I wonder how long this cease fire will last, I’m pretty sure Hezbollah with start chucking rockets around, will Israel be able to just watch?
I think someone will break the ceasefire, but it might not be Hezbollah themselves.
IMHO I don’t think it will hold. Hizbollah will not willingly disarm and Lebanon is already balking at their commitment to send Lebanese regulars to disarm Hizbollah. There is also the issue of returning the two kidnapped Israeli soldiers - I’m not sure that Hizbollah will agree to that either.
Hizbollah and Israel
Strategy Page
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/articles/20060814.aspx
August 14, 2006:
The conventional wisdom says that Israel has lost this latest conflict, and Hizbollah has won. This is not quite accurate. This latest round of fighting in Lebanon was a draw, and possibly a major defeat for Hizbollah. Both sides can point to real gains, and both sides also have lost things as a result. The same can be said about any direct or indirect participant in this point.
For instance, Israel has made some significant gains. They now have a decent idea of what the conditions in southern Lebanon look like should they need to engage in larger-scale combat in the region. The UN resolution also allows Israel to take “defensive” actions against Hizbollah. Keep in mind, only two countries need to agree on what would constitute “defensive” action: Israel and the United States (which has a veto on the Security Council).
Hizbollah has managed to publicly fight a limited Israeli offensive to a draw. This will give the terrorist group a huge amount of prestige among the Arab world, and it will likely see a jump in recruiting and support. However, Hizbollah’s propaganda has now been exposed, thanks to the blogosphere. This is going to cost Hizbollah in the long run – the brazen lies will be brought up in the future. But in the meantime, the ceasefire calls for the disarming of Hizbollah, something Hizbollah says it will resist.
Iran, a somewhat indirect participant, now has tangible results it can show for giving Hizbollah $250 million a year. This is going to somewhat reduce the discontent over the expenditures. However, Iran’s also been caught supplying weapons (including anti-ship missiles) to Hizbollah. This will make the United States even touchier about Iran’s nuclear weapons program than it already is. The last time the United States got very touchy about a dictator pursuing weapons of mass destruction who was also known to assist terrorists was in 2003.
Lebanon wins by having more UN peacekeepers to assist its army in the southern portion of that country. This will, hopefully, give it some means to fight Hizbollah. The problem is that Lebanon’s government has been revealed to have at least been aware of Hizbollah’s plans to kidnap the soldiers. Once seen as another victim of Hizbollah, there will be some who now see Lebanon as a collaborator.
The UN can also claim a sense of accomplishment, pointing to the Security Council resolution that ended this round of fighting, and the bolstering of its peacekeeping force. However, the UN is already dealing with the embarrassment of having to admit that its peacekeeping force was unable to prevent Hizbollah from launching attacks on Israel. The UN will also have little room for failure due to other past failures (like Srebrenica, the conduct of peacekeepers in Africa, and the Oil-for-Food program). It also raises questions about who will enforce Security Council Resolution 1559, which requires the disarmament of Hizbollah.
The United States has gained some things. For instance, it has now built up more of a case against Hizbollah. It also has picked up proof of Iranian involvement in arming Hizbollah – which will make it easier to justify acting against Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The United States has also managed to set things up so that if Israel has to go after Hizbollah again, they can cover the Israelis at the UN. However, the United States will have to deal with the fact that Hizbollah has now gained prestige in the Arab world, and that Iran will be more confident in that group’s abilities.
In other words, everyone’s got reasons to claim victory in this war, and at the same time, everyone has a few things that they will want to deal with at some point in the future. The result is a cease-fire that will not hold, mainly because Hizbollah refuses to disarm. When a war ends without a definite winner or loser, the result will be a future war. – Harold C. Hutchison (haroldc.hutchison@gmail.com)
Turbaned Warriors
Strategy Page
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htinf/articles/20060814.aspx
August 14, 2006:
Photos of Israeli infantry have caused many to wonder what that floppy cloth thing many Israeli infantrymen were wearing on their helmets. No mystery, just a new camouflage development, meant to serve the dual purpose of breaking up the distinctive shape of the helmet, and providing something that vegetation could be attached to, to further hide the soldier. Shape, the Israelis have discovered, is something the eye quickly picks up on. The item is called a mitznefet (Hebrew for “turban” or “miter.”) The military mitznefet is basically a reversible mesh fabric, with a green camo pattern on one side, and a brown one on the other. In the past, such camo covers fit closely to the helmet. Soldiers were advised to attach branches, leaves and grass to break up the shape of the helmet. Making these helmet covers loose was a simple change that broke up the shape of the helmet without depending on the soldier to go get some vegetation, or pieces of cloth, to hang off a form fitting helmet cover.
The mitznefet was developed in the 1990s, and first used by snipers and Israeli commandoes. Since it was cheap (about ten bucks), it’s use spread to all Israeli infantry units.
