Huqul al-Nakhl

This week Israel’s Military Intelligence Chief Major General Amos Yadlin complained to the Israeli daily Haaretz that “Hezbollah proved that it was the strongest power in Lebanon and if it had wanted to take the government it could have done it.” He said Hezbollah continued to pose a “significant” threat to Israel as its rockets could reach a large part of Israeli territory.”

Yadlin was putting it mildly.

But what Intelligence Chief Yadlin did not reveal to the Israeli public was just how “significant” but also “immediate” the Hezbollah threat was on May 11. Nor was he willing to divulge the fact that he received information via US and French channels that if the planned attack on Lebanon’s capitol went forward, that in the view of the US intelligence community Tel Aviv would be subject to “approximately 600 Hezbollah rockets in the first 24 hours in retaliation and at least that number on the following day”.

The Israeli Intel Chief also declined to reveal that despite Israel’s recent psyche-war camping about various claimed missile shields “the State of Israel is perfecting”, that this claim is being ridiculed at the Pentagon. “Israel will not achieve an effective shield against the current generation of rockets, even assuming no technological improvements in the current rockets aimed at it, for another 20 years. And that assumes the US will continue to fund their research and development for the hoped for shields”, according to Pentagon, US Senate Intelligence Committee, and very well informed Lebanese sources.

full article

Once again, the Zionist entity closely watches the ongoing political crisis in Lebanon and gives its own analysis. 

 
Hezbollah proved last week that it is the strongest force in Lebanon and could have seized power if it had wanted to, Israel’s military intelligence chief said in remarks published on Thursday.
 
“Hezbollah did not intend to take control… If it had wanted to, it could have done it,” Major General Amos Yadlin said in an interview with the Israeli daily Haaretz.
 
Lebanon was rocked last week by the worst violence since the end of the 1975-1990 civil war between the Lebanese national opposition and the ruling bloc’s militias. But Yadlin said Hezbollah did not want to follow the example of the Palestinian Islamic movement Hamas, which seized power in the Gaza Strip in June by ousting the forces of Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas.
 
Hezbollah, a movement formed after Israel’s large-scale invasion of Lebanon in 1982, “understands that if it took power it would have to assume responsibility and expose its numerous weak points,” he said.
 
“Hezbollah proved that it was the strongest power in Lebanon… stronger than the Lebanese army.” He said Hezbollah, which is backed by Iran and Syria, continued to pose a “significant” threat to Israel as its rockets could reach a large part of Israeli territory.

source

Interesting take on the situation by Lawernce of Cyberia:

“Crying and shooting” is the term used in Israeli political discourse to describe those Israelis who agonize over what they are doing to the Palestinians, but carry on doing it anyway. It’s a way for Israelis to feel better about themselves, by reasserting their liberal, progressive and humanitarian values, even as they carry out illiberal, regressive and murderous actions.

There was a wonderful example of the phenomenon last week in a column written for Ha’aretz by Bradley Burston. He wrote an agonized column - Our Defense Forces, our war crimes, our terrorism - about the disproportionate number of civilians among the Palestinians killed by the IDF, and specifically about Israeli’s collective refusal to acknowledge their responsibility for the killings.

But his column is like one of those non-apologies you make when you know you should apologize for something, but you’re not really sorry. When instead of saying “I’m sorry for what I did”, you say “I’m sorry if you were offended”, as if it’s the offended feelings that are the problem, not the fact that you said something offensive in the first place.

incident that set off Burston’s “soul-searching” was the killing of Myassar Abu Mu’attaq, and her four children - Rudayna (6) Hana (3), Saleh (4) and Mousad (15 months), photo left by Mohammed Abed for AFP - whose home was destroyed by an Israeli shell as the family sat down to breakfast.

(The IDF initially acknowledged the family had been killed by one of their tank shells which had gone off course, but subsequently claimed that they weren’t really responsible because although they had fired the shell, it had not really hit the house, but had struck instead two nearby Palestinian gunmen who were carrying large amounts of explosives that were detonated by the Israeli shell and indirectly
blew up the Abu Mu’attaq house. This is a variant of the “Ghalia Defence” that the IDF came up with when it shelled a Gaza beach in June 2006, but denied any responsibility for the deaths of the Ghalia
family who had been having a picnic there, claiming that although they fired six shells at the beach - one of which they could not account for - the errant shell could not have killed the Ghalia family who
must have been killed instead by Palestinian munitions hidden under the sand that might have been inadvertantly detonated by the Israeli bombardment. That’s a close echo of what the IDF claims about the Abu Mu’attaq killings: the IDF knows it fired the shells, knows the civilians at the receiving end are dead, but subsequently introduces some intermediate mechanism - mines under the beach, exploding backpacks - that deflects responsibility to an intermediate agent, and allows the army that fires the shells to maintain the pretense that even when it kills civilians its intentions are pure. There’s probably a technical name in medical literature for this phenomenon of shifting blame for guilty actions to an intermediate party).

Full article