Notify me of new HIR pieces!

Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: HIR mailing list

Why Jewish patriots should thank Hezbollah

Historical and Investigative Research - 20 August 2006
by Francisco Gil-White
Description: C:\Users\Francisco\Desktop\Transfer\web\hir\iraniraq\button1E.jpg

Dear Readers,

I have seen much pessimism from Jewish patriots in the wake of the ‘cease-fire’ that the United States and the United Nations have sought to impose in order to protect Hezbollah, and which Israel’s leaders have accepted. Many have characterized the result as one where Israel lost the war, and they have lamented what they perceive as the damage to the earlier perception that Israel was invincible, with negative consequences to the deterrence of Israel’s enemies.

My own view is less pessimistic.

It is certainly true that Ehud Olmert lost the war by agreeing to a ‘cease-fire’ that, like previous US and UN-brokered cease-fires in southern Lebanon, will protect the antisemitic terrorists and allow them to re-arm. But in my view Ehud Olmert was going to lose whatever war he was called upon to wage. I don't think he is a patriot. So the question for Jewish patriots is this: Which war would you rather have Ehud Olmert lose?

Remember that Ehud Olmert was rushing to cleanse the Jews out of the West Bank -- like his mentor, Ariel Sharon, had done with the Jews who lived in Gaza -- in order to turn this territory over completely to the terrorists. For those paying attention to geopolitical realities, as opposed to the pro-Oslo propaganda statements of US and Israeli officials, the probable outcome of Ehud Olmert’s policies was not difficult to foresee. Relatively low-level but constant Hezbollah attacks from the north, and PLO/Hamas attacks from Gaza in the south, would have made the relocation of the evacuated West Bank Jews to the north and south of Israel impractical, particularly given that a stream of Jews native to those areas would be fleeing the Hamas/Hezbollah attacks towards the relative safety of the Tel-Aviv-Yafo area (as indeed many have now fled). Tel-Aviv-Yafo already contains about half of all Israeli Jews, and as a result of Olmert’s ‘convergence’ and the terrorist attacks from north and south the Israeli Jews would have been further concentrated there.

Now, the West Bank and Gaza, according to a 1967 Pentagon study done immediately after the Six Day War, are strategic territories that, if relinquished, will guarantee the destruction of Israel.[1] This Pentagon study was not carried out for Israel’s benefit and Israel was not informed of its conclusions. It was kept secret and made public only many years later because somebody filed suit to have it released under the Freedom of Information Act. That the US ruling elite did not share with the Israelis its view of the vulnerability of the Jewish state, but instead pressured Israel to participate in the Oslo process that has for purpose to hand over precisely these indispensable territories to the antisemitic terrorists, is consistent with the entire history of US foreign policy towards the Jewish people and state, which has been a constant sponsoring of Israel’s enemies and sabotaging of Israeli self-defense.[2]

One does not have to be a military genius, or even a mediocre professional military strategist, to see that the Pentagon’s 1967 study reached correct conclusions concerning the indispensability of the West Bank and Gaza to a defensible Jewish state. The Tel-Aviv-Yafo area, where the Israeli Jews are being concentrated, is the tiniest strip of land, with no more than 18 km. (11 miles) between the West Bank border and the Mediterranean Sea. Many of my readers live in cities that are wider than this, and those who are in good physical condition can easily jog this distance. Ehud Olmert’s policies would have turned Tel-Aviv-Yafo from the large concentration camp it now is into a death camp. Why? Because Tel-Aviv-Yafo is a lowland, and the West Bank ground that the terrorists would control completely after Ehud Olmert’s so-called ‘convergence’ -- if the Israelis had allowed it -- is highland. Once the West Bank Jews had been evacuated and concentrated, PLO/Hamas, armed to the teeth by the Arab states, would simply start shooting downwards from the West Bank hills, while PLO/Hamas attacked from Gaza, and Hezbollah and the Lebanese army attacked from the north. But that is not all. Egypt would have attacked also, from the south, while the Syrian and Iranian armed forces added themselves to the Hezbollah/Lebanese forces that they control. It is true that in order to do this Iran would have to rush through Iraq but that would not be a problem, because the US has been withdrawing from Iraq for a year, and it is clear to everybody that Iraq now belongs to Iran (HIR has argued that the US attacked Iraq in order precisely to achieve this outcome).[3] Saudi Arabia, which the US has turned into one of the most heavily armed countries in the world,[4] would have overrun Jordan in order to join the attack on Israel (assuming the Jordanians didn’t simply invite them in and join the attack as well, which I think was more probable). This is the war that Ehud Olmert was going to lose, and losing this war would have destroyed Israel, and its people.

It is much better that Ehud Olmert lost this other war in Lebanon.

