HEZBOLLAH AND ISRAEL WIDEN THE CONFLICT

Israel set war plan more than a year ago
Strategy was put in motion as Hezbollah began increasing its military strength

Matthew Kalman, Chronicle Foreign Service

Friday, July 21, 2006


(07-21) 04:00 PDT Jerusalem -- Israel's military response by air, land and sea to what it considered a provocation last week by Hezbollah militants is unfolding according to a plan finalized more than a year ago.

In the years since Israel ended its military occupation of southern Lebanon, it watched warily as Hezbollah built up its military presence in the region. When Hezbollah militants kidnapped two Israeli soldiers last week, the Israeli military was ready to react almost instantly.

"Of all of Israel's wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared," said Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University. "In a sense, the preparation began in May 2000, immediately after the Israeli withdrawal, when it became clear the international community was not going to prevent Hezbollah from stockpiling missiles and attacking Israel. By 2004, the military campaign scheduled to last about three weeks that we're seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it's been simulated and rehearsed across the board."

More than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to U.S. and other diplomats, journalists and think tanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail. Under the ground rules of the briefings, the officer could not be identified.

In his talks, the officer described a three-week campaign: The first week concentrated on destroying Hezbollah's heavier long-range missiles, bombing its command-and-control centers, and disrupting transportation and communication arteries. In the second week, the focus shifted to attacks on individual sites of rocket launchers or weapons stores. In the third week, ground forces in large numbers would be introduced, but only in order to knock out targets discovered during reconnaissance missions as the campaign unfolded. There was no plan, according to this scenario, to reoccupy southern Lebanon on a long-term basis.

Israeli officials say their pinpoint commando raids should not be confused with a ground invasion. Nor, they say, do they herald another occupation of southern Lebanon, which Israel maintained from 1982 to 2000 -- in order, it said, to thwart Hezbollah attacks on Israel. Planners anticipated the likelihood of civilian deaths on both sides. Israel says Hezbollah intentionally bases some of its operations in residential areas. And Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, has bragged publicly that the group's arsenal included rockets capable of bombing Haifa, as occurred last week.

Like all plans, the one now unfolding also has been shaped by changing circumstances, said Eran Lerman, a former colonel in Israeli military intelligence who is now director of the Jerusalem office of the American Jewish Committee.

"There are two radical views of how to deal with this challenge, a serious professional debate within the military community over which way to go," said Lerman. "One is the air power school of thought, the other is the land-borne option. They create different dynamics and different timetables. The crucial factor is that the air force concept is very methodical and almost by definition is slower to get results. A ground invasion that sweeps Hezbollah in front of you is quicker, but at a much higher cost in human life and requiring the creation of a presence on the ground."

The advance scenario is now in its second week, and its success or failure is still unfolding. Whether Israel's aerial strikes will be enough to achieve the threefold aim of the campaign -- to remove the Hezbollah military threat; to evict Hezbollah from the border area, allowing the deployment of Lebanese government troops; and to ensure the safe return of the two Israeli soldiers abducted last week -- remains an open question. Israelis are opposed to the thought of reoccupying Lebanon.

"I have the feeling that the end is not clear here. I have no idea how this movie is going to end," said Daniel Ben-Simon, a military analyst for the daily Haaretz newspaper.

Thursday's clashes in southern Lebanon occurred near an outpost abandoned more than six years ago by the retreating Israeli army. The place was identified using satellite photographs of a Hezbollah bunker, but only from the ground was Israel able to discover that it served as the entrance to a previously unknown underground network of caves and bunkers stuffed with missiles aimed at northern Israel, said Israeli army spokesman Miri Regev.

"We knew about the network, but it was fully revealed (Wednesday) by the ground operation of our forces," said Regev. "This is one of the purposes of the pinpoint ground operations -- to locate and try to destroy the terrorist infrastructure from where they can fire at Israeli citizens."

Israeli military officials say as much as 50 percent of Hezbollah's missile capability has been destroyed, mainly by aerial attacks on targets identified from intelligence reports. But missiles continue to be fired at towns and cities across northern Israel.

"We were not surprised that the firing has continued," said Tzachi Hanegbi, chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. "Hezbollah separated its leadership command-and-control system from its field organization. It created a network of tiny cells in each village that had no operational mission except to wait for the moment when they should activate the Katyusha rocket launchers hidden in local houses, using coordinates programmed long ago to hit Nahariya or Kiryat Shemona, or the kibbutzim and villages."

