Juan Cole: War on Lebanon planned a Year Ago

From Juan Cole

Sunday, July 23, 2006

War on Lebanon Planned for at least a Year
Bush Administration's Grand Strategy

http://www.juancole.com/
Informed Comment

Matthew Kalman reveals that Israel's wideranging assault on Lebanon has been planned in a general way for years, and a specific plan has been in the works for over a year. The "Three Week War" was shown to think tanks and officials last year on powerpoint by a senior Israeli army officer:

    "More than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to U.S. and other diplomats, journalists and think tanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail."

More on the flip

I knew it. There is much more more to this in the piece, and the SF Gate has the original scoop. Bottom line: the mad rush and the world war is on for the last drop of oil. But that aint all. . it gets. . worse, if such a thing were possible:

That this war was pre-planned was obvious to me from the moment it began. The Israeli military proceeded methodically and systematically to destroy Lebanon's infrastructure, and clearly had been casing targets for some time. The vast majority of these targets were unrelated to Hizbullah. But since the northern Sunni port of Tripoli could theoretically be used by Syria or Iran to offload replacement rockets that could be transported by truck down south to Hizbullah, the Israelis hit it. And then they hit some trucks to let truck drivers know to stay home for a while.

That is why I was so shaken by George W. Bush's overheard conversation with Tony Blair about the war. He clearly thought that it broke out because Syria used Hizbullah to create a provocation. The President of the United States did not know that this war was a long-planned Israeli war of choice.

There is so much more in between; this is a heads up diary and hopefully someone more skilled at this will diary and analyze the story fully.

•  And there is still no light

  at the end of this fucking tunnel we are in.

  by donailin on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 11:44:30 PM PDT

  •  I see a light

    But it's coming from the bottom end, and it's red and flickering- and I hear the faint screams grow louder and the sulfurous smell stronger as we slide and stumble toward it through the darkness...

    by terafnord on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 12:36:38 AM PDT

    •  Indeed-- how could anyone justify the Israelis?

      I was initially inclined to extend at least a modicum of benefit of doubt on the argument that Hezbollah was so entrenched in some civilian areas, that there was no choice but to undertake some grim attacks that would entail civilian deaths.  

      But then, how do you explain Israel's bombings of Sunni/Christian/Druze sections of north Lebanon?  Or bombing of fleeing civilians who were actually heeding the IDF's warnings?  They're indefensible.  Lebanon was a modern, Arab country with decent and moderate people who could be negotiated with.  Apparently, Israel couldn't allow that.

      by Tweedledee5 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:15:57 PM PDT

      •  Again, why Hillary Clinton must be defeated

        The time has now come for us to not only express our distaste at Hillary for 2008, but to actively oppose her, even in the 2006 NY Senate election.  She must not be allowed anywhere near the ticket for 2008.  

        I personally know dozens of Democrats who've been supporting the party for decades, who would not vote for Hillary in 2008 under any circumstances.  They would just avoid the polls and go shopping on Election Day, or they would vote for the Republican (if someone like John McCain or Mitt Romney), or they would vote for a Third Party Candidate.  But they would not support Hillary under any circumstances.

        Note that this was before Hillary started cheering on the bloodletting of Lebanese civilians in Beirut-- people are already furious about her hawkishness on Iraq and against Iran and Syria, as well as her idiocy on the flag-burning amendment issue.  But now, she starts whooping and hollering that the Israelis should bomb a few more bridges, kill a few more kids, take out a few more Lebanese power plants, turn Beirut into rubble, otherwise devastate Lebanon even further and turn it into a mass of smoking misery.

        I have lost my last iota of respect for HRC.  She must be dismantled as a viable representative of the Democratic Party, as Joseph Lieberman has been.  Even if we were to lose in 2008 because of her, that would be a better alternative to supporting her-- at least, we could get someone decent to represent us for 2012.  She must not receive one cent, one vote, one word of support from us in the Democratic Party, any longer.

        Fortunately, this is easy for us since we have strong and sensible alternatives in the Democratic Party for 2008 who could also win for us.  Just some useful names-- Mark Warner, Bill Richardson, Brian Schweitzer (all Red State or Swing State governors), John Edwards, Barbara Boxer, or Russ Feingold.  With any one of them, we can rally our base, and we will prevail.

        by Tweedledee5 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:24:23 PM PDT

  •  Wolcott is on Fire (link)

    James:

    "The war crimes of the United States compound by the minute, the hour, the day. I predict that George Bush, upon leaving office, will be the most despised president in American history. He will have his core support, the clotted, stunted brains that collect at sites like Lucianne.com and Powerline, but he will enjoy no Reaganesque orange sunset afterglow (or Nixonian self-rehabilitation), so deep, lasting, and tragic is the damage he's done, a damage abetted by a craven, corrupt political class and a press that even now, as the full dimensions of the disaster unfold before us, is unable to sound alarm, so accustomed as they've become to their role as sponges and clever snots....07.22.06 11:57AM "

    Then he gets better...read the whole thing

    by kidneystones on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:04:19 AM PDT

    •  This was the most obvious sign to me

      Israel was sending special ambassadors to Russia, and US and had a big meeting right before the Lebanon assault. (That would be before the kidnapping)

      (The whole kidnapping thing is really just a made up story. (sort of like Hitler excuse to invade Poland, Blaming Poland kill some german guards in the border, so germany needs to defend itself and invade Poland. Which after the war, the whole thing was proven a hackery.)

      Surprisingly Israel is too chicken to bomb Iran directly, so they are attacking Lebanon Hezbollah.

      Unfortunately, everybody is reading their move. And Now Israel is at war with Hezbollah alone (war by proxy soon, if it is not over after 3 weeks)

      Which I think it won't. Hezbollah will keep nipping at them deep into Israel territorry now with Syrian and Iranian help just to even out. It would be interesting if Lebanon finally implode in the next 6-12 months and Syria and Iran have to enter the arena. Israel economy cannot sustain a prolonged war. They think it'll be a cute Israel-Lebanon all over again, instead of internal attacks.

