George Monbiot, the political activist who – among other things -- writes a weekly column for The Guardian newspaper, writes in an article Tuesday that the Israeli attack against Lebanon was well planned. Not only that, but Bush knew in advance.
Israel responded to an unprovoked attack by Hizbullah, right? Wrong.
The assault on Lebanon was premeditated - the soldiers' capture simply provided the excuse. It was also unnecessary.
[…]
On July 12, in other words, Hizbullah fired the first shots. But that act of aggression was simply one instance in a long sequence of small incursions and attacks over the past six years by both sides. So why was the Israeli response so different from all that preceded it? The answer is that it was not a reaction to the events of that day. The assault had been planned for months.
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that "more than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to US and other diplomats, journalists and thinktanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail". The attack, he said, would last for three weeks. It would begin with bombing and culminate in a ground invasion. Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University, told the paper that "of all of Israel's wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared ... 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".
A "senior Israeli official" told the Washington Post that the raid by Hizbullah provided Israel with a "unique moment" for wiping out the organisation. The New Statesman's editor, John Kampfner, says he was told by more than one official source that the US government knew in advance of Israel's intention to take military action in Lebanon. The Bush administration told the British government.
The reaction from Netanyahu on BBC’s Hard Talk on Monday also seemed to impliy that this was true.
Meanwhile, it seems that a split between Bush and Rice has emerged for the first time, “leading the president to override her for the first time ever.” According to Insight On the News, the Lebanon issue has divided not only the administration, but also the Bush family (!).
While Rice has sought to pressure Israel into ending the strikes, Bush has been unyielding.
"For the last 18 months, Condi was given nearly carte blanche in setting foreign policy guidelines," a senior government source familiar with the issue said. "All of a sudden, the president has a different opinion and he wants the last word."
The disagreement between Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice is over the ramifications of U.S. support for Israel's continued offensive against Lebanon. The sources said Mr. Bush believes that Israel's failure to defeat Hezbollah would encourage Iranian adventurism in neighboring Iraq. Ms. Rice has argued that the United States would be isolated both in the Middle East and Europe at a time when the administration seeks to build a consensus against Iran's nuclear weapons program.
Of course, the prospect of a regional conflict seems increasingly likely, as, according to Sidney Bloomenthal in Salon, this is what Cheney and his gang of neocons are actively seeking.
Blumenthal claims to be in touch with "a national security official with direct knowledge of the operation" to supply Israel with signals intelligence from American assets to help it monitor armament transfers from Syria and Iran to Hezbollah. He states that President Bush has approved the intelligence sharing.
Bush is being influenced by neoconservatives in his administration led by Vice President Dick Cheney's staff and Elliot Abrams, senior director for the Near East on the National Security Council. The group, according to Blumenthal, seeks to start a 'four front war' by giving Israel the pretext to strike Iran and Syria. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been briefed, but is not a central actor in the plan.
Here too, an increasing marginalization of Rice is alleged:
The neoconservatives are described as enthusiastic about the possibility of using NSA intelligence as a lever to widen the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah and Israel and Hamas into a four-front war.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is said to have been "briefed" and to be "on board," but she is not a central actor in pushing the covert neoconservative scenario. Her "briefing" appears to be an aspect of an internal struggle to intimidate and marginalize her. Recently she has come under fire from prominent neoconservatives who oppose her support for diplomatic negotiations with Iran to prevent its development of nuclear weaponry.
What are the primary motivations and limiting factors here? The elections? I have no idea. What do you think? It seems to me that the neocons are hellbent on another front in the War on Terror.
" There was talk of taking care of Hezbollah and Syria, but Condi and [then-Secretary of State Colin] Powell said 'no way. We don't need another front,'" an official said.
[…]
[T]he sources said Mr. Bush has been dismayed by the Israeli failure to defeat Hezbollah. They said several high-ranking Republicans have expressed amazement at the plodding Israeli advance into Lebanon.
"One Jewish friend of Bush actually called up a senior Israeli official and began yelling, 'What the hell's going on here,'" a source said. "'Are you going to fight or what?'"
Btw, Capitol Hill Blue is also pointing out what an ominous sign it is for Condi that Bush is underscoring what a heckuva job she’s doing over there…