I wish I had the time to look for sites that balance the strategy page. Have you seen some of their articles on other subjects. Also, check out their adverts.
I get the feeling that they are slightly right of centre.
(My bold)
- Well, I personally don’t have a problem with that. But I will keep my eyes open for other sources in order to provide more variety. I do like the Strategy Page’s focus on the military aspect of current events.
Most of my posts have been from the Strategy Page with a sprinkling of Fox News and The American Thinker - sources which also tend to present more of a conservative viewpoint.
Hizbollah ATGM Tactics
Strategy Page
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20060815.aspx
August 15, 2006:
The frequent use of ATGMs (Anti-Tank Guided Missiles) by Hizbollah in Lebanon did not result in many destroyed Israeli tanks. That’s because the armor of the Merkava is of a modern design, and constructed to defeat ATGM warheads. But the Hizbollah fighters were smart enough to aim the missiles at the top of the Merkava turrets, where the tank commander was usually exposed, with at least head and shoulders outside the open hatch. When the ATGM exploded, it would kill the tank commander, and sometimes injure other crew inside the turret. Tank’s aren’t much good without a crew.
Hizbollah also used distant ATGM crews to assist Hizbollah gunmen fighting it out with Israeli infantry in villages. When some Israeli infantry were seen to duck into a building for cover, a Hizbollah ATGM was sometimes fired at the building, killing or injuring the Israelis inside. While the Hizbollah gunmen rarely survived firefights with the Israelis, the long distance ATBM support increased Israeli casualties, and made the Israeli infantry more cautious about what they used for cover.
Hizbollah Cruise Missiles Shot Down
Strategy Page
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20060815.aspx
August 15, 2006:
Israel shot down two more Hizbollah UAVs, which were apparently being used as cruise missiles. One of the UAVs was downed over northern Israel, the other over south Lebanon. One of the downed UAVs was definitely carrying explosives, and the other probably was.
Hizbollah calls their UAV “Mirsad 1”, but it appears to be an Iranian Ababil. This is a 183 pound UAV with a ten foot wing span, a payload of about 80 pounds, a cruising speed of 290 kilometers an hour and an endurance of 90 minutes. The Ababil is known to operate as far as 150 kilometers from its ground controller. but it also has a GPS guidance system that allows it to fly a pre-programmed route and then return to the control by its ground controllers for a landing (which is by parachute). Used as a cruise missile, it has a one way range of about 400 kilometers. Using GPS guidance, it could deliver about 60 pounds of explosives to a prominent Israeli government building in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. The Ababil normally carries a variety of day and night still and video cameras.
When the Hizbollah UAVs first appeared, the Israelis feared that the low flying Ababils could come south carrying a load of nerve gas, or even just explosives. There’s nothing exotic about UAV technology, at least for something like the Ababil. It was no surprise that Iran began using home made UAVs in the late 1990s. After all, they had received some UAVs from the United States in the 1970s (Firebee target drones.) The Israelis immediately tagged Iran as the supplier of the Hizbollah drone, because Iran has long supplied that terrorist organization with cash, weapons and equipment for decades. Now Israel has many components of two shot down UAVs, which will enable them to make a positive identification.
Now Israel Wants Laser Defense
Strategy Page
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/articles/20060815.aspx
August 15, 2006:
Israel is working with the U.S. government to see if it could revive it’s participation in the laser anti-missile system (THEL, or “Tactical High Energy Laser”). Israel dropped out of the project seven months ago, because of the expense of developing the system to the point where it would be ready for regular service. But after seeing Hizbullah fire over 2,000 rockets into northern Israel, and having the Palestinians fire a few dozen a month into southern Israel, the Israelis want to reconsider the new version of THEL. The American partner in THEL development is now offering a smaller version of THEL, Skyguard, for protecting commercial aircraft from portable anti-aircraft missiles. The manufacturer, Northrop Grumman, originally developed THEL (Tactical High Energy Laser) for combat situations. Tests last year showed THEL was able to knock down barrages of incoming mortar shells.
The THEL laser and radar system was designed to track up to sixty targets (mortar and artillery shells, rockets) at a time and fire on and destroy these projectiles at a range of up to five kilometers. THEL can destroy about a dozen targets a minute, at a cost of some $3,000 per shot. Each THEL system (radar and laser) could thus cover about ten kilometers of border. The Skyguard version has a range of up to eight kilometers, is using improved software and can more easily link to other radar systems to obtain targeting information. Skyguard is designed mainly for knocking down portable anti-aircraft missiles fired near airports, at aircraft that are landing or taking off.
Northrop Grumman now says that it can have an anti-rocket system ready in 18 months, at a development cost of $400 million. Each anti-rocket system would cost about $50 million, and eight or nine would be required to cover the Lebanese border. One or two could cover Gaza. Thus the total bill for just developing, building and installing the systems is about a billion dollars.