      Forget suicide bombings, It'll be Iraq style car bombing soon. And then the fun begin....

      Israel will conduct ethnic cleansing and start shooting Palestinians by the tens of thousands...

      watch your clock folks... It gonna happens.

      The ethnic cleansing thing.

      by fugue on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:09:09 AM PDT

      •  Source?

        I'm not going to try to argue that you agree with Israel's actions (not least because they are largely indefensible), but the conspiracy theories? So soldiers haven't been kidnapped? Hezbollah didn't cross the border, kill 8 soldiers, blow up a vehicle, etc., etc.?
        Sounds fishy to me. I will, however, keep an open mind, so do you have any documentation?
        Cheers.

        by teachergonz on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:17:18 AM PDT

        •  I don't know if

          I don' know if the Israeli soldiers that were 'kidnapped' are real or not.  

          What gives me pause for thought though is that if Israel is concerned over their lives, then why are they bombing the shise out of the country they are being held in?  I mean there is a substantial chance that they may bomb and kill their own 'kidnapped' soldiers.

          So, yes, I do wonder if they exist or not, and if they do I wonder why they re made sacrificial lambs.

          by Demena on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:38:33 AM PDT

          •  Huh?

            How would YOU propose that Israel respond then?  

            ANY response would carry the substantial chance of killing their own kidnapped soldiers.

            And we'll await your documentation that this kidnapping is fictitious.

            by gsbadj on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 05:30:37 AM PDT

            •  I don't know

              But declaring war to then lost 20+ soldirs in the first week, doesn't seem like a genius idea to me?

              do you?

              So let me give you another scenario, suppose Israel troops are kidnapped in Golan height.

              what you gonna do? Invade Syria? lol.

              by fugue on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 05:50:27 AM PDT

              •  Of course not...

                Do I think their actions are excessive?  Yes.

                Do I think they had a right to go after Hezbollah?  Initially, yes.

                As for your Golan hypothetical, the decision on whether to invade Syria depends on a lot of considerations, i.e. WHO kidnapped them, the reasons for the kidnapping, the extent to which the Syrian government either aided or permitted the kidnappings, the amount of force needed to retrieve the hostages, whether you can muster the needed force without impairing other military operations and objectives in the area, the likelihood of accomplishing the objective and, yes, the reasonable likelihood of retrieving them by diplomatic means.

                by gsbadj on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:35:42 AM PDT

                •  excess?

                  It's friggin war crime. killing 300+ civilians.

                  Excess is for eating too much pastry at dinner. Killing 300+ people is war crime.

                  by fugue on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 09:54:10 AM PDT

            •  And how should Palestinians and Lebanese respond

              to targeted assassinations and kidnappings of their citizens?

              by MadRuth on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:52:30 AM PDT

              •  They are waiting for the second coming of Ghandi

                In the body of a Palestinian. It sometimes seems. That is how they should respond. Hezbollah should put down its guns. And missiles. The Lion should lay down with the ... Lion.

                Until that happens, let the UNIlateral Israeli (and US supported, US aligned) cleansing continue. Forget the negotiations between both parties with an HONEST broker. Forget the Arab League's proposal of 2002 which promised normalized relations with every single member country, IF Israel would just get real and get down to making the concessions it must make for a viable 2 state solution. Everyone in the Bush WH, everyone in Congress, let that one slide by, while Sharon openly trashed it and promptly dumped it in the crapper.  

                And forget any semblance of sanity in our mideast policy, and in the mideast, until US citizens, including the SILENCE of the BLOGs (no rabid lambs on this score!) start PUSHing Dems to get real, too, or get the fuck out of the way.

                Lamont, it seems, goes along with the crowd.

                Lamont Policy: Change Priorities and Pursue a Peace Settlement

                All Americans want the kidnapped soldiers to be returned and this cycle of violence to end, based on the principles of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559 of 2004, which calls for Hezbollah militias to be disbanded and disarmed, with the government of Lebanon taking full control of all of its territory. It is not for the United States to dictate to Israel how it defends itself. Nor is it my place to make tactical recommendations to the president. But I do have some strategic suggestions about what our country should do moving forward.

                After the fighting stops, the President needs to reengage in this part of the world and work on a peace settlement and a response to the humanitarian concerns in Gaza and elsewhere. We should not seek to impose a resolution on Israel. But peace between Israel and its neighbors must be a priority.

                Without negotiating with terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, President Bush and the Secretary of State ought to be working on a peace settlement with Israel, the Palestinians and others who might help. The outlines of a peace agreement are there; both sides agree: land for recognition, peace and security.

                Other Presidents have made progress in this difficult region. There’s no reason why this President should not reverse course and become engaged for peace.

                After the fighting STOPS, Lamont? Oh, please. What about the 66 UN resolutions Israel trashes? The kidnapped soldiers? Even Israel no longer talks about them. Ugh.

                Why dont we hear about Jonathan Tasini (D-PROGRESSIVE D, NY), Hillary Clinton's primary challenger for US Senate? Why all Lamont all the time, and nothing on a guy like THIS?

                Tasini is on the fucking primary ballot! He is the liberal all the anti DLCers (allegedly anti) say they want. The silence is untenable.

                Check out Tasini on Lebanon, Gaza, Israel. Compare and Contrast.

                This is what TRUE COURAGE in American Politics, in Democratic politics, looks like. Tasini calls for ceasefire in Lebanon and negotiated ME peace

                It is RARE.

                The silence is appalling. The enabling of nightmare policy, the Israeli intransigence and bullying is appalling. From Dems and Republicans. And supportive blogs. And deadly.

                Tasini gets it. It's the MID EAST CONFLICT, STUPID!

