The real aim of Israel's attacks
July 16, 2006
The real aim is to change the regime in Lebanon and to install
a puppet government.
That was the aim of Ariel Sharon's invasion of Lebanon in 1982.
It failed. But Sharon and his pupils in the military and political
leadership have never really given up on it.
As in 1982, the present operation, too, was planned and is being
carried out in full coordination with the US.
As then, there is no doubt that it is coordinated with a part of
the Lebanese elite.
That's the main thing. Everything else is noise and propaganda.
On the eve of the 1982 invasion, US Secretary of State Alexander
Haig told Ariel Sharon that, before starting it, it was necessary
to have a "clear provocation", which would be accepted
by the world.
The provocation indeed took place - exactly at the appropriate
time - when Abu-Nidal's terror gang tried to assassinate the Israeli
ambassador in London. This had no connection with Lebanon, and even
less with the Palestine Liberation Organization (the enemy of Abu-Nidal),
but it served its purpose.
This time, the necessary provocation has been provided by the capture
of the two Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah. Everyone knows that they
cannot be freed except through an exchange of prisoners. But the
huge military campaign that has been ready to go for months was
sold to the Israeli and international public as a rescue operation.
(Strangely enough, the very same thing happened two weeks earlier
in the Gaza Strip. Hamas and its partners captured a soldier, which
provided the excuse for a massive operation that had been prepared
for a long time and whose aim is to destroy the Palestinian government.)
The declared aim of the Lebanon operation is to push Hizbullah
away from the border, so as to make it impossible for them to capture
more soldiers and to launch rockets at Israeli towns. The invasion
of the Gaza Strip is also officially aimed at getting Ashkelon and
Sderot out of the range of the Qassam rockets.
That resembles the 1982 "Operation Peace for Gallilee".
Then, the public and the Knesset were told that the aim of the war
was to "push the Katyushas 40 km away from the border".
That was a deliberate lie. For 11 months before the war, not a
single Katyusha rocket (nor a single shot) had been fired over the
border. From the beginning, the aim of the operation was to reach
Beirut and install a Quisling dictator. As I have recounted more
than once, Sharon himself told me so nine months before the war,
and I duly published it at the time, with his consent (but unattributed).
Of course, the present operation also has several secondary aims,
which do not include the freeing of the prisoners. Everybody understands
that that cannot be achieved by military means. But it is probably
possible to destroy some of the thousands of missiles that Hizbullah
has accumulated over the years. To this end, the army chiefs are
ready to endanger the inhabitants of the Israeli towns that are
exposed to the rockets. They believe that that is worthwhile, like
an exchange of chess figures.
Another secondary aim is to rehabilitate the "deterrent power"
of the army. That is a codeword for the restoration of the army's
injured pride that has suffered a severe blow from the daring military
actions of Hamas in the south and Hizbullah in the north.
Officially, the Israeli government demands that the government
of Lebanon disarm Hizbullah and remove it from the border region.
That is clearly impossible under the present Lebanese regime, a
delicate fabric of ethno-religious communities. The slightest shock
can bring the whole structure crashing down and throw the state
into total anarchy - especially after the Americans succeeded in
driving out the Syrian army, the only element that has for years
provided some stability.