Israel would like the U.S. to help with the costs, for such a system could be useful in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Israel already gets over $2 billion a year in military aid, and the new Skyguard systems could come out of that. The Israeli artillery brass were making the argument that money spent on THEL would provide more benefit that billions spent on new jet fighters. Earlier this year, the air force won that argument. But now the artillery generals are coming back for another round. The artillery crowd believe that lasers and anti-missile systems like Arrow and Patriot PAC-3 are the future for Israel. It’s missiles and rockets that pose the larger threat, and weapons for dealing with this ranger are needed.
If this was a defeat, the Israelis must be praying for a lot more of them
Tim Hames
Times Online
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1070-2311756,00.html
August 14, 2006
IF ONLY Israel were as effective at public relations as at military operations, the results of the conflict on and around its border with Lebanon would be so much starker. As it is, however, the real meaning of the UN resolution that will start to come into force today is being widely misrepresented. Hezbollah is hailing a “victory” of sorts, albeit one of a presentational character. In a bizarre situation, Israeli politicians on both the hard Left and the hard Right appear to agree with the terrorists. All are profoundly mistaken.
What, after all, does this Hezbollah claim consist of? The organisation considers it a triumph that it has not been completely “destroyed” after just four weeks of fighting. It contrasts this with the dismal record of several Arab armies combined in 1967. It has not yet been disarmed and may not be formally neutralised in the near future. Nor has it been discredited on the Arab street, where it has enhanced its popularity. The Hezbollah leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrullah, thus proclaims himself a “new Nasser”.
As victories rank, not being destroyed, disarmed or discredited is not that impressive. It is hardly Henry V at Agincourt. The idea that the Six-Day War represents the military standard for the Arab world is a somewhat humiliating notion. Allowing for the feeble record of the original Nasser, Israelis should not be too disturbed by the prospect of another incarnation. Nor was the Arab street that equivocal about Israel’s existence before these clashes started.
The facts now evident on the ground suggest an entirely different assessment.
First, the damage inflicted by the Israeli Defence Forces on Hezbollah’s infrastructure and resources is far, far greater than the equivalent harm that it has suffered. A sizeable proportion of Hezbollah rocket launchers and fighters have been eliminated, while the Israeli army has lost no more than a few tanks and, to its regret, about 100 soldiers. For a body that is used to incessant combat, this is not a spectacular setback.
Secondly, Hezbollah has deployed a huge percentage of its missile arsenal to very little advantage. Only in the Alice in Wonderland world of the Middle East could it be seen as a “triumph” for a terrorist organisation simply to launch Katyusha missiles in the direction of Israel and roughly 95 per cent of them to hit nothing of any value. It took Hezbollah six years to accumulate a stockpile that, fundamentally, it has wasted.
Thirdly, the administration in Lebanon, which had ostentatiously refused to send its soldiers to the south of that country for the past six years, has been obliged to pledge to the United Nations that it will now do so. It will, furthermore, be under the de facto control of a much larger international force than has been assembled in that region before — one that will be judged a success or otherwise by the extent to which it keeps the place quiet.
The wider strategic consequences of these recent events are yet more significant. Hezbollah was, until July 11, a problem exclusively for Israel. That dilemma has been internationalised. It is now of paramount importance to the Lebanese Government and the UN Security Council. If Lebanon’s troops cannot pacify Hezbollah then ministers there well know that Israel’s air force will be back over Beirut. The UN will come to appreciate that if it cannot maintain the peace this will be because Hezbollah has broken the ceasefire that the Security Council imposed, and its own authority will be endangered. This is an important breakthrough for Israel. If Ehud Olmert, the Prime Minister, had been told six weeks ago that Hezbollah would cease to be the principal militia in southern Lebanon by the beginning of September he wouldn’t have believed it possible.
Further, Israel’s security has been improved more than has been acknowledged. Fewer than three years ago, Israel’s northern border was exposed to Hezbollah, its eastern boundary with the West Bank was so porous that suicide bombers regularly broke through it and its military was engaged in a bitter and often futile attempt to contain Hamas in Gaza. As of now, it can be confident of pushing Hezbollah back beyond the Litani river in Lebanon, the barrier it erected around the West Bank has reduced the number of suicide blast atrocities to the level of an unfortunate irritation and Hamas, whose military command was decapitated by Israel in a series of controversial strikes in 2004, is more likely to engage in a civil war with Fatah than it is seriously to inconvenience Mr Olmert.
The final dimension to this saga may, nevertheless, prove the most compelling. The past few weeks have exposed Iran’s pivotal role as the political patron of terrorism as well as the audacity and extent of its ambitions to shape Islam in its image. None of this has taken Israel by surprise. It has been a severe blow to Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Jews constitute no threat to mainstream Sunni Islam. The Shia challenge is another matter. Once the crocodile tears for Lebanon have dried up (which will take a month at most) and the mood on the Arab street has moved on (which will not take much longer), it will become obvious to Sunni regimes that Israel is an ally against Iran. The rhetoric directed against Israel will not abate, but it will be increasingly irrelevant.
