Israel vs. Hezbollah: The Third Lebanon War - By Dr. Ehud Eilam - https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/israel-hezbollah-lebanon-war/
Ever since the 2006 war, Israel has preferred to contain Hezbollah rather than fight it directly. So determined was Israel to avoid going to war with the terrorist group that it tolerated its significant military buildup. Since 2012, however, the IAF has carried out hundreds of sorties inside Syria aimed at stopping the delivery of advanced weapons to Hezbollah. Israel can continue to delay the arming of Hezbollah, but it has already become quite strong, and a war could occur even if neither side wants it.
Tensions between Israel and Iran's Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah, have reached the point where war might well ensue. Neither side wants this, at least not right now, but it could still occur, either as a result of miscalculations and or of a rapid escalation that got out of control.
The two sides confronted each other in Lebanon in the 1980s and 1990s, and their 34-day war in the summer of 2006 ended in a tie. According to the IDF's strategy document of 2018, the next time Israel and Hezbollah go to war, the IDF will be eager to strike the group hard in order to achieve a fast victory.
This will not be easy. Hezbollah does not have a clear center of gravity that can be wiped out and thereby bring Israel a quick and clear victory. The organization also enjoys vast support from the Shiite community in Lebanon.
The IDF has many more weapons and much more manpower than Hezbollah-but Hezbollah has up to 150,000 projectiles aimed at Israel. All of Israel is within Hezbollah's missile range, but it would primarily target the north of the country. The sheer quantity of rockets available to Hezbollah means that Israel's defense systems such as the Iron Dome would only be able to intercept some of them. The only way to completely stop the firing of missiles and rockets would be to run a large-scale offensive inside Lebanon.
The IAF has been training to launch thousands of sorties aimed at destroying Hezbollah targets, mainly its rockets. But the IAF might not be able to accomplish this mission by itself, especially if rockets hit its airfields. Israel might have no alternative but to also conduct a major ground offensive.
This would not be like 2006, when Israel hesitated and was reluctant to carry out a large-scale land attack for fear of incurring heavy casualties. In the next war the concept might be the opposite. In other words, reducing Israeli casualties, both on the front line in Lebanon and in the Israeli rear, might require starting the war with a large-scale ground attack.
Many in the IDF seek to prove that Israel is willing to carry out a ground offensive, even if its costs might be high. The concept is that Israel's foes should not assume that Israel is afraid to put its ground units in harm's way and will always prefer to rely on air power. In the Gaza Strip operations of 2008-09 and in 2014, Israel conducted limited ground attacks and depended on the IAF.
But Israel should not launch a ground offensive just to prove a point if conditions are not right. If there is a limited confrontation and both sides express their willingness to end it soon, then sending ground units into Lebanon could pointlessly extend the war. Starting a war with a major attack is not always the right option.
The IDF might penetrate deep into Lebanon, advancing dozens of kilometers on the ground. Israeli ground units probably will not reach Beirut as they did in 1982, but they might advance further than they did in 2006. Long-range penetrations might be carried out not with armor but with airborne assaults. Crack units such as the new 89th commando brigade (established in 2015) can land from the air. These would be risky operations as Israeli troops would be isolated far behind enemy lines, receiving help mostly from aircraft that would deliver supplies and provide fire support.
The IDF would not stay there for long. The goal would be to annihilate Hezbollah's rockets and then withdraw. It would be like a large-scale raid, not a conquest. Israel would not go back to the 1990s, when it was entangled in an endless fight inside Lebanon that cost it dearly.
Elite units such as the 401st armored brigade would advance on the ground. The IDF would rely on Merkava Mark 3 and 4 tanks and heavy armored personal carriers (the Achzarit and the Namer, together with the old M-113). The IDF's sophisticated C4I (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence) network would assist too, but the IDF should not depend on it too much in case it fails.
Senior Israeli officials have warned several times about the severe ramifications of turning Lebanon into a fire base against Israel. Hezbollah deliberately hides its rockets in urban areas. Israeli firepower, aimed at the rockets in those areas, would inevitably inflict substantial collateral damage.
If Hezbollah opens fire first, targeting Israeli cities, it will force Israel to react immediately and in a massive way. An Israeli preemptive strike is unlikely, though surprise is crucial in capturing Hezbollah off guard.
The IDF has an overwhelming edge over Hezbollah, but the latter has relative advantages, mainly its missiles/rockets. The two sides will continue to try to avoid a costly war, but a war might still occur-against the will of one or even both of them.
Churches Against Israel - Jim Fletcher -
One of my favorite topics-unfortunately-is the erosion of support for Israel among American Christians, particularly churches and ministries. Many don't want to hear it, or dispute my findings, but I stand by it all. As the American Church edges closer to fulfilling the New Testament prophecies about apostasy in the Church, one inevitable outcome is an abandonment of God's Chosen People.