The idea of installing a Quisling in Lebanon is nothing new. In
1955, David Ben-Gurion proposed taking a "Christian officer"
and installing him as dictator. Moshe Sharet showed that this idea
was based on complete ignorance of Lebanese affairs and torpedoed
it. But 27 years later, Ariel Sharon tried to put it into effect
nevertheless. Bashir Gemayel was indeed installed as president,
only to be murdered soon afterwards. His brother, Amin, succeeded
him and signed a peace agreement with Israel, but was driven out
of office. (The same brother is now publicly supporting the Israeli
The calculation now is that if the Israeli air force rains heavy
enough blows on the Lebanese population - paralysing the sea- and
airports, destroying the infrastructure, bombarding residential
neighbourhoods, cutting the Beirut-Damascus highway, etc. - the
public will get furious with Hizbullah and pressure the Lebanese
government into fulfilling Israel's demands. Since the present government
cannot even dream of doing so, a dictatorship will be set up with
That is the military logic. I have my doubts. It can be assumed
that most Lebanese will react as any other people on earth would:
with fury and hatred towards the invader. That happened in 1982,
when the Shi'is in the south of Lebanon, until then as docile as
a doormat, stood up against the Israeli occupiers and created Hizbullah,
which has become the strongest force in the country. If the Lebanese
elite now becomes tainted as collaborators with Israel, it will
be swept off the map. (By the way, have the Qassams and Katyushas
caused the Israeli population to exert pressure on our government
to give up? Quite the contrary.)
The American policy is full of contradictions. President Bush wants
"regime change" in the Middle East, but the present Lebanese
regime has only recently been set up under American pressure. In
the meantime, Bush has succeeded only in breaking up Iraq and causing
a civil war (as foretold here). He may get the same in Lebanon,
if he does not stop the Israeli army in time. Moreover, a devastating
blow against Hizbullah may arouse fury not only in Iran, but also
among the Shi'is in Iraq, on whose support all of Bush's plans for
a pro-American regime are built.
So what's the answer? Not by accident, Hizbullah has carried out
its soldier-snatching raid at a time when the Palestinians are crying
out for support. The Palestinian cause is popular all over the Arab
word. By showing that they are a friend in need, when all other
Arabs are failing dismally, Hizbullah hopes to increase its popularity.
If an Israeli-Palestinian agreement had been achieved by now, Hizbullah
would be no more than a local Lebanese phenomenon, irrelevant to
Less than three months after its formation, the Olmert-Peretz government
has succeeded in plunging Israel into a two-front war, whose aims
are unrealistic and whose results cannot be foreseen.
If Olmert hopes to be seen as Mister Macho-Macho, a Sharon No.
2, he will be disappointed. The same goes for the desperate attempts
of Amir Peretz to be taken seriously as an imposing Mister Security.
Everybody understands that this campaign - both in Gaza and in Lebanon
- has been planned by the army and dictated by the army. The man
who makes the decisions in Israel now is Dan Halutz. It is no accident
that the job in Lebanon has been turned over to the air force.
The public is not enthusiastic about the war. It is resigned to
it, in stoic fatalism, because it is being told that there is no
alternative. And, indeed, who can be against it? Who does not want
to liberate the "kidnapped soldiers"? Who does not want
to remove the Katyushas and rehabilitate deterrence? No politician
dares to criticize the operation (except the Arab members of the
Knesset who are ignored by the Jewish public). In the media, the
generals reign supreme, and not only those in uniform. There is
almost no former general who is not being invited by the media to
comment, explain and justify, all speaking in one voice.
(As an illustration: Israel's most popular TV channel invited me
to an interview about the war, after hearing that I had taken part
in an anti-war demonstration. I was quite surprised. But not for
long - an hour before the broadcast, an apologetic talk-show host
called and said that there had been a terrible mistake - they really
meant to invite Professor Shlomo Avineri, a former director-general
of the Foreign Ministry who can be counted on to justify any act
of the government, whatever it may be, in lofty academic language.)
"Inter arma silent Musae" - when the weapons speak, the
muses fall silent. Or, rather: when the guns roar, the brain ceases
And just a small thought: when the State of Israel was founded
in the middle of a cruel war, a poster was plastered on the walls:
"All the country - a front! All the people - an army!"
Fifty-eight years have passed, and the same slogan is still as
valid as it was then. What does that say about generations of statesmen
Uri Avnery is an Israeli journalist, writer and peace activist.
If you found this article valuable, please consider donating to Connexions.
Connexions exists to connect people working for justice with information, resources, groups, and with the memories and experiences of those who have worked for social justice over the years. We can only do it with your support.