That Lebanese civilians with no connection to terrorism have died while all this has occurred is a tragedy of the highest order. Israel relied too much on air power at the start of these exchanges and allowed its opponents a propaganda opportunity. Yet, in the end, Israel’s survival does not depend on Arab “hearts and minds” or opinions expressed by television viewers who live many thousands of miles away. It relies instead on winning crucial battles. If this is a “defeat”, then Israel can afford many similar outcomes.
Ceasefire brings anger in Israel
By Tim Butcher
Telegraph.co.uk
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=IESWRKNQKYOWLQFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2006/08/15/wmid115.xml
August 15, 2006
All major combat in southern Lebanon ended yesterday in line with a United Nations-brokered ceasefire, although Israel’s refusal to withdraw all of its troops led to continuing clashes with Hizbollah that left six Shia militiamen dead.
But with no Hizbollah rockets being fired into Israel for the first day since the crisis began 35 days ago, Kofi Annan, the UN secretarygeneral, said there was a hope that the temporary ceasefire would be turned into a full ending of hostilities.
As the fighting was reduced to skirmishes, Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, began to pay the price for what many in Israel see as a lacklustre performance.
He had promised that the war would not finish until the threat of Hizbollah missile attack had been lifted and the two Israeli soldiers seized by the Shia militant group on July 12 released.
Neither goal was achieved, a failure that has already led to calls by newspaper columnists for Mr Olmert to resign.
His rivals have largely observed a policy of national unity during the conflict but this is expected to end soon and lead to fierce political infighting, which could lead to the collapse of his coalition government.
Mr Olmert got the first taste of what is to come during an emergency session of the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, yesterday when he defended Operation Change of Direction.
He did not convince fellow legislators who heckled him throughout. He admitted the crisis could have been handled better and problems would be identified in an inquiry.
“There were shortcomings,” the prime minister told MPs. “We will have to examine ourselves at all levels. The overall responsibility for this operation lies with me. I am not asking to share this with anyone.”
Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of the opposition Likud Party, sought to score political points against his rival.
“There were many failures: failures in identifying the threat, failures in preparing to meet the threat, failures in the management of the war, failures in the management of the home front,” he said.
With Israel unwilling to remove its troops until UN peacekeepers and Lebanese army soldiers have secured the Israel-Lebanon border, tensions were high, with Israeli troops and Hizbollah gunmen in close proximity to each other, heavily armed and mutually suspicious.
Fighting erupted on several occasions. A spokesman for the Israeli Defence Forces said Israeli troops were under orders to open fire first if they felt threatened.
Plans by Israel to send a column of tanks deep into Lebanon to resupply a unit of troops on strategic heights overlooking the Litani River valley raised the possibility of further skirmishes.
Last night roaring tank engines could be heard as the column left Metulla on the Israel-Lebanon border under cover of darkness.
Earlier, details emerged of the last 48 hours of fighting ordered by Israel after the UN Security Council agreed the ceasefire late on Friday.
The Israeli defence chiefs were worried that they still had not acquired a good lookout point over southern Lebanon that would allow them to spot any future launch of Hizbollah rockets into Israel.
They therefore ordered a flanking manoeuvre from Metulla to take a hilltop over the village of Froun which commands views down the Litani River, site of many Hizbollah missile launches.
To get tanks and troops through, a new road had to be cut by combat engineers as Hizbollah had mined all existing roads. Around 30 Israeli soldiers died in the operation.
The value of the observation site is so great that Israel is likely to be reluctant to let it go - something that could be a major sticking point with the Lebanese government, which wants all Israeli troops to leave. Israel will only agree to do this once what it sees as a meaningful peacekeeping force, led by the UN but including soldiers from the Lebanese army, secures southern Lebanon and makes sure it is not re-occupied by Hizbollah.
On both sides of the border the ceasefire had an immediate effect among the civilian population, which was quick to try to restore normal life.
Shops that had been closed in Haifa, Israel’s third largest city and the target of numerous missile barrages, reopened. And in Lebanon, civilians who had fled the war and crossed into neighbouring Syria began to return.
Israel humbled by arms from Iran
By Adrian Blomfield in Ghandouriyeh
Telegraph.co.uk
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=AK4Z5L0RBFLOPQFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2006/08/15/wmid15.xml
August 15, 2006
Abandoned Hizbollah positions in Lebanon yesterday revealed conclusive evidence that Syria - and almost certainly Iran - provided the anti-tank missiles that have blunted the power of Israel’s once invincible armour.
