Most of Israel's targets in Lebanon serve none of its stated goals
By Marc J Sirois
Daily Star staff
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
One day it might be slightly - but darkly - funny to look back on Israel's rationalizations for its target choices during the offensive against Lebanon that began on July 12. Right now, though, for those who can look at the facts on the ground through anything other than a prism supplied by "poor little Israel," the more common reactions are confusion, fear and outrage.
The Jewish state's official position is that it is destroying "terrorist infrastructure" as a means of (in no particular order, for reasons which will shortly be evident); a) degrading the command and control and combat capabilities of Hizbullah; b) freeing the two Israeli soldiers whose capture sparked the disproportionate onslaught; and c) establishing a new "buffer zone" along the border to put northern Israel beyond the reach of most Hizbullah rockets.
It is hard to see how these goals can be furthered by a target list that has so far included a textile factory, a dairy, a glass factory, and a woodworking shop. A key component of the Jewish state's strategy is emerging: One of the world's most technologically sophisticated military organizations wants to make sure that no Hizbullah fighter can wear a T-shirt while he drinks milk from a proper tumbler while sitting at a wooden table. But the fighter might find some milk - and a usable receptacle therefore - and might be lactose-intolerant and suffer some kind of stomach problem after he drinks the "terrorist elixir," so pharmaceutical plants also need to be bombed in order to cut off his access to treatment. The fighter would then require considerable amounts of toilet tissue, which must explain why a paper factory was destroyed. He might call a friend to bring some, so cellular phone transmission networks must also be eliminated, and since the call might get through anyway, the friend must be denied mobility by blowing up gas stations. The Hizbullah man might also see a television ad for a home remedy, so broadcasting has to be hit, too, as well as grocery stores. In case the fighter is in a washroom equipped with a bidet (however unlikely), he must be prevented from using it, so water reservoirs are legitimate targets as well. And what if he calls an ambulance? Start knocking them out, too, and throw in a couple of hospitals for good measure.
If we assume that these kinds of facilities (and there have been dozens of others just as innocuous) are "terrorist infrastructure," perhaps it would be less time-consuming to enumerate those that are not. Hopefully someone can discern what these might be. One has to assume, after all, that at least some Hizbullah fighters like to smell flowers, for instance, so florists' shops are fair game. The same goes for just about anything human beings require for sustenance. Maybe, given the dietary restrictions followed by many practicing Muslims, alcohol is off-limits? But alcohol is not just an intoxicant. It's also an antiseptic, so anyone who stocks Johnny Walker on his shelves is hereby forewarned. How about pork farms? They seem safe right now, but give Israeli planners a few days to consider contingencies.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb
The sheer absurdity of Israel's excuses for targeting items that patently have no military value demands that such questions be asked. This is especially true in light of the sole nuance detectable in US reactions to the assault: President George W. Bush has stated that while he has no problem with the Jewish state's ravaging of Lebanon, he would like to make sure that the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora survives. The premise of Bush's theorem is typically cloudy, especially since there will be precious little for anyone to govern when this is all over, but also because the broadcasting targets have included FTV and LBC. FTV is affiliated with the Future Movement, the same Sunni organization whose MPs form the core of Siniora's support in Parliament. As for LBC, it is a staunch ally of the Christian politicians who joined the Future Movement to form the March 14 Forces whose very purpose has been to tilt Lebanon away from its former Syrian masters and seek accommodation with the United States. Targeting them necessarily reduces the ability of Siniora and his allies to make a variety of points that need very badly to be made about the national interest.
Does the destruction of such targets serve any of the goals the Jewish state has enunciated? The answer is mixed at best. Certainly, Hizbullah's capabilities have been reduced, but its fighters have provided spirited and apparently well-coordinated defense against Israeli ground incursions, and its rockets continue to exact some small measure of revenge for the devastation meted out in Lebanon. Obviously the two soldiers are no closer to being released, and while Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh has said that they are in good health, that could change if and when the Israeli Air Force flattens the wrong building. A buffer zone might still be established, but to what end? The only real protection for residents of northern Israel is not an armed presence that will try to keep Hizbullah out of rocket range, but a serious look at the party's very real grievances.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said that a cease-fire will be of no use if it leaves in place the conditions that led to this war. All she needs to do now is get beyond the tired rhetoric about bogeymen and take a hard look at what those conditions really are.
