Israel’s hasbaristas (propagandists and apologists) have been out in force the past couple of weeks, here and elsewhere, desperately trying to shore up the confidence of Israelis and their friends around the world that the country’s military services have not fallen into operational disarray. Yossi Melman, a purported journalist, has been one of the most active– and far-fetched– of these spinmeisters. (Also, on occasion, our commenter here, JES. Okay JES: I “grant” you that the Israeli Air Force was extremely effective in knocking out Lebanon’s vital infrastructure and services, and killing large numbers of civilians. You happy now?)
But the performance of the IDF’s once-vaunted ground forces during the war was truly pathetic… And the navy got a nasty jolt in the war’s early days, too, when a Hizbullah C-802 missile hit its flagship, the INS Hanit, killing four crew members, essentially disabling the ship, and sending it limping back to port…
By chance, today my colleague and friend Nick Blanford, an experienced reporter for the CSM and other media who stayed in Lebanon during the war, penned this, which I share here with his permission:
- Despite US intelligence officers’ assertions that it was Hizbullah’s Iranian-assisted jamming prowess that enabled the Israeli flagship INS Hanit to be struck and disabled, there have been several articles in the Israeli media blaming the ship’s crew for failing to switch on their defensive systems. The latest was by Zeev Schiff of Haaretz who wrote in yesterday’s edition, “Even though the destroyer entered a war zone and cruised along the Lebanese shores, the crew forgot to turn on the automatic operation system of the Barak [anti-missile system]. The result was that no effort was made to intercept the Iranian-Chinese missile, and unobstructed it struck its target.” [I note, parenthetically, that though Ze’ev is an old and valued friend of mine, he has also done a certain amount of hasbara throughout his long career, as well. His despatches sometimes have to be read and decoded with Kremlinological skill. ~HC]
As for the claim [Blanford continues] that the INS Hanit was the only Israeli navy ship struck by Hizbullah’s C-802 missiles, I can only offer this personal observation. I was in Tyre in south Lebanon on August 12 when a flash came through that Hizbullah had hit another Israeli ship off the Tyre coast. I went out onto the seafront and scanned the horizon with a pair of binoculars. After a minute or two, a thin tendril of smoke could be seen on the horizon to the southwest. The smoke grew into a thick plume and lasted for about 20 minutes before dissipating. I couldn’t see any ship and cannot confirm that it was the result of a Hizbullah missile attack on an Israeli navy vessel, but the timing was suggestive as was the most unusual sight of smoke on the horizon off the Lebanese coast.
The threat posed by Hizbullah’s C-802s appears to have forced the Israeli navy to deploy its ships far further from the Lebanese coastline than in the past. During the April 1996 Grapes of Wrath operation, Israeli ships could be seen easily with the naked eye shelling sites inland. This time around they weren’t to be seen at all. Also the Israelis appear to have made far less use of helicopter gunships than in the past, presumably, as Schiff mention in his article, because of the prospect of Hizbullah having acquired more advanced anti-aircraft missiles. We saw them flying at high altitude over the sea and could hear them come closer inshore at night, but I didn’t see any helicopters over land during the war. Instead, the helicopters seem to have been replaced by missile-firing reconnaissance drones whose handiwork was evident in the number of destroyed civilian vehicles lining the roads of south Lebanon.
Nicholas Blanford
Beirut
So the navy commanders realized that something serious had indeed happened when the C-802 hit the Hanit, it seemed.
I just want to add a couple of footnotes to this discussion. Firstly, it is evident that even as I write this, officers in all branches of the Israeli military– with, most likely, some coordination with their US counterparts, as well– are poring over the exact record of what worked, what didn’t , and why during the war, and trying to figure out ways to “fix” the problems identified.
Evidently, planners within Hizbullah’s military wing and their colleagues in the Iranian military will be doing the same thing, too. Hizbullah has proven over the years to have an impressive operational lesson-learning capacity.
On both sides– but particularly in Israel, given the many operational failings revealed by the war– there will be a huge temptation to invest a lot in significant upgrading of its forces. (Two nuclear subs recently received from Germany… But they might be just the tip of a much larger– submerged– iceberg of naval and ground-force upgrading yet to come.)