After one of the fiercest confrontations of the war, Israeli forces took the small town of Ghandouriyeh, east of the southern city of Tyre, on Sunday evening, hours before a ceasefire brokered by the United Nations took effect.
At least 24 Israeli soldiers were killed in the advance on the strategic hilltop town as Hizbollah fighters were pushed back to its outskirts, abandoning many weapons.
The discovery helped to explain the slow progress made by Israeli ground forces in nearly five weeks of a war which Hizbollah last night claimed as “a historic victory.” Israeli political and military leaders are facing mounting criticism over the conduct of the offensive, which was intended to smash the Iranian-backed Shia militia.
Outside one of the town’s two mosques a van was found filled with green casings about 6ft long. The serial numbers identified them as AT-5 Spandrel anti-tank missiles. The wire-guided weapon was developed in Russia but Iran began making a copy in 2000.
Beyond no-man’s land, in the east of the village, was evidence of Syrian-supplied hardware. In a garden next to a junction used as an outpost by Hizbollah lay eight Kornet anti-tank rockets, described by Brig Mickey Edelstein, the commander of the Nahal troops who took Ghandouriyeh, as “some of the best in the world”.
Written underneath a contract number on each casing were the words: “Customer: Ministry of Defence of Syria. Supplier: KBP, Tula, Russia.”
Brig Edelstein said: “If they tell you that Syria knew nothing about this, just look. This is the evidence. Proof, not just talk.”
The discovery of the origin of the weapons proved to the Israelis that their enemy was not a ragged and lightly armed militia but a semi-professional army equipped by Syria and Iran to take on Israel. The weapons require serious training to operate and could be beyond the capabilities of some supposedly regular armies in the Middle East. The Kornet was unveiled by Russia in 1994. It is laser-guided, has a range of three miles and carries a double warhead capable of penetrating the reactive armour on Israeli Merkava tanks. Russia started supplying them to Syria in 1998.
Israeli forces were taken by surprise by the sophistication of the anti-tank weapons they faced. They are believed to have accounted for many of the 116 deaths the army suffered. Dozens of tanks were hit and an unknown number destroyed.
The missiles were also used against infantry, in one case bringing down a house and killing nine soldiers. They played an important part in Hizbollah’s tactics of using a network of concealed positions to set up ambushes for the Israelis as they inched in. Last night, Hassan Nasrallah, the Hizbollah leader, said his men had achieved “a strategic, historic victory” over “a confused, cowardly and defea-ted” enemy. He said the militia would not disarm, as Israel and the UN Security Council were demanding. It would be “immoral, incorrect and inappropriate,” he said. “It is the wrong timing on a pyschological and moral level.”
As the militia leader was claiming victory, Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, defended his handling of the crisis and said that the massive air, ground and sea attack had changed the face of the Middle East. But he admitted that the military and political leadership was guilty of “shortcomings”, not least in underestimating the threat from anti-tank weapons.
Critics say that he placed too much faith in the ability of the air force to break the back of Hizbollah and delayed launching a major ground offensive until it was too late.
Benjamin Netanyahu, the Likud Party leader and a rival, said: “There were many failures - failures on identifying the threat, failures in preparing to meet the threat, failures in the management of the war, failures in the management of the home front.”
Last night, President George W. Bush blamed Iran and Syria for fomenting the conflict between Israel and Hizbollah. “We can only imagine how much more dangerous this conflict would be if Iran had the nuclear weapon it seeks,” he said.
Hizbullah likely to retain weapons
The Jerusalem Post
By JPOST.COM STAFF AND AP
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525877356&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
August 15, 2006
Hizbullah will not hand over its weapons to the Lebanese government but rather refrain from exhibiting them publicly, according to a new compromise that is reportedly brewing between Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Seniora and Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah.
The UN cease-fire resolution specifically demands the demilitarization of the area south of the Litani river. The resolution was approved by the Lebanese cabinet.
In a televised address on Monday night, Nasrallah declared that now was not the time to debate the disarmament of his guerrilla fighters, saying the issue should be done in secret sessions of the government to avoid serving Israeli interests.
“This is immoral, incorrect and inappropriate,” he said. “It is wrong timing on the psychological and moral level particularly before the cease-fire,” he said in reference to calls from critics for the guerrillas to disarm.
According to Lebanon’s defense minister, Elias Murr, “There will be no other weapons or military presence other than the army” after Lebanese troops move south of the Litani. However, he then contradicted himself by saying the army would not ask Hizbullah to hand over its weapons.
Murr added that Lebanon’s contribution of 15,000 soldiers could be on the north side of the Litani River by the end of the week.
He noted that international forces could begin arriving next week to bolster the current 2,000-member UN force in southern Lebanon, which watched helplessly as fighting raged over the past month.
In Europe, Italy and France have pledged troops. Malaysia, Turkey and Indonesia were among the mostly Muslim nations offering help.