                (It is not just Iraq. People on the blogs are comfortable dissing Bush on Iraq. Not the ME. Not now, not before. Because they would have to dis the Dems too. And threaten their jobs, too. Work against them, heartily, on this. So, here we are.)

                by NYCee on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:02:48 AM PDT

                •  PS - Compare Tasini to Clinton on Mideast

                  Clinton is bought and sold. Her harsh statement, in words and tone, is in the link below. If you caught the audio, it sounded as ugly as what it supported, given her gravelly, loud "Thatcheresque-wannabe" voice. Do not fail to note she made this statement at the Israeli mission, surrounded by hardline PRO Israel groups. (A blog post on Ha'aretz did not fail to note, with dismay, the company she keeps.) Also, do not fail to note, her support of blinkered US policy to support blinkered Israeli mass slaughter and UNIlateralism re Palestinians and region, was made after she breakfasted at the bash/fundraiser Rupert Murdoch hosted in her honor. Oh, the company she keeps!

                  More buying.

                  Here's the compare and contrast on Tasini v Hillary.

                  Tasini on Clinton on Israel/Lebanon/Gaza/USA

                  NEW YORK, NY: U.S. Senate candidate Jonathan Tasini released this statement today regarding his opponent's position on the on-going conflict in the Middle East.

                  "Voters in New York, including the Jewish community, should be deeply disappointed in Hillary Clinton's statement yesterday regarding the escalating violence in the Middle East. It was a one-sided statement that fails to recognize the reality of the conflict and, rather than helping calm the waters, Hillary Clinton's statement will do its small part to fan the flames of violence.

                  "No one doubts Israel's right to exist. As a Jew, as a person whose family has deep roots in Israel, as someone who spent seven years in Israel and still has significant family ties there, I certainly support a safe and secure Israel. But, Israel's true supporters are those who will stand up and critique its behavior and not choose political pandering over an honest appraisal of the situation.
                  "We must mourn all the lives lost in this horrible spasm of violence but, as political leaders, we must give a full account of the grave situation facing the region if we are to find a reasonable solution. Hillary Clinton's statement (see below) focuses entirely on the 'unprovoked attacks on innocent Israelis" and calls those attacks and the abduction of Israeli soldiers 'dramatic escalations of violence against Israel.'

                  "But, this is only one part of the story because there is enough blame to go around.

                  by NYCee on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:21:47 AM PDT

                •  I agree, John Tasini needs support v Hillary

                  I was happy to see Lamont get the edge on Joe Lieberman, but this to me is a sideshow in some respects.  Hillary is almost as bad a warmonger as Joseph Lieberman, and with much more name recognition so that she could do much more severe damage.  She's already done that with Iraq, and she now wants to repeat that fiasco throughout the Middle East.  

                  Some capitulating losers in the Democratic Party establishment offices are desperately begging many of us to keep the shouting and the anger down and to go easy on Hillary Clinton for 2008, so that we don't have a repeat of the 1968 convention.  I say, Fsck that.  Hillary is among the worst of DLC warmongers and corporatist boosters among the Democrats, and she goes against just about every one of the most core progressive values of the Party that we've worked so hard to support.  Under no circumstances would we help or even condone such an individual representing us on a national ticket.  

                  If Hillary continues to push on for the 2008 nomination despite the groundswell of grass-roots rage against her, then yes, there will be a repeat of 1968 except even uglier than the near-shootout that took place between the Eugene McCarthy and Hubert Humphrey factions back then in Chicago.  It would be one of the most angry and furious convention battles in our party's history, and frankly, it would be necessary for the very survival of our party to have it.  We cannot just waltz along and allow a hand-picked corporatist supporter of the military-industrial complex like Hillary Clinton represent our party for 2008-- that would defeat the purpose of even having free elections, if you're forced to support either a warmonger with an "R" by the name or another warmonger with a "D" by the name.  If the Hillary boosters think they can just march along and hijack our party with all their Hillary frontrunner crap, they'd better think again.  

                  We could avoid this debacle if Jonathan Tasini emerges victorious against Hillary in the New York primary.  For the sake of our party, maybe this would be the best outcome.

                  by Tweedledee5 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:38:28 PM PDT

            •  How about

              responding intelligently and diplomatically for a change?

              by ChemBob on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 07:50:54 AM PDT

              •  That would be nice...

                ... but these unspecified intelligent and diplomatic means you're proposing would get back their soldiers how?  They would prevent further rocket attacks how?

                Look, I know that this cycle of violence has to be broken at some point.  And yes it would be nice if Israel did it.

                But when you've got rockets dropping randomly onto your population, you need to do something to protect your people.  I don't fault them for using military force under these circumstances.

                Have they used excessive force to accomplish their goals?  I sure think so.

                I got upset above because of the suggestion that the kidnapping of the 2 Israeli soldiers was fictitious.  That reeks of tin hat to me.

                by gsbadj on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:27:01 AM PDT

                •  Setup

                  This entire debacle has been a neocon setup. I don't know whether Israel was complicit or a mere patsy to be played, but it is a setup. That will become clear over time.

                  by ChemBob on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:29:11 AM PDT

                  •  I don't doubt ...

                    ... that Israel may have been itching for this chance and that neo-cons in America gave them the nod.  It wouldn't surprise me if the neo-cons helped them plan it.

                    But the idea that the kidnapping of the soldiers is fictitious seems far-fetched to me.

                    by gsbadj on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:38:52 AM PDT

                    •  I wish

                      I could agree with you but after what we've witnessed for the past several years nothing seems to be too far-fetched anymore. It seems that if I assume the worst-case scenario with these neocons that what eventually comes out is that it was actually worse than my worst-case scenario.

                      by ChemBob on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:49:21 AM PDT

                      •  If I'm not mistaken,

                        Nasarallah has claimed credit.

                        by Ptah the Great on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 09:48:07 AM PDT

                •  Kidnapping?