I would go so far as to say that the discernment level of most of the nationally known ministry leaders is so low, they can only look up. The astounding naivete of yesterday's powerhouse denominations is mind-boggling.
Witness the recent event at North Carolina State University, in which Southern Baptist Convention President JD Greear (pastor of The Summit Church) dialogued from the stage with Omar Suleiman, an SMU professor and founder of the Yaqeen Institute for Islamic Research.
I was alerted to this by a tweet from radio host Janet Mefferd.
Titled "Hope in the Current Age: A Conversation on Christianity and Islam," the event was ostensibly a friendly chat between representatives of the two religions. Sadly/infuriatingly/tragically, Greear relegated himself to dhimmi status in the presence of his Muslim chum. He also didn't miss an opportunity to bash President Trump and his supporters.
"We need to be able to not only get along with, but to cherish, stand alongside and even fight for people that believe different things than we do," Greear said.
Greear also said that Christians operate from a "posture of fear" (a common talking point among Leftists; it's false propaganda designed to put conservatives on the defensive)
According to a compliant Baptist Press report, Greear said some Christians "To look upon outsiders with suspicion and 'rationalize the faults' of politicians offering political protection to the Christian community."
That last dig is aimed at Trump and his supporters. Astonishing that the head of the SBC would do such a thing.
The deeper question though is, just who is Omar Suleiman?
(Years ago, I attended a lecture by Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, one of the brightest patriots in America today. Gaffney explained how documents captured by the FBI showed clearly that the Muslim Brotherhood intended to harm America in part by fostering dialogue with dupes in the Christian leadership community. This came under the heading of "Interfaith Dialogue," exactly as presented at North Carolina State this past Thursday.)
Suleiman is dangerous, and it's horrifying that Greear would give him space within Evangelicalism.
During one of the Gaza wars, Suleiman said:
"How befitting that the 3rd Intifada starts on the 27th night of Ramadan...."God willing on this blessed night as the 3rd Intifada begins, the beginning of the end of Zionism is here. May Allah help us overcome this monster, protect the innocent of the world, and accept the murdered as martyrs. ameen."
He has also expressed his opinions about the moving of the US Embassy to Jerusalem:
"Your recognition means nothing to us......Your maps mean nothing to us, your embassy is as illegitimate as the occupation it seeks to legitimize. Our land is our land, our dignity is our dignity."
Just so you'll know, it's a waste of breath to ask questions of people like Greear. He is insulated from answering the rank-and-file. One could ask members of the SBC's Executive Committee just why the denomination's president is appearing with such a dangerous individual, a person so hate-filled when it comes to Israel and Jews. And make no mistake: Suleiman also hates you as a Christian. He was no doubt thrilled to share the stage with a useful idiot (Lenin's term for those who unwittingly help totalitarians dupe free populations) that has now mainstreamed Islam's hate-rhetoric among evangelicals.
Israel has many enemies. It's important to realize a good chunk of those come from the leadership within American Evangelicalism.
What does Israel's future 5G network have to do with coronavirus? - Yaakov Katz -
On Monday, Robert Blair, US President Donald Trump's deputy chief of staff, flew to Ottawa for an important meeting with Canadian officials. He came with a warning - do not install equipment from Huawei - a Chinese telecom company - in Canada's next-generation 5G network.
Blair reportedly shared with Canadian intelligence officials how Huawei equipment is used by China to covertly access mobile phone networks through "backdoors" which allow the Chinese to spy on those governments. He warned that if Canada went ahead with Huawei, America would not be able to continue sharing sensitive intelligence information with its neighbor to the north.
Blair's message echoed a similar warning that Richard Grenell, the US ambassador to Germany and the newly-appointed acting director of National Intelligence, had made last month.
Grenell revealed that Trump had called him from Air Force One and asked that he make clear to Germany and other countries "that any nation who chooses to use an untrustworthy 5G vendor[s] will jeopardize our ability to share intelligence and information at the highest level."
Not every country has heeded Trump's warnings. The United Kingdom, for example, decided earlier this year to allow Huawei to play a limited role in the construction of its 5G mobile networks and provide "non-core" equipment. The decision drew a sharp condemnation from Tom Cotton, a leading Republican senator.
"Allowing Huawei to build the UK's 5G networks today is like allowing the KGB to build its telephone network during the Cold War," Cotton said a few weeks ago, calling on Grenell to "conduct a thorough review of US-UK intelligence-sharing."