Israel loses Lebanon war
WorldNetDaily
By Aaron Klein © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
WND Jerusalem bureau chief says Olmert restrained IDF ‘at every turn’
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51519
August 14, 2006
JERUSALEM – In the coming days, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his government ministers will attempt to persuade Israeli voters and the international community that Israel achieved its political and military objectives during its campaign in Lebanon.
Olmert will likely claim Hezbollah’s capabilities have been minimized; a strong, armed force will soon be deployed in south Lebanon capable of contending with Hezbollah; and that the political momentum for a new Middle East settlement is now on Israel’s side.
In actuality, these claims couldn’t be further from the truth. Israel lost the war in Lebanon on all fronts. This is so largely because Olmert refused to allow the Israeli Defense Forces to do its job.
Days after Hezbollah provoked Israel last month by firing rockets into Jewish towns and by ambushing an Israeli military patrol unit killing 8 soldiers and kidnapping two others, the IDF presented Olmert with several battle plans it says could have devastated Hezbollah within an estimated three weeks.
The plans, drawn up and improved upon over the course of several years, called for an immediate air campaign against Hezbollah strongholds in south Beirut; aerial bombardment of key sections of the Lebanese-Syria border to ensure the kidnapped soldiers were not transported out of the country and to halt Syrian re-supply of arms to Hezbollah; and the deployment of up to 40,000 ground troops to advance immediately to the Latani River – taking up the swath of territory from which most Hezbollah rockets are fired – and from there work their way back to the Israeli border while surrounding and then cleaning out Hezbollah strongholds under heavy aerial cover.
To the dismay of military officials here, Olmert did not approve the plan. He initially allowed only a limited air campaign that focused on some high-profile Hezbollah targets, the Beirut airport and roads that led from Beirut into Syria. But the main smuggling routes between Syria and Lebanon, sites very well known to Israeli intelligence, were essentially off limits to the Israeli Air Force because Olmert didn’t want his army operating too close to Syria for fear it would bring Damascus into the conflict.
IDF suffers from lack of troops in Lebanon, insufficient air coverage
When Hezbollah met Israel’s air campaign with massive rocket attacks against northern Israeli communities, the IDF again presented Olmert with a plan for a large ground deployment to the Latani River. The Israeli Prime Minister – under heavy pressure to step up operations in response to Hezbollah rocket fire – approved only a smaller ground offensive of up to 8,000 soldiers who were not allowed to advance to the Latani.
The IDF was directed to clean out Hezbollah’s bases within about three miles of the Israeli border. Small forces, though, did advance further while isolated special operations were carried out deep inside Lebanon.
Afraid of being accused of using excessive force and firing indiscriminately into population centers – charges leveled at the Jewish state anyway – Olmert limited the IAF to strategic bombings only. The air force was not allowed to clear the way for ground troops to enter.
And so the IDF – with a force one fourth the size it asked for – engaged in heated, often face-to-face combat over the course of weeks with a well-trained, well-armed Hezbollah militia that had planned with Iran for up to six years for this battle.
Israeli soldiers found themselves up against Hezbollah gunmen who fought in civilian clothing and hid behind local civilian populations. Well-orchestrated Hezbollah ambushes took tolls on troop battalions. Iranian-supplied advanced anti-tank missiles proved extremely effective against Israeli combat vehicles.
The IDF suffered in very specific ways on the battlefield because of a lack of enough ground troops.
One example was a battle that began July 25. The Israeli army attempted to strangle Bint Jbail, a town of about 30,000 commonly called the “Hezbollah capital” of south Lebanon. Because there were not enough troops to completely surround the strategic village, Bint Jbail’s northern entrance was not sealed off, and, according to army sources, hundreds of Hezbollah fighters were able to infiltrate and join with the already 150 or so gunmen inside. The IDF had to contend with a larger Hezbollah contingent as a result. Nine soldiers were lost in heavy fighting the next day. Another 14 soldiers were killed at Bint Jbail the next two weeks.
On several occasions the past few weeks, while heavy diplomacy looked to be gaining momentum, such as during Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice’s visits here, the IDF was actually asked by the political echelon to halt most operations and troop advances for up to 36 hours while negotiations ran their course.
Military leaders now charge that some troop battalions, instructed to hold positions outside villages but not to advance, actually became sitting ducks for Hezbollah anti-tank fire, which killed at least 35 Israeli soldiers. After the diplomacy failed, soldiers were ordered to carry on. This piece of information will likely be brought to light by commissions of inquiry already initiated into the performance of the IDF and the culpability of Israel’s political leadership.