                  Since they were in Lebanon at the time 'captured' is both more accurate statement than 'kidnapped'.

                  by Demena on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 09:59:05 AM PDT

                  •  'Captured' Source?

                    I've read this in another comment, also without naming a source.

                    It's incredible that the MSM keeps using the word "kidnapping" if this is true.  Demonstrates how one-sided they are.

                    Can someone give me the details of where the action took place?

                    by Helpless on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 11:21:36 AM PDT

            •  Whether the kidnappings occurred or not

              is irrelevant.  It is unbelievable that these actions give alone give Israel good reason to mount the full scale aggression that we see now.
              The kidnappings were an excuse to begin to do what Israel and the US neocons fervently desired.
              I believe that the blowback will be tremendous and both Israel and the US will pay in spades.
              The Sunni=Shia tension is what we will exploit to the fullest. (Destructive beings that we are.)  Have no idea how this will unfold but nothing good will come of it.

              by barnowl on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 10:18:09 AM PDT

          •  Their families

            say they are missing and Hezbollah says it has them and wants a prisoner exchange. Sounds real to me.

            by Warren Terrer on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:26:10 AM PDT

            •  Perhaps

              But where they were at the time and why Israel considers them expendable is an issue nevertheless.

              by Demena on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 10:00:55 AM PDT

        •  See the diary 'Is Israel After the Litani River/'

          http://www.dailykos.com/...

          Israel is on the verge of being out of water, or seems to be.  The Litani is appears to be a good source of fresh water and in past occupations of Lebanon, the Israeli's had designs to divert it to the Sea of Galilee water basin.  Sources show that the sea of Galilee may be down from a depth of 43 meters to 4-6 meters and it is the primary  source of Israeli water.  When it gets low it gets contaminated by salt springs.  Desalination plants do not seem to be  the answer.

          Israel has told everyone to leave south of the Litani.

          As they say in the legal business, lack of water privides the MOTIVE.  It is similar to having the prosecution prove in a murder for hire case that the defendant was the beneficiary of a $500,000 life insurance policy.

          If the Litani has fresh water, and Israel reaches it and won't reliquish it, that proves OPPORTUNITY.

          Once a prosecutor proves motive like a $500,000 life insurance policy, defense counsel better come up with something than conspiracy theory.

          On this thread, I was accused by Israeli defenders as being a conspiracy theorist, but no Israeli defender ever proved that Israel has an adequate supply of water, now or in the future, or that the Litani was not a viable source of it.

          So, do I believe the "we are defending ourselves" argument?  That is always the cover for a land or resource grab.  So I will not believe it until I am convinced tha Israel has no designs on the Litani.

          by davidgmills on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 05:40:47 AM PDT

          •  Above link doesn't seem to work n/t

            by Powered Grace on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:14:55 AM PDT

            •  Sorry. Try this.

              http://www.dailykos.com/...

              by davidgmills on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:29:54 AM PDT

              •  Thanks n/t

                by Powered Grace on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:52:44 AM PDT

          •  Water = gold

            in order to make the "desert bloom," you've got to have water in massive quantities.

            Israel has the know-how and engineering, just not the water.

            by JenThinks on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 07:35:44 AM PDT

            •  BS

              that would be true 20 years ago. but now reverse osmosis technology is so cheap, water excuse is beyond conscience.

              by fugue on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 10:26:39 AM PDT

              •  Cheap because of cheap energy

                Reverse osmosis is cheap because the electricity (natural gas, coal, hydro, oil, etc.) is relatively inexpensive.  Israel imports nearly all energy.

                However, given oil at 100+ per barrel, reverse osmosis will become more expensive.

                These are end-game moves.  Don't you think that Israel has estimated the cost of energy if, let's say, Iran is attacked?  They are playing to dominate strategic spots on the board, so that they or their proxies can call the shots when commodities like water become compelling.

                by JenThinks on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 05:44:16 PM PDT

          •  regional water issues

            If you're interested in learning a lot about the regional water issues, and how they have caused strife in the past up through the recent past, you may want to check out this book due out in August. It was written by the former water minister of Jordan and has a great amount of detail on the water issues faced by that country and its neighbors, including the Israelis and Palestinians.

            by chantedor on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 07:58:03 AM PDT

            •  It would sure be interesting to see what

              He thinks about the situation in southern Lebanon and whether the water scarcity enters into the equation.

              by davidgmills on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 12:56:39 PM PDT

          •  The 'Security Wall' routinely...

            ...separates Palestinian villages from their wells (and farmlands, for that matter).  In the current rash of coverage, heard once a complaint that Israel's already taken all the water along the Lebanese border.  Anecdotally supported by broadcast pix from there showing orchards on the Israeli side, and bare ground on the Lebanese side.

            Guessing that during nearly 20 years of Lebanese Occupation, the Israelis took down Lebanese orchards, on the same grounds the Israeli authorities bulldoze Palestinian ones:  Security for Israelis.

            Another Lebanese complaint, heard once:  Israel wouldn't provide any maps of locations of land mines when they ended their occupation.  Likely another reason Lebanese agriculture appears to be limited in the vicinity of the Israeli border.

            by Land of Enchantment on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 09:30:52 AM PDT

          •  A line in the sand

            Through exercising control over water rights and irrigation, Israel has drawn a line in the sand visible from space that delineates Gaza and the West Bank.

            by obelus on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 09:43:48 AM PDT

          •  Ridiculous: water's not a biggie.