"From the start of this operation, we have also been active on the ground across the width of Lebanon," said Brig. Gen. Ron Friedman, head of Northern Command headquarters. "These missions are designed to support our current actions. Unfortunately, one of the many missions which we have carried out in recent days met with slightly fiercer resistance."

Israel didn't need sophisticated intelligence to discover the huge buildup of Iranian weapons supplies to Hezbollah by way of Syria, because Hezbollah's patrons boasted about it openly in the pages of the Arabic press. As recently as June 16, less than four weeks before the Hezbollah border raid that sparked the current crisis, the Syrian defense minister publicly announced the extension of existing agreements allowing the passage of trucks shipping Iranian weapons into Lebanon.

But to destroy them, Israel needed to map the location of each missile.

"We need a lot of patience," said Hanegbi. "The (Israeli Defense Forces) action at the moment is incapable of finding the very last Katyusha, or the last rocket launcher primed for use hidden inside a house in some village."

Moshe Marzuk, a former head of the Lebanon desk for Israeli Military Intelligence who now is a researcher at the Institute for Counter-Terrorism in Herzliya, said Israel had learned from past conflicts in Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza -- as well as the recent U.S. experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq -- that a traditional military campaign would be countereffective.

"A big invasion is not suitable here," said Marzuk. "We are not fighting an army, but guerrillas. It would be a mistake to enter and expose ourselves to fighters who will hide, fire off a missile and run away. If we are to be on the ground at all, we need to use commandos and special forces."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/21/MIDEAST.TMP

How very noble of the Israelis--they withdrew from a nation which they had invaded in the first place. Every mother's son of them is just an absolute prince. The settlement to disarm the militias took place long after the Israelis withdrew. The Maronite and the Syrian Socialist militias were shattered in the first place, and the Lebanese military and security forces hadn't the firepower of Hezbollah. How were they to be disarmed? Even though they do not enjoy majority support, their demand that disarming be linked to the release of prisoners and the return of all Lebanese territory was sufficient to undercut the authority of a weak coalition government. You then suggest that they should have asked the Israelis to "help" in disarming Hezbollah--we can see right now what methods the Israelis use--do you seriously think any Lebanese government would be that mad, or would survive if it did so?



That is either the most cynically disgusting or hopelessly naive position you've taken. The Lebanon has no need of trade agreements with Isreal. Left in peace by Israel, the Lebanon has all it needs for a successful economy, and Syria has always been their largest trading partner. To claim that Lebanon has a role in their own destruction is just disgusting--that sort of snotty disregard for this type of human tragedy lowers you considerably in my opinion. I know that won't matter to you, but don't be surprised if i address you in future with a due regard for the criminal and inhumane attitudes you express.



You display your ignorance. Shebaa Farms, the disputed area, is on the northwest slopes of the Golan Heights, which in large measure explains why Syria is willing to directly engage in negotiation with Israel. It is held both for militarily strategic reasons (and in doing so, exposes IDF troops to attack), and for the water resources available--the Israelis have never been shy about stealing water. Go look up Shebaa Farms online, consult a map--it is in no wise a "buffer."



As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, mostly by others, Isreal has done exactly these sorts of deals in the past. Once they have complied with any negotiated action in good faith, the international community has consistently leaned on their opponents to step up and match the gestures.

[/quote]I couldn't agree less. Do you have any links to support that Iran has drastically reduced their support and has been disengaging for any purpose other than plausible deniability?[/quote]

Plausible deniability? That's hilariouis--do you think the Mullahs attended the Richard Nixon School of Political Deception? The Persians have never been shy about avowing their support for organizations which we consider terrorists. No, i don't have a link for you--my remarks are based on what i've read and heard in the last few months. Do you have a link to support a claim that either Damascus or Teheran are pulling the strings? If it is a link to an opinion piece, then i'll just go find an opinion piece which contradicts yours--or just ignore it.

[

Do you get e-mails from PNAC for your talking points? What you call "rewarding bad behavior" would be described by a good many honest observers as righting the injustices the Israelis have committed. A good deal of the reason you fail to understand much of the situation is based on your simple-minded views of the players and their game. Apprently, you see it as: Israel=always good, always innocent victim, always acts in good faith; Isreal's opponents=always bad, always evil terrorists, never act in good faith. It's kind of hard to discuss these things when your world view is informed by propaganda at the outset. But the Israeli lobby in Washington sure loves folks with your attitudes.



