My Turn

[Shayah]

As part and parcel of the Roadmap for Peace, Israel totally withdrew from the Gaza territory in August of 2005. Four months later in January of 2006, the terrorist organization Hamas became the official government of Palestine. From February to June of 2006, over 1000 Kassam rockets were fired into Israel from Gaza. Hundreds of these explosive devices landed in the Israeli town of Sderot. One must understand that although potentially deadly, the Kassam rocket is neither a modern military weapon nor a weapon of precision. Because of its inherent unpredictability, its sole intent is to terrorize a civilian population through the vehicle of random collateral damage. Israel understandably demanded that Hamas and the PA use their legislative powers and security forces to end this constant barrage of Israeli towns and villages from Gaza, and to arrest and prosecute the perpetrators. Israel's rightful demands and pleas fell on deaf ears. Nevertheless, during this time frame, the government of Israel also announced that it would withdraw from the West Bank (Judea/Samaria) by the end of 2008. Negotiations between Israel and Mahmoud Abbas on this issue were ongoing and expected to bear fruit.

On Sunday, 25 June 2006, military elements of Hamas used an underground tunnel to breach the border between Gaza and Israel. They subsequently attacked a small Israeli checkpoint (in Israel proper) and killed two IDF soldiers and kidnapped a third (19-year-old Gilad Shalit ). It is in liberal vogue now to say that Shalit was 'captured' and thus a POW. However, this disingenuous designation implies that an official 'state of war' existed between Israel and Palestine on 25 June 2006. Thus, this en-vogue 'captured' designation is untrue and an 'after the fact' Palestinian propaganda ploy. Israel demanded the immediate release of its kidnapped soldier. Hamas not only categorically refused this legitimate demand, it made no effort to secure the release of Shalit via negotiations with the kidnapers and/or law enforcement efforts. Essentially, Hamas was quite pleased with this high-stakes scenario.

Not only did the Kassam rocket attacks from Gaza continue unabated, they actually intensified in frequency and range. Hamas engineers added a second engine to the propulsion system and Kassam and rockets were now striking Ashkelon, an Israeli city of over 100,000 residents. It was abundantly clear that Hamas was willfully engaged in an open and declared state of war with Israel. Israel answered with a restrained military response. Critical land targets were destroyed to prevent Hamas from moving the kidnapped Gilad Shalit from southern Gaza (where he is known to be held) to unknown locations, perhaps even beyond Gaza. Selected Gaza infrastructure assets were targeted to deny Hamas unfettered travel and telecommunications. IDF armored units have minimally entered in to northern Gaza to quarantine the launching territory used by Hamas to target Ashkelon. This minimal Israeli incursion has proved successful to date. Israel has no intention or desire to re-occupy Gaza. Israel simply demands that Gilad Shalit be returned promptly and unharmed, a complete cessation of Kassam rocket attacks from Gaza, and an end to Hamas terrorist incursions in to the sovereign territory of Israel. These are viable, legitimate, legal, and doable elements. No nation on earth would seek less.

continued......

 

[Shayah]

Which brings me to Lebanon. On 26 June 2006 (the day after the Hamas attack within Israel and the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit) my sister Tashah - a Moderator here - requested to be returned to active IDF duty. She is currently on the northern front and possibly has already entered in to southern Lebanon. Why is this so?

On 12 July 2006, Hizbollah militants entered Israel from southern Lebanon and attacked an IDF border patrol. Eight soldiers were killed and two soldiers were kidnapped. Clearly, this brazen Hizbollah attack is another act of war against Israel albeit on a different front. To underscore this truism, Hizbollah also launched hundreds of missiles in to Israel striking farms, agricultural kibbutzim, towns, and the city of Haifa which is Israel's third largest population center. I will not mince words here. Lebanon has indeed suffered a beating from the IAF. Why?

Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000. Previously, Israel had stationed forces in southern Lebanon to patrol a buffer zone to eliminate Hizbollah terrorist incursions in to Israel and to ensure that Haifa remained beyond the range of Hizbollah missiles (supplied by Iran and delivered via Syria). The disengagement agreement reached between Israel and Lebanon via a United Nations resolution [1559] stipulated that upon IDF withdrawal, UN troops would patrol the border buffer zone and that Lebanon would disarm Hizbollah. Not only did UN patrols fail to confront armed Hizbollah units, UN vehicles were used to transport weaponry from Hizbollah to Palestine. Israeli orbital satellites videotaped UN vehicles used for weapons transfers, yet the UN claimed that the missile transfers captured by video were merely elongated canisters of innocuous 'cooking fuel'.

In the power vacuum of post civil war Lebanon, Hizbollah borrowed a strategic page from Saudi Arabia. Using monies supplied by Iran, Hizbollah funded civic improvements to southern Lebanon such as hospitals, schools, and town halls. This largesse paid handsome dividends in elections, and Hizbollah won every parliament seat from Lebanon's mostly Shi'a southern districts. This in turn enabled Hizbollah to be awarded two Cabinet posts within the Lebanese government.