            Please see Liquid Assets:  An Economic Approach for Water Management and Conflic Resolution in the Middle East and Beyond (pdf) by

             * Franklin M. Fisher, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
             * Annette Huber-Lee, Tellus Institute
             * Ilan Amir, Technion
             * Shaul Arlosoroff, Mekorot (Israel National Water Corporation)
             * Zvi Eckstein, Tel Aviv University
             * Munther Haddadin, Jordanian Water Negotiator
             * Salem G. Hamati, ROID Engineering, Amman
             * Ammar Jarrar, Al-Najah National University
             * Anan Jayyousi, Al-Najah National University
             * Uri Shamir, Technion
             * Hans Wesseling, Delft Hydraulics

            With a Special Contribution by:

             * Amer Z. Salman, University of Jordan
             * Emad K. Al-Karablieh, University of Jordan

            The "bottom line" is quite clear:

            Palestine: $0.60/cu.m.
            Approximate Cost of Pumping of Mountain Aquifer Water and Conveyance to Coast: $0.40/cu.m.
            Approximate Maximum Ownership Value of Mountain Aquifer Water: $0.20/cu.m. ($0.20 = $0.60 - $0.40)
            Approximate Upper Bound to Value of 100 MCM/yr. of Mountain Aquifer Water: $20 million/per yr.

            Looking at the north:

            For 2010, the estimated effect on Israel of a loss of the Banias or the Hasbani is only about $5 million per year in normal times and could only become as large as $75 million per year in times of extreme drought.

            While I make no political statement as to whether giving up such water would be an appropriate policy, it should be clear that this is not a matter for war nor one that should hold up an otherwise satisfactory peace treaty.

            The link above is to a Power Point presentation.  The book itself, published in September 2005, is available here which you can get to from the Israel-Palestine Center for Research and Information.

            Liquid Assets shows that the common view of water as an inevitable cause of future wars is neither rational nor necessary. Typically, two or more parties with claim to the same water sources are thought to play a zero-sum game with each side placing a high emotional and political value over the ownership of the water. However, Franklin Fisher and his coauthors demonstrate that when disputes in ownership are expressed as disputes about money values, in most cases, the benefits of ownership will be surprisingly small. By assigning an economic value to water and treating water as a tradable resource, parties see that the gains from cooperation exceed the costs resulting from the change in ownership. A zero-sum game becomes a win-win situation.

            To support this new approach, Liquid Assets presents an innovative water allocation model that can be used to assist water management, the cost-benefit analysis of water infrastructure, and the resolution of disputes. The model takes system-wide effects into account and is the first to overcome the failure of actual water markets to cope with the divergence between social and private benefits (as implied by agricultural subsidies), permitting the model-user to impose his or her own values or policies.

            Liquid Assetsapplies its methodology to Israel, Jordan, and Palestine, a region where water is scarce and water conflicts are often thought to be explosive. Indeed, this book is the result of a joint effort of Israeli, Jordanian, Palestinian, American, and Dutch experts. But the book’s message and methods are not restricted to the Middle East. They are applicable to water management and water disputes around the globe.

            by another American on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 11:27:21 AM PDT

            •  This is all about what could happen if

              There were mutual trust between the parties.  Yes water could be sold as a commodity and traded.

              But of course the real problem is that trading is never a certainty.  And with water, all it takes is a couple days of sever shortage and you have real catastrophe.

              Suppose we had to depend on Venezuela or Cuba for our water.  How comfortable would we feel about that?

              by davidgmills on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 01:03:27 PM PDT

            •  Seems like a very flawed analysis

              I'm specifically writing of the "($0.60/cu.m. - 0.40/cu.m.) * 100 MCM/yr. = $20 million/per yr." This considers the cost of water in hand (the Mountain Aquifier) in Israel/the Occupied Territories, every last drop of which is spoken for, with most parties wanting more in relation to growing populations. Water is not a replaceable resource; you cannot, ultimately, decide to do without if you have more to gain by selling what you have. Many of the parties to the dispute -- the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, in particular -- have barely enough water to survive: considering the "economic cost" of their water use is a sick joke.

              With the Palestinians' growing population, with Israel's plans for expansion and immigration, they need either to adapt their plans and limit their growth (right ...) or get more water. And anywhere they'd be able to get water from (Lebanon) would have to accept limits on its own growth in order to provide it. Nation-states have never willingly been in the business of selling off their futures. Hence, war.

              If there were less rabid nationalism in the region, if people could move about freely, then water indeed would not be such a big deal. In Europe, I expect, if a more profitable use for water was found in France than in Germany, France would get the water ... and a bunch of German immigrants. But this doesn't work in the face of Israel's immigration policy and the likely hostility of a lot of neighboring states to a transplanted Jewish population.

              by ProbStat on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 12:38:10 PM PDT

        •  The soldiers Hezbollah 'kidnapped'...

          ... were part of an Israeli incursion force, and were captured inside Lebanon (AP story from 5:41 AM, 7/12/2006).

          Israel quickly changed the story, lying about where the capture occurred, and the lapdog American press has since been parroting the lie, while other press around the world has been punished by Israel for reporting the truth.  This reason alone is enough for me to oppose Israel's aggression against Lebanon.

          by tbetz on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:26:04 AM PDT

          •  AP reporter Joe Panossian reports from Beirut.

            It would be interesting to know who his sources were.

            by lysias on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:56:44 AM PDT

          •  I always got a chuckle out of...

            the media's preference for the word "kidnapped." How the fuck do two grown men, who are well armed and trained, get "kidnapped"?

            by Darksyde888 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 12:39:03 PM PDT

        •  It is pretty well known...

          ...that Israel has done various "raids" that resulted in the taking of prisoners.  Lebanese authorities have claimed/complained that it goes on with some regularity (seen during an interview or two this week.)  Goes on in other countries, too.  This from the New Yorker, part of the background bio of an Israeli military official interviewed for a big article on the settlements:

          On the night of April 16, 1988, Israeli commandos landed silently on a beach in Tunis. Agents of the Israeli intelligence service, the Mossad, were waiting for them. The Israelis drove to an apartment building that was the home of Khalil al-Wazir, the second-ranking official, after Yasir Arafat, in the Palestine Liberation Organization. Israel believed that al-Wazir, who was better known as Abu Jihad—the Father of Holy War—was coördinating, from Tunis, the first Palestinian intifada, which had begun four months earlier.