Israelis might well find themselves tempted to become even more of a “Sparta” than they already are. But that stuff is expensive– in financial terms, and also in the requirements for manpower, which could make the recently discussed plans of transforming the IDF into something close to a US-style all-volunteer force just impossible to realize any time soon.
Time for the country’s people to revolt and join the latte-sippers of the “western” nations that so many of them identify with, I say! Time, too, to learn some lessons from Portugal, circa 1974; to turn away from a strengthened reliance on militarism, and check out the prospects for its very realistic and much more hopeful alternatives.
… One further point. In my 1991 book The Superpowers and the Syrian-Israeli Conflict I had a whole chapter charting, basically, how after the 1967 war Israel started basing its “pitch” to members of the US policy elite increasingly on its “strategic value” to the US– this was in the Cold War, remember– rather than on the “shared values” of respect for life, freedom, tolerance, all those good things, that had previously lain at the heart of its appeal.
Well h’mmm. After what happened in the latest war, Israel’s “appeal” as a humane, caring, life-loving, etc country has (once again) been significantly dented.
But this time, its reputation for “military prowess” and for the ability to provide solid military/operational services to the US in that part of the world, has also taken a noticeable nose-dive, I’d say… I think it is that reputation that the hasbaristas have been working so hard to try to shore up.
So to JES, Ze’ev, and all my other Israeli friends I’d say, Look guys, if you want to gather some shreds of self-esteem around yourselves in order to enter into a serious peace process with your heads held high, I’m all for that. (And you should understand the need to let the Palestinians do it, too.) But if you want to shore up your reputation for “military prowess” in order to keep a solid lock on a strategic relationship with the militarists of the Bush-Cheney administration, then I don’t support that at all.
There is a historic trend here that became apparent in 1982 and has congealed in the latest bout of fighting. The performance of the different branches of the Israeli forces during the 1982 invasion of Lebanon was uneven (see for example http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1987/SGC.htm). Specifcally, while the Air Force performance was picture perfect, the ground forces iperformed less than admirably considering the complete air dominance by the Israelis and the disorganized state of their oponents, specifically the Palestenians. Two battles in particular during that invasion were commented upon as evidence for tardy performance (both against the Syrinas): the ambush of the Israeli leading edge at Ein Zhalta (by the Syrian special forces,made memorable by a vivid description in Robert Fisk’s Pity the Nation), which precluded the Israelis from reaching the Beirut/Damascus highway. This had a grave negative implication for the subsequent Israeli occupation of Lebanon. The other is the battle of Sultan Yaqup in which the Syrians engaged Israeli armored forces advancing into the Beqaa valley and gave them a bloody nose.
24 years later, the discrepancy in the performance of the airforce as contrasted to the disarray of the Israeli ground forces (and the negligence/incompetence of the Israeli Navy) is stunning. And indeed I suspect no amount of fire power by the airforce or other branches is going to change that. The age of the Greater Israel sphere of influence is definitely over.
The neocons are careening wildly around, trying to find some way to spin this. Just look at the wobbly path followed by my favorite fascist Charles Krauthammer:
On August 4, in “Israel’s Lost Moment,” he blasts the “unsteady and uncertain” Israeli government for not fighting hard enough, and risking the disappointment of its “great American patron.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/08/israels_lost_moment.html
On August 18, in “A Moment to be Seized in Lebanon,” he concedes defeat (“the tie goes to the terrorist”), foresees Hezbollah becoming ever more powerful (“now with the psychological success of the war with Israel, Hezbollah may soon become the dominant force in all of Lebanon”) and lusts for a “Round 2” comeback opportunity, with “new leadership, new tactics and new equipment.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/08/will_the_beirut_spring_be_lost.html
But on September 1, in “Hezbollah’s ‘Victory’,” we find that a single comment from Hassan Nasrallah has changed Krauthammer’s whole outlook! Now all of a sudden, Hezbollah lost the war after all – “badly.” Its gains were “illusory.” “Round Two” will not happen after all, because Hezbollah has been “seriously set back.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/09/the_west_must_seize_the_moment.html
Poor Charles can’t seem to figure out what is happening in his crazy, mixed up world. Are the bad guys winning or losing? Are we in Round 1 or Round 2? Are we facing an existential threat, or a defeated blowhard?
The striking of the Stark by an Iraqi missle during the Iran-Iraq war was also possible because the crew had neglected to activiate the ship’s missle defense.