The reason the war in Lebanon took place, in my view, is that the rabid attack dogs employed at the lower levels by antisemitic terrorist forces such as the PLO, Hamas, and Hezbollah are so deranged, so transformed into beasts of prey anxious to gorge on Jewish blood, that they can be difficult to restrain. This is especially true as the final moment approaches, when the suicidal behavior of the Israeli ruling elite leads the hounds of death to smell an easy prey. So, eager for the kill, they snapped their master’s leash and caused some trouble to the carefully laid plans for the next anti-Jewish genocide. Consistent with this are the Arab criticisms of Hezbollah, which accused Hezbollah not of unacceptable terrorism against Israeli civilians, but of “miscalculation,” and of engaging in “unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible acts.”[5] In other words, Hezbollah’s attack was premature, because the West Bank had yet to be fully cleansed of its Jews and the United States had yet to fully turn Iraq over to Iran. So what happened is that Hamas and Hezbollah became too violent, too soon, forcing Ehud Olmert’s government to produce some kind of response, however weak and ham-fisted, there to prevent the patriots in the officer class of the Israeli Defense Forces from leading a revolt.[6]

The outcome of this war is not as bad as many are saying. True, Hezbollah will rearm and prepare for the next assault under the protection of the United Nations and the Syrian-controlled Lebanese state, as it has done before.[7] But Hezbollah does need to rearm, and it will now be more difficult than before to carry out the evacuation of the Jews living in the West Bank. Moreover, as ineffectual as the Israeli response was, it was a response, and more than what we have seen for years in the face of constant terrorist assault. I am not sure that the Arab regimes are really learning from this that the Israelis are easy to beat, despite the propaganda to the contrary; after all, it was Hezbollah, not Israel, that asked for the cease-fire, and with special urgency as the major Israeli assault was to begin. It is also possible that Ehud Olmert’s government will not even survive, because many Israelis are waking up to the vulnerabilities of the Jewish state, and to the suicidal nature of the policies favored by the Israeli ruling elite.

All in all, Hezbollah has bought Israel a bit of time. Since the alternative was a war of extermination that Ehud Olmert was going to lose, Israeli patriots, ironically, should be thanking Hezbollah.


Is this article useful? Help us do more with a donation .
Would you like to be notified of new articles? Sign up (it’s free) .


But in order fully to understand what lies ahead, and what those of us who defend the Jewish people against the antisemites can do from this point forward, it is important that we have a good grasp of Israeli and Diaspora Jewish politics. I will endeavor to explain this in future pieces, and I will begin by taking a look at the Israeli media. So, I invite you to read the following piece:

What is wrong with the media? (Part 2)
Why does the Israeli media also attack the Israelis?






     Israel at War -- An HIR Series  

Who attacked Israel?

What is Hezbollah?

What caused this war?

Understanding the US position | 1

Understanding the US position | 2

The Arab reaction, and what it means

Who is killing Lebanese civilians? | 1

Who is killing Lebanese civilians? | 2

What is wrong with the media? | 1

What is wrong with the media? | 2


Footnotes and Further Reading

[1] The following piece quotes the relevant portions of the Pentagon study and analyses it in its political context, with links to the original document (to go directly to the Pentagon study, see further below):

“1967 -- After the Six-Day War, the US put pressure on Israel to relinquish the territory gained, even though it knew it was indispensable to Israeli defense”; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL: A Chronological look at the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.


»» This Pentagon document was apparently declassified in 1979 but not published until 1984. It was published by the Journal of Palestine Studies:

"Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense"; Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2. (Winter, 1984), pp. 122-126.< This file is especially useful because it shows a map with the "minimum territory needed by Israel for defensive purposes"

»» And by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs:

»» And as an appendix in:

Netanyahu, B. 2000. A durable peace: Israel and its place among the nations, 2 edition. New York: Warner Books. (APPENDIX: The Pentagon Plan, June 29, 1967; pp.433-437)

[2] “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL?: A chronological look at the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.

[3] “BUSH JR.'S WAR ON IRAQ: A general introduction”; Historical and Investigative Research; 1 December 2005; by Francisco Gil-White.

[4] According to Frontline (PBS), the US-led military buildup of Saudi Arabia has made this country “ultimately...the largest beneficiary of U.S. weapons sales in the entire world” and “one of the most heavily armed countries in the world.”

SOURCE: The Arming of Saudi Arabia; Transcript of FRONTLINE Show #1112; Public Broadcasting System; Air Date: February 16, 1993.

[5] The quotations are taken from the following two articles:

Pro-western Arab states temper reaction: Jordan, Egypt, others risk domestic peace with mild comments,  Ottawa Citizen, July 17, 2006 Monday,  Final Edition, NEWS; Pg. A5, 364 words, Hugh Miles, The Daily Telegraph, CAIRO

Militia Rebuked by Some Arab Countries,  The New York Times, July 17, 2006 Monday,  Late Edition - Final, Section A; Column 2; Foreign Desk; TURMOIL IN THE MIDEAST: THE ARABS; Pg. 1, 1027 words, By HASSAN M. FATTAH; Reporting for this article was contributed by Nazila Fathi from Tehran, Suha Maayeh from Amman, Jordan, Mona el-Naggar from Cairo and David E. Sanger from Vermont., BEIRUT, Lebanon, July 16

If you would like to see HIR’s analysis of what the Arab reaction to Hezbollah’s attack means, visit:

“THE ARAB REACTION, AND WHAT IT MEANS: Get ready for the rebirth of the PLO...”; Historical and Investigative Research; 25 July 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.

[6] HIR has produced an analysis of this dynamic, by looking at previous events that followed the same pattern, here:

“THE ARAB REACTION, AND WHAT IT MEANS: Get ready for the rebirth of the PLO...”; Historical and Investigative Research; 25 July 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.

[7] To place in historical perspective the manner in which the United States reacted to this war, by proposing a quick cease-fire and UN troops that will protect Hezbollah, read the following piece:

“UNDERSTANDING THE US POSITION (Part 2): Why does the US propose a United Nations intervention?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 1 August 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
















































































Notify me of new HIR pieces!

Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: HIR mailing list

Hezbollah Hizbollah Hizbu'llah Hizb'allah

What is Hezbollah?

What is Hizbollah?

What is Hizbu'llah?

What is Hizb'allah?