          While I'm not a full-blown tin-foil hatter, I do think there's more to this than a border skirmish, of a kind that has occurred with some regularity for years now.

          by Land of Enchantment on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 09:19:08 AM PDT

        •  I agree

          to say that the kidnapping of the soldiers provided a pretext is one thing, to say that it was "made up" is quite another.  

          by Balam on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 10:14:50 AM PDT

      •  For Hitler reference. n/t

        by another American on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:37:44 AM PDT

        •  If you act like a fascist, expect the 'H' word

          Sorry, but there are some parallels between Israeli aggression in Lebanon, US aggression in Iraq, and the behavior of Germany/Italy/Japan in the 1930s, not the least of which is the use of pretexts to justify naked aggression against weak neighbors. Now I guess you can go ahead and troll rate me too for criticizing Israel, the sacred cow of American politics.

          by chimpwatch on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 05:07:42 AM PDT

          •  Pretexts: Like Hizbollah's pretext that

            Israel had not completely withdrawn behind its internationally-recognized border with Lebanon, even though the UN certified that Israel had done so?

            by another American on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 05:20:08 AM PDT

            •  lol

              You withdraw because you can't afford it. Plus we give you LOAD of goodies to withdraw.

              now six years later, here we are again.

              wanna bet, we gonna have to PAY YOU with more loads of goodies to make you withdraw. (military aids, foreign aids, military equipments,... you know, for safety)

              look, the jig is up. Yer antics is getting tiring and expensive.

              (Plus seriously, Israel meeting UN demand as a matter of principle of international community? get real.)

              My question to you. Will you be voicing your concern if Israel start killing civilians by the hundreds? (eg. ethnic cleansing?) Or will you be the first one to scream...they are all terrorits, kill them all...

              ..tick-tock. the jig is up.

              by fugue on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 05:55:33 AM PDT

              •  On 'you' and 'your'

                As my screen name might have suggested to you, I am a U.S. citizen.  Indeed, I am a native-born U.S. citizen.  Whatever were you trying to imply?

                by another American on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:00:03 AM PDT

                •  They just want a scapegoat

                  Bush isn't enough of a scapegoat, but by blaming Israel soon you'll see the hard left and hard right converge to a common scapegoat, Israel.  Already the extreme right (eg Buchanan) is blaming Israel, Bush can probably raise his ratings (especially by many on the liberal side) just by blaming Israel.  Soon you'll see a common joint between left and right, much like that which unites white supremecists and black supremecists.

                  It's a question of population dynamics, it's much easier to blame a country of 5 million for all the atrocities going on in the conflicts, then to consider the complicated intricate histories of all surrounding countries.  Just like Bush wants to blame Saddam for all atrocities.  Right wingers would show pictures of tortured bodies, to influence emotions.  Liberals show pictures of bomb victims to influence emotions.  Same thing.

                  It's amazing this diary and the other recommended one right now on Lebanon, how many liberals are being swayed by closed-minded appeals to their emotions, to override their rational thoughts.  Leading to blind hatred for Israel, much like a neocons blind hatred for Iraqis.

                  it's scary to see this happen to supposed enlightened people on the left, and making me realize that nearly all humanity is as corruptible and closeminded as the Republicans we used to be focused against, here on dKos.

                  Is anyone else getting fed up at how much dKos has been slipping into freeperville-like echo-chamber lately?

                  The ONLY thing the Republicans are successful in is marketing their talking points to the public.

                  by jeffwass on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 10:57:38 AM PDT

                  •  Shouldn't Israel be judged by her conduct?

                    Of course the Israeli people are a collection of diverse individuals, neither better nor worse than any other collection of people, but why not judge the Israeli government by its conduct? That conduct, it seems to me, is currently quite appalling at best, and at worst consists of war crimes. When considering particular conduct of the Israeli government, must we always confront the worn-out persecuted Jew/Holocaust bugbear? Sure, the Holocaust was among the greatest crimes inflicted on any people, but it was over 60 years ago and it is irrelevant to what Israel is doing in Lebanon today. With the fourth most powerful Army on earth, 200-300 nuclear bombs, and an air force ranked number two or three in the world, it is becoming embarrassing for Israel to maintain its posture as righteous victim.  

                    by chimpwatch on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 01:58:19 PM PDT

                    •  Who said Israel

                      shouldn't be judged on her conduct?

                      But when Israel acts in a similar way to all her neighboring states, yet all criticism is focused on only Israel, that's wrong.

                      When Israel does bad things, but Sudanese Janjaweed do way way worse things, yet the UN, the Arab League, and progressives in general focus their criticism almost exclusively at Israel, that's wrong.

                      When I see maybe 1-2 blogs per week about the atrocities in Sudan, yet now I see dozens of blogs daily with seething hatred of Israel, that just seems fishy to me.

                      The general consensus seems to be IOKIYANI (It's okay if you are not Israeli).

                      So yes, I think people on the left and right really do like to find simplistic answers to their problems, and Israel seems to nicely fall into place.

                      The ONLY thing the Republicans are successful in is marketing their talking points to the public.

                      by jeffwass on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:48:35 PM PDT

          •  Thank you

            Thank you for saying what I was about to re: Nazi/Hitler comparisons.  I don't care who the fuck you are--the US, Israel, Sri Lanka, or the local quilting club--if you act like a fascist then the only reasonable response from others is to call you a fascist, and expecting anything else is de facto asking for special treatment.  Period.