Oh, and talking of hasbaristas, how could I forget the stunningly ignorant little arguments made by that (very handsomely paid) so-called ‘expert’, Charles Krauthammer?
Data to back up your claims, Charles? Ooops… Charles?
Oh come on! hasbaristas? Where did you come up with that one? What are we, Latin Americans? Just for the record, the Hebrew word for “propagandist” is ta’amulan.
Certainly Israel engages in propaganda; the air-dropped leaflets and Radio Mashreq are good examples. But do you want us to believe that Hizballah doesn’t? Give me a break. And in terms of hasbara – call it “spin” if you want to – don’t you think that Hizballah provides us with its own share of “apologists”. (Before you answer “no”, look in the mirror.)
Yossi Melman a “purported journalist”? Really, and is this coming from a “real” journalist?
Okay, so what about the facts? What is it that you and Blanford are suggesting? Perhaps that your man’s claim of having actually “sunk” a second Israeli ship with all hands on board (he even specified the number 56) is true and not pure B.S? Do you think that Israel is hiding this? Well, it’s possible, but this is something like the USS Eisenhower being sunk with its entire crew and the US trying to keep it from the public.
Look, I know that you people are desparate to make this into a decisive victory for Hizballah and, more important, a decisive defeat for the IDF. However, it simply isn’t decisive in either case. I suggest we wait for two things. First, let’s see what the outcomes of the commissions of iquiry are and how the Israeli public, government and military respond to these. Second, let’s wait and see when – and if – your man comes out of hiding and is able to publicly declare “victory”.
P.S. The Portugal comparison is cute, but hardly relevant.
Oh yes, and one more thing. No one has even seriously suggested that the Dolphin Class submarines purchased from Germany are “nuclear”. These subs are clearly diesel, and I think that it is reckless of you to claim otherwise without supporting evidence.
Oh yes, and one more thing. No one has even seriously suggested that the Dolphin Class submarines purchased from Germany are “nuclear”. These subs are clearly diesel, and I think that it is reckless of you to claim otherwise without supporting evidence.
the Dolphin Class submarines purchased from Germany
“Some reports suggest that the submarines have a total of ten torpedo tubes — six 533-millimeter and four 650-millimeter. Uniquely, the Soviet navy deployed the Type 65 heavy-weight torpedo using a 650-millimeter tube. The four larger 25.5 inch diameter torpedo tubes could be used to launch a long-range nuclear-capable submarine-launched cruise missile (SLCM). According to some reports the submarines may be capable of carrying nuclear-armed Popeye Turbo cruise missiles, with a goal of deterring an enemy from trying to take out its nuclear weapons with a surprise attack.
Under a system of rotation, some sources claim that two of the vessels would remain at sea: one in the Red Sea and Persian Gulf, the other in the Mediterranean. A third would remain on standby.”
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/sub.htm
Salah,
When people talk about a “nuclear submarine” they are referencing the power plant; not the types of weapons it is capable of carrying.
“When people talk about a “nuclear submarine” they are referencing the power plant; not the types of weapons it is capable of carrying.”
This may be wrong, but what I have heard – and it was on the U.S. mainstream media – is that what Israel has purchased is not “nuclear submarines” but “nuclear capable” submarines. The reports I have heard are that these submarines are capable of carrying and firing nuclear weapons.
JES can you shutup and listen to others or you think you’re genius dood?
You talking either in a delusional way or you play as a stupid guy, what is more concerns, more dangers moreover your State paid a lot of money for? Is it for Nuclear power driven or its capabilities to carrying and launch nuclear warheads missiles?
JES,
Did I mention what you said?
Its looks you so blind you never listen to people, the link detailed about Dolphin Class submarines.
Much concerned presumably the Israelis will make use its extra specifications of launching nuclear warheads and missiles this should be very basic thing that you should think of… isn’t our “pure fabrication” guy?
Or it’s like Israelis Nuclear capabilities, your state never admitting they have or had nuclear weapons or warheads, isn’t it a “pure fabrication” again?
JES,
Did I mention in any way what you said?
Its looks you so blind you never listen to people, the link detailed about Dolphin Class submarines.
Much concerned presumably the Israelis will make use its extra specifications of launching nuclear warheads and missiles this should be very basic thing that you should think of… isn’t our “pure fabrication” guy?