Hezbollah showed other impressive gains. In what Israel admitted was a major blow to its navy, Hezbollah during the initial fighting hit an Israeli naval ship with an Iranian Silkworm C-802 radar-guided anti-ship cruise missile, killing four soldiers and damaging the warship. It was the first time the missile had been introduced into the battle with Israel. Military officials here said the Israeli ship’s radar system was not calibrated to detect the Silkworm, which is equipped with an advanced anti-tracking system.
Olmert turns down ‘necessary’ military ops
WorldNetDaily was made aware by senior military officials of several meetings in which IDF officials petitioned Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz for a larger ground force and for more heavy aerial cover, or at least for ground troops already in Lebanon to be authorized to reach the Latani River in hopes of cleaning out the villages nearby such as Tyre, from which many rockets are launched into Israel.
The petitions came more frequently as Hezbollah rockets landed further and further south inside Israel.
Tens of thousands of troops were put on standby in northern Israel, but were not allowed to enter Lebanon.
The smaller IDF numbers on the ground in Lebanon carried on, eventually with instructions to create a buffer zone of about 3 miles within which the Hezbollah infrastructure would be entirely wiped out. The zone would do little to stop rocket fire into northern Israel, since most rockets were fired from positions deeper inside south Lebanon.
Officials say the IAF was still restrained from targeting key positions close to the Syrian border in the Bekaa Valley from which intelligence officials say Hezbollah received regular shipments of rockets and other heavy weaponry originating in Iran and transported via Syria. Israel bombed roads in the area a few kilometers from Syria, but many weapons smuggling routes at the border remained intact.
While Syria placed its military on high alert, Olmert told reporters several times Israel had no intention of bringing Damascus into the war.
Last weekend, after Hezbollah rockets killed a record 15 civilians in one day, Olmert’s cabinet finally gave the green light for an enormous IDF ground invasion and for an advance to the Latani River.
Many military officials here told me they were elated the IDF would at last be given the freedom to do what it had wanted to do nearly one month ago.
The cabinet, though, left the timing of the new operation to Olmert, who held the advance back until Thursday morning. By Thursday evening, the IDF, which charged ahead from four main fronts, reached the Latani River and even beyond in full force and prepared for an intense battle to overtake the areas used by Hezbollah to fire rockets. The IDF estimated it would need another four to six weeks to successfully wipe out the Hezbollah infrastructure in the areas.
But a day later a cease-fire resolution was adapted. The U.S., perhaps wanting to cut its losses after Israel’s month-long poor performance, supported a cessation of military activities in Lebanon.
(continued below)
(Continued from above)
Hezbollah remains intact, Israel’s enemies emboldened
The IDF continued its advance until this morning, beginning to clear out some villages. But not nearly enough gains were made, as was amply demonstrated yesterday when Hezbollah fired over 240 rockets – its largest one-day volley yet – into northern Israel, killing one civilian and wounding at least 26 others.
Now the cease-fire is being implemented. Perhaps it will hold, perhaps it won’t. Either way, Hezbollah has won the war. It put up an incredible fight against IDF forces paralyzed by Israel’s leadership. The terror group maintains a good deal of its infrastructure in south Lebanon and still has the ability to fire hundreds of rockets per day into Israel.
Even if Israel restarts its larger offensive, Hezbollah still can regain the initiative by carrying out larger escalations, such as firing its long-range Zelzal rockets into Tel Aviv.
Hezbollah is ecstatic about the deployment of “15,000 soldiers” from the Lebanese Army to replace Israeli troops in south Lebanon. The Lebanese Army doesn’t have 15,000 standing troops. Aside from a small air force pool, the Army doesn’t have a reserve unit from which it can call up large numbers.
The plan, according to Lebanese officials, is to recall Lebanese soldiers who served during the past 5 years, which means many out-of-shape, unprepared ex-soldiers will be charged with protecting the Israeli border. Take into account the sectarian divisions of the split Shiite-Sunni Lebanese Army – with many soldiers sympathetic to Hezbollah’s cause – and you have a force that will, at best, do little to contend with Hezbollah, and at worst prompt an internal civil war. Not to mention, the Lebanese Army is poorly armed and ill-equipped.
The cease-fire call for the establishment of a backed-up United Nations force in south Lebanon is also taken as a victory for Hezbollah. The terror group does not believe any international force will be willing to die to defend Israel’s borders or that it will have the ability to block the group’s re-supply routes between Syria and Lebanon. Hezbollah knows that if the IDF couldn’t defeat it, European forces, led by countries opposed to Israel’s Lebanon campaign, will be no match.
For Israel, an international force on its borders will impede the ability of the IDF to operate with freedom during any future conflict with Hezbollah.
The Jewish state’s credibility took a massive toll when Olmert agreed to the current cease-fire calling for negotiations at a later date for the two soldiers Hezbollah kidnapped. Olmert had repeatedly vowed the war would only stop after Hezbollah returned the abducted Israeli troops, and now the prime minister is ending the war without even vague promises of the soldiers’ assured safety or indications they are alive. Hezbollah sees this as a victory.