            I'm convinced that the most effective thing we can do in public policy discussions is try our best to act like scientists, in the purest sense, and go wherever the evidence leads us.  Sometimes that causes us to head down truly revolting paths that we'd much rather ignore fromthe cozy confines of our personal cocoon, but I believe that it's healthier in the long run for everyone involved.

            by loudGizmo on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 07:21:53 AM PDT

        •  you don't make the rules

          he made an analogy. he said the invasion reminded him of hitler invading poland. he did not accuse any specific person of being a hitler.

          get your own blog.

          by essexgreen on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 05:14:51 AM PDT

          •  he made other outrageous claims as well....n/t

            by Keith Moon on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 05:30:26 AM PDT

        •  Shrug

          What? you think the soldier kidnapping stuff is entire clean? lol. get real.

          watch the sequence:

          1. Isrel sending high representative to Russia and Washington (We gonna bust some ass, what yall big boys thinking?)

          2. Soldier kidnapping. (gotta have excuse, a drama needs a beginning)

          3. war yay...

          ----------

          I wish I could put a bet on this, I'd be so winning this bet. tranparent beyond believe.

          Israel is worry , tht if they don't pull the war before November election, Dubya is not going to last and they won't be able to make their move at all. Israel needs A LOT from us. (equipment use, diplomatic support, money, fuel, military supply, intel supply... the whole thing. If senate/congress pull the plug, their war machine will be A LOT less efficient.  They lost what? 6 special force guy taking a village near their border?  And they want to have a ground war with Syria and Iran without our help? oh please...

          no wonder the neocon are jumping up and down every day on Fox news about Syria, Iran and Hezbollah.

          by fugue on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 05:19:52 AM PDT

          •  I agree, but I think the

            soldiers were really kidnapped provoked by the bombing of Gaza and targeted assassinations and killing of innocents in Gaza and unproven ones in Lebanon. But Israel has seriously underestimated hizbollah....and now are going to let the UN send troops in instead of endangering more IDF soldiers. IMO

            "We are all Israelis now" ???? I don't think so.

            by mattes on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:07:31 AM PDT

            •  EU Troops, actually

              "Israel is ready to see deployment of a force with military capabilities and combat experience made up of troops from European Union countries once its mandate has been fixed," Olmert said during talks with Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the visiting German foreign minister.

              The mandate "will have to include control of the border crossings between Syria and Lebanon, deployment in south Lebanon and support for the Lebanese army," the Israeli prime minister said.
               
              The force would also need to oversee the "full implementation of Resolution 1559 and the dismantling of the (military) capabilities of Hezbollah," he added, referring to a two-year-old UN Security Council resolution calling for the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon.

              Link to article

              by Petronella on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:42:35 PM PDT

      •  uprated

        only to keep the serial ratings abuser 'another american' from damaging your mojo.

        by essexgreen on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 05:15:40 AM PDT

        •  ditto

          n/t

          by justinb on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:24:18 AM PDT

      •  What evidence do you have

        that the capture of 2 Israeli soldiers is a setup?

        If this is indeed the case, the Hitler reference is appropriate, but I'm not going to believe this one w/o clear evidence.

        And while I haven't yet read the Juan Cole piece, I do know that making contingency plans for any eventuality is part of the job of any military.  This, in itself, doesn't necessarily mean the government is not actually planning to carry through with any such plan - altho it does make it easier to make the decision to do so with the generals waving their plan around, telling them, See, here, we can do it!

        Just as the fact that Hezbollah has had plans in place for years to resist an Israeli incursion doesn't mean they were necessarily going to provoke one, either.

        by curmudgiana on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 07:09:30 AM PDT

        •  I don't think it's a setup

          I think it's the opportunity Israel's been waiting for.

          And to anyone who assumes that since I think Israel's government wants this war, that I must be anti-semitic- c'mere so I can slap you. I like the Jewish (and the Israelis) just fine, but I'm beginning to get the impression that the Israeli powers that be are a bunch of suicidal morons.

          Like the US foreign policy, it's one that cannot last. And it can't even be sustained as long as ours- they're too small, without cash or adequate troops to sustain an occupation.

          So what drives them to do it? I could believe the Litani proves a good hypothesis. Let's see what happens.

          by Eddie in ME on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 07:58:04 AM PDT

          •  This is my own opinion

            until the contrary is proved

            by curmudgiana on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:01:47 AM PDT

          •  Why...

            would Israel need to "wait" for this opportunity?
            They get attacked by terrorists on a regular basis.

            by Rohan on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:26:46 AM PDT

            •  Being attacked

              and having your people kidnapped are two different things.

              Having kidnapped soldiers provides an opportunity to attack relentlessly until the soldiers are returned, or found dead.

              For the common citizen, it's a lot easier to support a rescue mission for one of your soldiers, no matter how many die to recover them.

              Maybe I'm turning into a conspiracy theorist. I don't know. But having lived under six years of Bush, I don't discount any of this as being impossible, or even improbable.

              by Eddie in ME on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:29:36 AM PDT

          •  Who said you were anti-Semitic?

            But anyway, let's blame Israel for all the world's problems, it's much easier that way, only 5 million people in that country, who cares, it'll lead to world peace.  All middle east problems are Israel's fault.  Bloody pictures of Israel victims are fine, bloody pictures of Palestnian Terror or other victims is not fine to show.

            We must appeal to people's emotions, make them hate Israel, so that when retaliations against Israeli citizens occur, nobody will complain.

            Dehumanize the Israeli enemy, that's the idea, right?

            The ONLY thing the Republicans are successful in is marketing their talking points to the public.

            by jeffwass on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 11:01:09 AM PDT

            •  Worked pretty well on the Muslims didn't it?

              by callmecassandra on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 12:15:40 PM PDT

              •  That's why it scares the shit out of me

                that liberals and progressives are so easily swayed to the same tactics as wingnut repubs.

                The ONLY thing the Republicans are successful in is marketing their talking points to the public.

                by jeffwass on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:43:18 PM PDT

            •  There's a difference

              between believing Israel is the cause of all the world's problems, and thinking the current Israeli leadership has its head up its ass with the plan it's executing in Lebanon.

              I happen to believe the latter. And it doesn't garner any sympathy from me. Air war is very indiscriminate about who it kills. And with the Israelis destroying the country's infrastructure, the citizens of Lebanon, many not in support of Hezbollah, are forced to suffer.