Previously, the officer corps of the Lebanese military predominantly consisted of Maronite Christians. Using its newfound central government political muscle however, Hizbollah methodically sacked these Maronite officers and replaced them with officers from the Hizbollah militia. In essence, you now have a Lebanese military in which the tail wags the dog. Between the years 2000 - 2006, Israeli intelligence grew increasingly uneasy as Hizbollah slowly yet deliberately moved thousands of missiles closer and closer to the southern border. The missiles supplied to Hizbollah by Iran were also becoming increasingly more dangerous with a tactical range of 150 miles. Clearly the United Nations abdicated its responsibility to effectively patrol the buffer zone, and the Lebanese government made no effort whatsoever to disarm the Hizbollah militia in southern Lebanon as required by UN Resolution. What remained then, were all the flammable ingredients for disaster simply waiting for Hizbollah to light the wick at their discretion. To embrace the proposition that Lebanon lacked the military means to disarm Hizbollah is true enough, yet ignores the simple and sensible alternative. At any time from 2000 to the present, the government of Lebanon could have appealed directly to the international community for assistance to remove a terrorist organization that vowed continued attacks against a neighbor. Lebanon could have appealed to the UN Security Council to provide the requisite assistance required to enforce all Resolutions pertaining to Hizbollah. The citizens of Lebanon could demanded that Hizbollah - like the Syrian military - depart from Lebanese territory. Sadly, these sensible and forward-looking initiatives were neither requested nor invoked by the Lebanese government .

Quite obviously, neither Iran nor Syria care a whit for either Lebanon or Palestine. Their overarching intent is to wage war against Israel using their Hizbollah and Hamas proxy forces. This war by proxy methodology provides them with an aura of innocence and deniability. By design, Israel has been forced to once again defend herself. Even the Arab League submits that Israel was attacked by both Hamas and Hizbollah without provocation. The question that now languishes on the International stage is whether Israel is using disproportionate military force to defend herself. The tactical problem for Israel is that neither the Hamas nor Hizbollah terrorist organizations can be isolated from their respective geographical and governmental environments. To put it bluntly yet correctly, both the Hamas and Hizbollah terrorist organizations have deeply woven themselves into the legal, military, and cultural tapestry of their respective surroundings.

Per Lebanon, Israel has arrived at a strategic decision. Since neither the United Nations nor the Lebanese government seem either willing or able, Israel will proceed to eliminate the Hizbollah pestilence from southern Lebanon. The Israeli people are solidly behind this initiative. No country would long countenance armed incursions, the killing and kidnapping of its soldiers, and incessant rocket attacks upon its citizens and cities. To this end, the IDF and IAF have shaped the battlefield per accepted military doctrine. Telecommunication assets have been degraded and Hizbollah command and control centers destroyed. Hizbollah avenues of resupply/escape have been rendered inoperable. In essence the IAF has isolated southern Lebanon which is the stronghold of Hizbollah and for the last six years has served as its sustenance and sanctuary.

Gaza civilians? The IAF has all but ceased striking tactical targets in Gaza. Border crossing points have been opened to enable an uninterrupted flow of food, medicine, and fuel. Israel continues to provide Israeli power and water services to Gaza.

Lebanese civilians? The IAF has made every effort to minimize civilian casualties. It has dropped leaflets in locations pre-warning the civilian population of impending air-strikes. The IAF has extensively utilized Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs) in an effort to attenuate collateral damage. The IAF has designated specific travel lanes as safe outlets for civilians wishing to evacuate the southern war theater. Specified air corridors and sea lanes for the delivery of international humanitarian supplies to Lebanon have been created.

As with all terrorist organizations, the Hamas and Hizbollah militia are not distinguishable from civilian non-combatants. Unless and until they abide by this international convention of warfare, the avoidance of civilian casualties is not possible. Terrorist organizations embrace this shameful tactic with glee, for it enables them to both wreak havoc from a civilian platform on the one hand and then utilize civilians as a shield on the other. Hiding behind civilian attire bastardizes the traditional non-combatant status of civilians, and by design results in an inordinate number of civilian casualties.

In closing, I wish to remind everyone that Israel was not the aggressor. Neither Hamas nor Hizbollah is at all interested in pursuing the Roadmap for Peace. Quite the contrary, both are dedicated to the violent destruction of Israel and the establishment of a greater Palestinian Islamist Ummah. Remember also that Syria and Iran - the true Hamas/Hizbollah proxy masters - are designated as terrorist nations by the US Department of State. Iran is directly responsible for the deadly Hizbollah attack on US Marines in Beirut, and the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia. Since 9/11 Iran has provided sanctuary for high-echelon al-Queda operatives. Iran has also fueled the insurgency in Iraq, and provided sophisticated IEDs that kill American military personel and Iraqi civilians. As all of you know, Iran is also engaged in a dedicated and rapid program to acquire nuclear weapons. Considering the current havoc that Iran has wrought via its Hamas/Hizbollah proxy forces, one can only shudder at the prospect of an Iran possessing long range missiles armed with nuclear warheads.

 

[cherokee]

Great post Shayah!
I don’t see many of the hamas and hezbolla sympathizers here reading it because it doesn’t support their idea of "Victim Hood"....

 

[Gardener]

It is in liberal vogue now to say that Shalit was 'captured' and thus a POW. .

THis may be quibbling, since I agree with everything else you say here. I also agree with your assessment hat certain attitudes are in vogue as there is a definite dogmatism involved. It's just that I don't see this as a liberal trait at all, but rather an authoritarian leftist trait. There is a difference between the two because any true liberal would support the liberal, (and to a great degree secular) democracy against that which is its polar opposite. These leftists cannot be liberal since they do not support liberal values.

Perhaps we need to find another term, since "liberal" these terrorist supporters ain't.