The Osterley Times: Israel ready for massive invasion

I read somewhere recently that, if you want to know if a war was moral, you should look at how it started - if you want to know if a war was wise, you should look at how it ends.

It is with the latter in mind that Olmert has now ordered 6,000 ground troops into Lebanon in the hope of providing some justification for the war he has launched and the lives that have been lost.

If he can secure a Hizbullah free zone in southern Lebanon then he can say that it was all worthwhile. The size of that zone has been left deliberately vague as Olmert continually reins in his previous perceptions of what will constitute victory. It used to be the total destruction of Hizbullah, now it's no Hizbullah forces south of the Litani river or failing that no Hizbullah forces within -- miles of the Israeli border. The -- will be determined by how far into southern Lebanon the troops manage to secure.

At that point, whatever point is reached, it is hoped that victory can be declared.

Olmert's new found boldness may be inspired by the fact that even Condoleezza Rice appears to be working to different time scale than the Israelis, with Miss Rice saying she expects hostilities to end within days whilst Vice Premier Shimon Peres says the fighting might go on for weeks.

It appears that no-one is singing from the same song sheet in this dispute. It also appears clear that Israel is aware that it's time scale for these operations is limited and eventually even the Americans and the UK are going to call time on Israel's venture.

For the moment though, the Israelis have license to continue after the EU failed to call for a ceasefire.

Despite escalating violence in southern Lebanon, EU foreign ministers rejected a draft statement that would have called for an immediate ceasefire and would have branded Israel's bombardment as "a severe breach of international humanitarian law". In a semantic bow to Washington and Tel Aviv, they called instead "for an immediate cessation of hostilities to be followed by a sustainable ceasefire".
Germany and four other countries joined Britain in opposing the tougher language that had been urged by France. In EU parlance, a "cessation" now appears to mean a temporary pause, whereas a "ceasefire" implies a more permanent arrangement. The wording is virtually identical to the statement agreed by foreign ministers at their last meeting two weeks ago in Brussels. The only difference is the addition of the call for a sustainable ceasefire after the cessation.
The foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, denied the compromise amounted to a "green light" for Israel to continue its military offensive. "I would be saddened and dismayed if someone would read that into today's conclusions," she said.

Beckett can be dismayed as much as she wants, but the truth is that anything less than a call for ceasefire is a green light for the Israelis to continue their present offensive.

And the French are right to call Israel's actions "a severe breach of international humanitarian law". They are indeed a severe breach, they are also acts of wanton destruction and collective punishment, both of which constitute war crimes. Europe's spineless inability to recognise this is a mark of shame for the whole European Community.

However, it is unclear how long the Israelis will be allowed to continue before world opinion forces them to stop. Even the spineless Europeans will eventually have to pay some attention to the outrage of their electorate.

Certainly Blair will not be able to offer support for much longer as his cabinet threatens to split over this issue.

Some of Mr Blair's most senior ministers are now openly questioning his leadership on the issue. A number of cabinet ministers, including the key loyalists David Miliband and Lord Grocott, chief whip in the Lords, expressed their concern about the Israeli attacks in the Lebanon, as senior members of the Cabinet showed dissent at the final cabinet meeting before the summer recess. Some ministers who did not speak out are rumoured to have sent notes to Mr Blair saying: "Do not take our silence as consent."

At the moment the likely victor of this war is Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hizbollah. A year ago he was a rebel without a cause, a man who's greatest moment had come and gone with the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in the year 2000. The Israelis have transformed him from yesterday's man into a symbol of Arab pride.

His spokesmen admitted that Hizbollah had miscalculated the ferocity of the Israeli response to the kidnapping, but then few in the world forecast that Israel would play so directly to Hizbollah's strengths as a guerrilla organisation capable of surviving an Israeli military attack. Nor had it seemed likely that Israel, after extricating with such difficulty from the Lebanese morass after 18 years, would plunge back into it with such enthusiasm.

Nasrallah's entire career has been shaped by Israel's repeated interventions in Lebanon from the civil war in the mid-1970s up to the present time. If an Israeli helicopter had not assassinated Nasrallah's mentor and predecessor, Abbas Mussawi, as head of Hizbollah in 1992, he would not have led the organisation over the past 14 years. The Israeli air force has made every effort to kill him by bombing his home and office - but all he has to do now is survive to become a hero across the Arab world.

Olmert now seeks some way to snatch victory from Nasrallah's grasp, although as time ticks on Olmert's chances of victory begin to look more and more remote.

Israel now stands close to the edge of a catastrophic defeat. Bush, Blair and the neo-cons are scrambling to find a way, any way, to declare victory. Indeed, there is still the chance that they will expand the war to Iran and Syria rather than allow the Israelis to be defeated in this way.

Certainly the Syrians are treating this as a distinct possibility.

The Syrian president Bashar al-Assad addressed his troops on Monday, urging "caution, vigilance, preparation and readiness". The Syrian army is reportedly on its highest level of alert and all leave has been cancelled but, far from massing troops and tanks on the border, it has opted for dispositions that are patently defensive.

We must never forget that it need never have turned out this way. Olmert's war of choice was foreseen by no-one. Most of us predicted a prisoner exchange, an option that remains a distinct possibility as Israel's military route continues to bear no fruit, it certainly has done nothing to help secure the release of Gilad Shalit and other two Israeli soldiers.

Olmert will claim that, after the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, his decision to wage war was right; time will tell if his decision to wage war was wise.