              If you expect me to cheer and wave the Israeli flag as they ruthlessly bomb a bunch of people who never did anything to them, you've got another thing coming.

              As for the 'anti-semitic' part of my previous post, that was thrown in there to cut off the idiots lately who think that criticizing Israeli policy must mean you hate the Jewish people.

              by Eddie in ME on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 04:44:57 AM PDT

              •  Huh?

                If you expect me to cheer and wave the Israeli flag as they ruthlessly bomb a bunch of people who never did anything to them, you've got another thing coming.

                Did I ever say I expect you to wave the Israeli flag?

                No, the only thing I'd expect from a supposed progressive on this blog is to examine the conflict with an OPEN mind, and not run around yelling "ISRAEL IS EVIL, IT'S ALL ISRAEL'S FAULT", which seems to be increasingly common here on dKos.  Much like Bush with terrorists and 9/11.

                The ONLY thing the Republicans are successful in is marketing their talking points to the public.

                by jeffwass on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 07:25:07 PM PDT

          •  An opportunity

            Like 9/11.

            by victor lazlo on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 12:54:51 PM PDT

      •  Why would

        Israel's actions be ethnic cleansing, but actions by Iran/Syria/Lebanon/Palestine not be ethnic cleansing?

        The tone of your post sounds like you even WANT Israel to do ethnic cleansing, such that it will invoke major worldwide opposition/action against Israel, like you hate Israel far more than you like its Arab neighbors.  You seriously scare me.

        The ONLY thing the Republicans are successful in is marketing their talking points to the public.

        by jeffwass on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 11:23:45 AM PDT

      •  uprated because of the thought police /nt

        by sfflyman on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:55:03 PM PDT

    •  thanks for the quote. wolcott puts in writing

      exactly what i am thinking. he is scum! and frankly, i think even the deluded wingers will eventually turn on him.

      by stodghie on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:22:49 AM PDT

    •  Wolcott's column is a must read

      for a roadmap as to what we might expect here in the US.  It is not enough that we are and will be reviled as a nation due to the taint of Bush and his neocons and all that support them, but we may suffer another terrorist attack because of Bush, from Hezbollah.  

      How much for a bet that Bush goes on his normal vacation in Crawford while the Mid East burns?

      by Do Tell on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:52:34 AM PDT

      •  I had the chance to hear Robert Fisk

        in L.A. a few years ago, shortly after the second Intifada had got under way.  I emphasize that I heard Fisk, because the room was so packed that I had to join the spillover of several dozen people crouched in the hallway outside the room where he was giving his talk.

        As a foreign correspondant, he is the real deal, and he spoke at length about the difference in American and other (British, primarily) coverage of the Middle East:  according to him, the little coverage by the US networks that isn't outsourced to British or other foreign correspondents is provided by reporters who are thrown into a region for a few weeks and quickly rotated out, providing no opportunity for them to get to know the complexities of the situation.  But this is the necessary approach of a media establishment built on narcissism, that gives more weight to killer sharks, Angelina Jolie's cup size or the latest disappearing blonde than to any foreign conflagration.

        Keep in mind, too, that this was prior to the US adventure in Iraq (whoops!  almost wrote Iran there for a minute; silly me).  I can only imagine Fisk staring with slack-jawed disbelief at the preening, self-congratulatory joyrides of the "embedded" reporters during the opening weeks of that conflict.

        Beyond the depth of his coverage, Fisk is an amazing writer, as I'm sure people can tell from the segment in Wolcott's post.  Too bad he's describing such a grim situation.

        by Dale on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 09:41:25 AM PDT

        •  Yes, I have been following Fisk's writing as well

          since the war and have been amazed at his coverage and insights.  

          I also love Wolcott's writing.

          by Do Tell on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:25:49 PM PDT

    •  Dear Vanity Fair

      I subscribe to you because of James Wolcott.  If he ever left your (quite good) magazine, I might not renew.  Unless you keep putting pictures of Lindsey Lohan on the cover.  Then you could fill the magazine with feces and I would still buy it.  If it didn't smell too bad.

      by Eugene Stumpf on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 07:26:02 AM PDT

    •  Also from the Wolcott article

      I will never forgive Joe Lieberman for undercutting John Murtha and muffling the urgency of Murtha's warnings about how rapidly Iraq was unraveling by issuing one of his classic mushmouthed pieties. He immediately gave the White House and the War Party bipartisan cover, helping ensure the policies that weren't working would continue not working as the death-toll tabulator rose and rose.

      Yes, it should be read in its entirety. Thanks for the link!

      by chantedor on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:21:19 AM PDT

    •  Reading Wolcott, one has to ask the question:

      Is the Isreali brutal, disproportionate attack on Hezbollah and Lebanon designed to trigger a terrorist attack on Americans in order to rally support for Bush and the Republicans in the November elections?

      The timing and coordination are too perfect.  I don't read hebrew, but could what they are writing on the bombs translate to MIHOP (Make It happen On Purpose)?

      by wonkydonkey on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 09:51:48 AM PDT

  •  Ignorance or wilfull misrepresentation . . .

    The fact that the Israel Defense Force (IDF), like any responsible military establishment, develops contingency plans for various possible eventualities, does not mean, or begin to prove, that either Israel’s civilian leadership or that of the IDF itself has looking for an excuse to put a contingency plan regarding Hizbollah into operation.  Indeed, the IDF would have been acting irresponsibly were it not to have developed one or more contingency plans against the possibility, which as we’ve seen actually occurred, that an accumulation of attacks by Hizbollah on Israel, or any particular attack on Israel would cause Israel’s civilian leadership to conclude that a substantial response was needed.

    By itself, in other words, the existence of the contingency plan does not even provide any evidence of a premeditated attack on Lebanon rather than Israel preparing itself to defend itself against Hizbollah.