Or it’s like Israelis Nuclear capabilities, your state never admitting they have or had nuclear weapons or warheads, isn’t it a “pure fabrication” again?
First of all, Salah, I think that you should try to improve your behavior toward others if you want to discuss things.
Secondly, what is “nuclear capable”? According to the “mainsrtream media”, Israel has nuclear warheads and the ability to deliver them by Jericho missile. Jericho missiles are also, apparently, capable of being fired from ships.
The main issue of a nuclear powered submarine is that it can produce its own oxygen and fresh water, so it can stay submerged for extended periods of time – making it capable of lurking off enemy shores virtually undetected for six months or more. Israel’s Dolphin Class submarines are not capable of this.
I don’t see what you are all making such a big deal about. Don’t the Iranians also have submarines?
Yes, I’m sorry I wrote “nuclear subs” when what I meant was “nuclear capable subs”… which is of much greater import at the broad strategic level.
What it does, potentially, is give Israel a “survivable second-strike capability”… I.e., if Israel might seek to launch (with ground-based ballistic missiles or by air delivery) a first nuclear strike, it might be deterred from doing so if it feared the opponent would respond by striking back at Israel, which is a very compact, densely populated little country and might not survive that attack. So the opponent could– this theory goes– thereby deter Israel from launching that second strike. And Israeli strategic thinkers just hate the thought that the kind of military “deterrence” they routinely propject against all their neighbors might actually be projected back toward them. (Hence, btw, the deep anger at Hizbullah these days.)…
But if Israel also has nuclear wepons on these subs, roaming around no-one knows where in the oceans of the world (they are a model known for their extreme quietness, first developed by the Nazis, as it happens), then, this “second strike” thinking goes, they could counter-deter those opponents and thus make the enviroment safe for their own first strike…
Well it is all quite inhumane MAD-ness, anyway. But it does indicate a mindset determined to try to find any way to preserve domination and inequality rather than equality and reciprocity with one’s neighbors.
All the more important to work for a nuclear weapons-free Middle East and a nuclear weapons-free world, right now.
(I like the term ‘hasbaristas’, which I coined myself, because it contains the elements of ‘hasbara’ and ‘barista’, which in the US is the term Starbucks Inc. uses for the people who work in their coffee– and latte– shops… )
Also, JES, tell me some real objections you have to the Portuguese analogy. Why is it “irrelevant”? I think it’s highly relevant in the context in which I used it: namely, a small state that tried to dominate the affairs of other states for many years but eventually found that, in particular, the manpower demands of maintaining that domination were too burdensome… plus, the components of that ‘manpower’ themselves revolted and opted for the European latte-sipping lifestyle instead. I haven’t seen many regrets in Portugal about that decision in the decades since. Have you?
Diesel subs would be more than adequate for the immediate neighborhood – all the way out to Iran, or so I imagine.
Nuclear subs give the Israelis the option of blackmailing the planet, if they should so desire. I think this point was first made years ago.
“Second, let’s wait and see when – and if – your man comes out of hiding and is able to publicly declare “victory”.”
This is truly unseemly of you, JES. We all know the nastiest elements in your special forces are working overtime trying to assassinate Nasrallah – as if that would somehow turn your strategic blunder into victory. This kind of school-boy taunting won’t impress anyone outside your small circle of friends.
Excellent point, JC.
We can note, too, that despite the many recent war crimes in Lebanon attributable to Olmert and Co. under the doctrine of command responsibility, no-one in Lebanon has voiced any reciprocal threats to hunt down and kill any Israeli leaders.
It was also childish, quite inaccurate, and borderline libellous of JES to describe Nasrallah above as “your man”.
hasbarah + barista, cute! Perhaps I can call you a Hizbolobbiest?
During its history, Portugal actually did colonize a fair amount of the world – from Latin America, to the Indian subcontinent, to Africa, and it maintained those colonies for several hundred years. I don’t recall that any of those colonies were contiguous with Portugal, or that Portugal acquired any of those colonies as the result of aggression carried out against Portugal. Most important, there Portugal served as a “metropolitan” in its relationship with its colonies.
None of these bear any similarity with Israel and its relationship with the occupied territories.
Again, as I stated previously in response to your question on how to work towards peace. I think a critical condition – particularly for outsiders on both sides – is to refrain from trying to apply facile explanations and irrelevant labels to the situation.
