XPost: uk.politics.misc, alt.politics.british, alt.conspiracy.princess-diana   
   XPost: alt.conspiracy, alt.conspiracy.new-world-order, alt.america   
   XPost: us.politics   
   From: o@o.org   
      
   It's about annexation, stupid!   
   By Kaveh L Afrasiabi   
      
   Officially, Israel's ground invasion of Lebanon is an act of self-defense   
   against Hezbollah's threat, aimed at creating a security buffer zone until   
   the arrival of a "multinational force with an enforcement capability". But   
   increasingly, as the initial goal of a narrow strip of only a few kilometers   
   has now been extended up to the Litani River deep in Lebanon, the real   
   motives behind Israel's invasion are becoming crystal-clear.   
      
   It's about (de facto) annexation, stupid. This is a war to annex a major   
   chunk of Lebanese territory without necessarily saying so, under the pretext   
   of security buffer and deterrence against future attacks on Israel.   
      
   Already, since the Six Day War, Israel has annexed the Sheba Farms,   
   considered part of the Syrian Golan Heights, although the government of   
   Lebanon has long complained that the 25-square-kilometer area was a part of   
   Lebanon. Now the Israeli army is sweeping the area south of the Litani River   
   as a temporary occupation.   
      
   "We have no intention of extending our operation more than 70 kilometers   
   north of our borders with Lebanon," stated Lieutenant-Colonel Hemi Lini on   
   the Lebanese border on July 17, one week  after the war's outbreak.   
      
   This would put Israel, assuming for a moment that the Israel Defense Forces'   
   operations prove ultimately successful, in control of the Litani River, thus   
   fulfilling Israel's founding fathers' dream, stretching back to Chaim   
   Weizmann, head of the World Zionist Organization, who in 1919 declared the   
   river "essential to the future of the Jewish national home".   
      
   Consequently, contrary to the pro-Israel pundits' reassurances that this war   
   is not about occupation, all the tangible signs indicate the exact opposite,   
   ie, the distinct possibility of a "war of acreage" whereby Israel would   
   expand its territory, acquire a new strategic depth, and simultaneously   
   address its chronic water shortage by exploiting the Litani.   
      
   Access to the Litani would translate into an annual increase of water supply   
   by 800 million cubic meters. This in turn might allow Israel to bargain with   
   Syria over the Golan Heights, source of a full one-third of Israel's fresh   
   water. However, a more likely scenario is Israel's continued unwillingness   
   to abide by United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338 calling for its   
   withdrawal from the Syrian territories.   
      
   The entire Western media have settled on a naive perspective of the reasons   
   for Israel's invasion of Lebanon, namely as a defensive measure against   
   Hezbollah. Conspicuously absent is any serious consideration of a viable,   
   alternative explanation while focusing on, in essence, the same ingredients   
   as in the 1982 invasion: "deceit and misleading statements" by leaders,   
   "inaccurate announcements" by the military spokesmen, and "gross   
   exaggeration" of threats, to paraphrase a candid reflection of an Israeli   
   general, Yehoshafat Harkabi.   
      
   Following this scenario, Israel has dropped leaflets throughout southern   
   Lebanon warning the civilians to leave or risk their lives, as they would be   
   considered "Hezbollah sympathizers" if they refused to leave. Reminiscent of   
   Israel's annexation of Palestinian lands in 1948 and beyond, the present war   
   is causing mass refugees, who in all likelihood will not return to their   
   homes any time soon.   
      
   The geostrategic and water dimensions of Israel's quest to possess southern   
   Lebanon notwithstanding, the question is, of course, whether or not the   
   world community will tolerate such a development that would remake the map   
   of the Middle East.   
      
   There are plenty of reasons to think that in light of the United States'   
   complicit silence on Israel's violation of the territorial integrity of   
   Lebanon, Israel will somehow manage to ride out the international criticisms   
   and stick to its undeclared plan to annex southern Lebanon. However, what is   
   less certain is that the combined efforts of Hezbollah and the rest of   
   Lebanese society, not to mention other Arab contributions, will prevail over   
   Israel's appetite for a decent part of Lebanon.   
      
   With the military balance disproportionately in Israel's favor, we can   
   safely assume that the new Operation Litani will succeed and thus create a   
   "new Middle East" with a "greater" and geographically expanded Israel and a   
   shrunken or diminished Lebanon.   
      
   If so, then the chronology of events narrated by future historians will   
   closely follow this line of thought: that Israel deliberately provoked   
   Hezbollah into action, after a six-year hiatus, by pressuring Hezbollah's   
   ally, Hamas, which was subjected to a campaign of terror, financial squeeze   
   and intimidation.   
      
   The laying of such a trap by Israel would not have happened in a vacuum of   
   strategic thinking on Israel's part. The fact that Hezbollah fell into the   
   trap is a result of several factors, including an adventurist element   
   lending itself to the "reckless" action of Hezbollah on July 11 with respect   
   to crossing the Blue Line and attacking an Israeli patrol.   
      
   Since then, the Israelis have put on the mask of being reluctant warriors,   
   delaying their troops' entry into south Lebanon and thus perpetuating   
   Israel's self-image as disinterested in any imperial grand objectives. Yet   
   the facts on the ground speak louder than words and, indeed, what fact is   
   more important than Israeli leaders' announced intention to occupy up to the   
   Litani River?   
      
   Again, what is understandably omitted in those announcements, adopted as the   
   real reasons by CNN and other US networks, is Israel's predatory lust after   
   Litani's water sources, as well as for new geographical and strategic depth.   
   This in turn might explain the otherwise inexplicably blatant overreaction   
   of Israel to a border incident with Hezbollah.   
      
   Instead of searching for answers in the Israeli collective psyche or in the   
   context of action, we must probe the answer in the writings of Israel's   
   founding fathers, including Theodor Herzl and David Ben-Gurion, commonly   
   yearning for Israel's control of the Litani River. As a timely addition to   
   their old wish, Israel today has a security-related explanation, justifying   
   the territorial takeover in the near future in terms of the lessons of the   
   present war, the main lesson being Israel's dire need to gain strategic   
   depth to avoid rocket attacks.   
      
   Indeed, the verdict will soon be out in Israel about the precious lesson of   
   Lebanon War II, that is, how to prevent future rocket attacks in the only   
   feasible way, that is, direct control of southern Lebanon.   
      
   Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in   
   Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) and co-author of "Negotiating Iran's   
   Nuclear Populism", Brown Journal of World Affairs, Volume XII, Issue 2,   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)