Sorry I meant to refer to Jonathon Cook's article and not Seymour Hersh.

“But whenever Hezbollah fighters engaged in close-quarters combat with Israeli troops, they lost - badly.”

I’m really beginning to wonder who Mr. Lapkin thinks he’s lying to. For a very good account of close quarters fighting from a couple of journalists who actually went to southern Lebanon (as opposed to an armchair spin-doctor who works for a Zionist think-tank), click here: http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=9519

“But the Israeli army is both flexible and smart. The tactical lessons are already being assimilated through the chain of command. Olmert has promised an enhanced appropriations bill that will allow the defence force to bring its reserve units up to scratch.”

Where’s he been! Not one officer has resigned or taken responsibility for the conduct of the war.

As someone who has had the opportunity to see Israeli soldiers close-up, their humiliation in Lebanon came as no surprise to me. For the last forty years they have lived off the reputation won for them by their grandfathers in the Six Day War, while contenting themselves with victories won over untrained Palestinian youths armed with rusting Kalashnikov’s, stones and petrol bombs. A colonial police force, whose officers spend their time checking ids at checkpoints, kicking down doors in the middle of the night and enforcing curfews, should not be surprised when it finds itself outfought by a lightly-armed but well trained guerrilla force.

The only part of the IDF that performed efficiently throughout the war was the Air Force, which had developed its doctrine of using state of the art guided weapons to bomb civilian infrastructure and inflict collective punishment during the second Intifada.

Mr. Lapkin’s apologetics might provide some comfort to his colleagues in the Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council but they should not be taken seriously by people who believe in the principle of cause and effect.

It's a bit like Chinese whispers. The way people become convinced of something.

Take my grandmother for example. She's lived in Australia for 56 years, watches the news, reads the newspaper, votes for John Howard and thinks that:

Get ready for it…

Hezbollah is not Lebanese. Hezbollah is Iranian.

But even thinking this she still hates Israel. I think that's a key point here. No matter what anyone can tell you about Israel's actions, you can’t deny the truth. The 1982 invasion of Lebanon signified a huge change for Israeli society. It's when public opinion began to change. It's when people began to see tangible proof of Israeli's aggression - a turning point for many.

I feel for the Israelis. They are sheltered from the truth and indoctrinated with hatred against the Arabs. Most of them sit idly by wondering why these people hate them. They wonder why extreme leftists are talking about an indigenous population that used to live on their land prior to settlement (that's hard to hear after "a land with no people for a people with no land").

But as they say "once you see, you cannot un-see". If there's any hope for Israel it'll be when the Israelis wake up to themselves, realise the atrocities committed in their name and do something constructive about it because the government sure as hell won't.

As for Hezbollah…they may initially have been funded, set up and trained by Iran. But they are a resistance movement designed to drive Israel out of their country.

Had it not been for Iran helping the Lebanese then it’s most likely the Lebanese would be living behind barbed wire fences, tanks and curfews just like their brothers and sisters in the West bank and Gaza.

Don’t think the Christians would be any better off either. They may not live in fear like their Muslim counterparts but once the Jewish settlements start pouring in, demolishing their villages, causing mass genocides etc. they may start to sympathise somewhat.

Of course this may never happen.

But only because Hezbollah has the tenacity to say no.

I think Israel sent a message to H/O, via Hezbollah. That message was that Iran can't afford to miscalculate in its sabre rattling so colourfully engaged in by its President/Mahdi. The message is that Israel won't go into committee phase if attacked. It will strike hard.

PartRea 1 N

Countdown

Ted Lapkin’s rather simplistic title re’ current ME troubles, and his rather one-sided thesis supporting Israel’s attack on Lebanon, has been met by 30 commentaries so far about 50% each way giving good arguments for and against. Further, they do give proof how much our faltering thinking world needs to arrange a major overview of the whole ME situation.

World historians if they are still allowed an ethical point of view, must surely call our present global situation, one very much influenced by a new version of 19th century type colonialism, with America now as the leading light instead of Great Britain, with Blair of Britain and Howard of Australia, trailing along with the US and making up an interesting Anglipholic imperialist threesome, which surely must have even the non-English-speaking Western world concerned somewhat, and nations like Russia, China and India, understandably plotting behind the scenes.

Who would blame them for it, with Iran likely to be attacked and taken, angry Shias only able to defend themselves using the same suicidal means as the Shias and the Sunnis in Iraq, as well as the Tamils in Sri-Lanka, against a hated oppressor.

Not a very nice future picture. In fact, historians might suggest it is time for our ethical future planners to do an overview of the current Middle East situation, and maybe contemplate a Bismarkian-style balance of power situation, even allowing Iran militarily nuclear capacity to balance Israel, as now exists between India and Pakistan. What we have now in the Middle East, is one tiny nation like Israel fully confident with US backing and with its atomic rockets at the ready as long as Iran cannot be armed the same.

Part Two

Returning to the colonialistic or imperialist principle, it is understandable that future global historians in a hoped for democratic world
would surely rely on the premise of looking back on a world of the late 20th century and early 21st century, which though having periods of peaceful global democracy, had unfortunately slipped back into the mindset of 19th century gunboat diplomacy, only needing a new name for the missile diplomacy we now have under the present US imperialism, possibly a bit benign at present, but very scary when we survey the already publicised Project for an American 21st century.

In the above Project surely Israel is already regarded as an ally who will help shape our future world. Such probable planning went on when Israel under US protection began her atomic installataions even before 1980, as well as having the US backed bravado to take out the beginnings of Saddam Hussein’s projected Iraqi nuclear works in the early 1980s.

The present horrible historical debacle will doubtless be regarded as far worse than the twin nemesises of WW1 and WW2, because religion is so heavily involved - as can be seen by so many of our OLO commentaries. Therefore it is necessary for us thinkers to ponder on a more peaceful way out like another possible Marshal Plan, offering financial help to all battling Muslim nations, as well as along with the Sri--Lankan Tamils. For example, the 200 billion that George W’ Bush has already spent trying to appease Iraqis, might have been far better spent that way.