BTW, I think that your explanation of a “second-strike capability” is a bit cocked up. The main reason that Israel would want a survivable second-strike capability is to deter a first strike by one of our peace-loving neighbors.
It was also childish, quite inaccurate, and borderline libellous of JES to describe Nasrallah above as “your man”.
Well, nah nah nah nah nah nah to you too!
Perhaps I can call you a Hizbolobbiest?
No you can’t because it is not in any way true and in the current circumstances it is slanderous to do so. Please cease and desist immediately.
Well then, I would appreciate it if you refrain from suggesting that I am a “hasbarista”, as I am neither involved in “spinning” Israel’s case (as opposed to merely expressing my opinions, which I believe I still have a right to do), nor am I a Starbucks latte maker!
And while we’re on the subject of “slander”, perhaps you would like to explain why Yossi Melman is a “purported journalist”?
I don’t see what you are all making such a big deal about. Don’t the Iranians also have submarines?
I don’t see what you are all making such a big deal about. Don’t the Israelis also have nuclear capabilities?
Same analogy if other have like Iraq, Saudis, or others what’s your problem then.
Look tic-tac behaviours you play here with your co here there are no limits in your flip-flop
I have to agree with JES that Portugal is not a very good analogy. South Africa is much closer to the mark. Uncomfortably close, eh JES?
Speaking of slander, is it not slanderous to accuse an Israeli blogger of being a secret intelligence agent?
Helena?
Also, regarding the missiles hitting the Israeli ships, I’m fairly sure that the crew did not “forget” to turn off the anti-missile system. As you say, Schiff is a sometime propagandist, and he might be engaging in some strategic BSing here. The crew most likely turned off the anti-missile system because these systems lock onto anything they detect, including airplanes & copters, and they didn’t want to shoot down an Israeli aircraft.
As for the ground forces performance being “pathetic”, I mean, really….(rolls eyes)….assaulting forces dug into bunker systems takes time, and the loss of 118 soldiers, while tragic, is hardly a catastrophe. Israel lost 700-800 soldiers in the supposedly miraculous 6-day war.
But then, I am a nefarious Zionazi, and I could be trying to deceive you, couldn’t I, Helena?
is it not slanderous to accuse an Israeli blogger of being a secret intelligence agent?
That is not what I wrote (about Imshin.) This was it:
This and a few other things she has written recently make me think maybe she or her spouse works for the Israeli security services in some capacity?
Thanks for proving my point: you made a wild charge against an unsuspecting person. It was done maliciously. This is called slander.
She, intelligently, brushed you aside. You responded with a rage-filled, confrontational challenge, which accused her of being complicit in war crimes, which managed conveniently to avoid Hizbollah’s responsibility in the matter. (Elsewhere, in attempting to whitewash Nasrallah’s “apology,” you quote a passage in which he admits that he authorized an “attack” on Israel. In the real world, of course, an attack invites a response.)
You are, without doubt, the most irrational writer I have ever enountered.
Please take a break from your obsesive smears to do some follow up on the UK:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5307818.stm
This is in addition to the 15 charged in the previous plot.
Oh, dear dear. Seems like you need to get a grip, Sophia? Last I heard, working for the security services was an honored calling in Israeli society, so raising that question would be in no way slanderous. It is also quite different from accusing someone of being a “secret intelligence agent”. Seems you didn’t quite understand the difference?
Also, what “rage-filled confrontational challenge”, what “obsessive smears”?
Instead of engaging in vituperative verbal escalation, Sophia and Solo, could you take a few moments to read the guidelines for commenters here, and please try to stick to them in the future. Among these, that you should stick to the topic of the main post…
I sure came to this discussion late but I may make some points:
1- The essence of deterrence is to make the opponent perceive or -as in our case- realize that the costs of the aggressive action are high in relation to its likely success. If the opponent is not willing to act and pay the high price and chose – instead – not to act or to stop his action that he thought initially to be a piece of cake, then deterrence has achieved the desired goal. Accordingly, it is not important how many naval vessels HA hit , how many copters HA downed , how many Tanks HA destroyed or how many soldiers HA killed or injured. Israel quickly realized that HA is not what she thought at first and perceived the high price it has to pay. Consequently, it withdrew its naval vessels to more remote locations, limited the use of its copters in the field and was willing to accept a cease-fire without achieving its declared goals of its aggression. It is understandable that we read things like those that we lost only slightly more than a 100 soldiers or it was only one corvette. This is nothing less than a face saving talk. Everyone knows that . Reminds me of something Billmon wrote on Aug 11 under : Kabuki Offensive – This is like a scene from a bar fight : you can continue reading here : http://billmon.org/archives/002674.html
2- Victory is not measured by the number of houses destroyed or the number of civilians killed. Victory is measured by the degree or extent of achieving the declared goals of the respective sides involved. In WWII Russia lost millions of its citizens and London was massively destroyed, yet both emerged victorious.
