Israel - Who holds the leash?

There is wide belief that the U.S. gave Israel a "green light" to attack Lebanon. The Bush administration denies this. However, the administration and Congress have given unconditional support for Israel's actions and "right to defend itself." The U.S. is also expediting delivery of precision bombs to Israel. (Of course, virtually all of Israel's war machine has a U.S. label.) Meanwhile, Condoleezza Rice is heading to Israel to give what is assumed to be truly a green light - for one more week of attack by Israel.

It is apparent that Israel believes it has a green light whether formally stated or not. , Shmuel Rosner, Chief US Correspondent for Ha'aretz, states:

"Formally there may not be a green light, but it is hard to interpret the American approach otherwise. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice rejected, without so much as batting an eyelid, the initiatives for an immediate cease-fire. If there's a crisis, then let it go all the way. Let it do some good. The U.S., from the outset, spotted the potential inherent in the outbreak and decided to grab the bull by the horns and has not backed down. Not when faced by the French, nor UN Secretary General Kofi Annan."

Who is calling the shots with Israel? Or is there a seamless integration of Israel and the U.S.? What will the U.S. do if Israel decides that it needs more than "one more week?" It does not seem that there is much on the negotiation table after the U.S. offers "unconditional support." That is a hard line for the U.S. to step back from without giving the impression that it is Israel who holds the upper hand over the U.S.

How do Syria and Iran figure in to the U.S. calculations? Does the U.S. want a wider conflict with an excuse to militarily engage those nations? Do we really want bombs flying over the heads of U.S. troops in Iraq? Is the current crisis yet another attempt to "win hearts and minds?" If so, it is likely to fail. One cannot look at civilians as simply "collateral damage" and win the support of people.

Last night I watched the movie "Red Dawn" (1984) which depicts a hypothetical invasion of the U.S. by the Soviet Union. This invasion is countered by a group of high school students who engage in guerilla activity to fight the occupation forces. Meanwhile, the occupiers subdue the population of the town (Calumet) by killing civilians with impunity and as retribution for the actions of the guerillas. At one point, one of the leaders of the occupying forces says something to the effect that "you only strengthen the resistance with each civilian killed." He then goes on to say "I was a partisan once." This is a message that both Bush and Israel need to get. Killing civilians does not make one friends - it strengthens the resistance.

In this case, it may also bring in further fighting forces. Lebanon has threatened to join its army with Hizbullah if Israel comes past the buffer zone. My guess is that the government of Lebanon may feel forced to that if Israel continues the deliberate destruction of critical civilian infrastructure. In fact, if they do not act, they may actually lose all credibility as a government in the eyes of the Lebanese (and the rest of the Middle East). Israel, and the U.S., may have already undermined the Lebanese government to the point that it is a government in name only.

So who holds the leash for Israel? One could say that the U.S. does, but it may have forfeited any control in the situation by not at least cautioning over aggressiveness on the part of Israel. By taking a stance of unconditional support, blocking any movement towards a cease fire (and thereby sanctioning the destruction of civilians and civilian infrastructure), it has left itself little room to maneuver without appearing toothless when it comes to Israel.