What makes 5G so important for Trump and the US is that it is predicted to soon serve as the backbone for all critical infrastructure and is viewed by experts as having the potential to be as transformative for the world as the invention of electricity was in the 19th century.
5G's faster download speeds mean that it will be the foundation of all new technologies - think driverless cars as an example - and if it is compromised, it could give a country like China the ability to undermine another nation's basic needs.
Trump is determined to beat the Chinese who are currently leading the world in development of 5G components. Last April he said that "The race to 5G is a race America must win... It is a race that we will win."
While the US and China are fighting it out on the global stage, Israel is lagging far behind. In April, the Communication Ministry issued a tender for the construction of the network offering government incentives to cellular operators of up to NIS 200 million.
But Israel cannot build the network on its own. Like Canada, Germany and the UK, it too has to make a decision who will be its main partner - China or the United States. For Israel, the question should be a no-brainer. The US-Israel alliance is key to the survival of the Jewish state and is illustrated not just in the close diplomatic and military cooperation between the two countries, but also in the intelligence sharing that exists between the different agencies.
On the other hand though, Israeli-Chinese relations have also flourished in recent years and Beijing is today Israel's biggest infrastructure partner, building roads, tunnels, ports, railroads and more in deals valued at tens of billions of shekels.
On land, Chinese companies are building tunnels for the Tel Aviv light rail and at sea, a Chinese company is completing construction of the new Ashdod Port, and another one will soon start managing the Haifa Port. All three deals are worth close to NIS 20 billion.
Over the last year, due to US opposition, Israel instituted new oversight mechanisms to prevent China from penetrating further into Israel's economy. The US made clear to Israel that if China continues building all of Israel's infrastructure, continued intelligence sharing will be at risk.
"We need to decide if we are with the Chinese or the Americans and the government understands this very well," explained Moshe Koppel, chairman of the Kohelet Policy Forum in Jerusalem.
Koppel has been working behind the scenes trying to bring Israeli and American officials together to jointly develop some of the components and hardware needed for 5G networks. While the US's Qualcomm, for example, is a leader in 5G technology, it is still believed to be lagging behind the Chinese. Here, Koppel says, is potentially where Israeli companies can help.
"A lot of the cutting edge hi-tech stuff that is related to security and to big data collection cannot be done alone by a small country like Israel and needs to be done by big international consortiums," he explained. "We can only be part of a consortium like that with the US if we commit to not compromising security by working with China."
Officially, Israel is not saying much but there are talks. The 5G issue came up, for example, at the meeting Defense Minister Naftali Bennett had with US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper at the Pentagon in February. One government official explained that the reason Israel is staying quiet for now is to not upset the Chinese.
But in the end, as Koppel said, Israel will have to make its position clear. Trump's National Security Council has long pressed Israel on China and it has become a regular topic in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's conversations with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. "If not dealt with correctly, China could end up being the issue that causes the Israeli-US relationship more damage than anything before it," one US official said recently.
But while the decision seems easy to make, there is one major obstacle left - establishing a government in Jerusalem that can make decisions with strategic significance. The Americans are said to be prepared to move ahead, but there is no real point of contact in Israel as the country remains mired in an endless election cycle.
What this means is simple - a strategic opportunity like partnering with America on 5G networks is simply languishing on the side, waiting for Israel to get its act together. Will it?
5G is not the only issue hurting due to Israel's continued political instability. The entire country is suffering as people's lives are threatened by the continued spread of the novel coronavirus.
Netanyahu's handling of the situation so far seems responsible. Israel, under his leadership, has instituted stringent restrictions, especially regarding air travel into the country, and sending tens of thousands of people into 14-day self-isolation. And so far, it seems to have worked, keeping the numbers of sick at bay.
But the prime minister's criminal trial begins on Tuesday and his government is not legally capable of passing the decisions required to ensure Israel gets through this crisis as needed. It can't pass a state budget and can't pass laws needed to ensure the public's safety and security at a time of great uncertainty and personal danger.
The possibility that the country will plunge into a fourth election is no longer far-fetched even if it seems delusional to be happening at a time when the entire world is bracing for the damaging effects of the coronavirus pandemic.
But this is what happens when both of the leading candidates to serve as prime minister - Netanyahu and Benny Gantz - are not meeting and are barely talking about the possibility of sitting down with one another to discuss a unity government. What this shows the public is truthfully what it has known for a long time - the politicians care more about their own jobs than they do about the public.
Israelis don't need televised demonstrations from the prime minister every other night how to sneeze into your arm or walk around with a pack of tissues. They need a government that is working to keep them safe; not politicians who are just waiting for a fourth election.
The time has come for Gantz and Netanyahu to meet and begin to do what Israelis expect of them - establish a government.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.