3- Political settlements reflect power of both parties on the ground. After a war, you cannot achieve by Security Council resolutions what you failed to achieve by fighting. The essence of the following article reflects this view applied to the war of Israel on HA. Although his writing about HA PR looks absurd , the core of the article is correct http://www.bloggernews.net/2006/08/democracy-will-fail-in-lebanon.html
4- Regarding the corvette hit by HA, I would like to point out that Israel does not exactly know the method that HA used to hit the corvette. There are several theories and most are speculations and rumors. The following article is important but the links it contains are even more important. Conflict Tech: Israel vs. Hezbollah-Iran (updated) http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/07/conflict-tech-israel-vs-hezbollahiran-updated/index.php. Particularly the article of Debka file is interesting: It achieved a direct hit of the Ahi Hanit’s helicopter deck, starting a fire. The ship began to sink, as Nasrallah said, and would have been lost were it not for the speed and bravery of crewmen who jumped into the flames and doused them before the ship exploded and sank.
This eyewitness account is also interesting : Eyewitness emails: Hizbullah hits Israeli warship http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article5004.shtml
5- Regarding the submarines sold to Israel , the following article may be of interest : Germany May Sell 2 More Dolphin Subs to Israel for $1.17B http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/11/germany-may-sell-2-more-dolphin-subs-to-israel-for-117b/index.php and this one : German-Israeli Dolphin AIP Sub Deal Finalizedhttp://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/08/germanisraeli-dolphin-aip-sub-deal-finalized/index.php
Comments to be continued
Steep learning curve this weekend. Hasan and Israel Finkelstein in 48 hours.
Phew.
these may give more info to Helena dission of Israeli “Ahi Hanit” that hit during the war bey Lebanones
“The question is why wasn’t the INS Ahi-Hanit allowed to use them? The answer is simple. The Israelis were more afraid of the anti-missile systems and electronics on the INS Ahi-Hanit engaging their own aircraft and UAV’s than they were of Hezbollah anti-ship missiles. The Barak anti-missile missile and Phalanx are fully automated in anti-missile modes. They will strike anything that flies in their defense zones that is not squawking the proper identification friend or foe (IFF) transponder signal.Most UAV’s and some helicopters don’t carry IFF transponders and in the 2003 Gulf War the Coalition air forces lost two jets to Patriot missile batteries in fully automatic anti-missile mode that failed to recognize their IFF transponders. The Israelis have been using helicopters and jets to strike targets in Beirut and sending in UAVs on the same flight paths, AKA from the sea. we’d wager that INS Ahi-Hanit, was on “weapons tight” with human control on its anti-missile defenses. It was under military air corridors and could not automatically engage incoming missile threats due to aircraft overhead.”
But “Haaretz and Ynet the israeli in the first week of the war assured the destruction of a big naval ship “saer-5” and at the end of the war they assured the destruction of a destroyer near tyre and we saw it burning on tv.
as for the egyptian ship its was destryed in the same day the “saer-5″ was hit. we read all of this on haaretz and ynet and I am sure many members here including cedars red this.”
An analysis of the Hezbollah anti-ship missile strike
Editor’s Note: Kirk Spencer and Trent Telenko are both skilled and knowledgeable military analysts
This the only move it shows the launches and not the hits-video here
“When INS Dolphin, the first of the German subs, arrived in Israeli waters in July 1999 — decked out in bright sea-green camouflage paint and loaded with Israeli-designed systems — it marked the culmination of a 15-year odyssey to expand the power projection capabilities of the IDF’s undersea force. The Dolphins are perhaps the most advanced non-nuclear submarines in any navy worldwide. Foreign publications have even speculated — without evidence — that the Dolphin, and its sister ships Leviathan and Tekuma, may be outfitted with strategic capabilities.”