No, what happened with the Palestinians on the west bank of the Jordan River and in the Gaza Strip is that the Israelis returned to them the land from which they were driven in 1967, and which was their homeland and birth place.



What makes me think it would be different is a stupid question--because that is not what happened in the first place. Once again, you rely upon the armor of invincible ignorance. The Israelis returned to the Palestinians the land from which they had been driven by ethnic cleansing in 1948-49, and 1967. They then erected barriers, set up Jewish immigrant settlements, and in every way possible, violated every agreement they made with the Palestinians--resulting eventually in the two Intifadas. The first Intifada occurred in 1987, because the Israelis ha kept none of their promises, in particular were failing to provide education, medical services and other public services in the occupied territories, to which they had agreed in advance, and for which the monetary source was the revenues of taxes and imposts in those territories, and foreign aid freely given to the Palestinians. In short, the Israelis were robbing the Palestinians, and whining to the world about terrorists in their midst. This first Intifada ended with the establishment of the Palestinian Authority. The Israelis continued to break their promises made to the Palestinians and the United States about Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, and willfully withheld Palestinian revenues, collected by Israel, to attempt to cripple Yasir Arafat and the PA. There can be little doubt that the PA was corrupt, but i'd be amused to see you justify theft as a cure for corruption.

While a corrupt and ineffective PA was being starved for operating revenue by the Israelis, Hamas consistently used foreign aid donations by other Muslim nations (for which those nations have been accused by rightwingnuts as being supporters of terrorism) to fund education, medical and dental clinics, sewage and clean water projects--in short, everything the PA was too corrupt and broke to provide, and everything the Israelis had promised to provide in their typical mealy-mouthed fashion, and then reneged upon. Small wonder Hamas won the last election.

When the second Intifada broke out in 2000, because of the broken promises of the Israelis, and the latest land thefts and water thefts, and the newest restrictions on Palestinians, Hamas was declared a terrorist organization. That's good enough for you, isn't it? Decent, innoncent, well-meaning Israel a victim of the bad old terrorists. You really live in fantasy land.



That is not necessarily so--unless and until Israel returns all Lebanese territory and either exchanges prisoners, or turns Lebanese citizens held in Israeli prisons over to an international tribunal, you cannot definitely say that Hezbollah's object is the destruction of Israel. Time enough for that if Israel acts in good faith (something they rarely do) and is still attacked, at which point, if the Lebanese government cannot disarm Hezbollah, an international force should do so--not Israel acting as a rogue militarist state.



I know this is the popular Israeli lobby propaganda line, but you haven't established the case, and even if you did, that does not authorize the indiscriminate attacks on the Lebanon which kill Lebanese civilians, and haven't yet stopped the Hezbollah rocket attacks (and note to the Candleless One: No--Hezbollah made occasional rocket attacks on Israel for years without this response--daily, multiple-rocket attacks and attacks on the urban area of Haifa did not begin until after the Israelis made massive air raids and rocket attacks on the Lebanon. Prior to that time, the target of choice for Hezbollah rockets were the Israelis on the Shebaa Farms, yet again an example of the attempt to establish Jewish settlements on occupied territory.)--the likeliest result of the Isreali attacks, as i and others have pointed out, will be to garner support for Hezbollah, which until the present has been a fringe group.



You pointed out yourself that Hezbollah was not a majority group politically, so your thesis is dubious. In fact, making martyrs of the Lebanese people is far more likely to draw new recruits.



Your use of the term "rewarding" is propagandistic. Constructive diplomatic engagement could effectively isolate Hezbollah, and cut their support from outside the Lebanon, while undermining what little support they have within their nation. These attacks don't deter Hezbollah--they are prepared to be martyrs, and undoubtedly cynically use civilian deaths for their own propagandistic purposes. Once again, these tactics failed to destroy the PLO thirty years ago, and did nothing to abate attacks on Israeli territory (or what they call Israeli territory, after they steal it from their neighbors)--there is no good reason to suppose this idiotically simple-minded formula will work now. These are the theories of playground fist-fights, not of international relations in a very, very complex world. I know simple explanations reassure people that they have the answers, but they are unrealistic. Fifty years of such behavior by the Israelis has not diminished their enemies, and, if anything, had increased the animus toward them.



While there are members of Hezbollah who would wish to destroy the United States, it is as the flea wishing to destroy the elephant--we have nothing to fear from them.

Ahmadinejad is Persian, not Lebanese--he lives in Teheran, not Beirut--the lives of Lebanese civilians are on the line, not Persians.



