Oh, boy. I remember the 1967 war. I was 15 and home from school for the summer. Everyday I watched on TV with fascination how the Israelis were beating the snot out of the Arabs. I’ve had a heart for Israel ever since I was very young. Something intuitive rather than something I was taught. I stand by them today and firmly believe that God still has a plan for Israel. Many will still die, but they will overcome their enemies. This time it might be for eternity.
High volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel, WOT
..................
The weakness for western-style warfare is the imperative to not harm non-combatants.
Enemies exploit this.
little concerning how all these “tin foil hat” theories are now making there way into the MSM.
i got a feeling a scenario like this may just play out
I wonder what you watched. I recall no video from the '67 war, and the early reports (for the first three days or so) were all of glorious Arab victories.
ML/NJ
What I recall was similar to the space reporting during that era. There were extended news programs from the 3 major networks. I mostly remember CBS and ABC.
Turning it over to a "multinational force" would be turning back over to Hezbulla. The UN is anti-Israel.
I think it’s the wisest course of action.
No need for a quagmire - just bomb it until its a smoldering ruin.
ML/NJ
Remember when Hamas and Fatah were fighting it out and we were like, let them fight and destroy themselves. It didn’t happen. They fought, Hamas won, and now Hamas is stronger than ever.
Let’s let Hillary and Obama fight it out and destroy themselves.
I was about 13 then, and you described exactly what I remember and how I feel about it...
Israel whupping up on the Arabs in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973 did not create the apocalypse. Why should it now?
The only apocalypse that will happen is if Israel does NOT take out the trash - which means levelling Gaza and expelling the inhabitants, invading Lebanon and killing enough Hezbollites to render them an ineffective fighting force, and either scaring (probable) or crushing Syria.
All of those things are well within Israel's military capabilities.
Sorry, but maybe you didn’t watch enough TV. It was not continuous coverage like you may see today, but there were plenty of maps and interviews with reporters on site—no satellite coverage at that time, but the reporting was on TV. There was a distinct slant toward Israel in the reporting of the war. Nothing like it would be today.
How soon we forget WWII.
It was off and on all day coverage on all three of the networks (there were only three) at that time, and it was 1967 for sure, not 1973. It was somewhat of a big deal like the moon shots, I agree.
Cartoons were pre-empted so it caught our attention!
Plus it was just amazing looking at arrows on their maps with “tank columns” (new term to me then) driving toward Israel from all sides. My mother (Presbyterian, and the woman who taught me to despise communism and fascism) was just outraged and pissed off and would have fought the Arabs herself if she could have gotten there. She also though Israel would kick their butts before it was over more because of them being God’s Chosen People than because of their military prowess.
And then before you knew it, the arrows on the map started turning around and disappearing and Israel soundly defeated all those surrounding her.
No quagmire possible if you decimate gaza. If you go in tit for tat yes quagmire is thy name.
The Arab tendency to camouflage unpleasant facts in fantasy was similarly exploited. Thus, anticipating enemy victory claims, Dayan ordered a blackout of war bulletins during the first day of the war. When Egyptians thereafter claimed destruction of the Israeli armed forces, the Russians stalled United Nations moves for a cease-fire. By the time the Soviets discovered what actually happened too much time had elapsed to salvage Egyptian fortunes. It was also too late for Hussein to retrieve his fatal blunder of entering the war.ML/NJ...
Throughout the first day of the Sinai offensive, the Israeli government refrained from issuing announcements of the magnitude of its victories. The cloak of silence represented official policy. The only military communiques that went out over the airwaves were broadcast by Cairo; and during the first twenty-four hours these releases spoke of unprecedented Egyptian breakthroughs ...
Look, I don’t understand why you persist in not believing what I remember. We’re not talking about military debriefings to the public. And if your friend was in the IDF, then I’m not surprised his/her mail was censored. Used to happen all the time.
ML/NJ
ML/NJ
This is from one of several "Personal recollections from the Diaspora" at http://www.sixdaywar.co.uk/diaspora_michael_cooke.htm. (The whole site is quite good.)
International communications were very different in 1967, there was none of the immediacy that we take for granted now. Visual Reports had to be despatched and could not be seen for many hours after the event, depending on how far away they were taking place.In another of the recollections it is said:
In those days there was not the instant access to news which we have today; consequently it was not so simple to find out what was happening.ML/NJ
The IAF should spray aerosolized pork rinds over the overly frisky palesimians..each breath they take will deny them their “virgins”
I remember while the war was on-going, that off and on throughout the daytime programming would be interrupted for news about the war. I remember seeing "TV" maps of the Middle East and some newsy at the broadcasting station would talk about what's going on and a reporter in Israel might talk--no pictures of the reporter, just his voice.
Keep looking on the Internet and maybe you'll find descriptions of the kind of coverage that I remember.
ML/NJ
You want me to prove what I remember? Geesh, you really have trust issues, don't you? I'm perfectly satisfied with my memory. Get lost.
So let's see how this works. We discuss an issue here on FR, and there's a difference of opinion about some historical fact. I present some evidence. You tell me what you remember; and I should get lost because I ask you to cite some evidence to back up you say you remember?
What do you think this is, the DemocratUnderground?
ML/NJ
They should, but they won’t. I’d go for a compromise, though. Drive ‘em all out, and let Egypt feed them, clothe them, and confine them to refugee camps for ever. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.