The following links did not open in the comment I already sent and I am repeating them here.
Link in point no. 4
Conflict Tech: Israel vs. Hezbollah-Iran (updated)
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/07/conflict-tech-israel-vs-hezbollahiran-updated/index.php
Link in point no. 5
German-Israeli Dolphin AIP Sub Deal Finalized
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/08/germanisraeli-dolphin-aip-sub-deal-finalized/index.php
Link in point no. 6
Iran-Syria vs. Israel, Round 1: Assessments & Lessons Learned
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/08/iransyria-vs-israel-round-1-assessments-lessons-learned/index.php
2 Link in point no. 7
http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/2006/07/wartime_censors.html
http://www.environment.gov.il/bin/en.jsp?enPage=e_BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=Object&enDispWho=News^l3120&enZone=e_news
Note from HC: The following comment came in from m. hasan at 1:47 this morning (Sept. 3), EST. I think I hit ‘delete’ for it in the comments-editing box instead of ‘publish’, for which I apologize. But I did have a back-up copy, so I’m reposting it here. The links just above this comment relate to the numbered points MH makes here.
I sure came to this discussion late but I may make some points:
1- The essence of deterrence is to make the opponent perceive or -as in
our case- realize that the costs of the aggressive action are high in relation
to its likely success. If the opponent is not willing to act and pay the
high price and chose – instead – not to act or to stop his action that he
thought initially to be a piece of cake, then deterrence has achieved the
desired goal. Accordingly, it is not important how many naval vessels HA
hit , how many copters HA downed , how many Tanks HA destroyed or how many
soldiers HA killed or injured. Israel quickly realized that HA is not what
she thought at first and perceived the high price it has to pay. Consequently,
it withdrew its naval vessels to more remote locations, limited the use of
its copters in the field and was willing to accept a cease-fire without achieving
its declared goals of its aggression. It is understandable that we read things
like those that we lost only slightly more than a 100 soldiers or it was
only one corvette. This is nothing less than a face saving talk. Everyone
knows that . Reminds me of something Billmon wrote on Aug 11 under : Kabuki
Offensive – This is like a scene from a bar fight : you can continue reading
here : http://billmon.org/archives/002674.html
2- Victory is not measured by the number of houses destroyed or the number
of civilians killed. Victory is measured by the degree or extent of achieving
the declared goals of the respective sides involved. In WWII Russia lost
millions of its citizens and London was massively destroyed, yet both emerged
victorious.
3- Political settlements reflect power of both parties on the ground.
After a war, you cannot achieve by Security Council resolutions what you
failed to achieve by fighting. The essence of the following article reflects
this view applied to the war of Israel on HA. Although his writing about
HA PR looks absurd , the core of the article is correct
“>http://www.bloggernews.net/2006/08/democracy-will-fail-in-lebanon.html
4- Regarding the corvette hit by HA, I would like to point out that Israel
does not exactly know the method that HA used to hit the corvette. There
are several theories and most are speculations and rumors. The following
article is important but the links it contains are even more important. Conflict
Tech: Israel vs. Hezbollah-Iran (updated)
“>http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/07/conflict-tech-israel-vs-hezbollahiran-updated/index.php.
Particularly the article of Debka file is interesting: It achieved a direct
hit of the Ahi Hanit’s helicopter deck, starting a fire. The ship began to
sink, as Nasrallah said, and would have been lost were it not for the speed
and bravery of crewmen who jumped into the flames and doused them before
the ship exploded and sank.