You are way to quick to want to link all of this to Iran--if you're so goddamned hyped to take out the evil Persian terrorists, why don't you join up, O'Bill--go fight the good fight on the ground. Your rhetoric makes me sick, because you are not the one who will ever have to pay the price. But you certainly are a loyal purveyor of all the half-truths, innuendo and outright lies which PNAC and the Israeli lobby want the world to believe.

The point, which both you and O'Bill are ignoring, is that the situation in the Lebanon at the time of the 1978 invasion by Israel was a direct result of the expulsion of the Palestinians after the 1967 war.

As for your putative regard for me, the viciousness you've displayed in the past, completely with character assassination, complete gives the lie to this pious bit of hypocricy on your part.

Setanta
Setanta speaks the truth. Anyone who has bothered to study the history of the Middle East and Palestine-Israel issues would understand how the Israelis have made a bad situation worse. One doesn't need to be brilliant to understand that Israel deliberately prolonged the disputes by building the settlements in Gaza. Even Sharon finally decided they had to be removed if any possibility of peace could be achieved.

My solution to the dispute has always been simple. The U.S. has always used checkbook diplomacy to get it's way in the world. Palestine and Israel cannot survive without financial support from their allies. Cut both Palestine and Israel off from money from their supporters (including the U.S.) They would quickly negotiate a peace agreement to keep the money flowing and keep them in power. The money might speak louder than bombs.

BBB

Although i agree with Aunt Bee about the support for Israel, i doubt that any American politicians have the balls to propose it, and between Jews who support Israel (which is not all of them) and rightwing religious nuts, that would be a pretty risky proposition for most American politicians.

Writers Warn of Dangers in US Approach on Middle East Crisis
Formerly Knight-Ridder McClatchy Writers Warn of Dangers in U.S. Approach on Middle East Crisis
By E&P Staff
Published: July 20, 2006

Support for Israel's extensive air strikes against Beirut and Lebanon's infrastructure in the current Middle East conflict remains strong among U.S. officials, and on newspaper editorial pages, while diplomatic efforts remain slowed. At the White House, President Bush's press secretary, Tony Snow, said today, "I'm not sure at this juncture we're going to step in and put up a stop sign."

But William Douglas and John Walcott from McClatchy's Washington bureau today warned of the dangers in the current approach. An excerpt follows. The entire article can be found here.


***

The White House's inaction on the Israeli-Hezbollah and Israeli-Palestinian issues is consistent with its belief that the goal of American Mideast policy shouldn't be keeping the peace but transforming the region by destabilizing, defeating or overthrowing groups and regimes that practice or support terrorism and are hostile to Israel.

"That's the big idea that was behind the invasion of Iraq, it's the reason they won't talk to Syria or Iran or Hamas, and now it's the reason they're giving the Israelis time and space to try to destroy Hezbollah," said a veteran U.S. diplomat who agreed to speak only on the condition of anonymity because "if you print my name, it'll be the end of my career."

The trouble with the policy is "it won't work," said the official. That view was shared by a half-dozen other current and former foreign policy and intelligence officials, all of whom requested anonymity for the same reason.

The Israelis tried to remake Lebanon in 1982 and failed. U.S. attempts to transform Iraq and Afghanistan two decades later are in deep trouble.

As a result of elections, Hamas, the militant group that stands for Israel's destruction, took control of the Palestinian Authority, Hezbollah has members in the Lebanese National Assembly and Cabinet, and Shiite Muslim parties allied with Iran hold power in Iraq.

Meanwhile, the administration's decision to shun Iran, Hamas and Syria has left it with no contacts and little leverage in Tehran, the Palestinian territories or Damascus.

There's also a risk that militant groups will gain popular support as a result of the administration's indifference in brokering a settlement to end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and its unwillingness to stop Israel's attacks on Lebanon.

Other risks of a hands-off approach:

-- Hezbollah could try to draw the Israelis into another ground campaign in Lebanon. That would be even more disastrous for the Lebanese people, the government and the economy, but it also would give Hezbollah militants new opportunities to kill Jews, recruit followers, become martyrs and muster wider support in Lebanon and beyond.

-- If Israel's air strikes fail to stop Hezbollah from firing its large arsenal of crude rockets, the Israelis may be tempted to go to what both many Israelis and President Bush consider to be the source of the problem by attacking Syria. That could provoke a wider regional war and put an even greater squeeze on moderate Arab rulers such as Jordan's King Abdullah and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who are caught among the U.S., the anti-Israeli attitudes of their people and the rising threat of Islamic militancy.

