If one views the events in and around Israel through the prism of the old Arab adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", many of the actions by successive Israeli governments begin to make sense.
The aftermath of two wars in six years (1967 and 1973) saw the rise of "terrorist" groups to counter Israeli successes, which makes historical sense, as the wars radically diminished the ability to project power by the Arab governments in Israel's neighborhood. Remember Peter Ustinov's prophetic, and accurate, quote "Terrorism is the way a poor man (nation) wages War, and WAR is the way a rich man (nation) wages Terrorism".
Since that time the Israelis have taken the old adage to heart and implemented a strategic policy based upon it. A rather high-stakes version of ping-pong, whereby Israel would sometimes negotiate to bolster indigenous and foreign support for local "governments" and their leaders, and then periodically resort to heavy-handed military actions that empowered militant "terrorist" groups. In this way the Israelis sought, and succeeded, in keeping their "enemies" divided amongst themselves. Thus, I guess you could argue that Israel is therefore surrounded by "friends"?
The strategy works and is on display this summer. In Gaza/West Bank, Israeli policies have exploited the rift between the newly elected leaders of the Palestinians, Hamas, and the old 'rulers', Arafat's Fatah party. In Southern Lebanon, the same strategy is at work today in keeping the impotent, but legitimate Lebanese government from fully integrating the illegitimate, but very potent, "state within a state" party of Hezbollah.
Of course, Syria and Iran also know their ancestral proverbs, and play a version of the same game, just not as well. Though it is entirely arguable that Time is on their side, when referring to demographics and the proliferation of modern military technologies. And as the status quo is somewhat useful to the governments of Iran, Syria, Egypt, and Jordan, perhaps they are not in such a hurry.
The truly important questions surrounding this summer's conflicts are these:
Will Palestinians "unite" and instigate another "Intifada" against Israel, complete with the opening of a 'third' front in the West Bank?
Will Israeli actions follow their rhetoric and result in attacks upon Damascus?
And most consequentially, are the Israelis, with complete U.S. corroboration, laying the groundwork for an attack upon Iran? Ostensibly to "retaliate" for Iranian support of Hezbollah, but in fact, to "wipe off the map" any potential threat to Israel's regional nuclear hegemony.
Keep a close eye on the world's stock and commodities markets for an answer and an early warning.
Chris Floyd (www.chris-floyd.com) says that an nuclear attack on Iran by the U.S. is coming in order to demonstrate to the world the earnestness of the Bush Doctrine of "pre-emptive war". I disagree, for I believe that future sales of "star-wars" technology takes precedence and requires a "threat" to provide the necessary "incentive". But I must admit that the current trend of 'events' in the Middle East give me great concern that Chris may be right and I may be wrong. For it is the historic nature of waning 'superpowers' to overreach as their imminent demise becomes apparent. (See Rome, Britain, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia)
The most fearful scenario is that Israel, facing it's demographic timebomb, will replicate it's past policies on a nuclear level and force the entire globe into a two-sided conflict in which the U.S. will most certainly (again) be on the wrong side. It is within their power, and considering Masada, it is not beyond possibility.
stephenhsmith
13July2006