This eyewitness account is also interesting : Eyewitness emails: Hizbullah
hits Israeli warship
“>http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article5004.shtml
5- Regarding the submarines sold to Israel , the following article may
be of interest : Germany May Sell 2 More Dolphin Subs to Israel for $1.17B
“>http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/11/germany-may-sell-2-more-dolphin-subs-to-israel-for-117b/index.php
and this one : German-Israeli Dolphin AIP Sub Deal Finalizedhttp://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/08/germanisraeli-dolphin-aip-sub-deal-finalized/index.php
6- Regarding other branches that Helena mentioned in the title of the
post, numerous sources (blogs, research centers, newspaper articles) discuss
this matter in details. the following article refers to several sources including
the report of Cordesman mentioned in one of the posts of Helena: Iran-Syria
vs. Israel, Round 1: Assessments & Lessons Learnedhttp://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/08/iransyria-vs-israel-round-1-assessments-lessons-learned/index.php
some other articles : The Great Equalizer. Lessons From Iraq and Lebanon
http://japanfocus.org/products/details/2203
Why did Armored Corps fail in Lebanon
“>http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3297431,00.html
“>http://minstrelboy.blogspot.com/2006/08/hezbollahs-creative-tactical-use-of.html
“>http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2006/08/bad_tux_on_idf_.html
“>http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/stories/20060908000205700.htm
7- Regarding the truth of what was allowed in the Israeli media , I would
like to point out the effect of the strict censorship practiced by Israel
during this war and the compliance of the international media with it and
even its endorsement of what was allowed by Israel as the truth of what is
going in battle field and in the domestic arena. This post discusses this
matter and it is interesting: Wartime Censorship And Propaganda As Newshttp://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/2006/07/wartime_censors.html.
A good example here is the effects of the rockets that were raining over
North Israel. During the war, the Israeli and western media were reporting
that the rockets either hit Arab districts in North Israel or that the rockets
fell in the woods. After the war, here is an assessment of the effects of
the rockets that is buried in the website of the ministry of environmental
protectionhttp://www.environment.gov.il/bin/en.jsp?enPage=e_BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=Object&enDispWho=News^l3120&enZone=e_news.
It says that 12,000 buildings were damaged. Try to find this report in the
western media and you will find great difficulty. Here is a Palestinian site
commenting and on the figures :
“>http://www.imemc.org/content/view/21135/160/.
8- Regarding the public appearance of Hasan Nasrallah, I would like to
assure JES that he would appear soon. HN is very patient, disciplined, and
follows rules of good manners of conduct. Before celebrating with the Lebanese
people, all the bodies under the ruble should be retrieved and buried and
this phase has almost completed. Then, all those who lost their homes as
a result of the Israeli brutal aerial bombardment should receive the money
that HA promised so that they can participate in the celebrations. This phase
is still in progress. Just wait. Let me challenge you in return. NA said
that the only way to restore the two Israeli soldiers is by indirect negotiations
and simultaneous release of prisoners on both sides. On the other hand the
Israeli PM and FM said that the two prisoners first and then we can talk
about the Lebanese prisoners. Who do you think will prevail and impose his
view on the other side?
9- In the post or the first comments, it was mentioned that there is
a trend that is apparent from the war of 1982 and the present war. I would
like to point to a more important trend that is unfolding in the Arab-Israel
conflict and more widely in the Arab- American conflict if I may say. The
official states are gradually being isolated from the masses and it appears
that they are more and more no longer representing the people. In Palestine,
it is Hamas, which is leading the struggle against Israel and not the official
authority backed by Israel and the Americans. In Lebanon it is HA and the
government of Siniora, which is backed by the Americans and the Israelis.
In Iraq, it is the people and not the state, which is leading the resistance.
In Somalia, it was the people once more against the warlords and the official
authority backed by the USA. I think that this is an important trend that
will have important consequences and need to be followed closely particularly
about the future of the state of Israel and the future of the American project
in the ME.
10- The last paragraph in the post of Helena regarding her view that
it is an appropriate time for Israel to engage in serious peace talks reminds
me of an article by George Galloway in the Guardian a few days ago . Here
is the title and link : Hizbullah’s victory has transformed the Middle East
-The defeat of the regional superpower could yet open the way to a wider
settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict.
“>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1861644,00.html.
Honestly, I think that this is very much improbable since there is a deep
psychological structural problem in the state of Israel that will always
be an obstacle to a true peace in the region. The only possibility is by
imposing this true peace on Israel by the USA and this is very much unlikely
particularly with the current administration with its sinister plans for
the ME. The remaining 2 years for this administration will probably see more
troubles in the ME .
Posted by: m. hasan at September 3, 2006
01:47 AM
Poll: Israelis believed Nasrallah over Peretz
Polls conducted by Dr. Udi Lebel, political psychology lecturer, found sad picture of Israeli PR
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3299073,00.html
Speaking of polls, here’s one from Lebanon that shows that a majority of Lebanese want Hizballah to disarm:
http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2006/08/post_18.php