So you guys don't believe Israel should exist then, correct?

If you expect a response, McWhitey, you need to name whomever it is you refer to when you write "you guys."

BBB
The link to the entire article was lost in my previous post:

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/15076560.htm

BBB

McG


You've posted some stupid things in the past, but this one beats them all.

BBB

When you suggest the US should stop supporting Israel financially and militarily, what do you expect the results will be? Do you think Syria and Iran will stop supporting Hizbollah? Do you think the muslim fanatics will stopp attacking Israel?

What is it exactly that you believe will happen to Israel beyond complete destruction?

Your words say that you have no desire to see Israel exist, and until you say otherwise, I see no reason to believe you wish to see Israel eradicated.

Typically liberal.

BBB
For those not inclinded to study the history of Lebanon and Hezbollah, the following is a short but accurate quick study:

Who is Hezbollah?
By John Walcott
McClatchy Newspapers
7/16/06

Iran began trying to export its brand of Islamic rule to Lebanon soon after its own Islamic Revolution in 1979. Its early efforts failed, however, and Hezbollah, the Party of God, was formed by Shiite Muslim clerics only after Israel invaded the country in 1982 to root out Palestinian terrorists. Although it's now a political party that's represented in the Lebanese cabinet, Hezbollah has ignored demands to defuse its military wing, the Islamic Resistance, which has become the most potent military force in Lebanon.

Its goals include destroying Israel, promoting Islamic law and advancing the cause of Lebanon's traditionally disenfranchised and impoverished Shiites, who are the largest religious community in a country long dominated by a Christian and Sunni elite.

Backed by Syria and Iran, Hezbollah's initial aim was to drive the Israelis out of Lebanon. But after American, British, French and Italian troops were sent to Beirut in 1982 to help restore order after Israel's Christian Lebanese allies massacred hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of Palestinians in two Beirut refugee camps, Hezbollah began attacking them, as well.

In 1983, suicide bombers destroyed the American Embassy in Beirut and the U.S. Marine headquarters at Beirut airport; the latter attack killed 241 Americans. Hezbollah terrorists also hijacked TWA Flight 847 and took Americans hostage. Imad Mugniyah, who masterminded the hijacking and many of the kidnappings, remains one of the FBI's most wanted terrorists.

Some Hezbollah members, though, run social welfare programs while their radical colleagues are mounting terrorist operations and attacks on the Israeli military. Funded largely from Iran, Hezbollah has built schools, medical clinics and other facilities in Lebanon's Shiite south, as well as its own television station, al Manar, which the Israelis bombed this month after the group fired rockets into Israel.

Its social programs and its campaign to force the Israelis to withdraw their troops from Lebanon, which they did in 2000, helped make Hezbollah a political force as well as a military and terrorist one. But some Lebanese think the group may now have overplayed its hand by plunging Lebanon into another war.

Blatham has started a threat on the plight of the people of the Lebanon, which links to a Los Angeles Times article which also tells of the American evacuation effort. Mr. Mountie did not intend the thread for partisan comments, and i ask that people respect that. His intent is to provide information on the situation for people on the ground in the Lebanon.

Setanta you are a silly goose, simple information is never wanted.

Typically conservative head-up-the-arse view of the situation.

In 1967, when Israel and Syria clashed before the Six Day War, the Isrealis crippled the Syrian Air Force in the air and on the ground with Mirage jets. Now think about that (if you don't recall the meaning of the word think, i'm sure you could quickly get a definition with an online search), you'll realize that even forty years ago, Israel had the financial resources to purchase their major weapons systems from other nations. Their preferred tank in the 1967 war was the British Centurion tank--they only relied upon American dollars to allow themselves to have guns and butter--to finance a military far beyond their means then, while continuing to build an export economic base.

Today, the Israelis purchase M16 aircraft, believing them to be the best weapons for their money--keep in mind that they purchase them. Manufacturing aircraft is not beyond their skills, nor their industrial base, but requires strategic minerals with which they are not provided by nature, so they find it cheaper to buy them. They extensively modify the aircraft they do buy to increase their service life in that climate, and for the operational doctrines with which they use their aircraft--primarily "close-air support," which is to say, attacking targets on the ground from a low altitude.

The Israelis manufacture their own main battle tank--the Merkava--which was specially designed for survivability in the face of anti-tank weapons, especially Soviet-style RPGs and their modern descendants. They also manufacture their own armored personnel carriers.

Israel can survive without American dollars. The Syrians were never able to push into Isreali territory even when attacking in concert with Jordan and Egypt. In the past, they relied heavily on the Soviet Union for weapons systems on the cheap--something which they can no longer do. They have to purchase their weapons systems at fair market price like everyone else. The contention that they will be attacked by Iran is completely in the realm of fantasy. I wonder if McWhitey has ever seen a map of the middle east. Do you think the Persians armored columns will pull up to an Iraqi border check-point and tell the customs and immigration folks: "Look, we're just passing through, we won't be in Iraq longer than overnight"--do you really think about this drivel before you post it?

American aid, along with generous contribution from Jews and Jewish organizations around the world allowed Israel to build a successful consumer and industrial economy from 1948 to 1970. They performed prodigies--they invented large fish farming on an industrial scale; they developed a citrus industry which sells both whole fruit and juice to Europe in significant quantities; they established a small-manufatured goods and electronics manufacturing base (which in times of relative peace has relied heavily on cheap Palestinian labor) which brings them significant foreign exchange from other nations of the middle east and from African nations.

Israel has long since passed the point at which it needs to rely on American dollars for its survival. I find this the more hilarious as rightwing nuts are so quick to quote data on the decrease in American aid to Israel as evidence that our governments are not in the grip of a pro-Israel lobby.

Withdrawing American aid would put the Israelis in the position of being obliged to quickly secure peace with its neighbors and within its borders. It wouldn't threaten Israel's existence, but only a lavish prosperity. Which is, of course, something which politicians, in Israel as elsewhere, never want to think about.

But you are amusing as hell, Mr. Righteous Indignation.

Thanks for reminding me that i forgot to link Mr. Mountie's thread.

"This morning the dogs were eating the neighbors."

Set

I am confused and have a deepening sense of foreboding.

Here is what might be termed an off-the-wall, kind of contrarian view:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ed-kosner/israels-secret-weapon_b_25458.html

"Ed Kosner

07.20.2006
Israel's Secret Weapon

Just as I was leaving Beirut on a Newsweek trip nearly thirty years ago, armored personnel carriers began taking positions at intersections in that beautiful city--the first sign of the civil war that soon engulfed the country. That fight was between Christians and Palestine Liberation Organization zealots backed by Lebanese Muslims.

Soon, Syria intervened--initially behind the Christians! Within a few years, Israel had invaded Lebanon to clear out the PLO, and the exquisite St. Georges hotel and the rest of the skyline turned into castles of rubble.

The vision of those APCs under the palm trees came back to me this week as Israeli warplanes and artillery blasted Beirut back to the bad old days. The Israelis maintained that they were retaliating for the capture of two of their soldiers and the rocketing of Jewish homes by Hezbollah fighters from the sanctuary of southern Lebanon--and it's fair to question the ferocity of the Israeli response. But this latest episode dramatizes a larger truth about the Middle East that I only glimpsed three decades ago.

Every time, the Israelis are positioned to give back more Arab territory and move closer to accepting a Palestinian state next door, they are rescued by their Arab neighbors.

Since the Camp David accords, Israel has turned the Sinai back to Egypt, retreated once from Lebanon after the 1980 incursion, handed Gaza over to the Palestinians and was contemplating some West Bank withdrawals behind its new security fence in anticipation of a Palestinian state.

But over that same period of time, Egyptian fanatics assassinated Anwar Sadat, the man who made peace with Israel; King Hussein of Jordan first made war on the PLO, then backed Iraq in Saddam Hussein's disastrous grab at Kuwait; Yasser Arafat waged two Intifadas against Israel; Hafez Assad of Syria was succeeded by his chinless bumbling son, Bashir, whose operatives likely assassinated the popular onetime prime minister of Lebanon; and now Arafat's successors are wrestling with the Hamas jihadi for control of the nascent Palestinian state.

These centrifugal forces churning the Arab world guarantee that some self-defeating adventure by its adversaries will inevitably rescue Israel from taking the last steps in any "roadmap" to settlement with its neighbors. And the jihadist hatred demonstrated time and again by Hamas and Hezbollah gives the Israelis persuasive evidence that they have no credible partners for peace.

It's always easy to condemn Israel for the deadly efficiency and aggressiveness of its military response to provocations from its enemies. But the truth is that Israel's secret weapon is the Arabs themselves."