The cease-fire places the Shebba Farms, territory held by Israel but claimed by Hezbollah, up for future negotiations, granting Hezbollah the ability to claim its fighting brought international legitimacy to its territorial demands.
The cease-fire doesn’t place an immediate arms embargo on Hezbollah, but only calls for future talks on stopping weapons transfers to the terror group. This leaves Syria and Iran free to rearm and regroup Hezbollah.
The two state sponsors of Hezbollah, Syria and Iran learned during the last month that they can orchestrate a proxy war against America’s Middle East ally at no cost to their regimes. They engineered a tough fight against Israeli forces and came out on top. They will be emboldened to continue their war against Israel and U.S. troops in Iraq at a fevered pitch. Iran smells Western weakness and will forge ahead with its nuclear ambitions.
And terrorists in the West Bank and Gaza are foaming at the mouth. Today, Abu Aziz, second-in-command of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group, told WorldNetDaily that Hezbollah’s victory leads him to believe the end of Israel is in sight. He said he realizes now is the time to “attack Israel from all directions.”
And so the enemies of the U.S. and Israel are poised for another war. They smell victory, and why shouldn’t they? The last month demonstrated that with weak Israeli leadership in place, the Jewish state can be defeated.
Aaron Klein is WorldNetDaily’s Jerusalem bureau chief, whose past interview subjects have included Yasser Arafat, Ehud Barak, Mahmoud al-Zahar and leaders of the Taliban.
Israel to military leaders: Keep dissent quiet
Intelligence officials asked to highlight Jewish state’s gains in Lebanon
WorldNetDaily
By Aaron Klein © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51537
August 15, 2006
TEL AVIV – Military intelligence officers here have been asked not to talk to the media without prior authorization from their superiors while some are being petitioned to highlight Israel’s gains in Lebanon, sources in the Israeli Defense Forces intelligence unit told WorldNetDaily.
The sources said Hezbollah has been dealt a “decisive blow” by the Jewish state’s military campaign, but contrary to statements by political leaders in Jerusalem the terror group’s infrastructure in much of south Lebanon has not been destroyed. They said Hezbollah maintains the ability to fire hundreds of rockets per day into Israel.
In an address to the Knesset yesterday, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the United Nations cease-fire resolution imposed yesterday morning was a substantial achievement for Israel.
“There is no longer a state within a state, an entity that exploits Lebanon’s weakness,” he said.
Olmert said Israel’s military campaign in Lebanon had “changed the strategic balance in the region” to Hezbollah’s disadvantage.
He claimed Hezbollah’s vast arsenal of weapons had been largely destroyed and the terror group’s self-confidence was undermined. His comments aroused audible scoffs from other Knesset members.
But military intelligence officials say Hezbollah strongholds in the central regions of south Lebanon remain intact. They said because the IDF was not authorized to conduct a large-scale ground assault to the Latani River – about 18 miles into Lebanon – until two days before yesterday’s cease-fire was imposed, major nearby cities such as Tyre were not cleaned out of Hezbollah fighters. Tyre and surrounding areas were routinely used by Hezbollah to fire rockets into northern Israeli cities.
Military officials say that from the start of Israel’s campaign in Lebanon last month the IDF petitioned for the deployment of up to 40,000 ground troops to advance immediately to the Latani River – taking up the swath of territory from which most Hezbollah rockets are fired – and from there work their way back to the Israeli border while surrounding and then cleaning out Hezbollah strongholds under heavy aerial cover.
But Olmert at first only approved aerial assaults. After Hezbollah retaliated by firing large numbers of rockets into Israel, the Olmert government approved a smaller ground offensive of up to 8,000 soldiers who according to military officials were not directed to advance to the Latani. The IDF was charged with cleaning out Hezbollah’s bases within about three miles of the Israeli border.
IDF leaders told WND they suffered in “very specific” ways on the battlefield because of a lack of sufficient ground troops. They cited instances in which they claimed there were not enough soldiers to surround key villages, such as Bint JBail in southern Lebanon, allowing Hezbollah fighters to infiltrate cities after the IDF began combat inside the areas.
After nearly four weeks of fighting, Olmert’s cabinet last week approved the larger assault the IDF had petitioned for, authorizing about 40,000 troops to enter Lebanon and advance to the Latani River. The IDF estimated it would need about three days to reach central Lebanon and another four to six weeks to successfully wipe out the Hezbollah infrastructure in the areas leading back to the Israeli border.
But yesterday morning – three days after the Israeli army was given a green light to advance – a cease-fire was imposed and the Jewish state suspended operations.
The Israeli military will hold key positions until the Lebanese Army backed by an armed international force deploys in the area, according to cease-fire conditions.
“Hezbollah’s infrastructure in areas nearing the Latani was not destroyed,” said a military official.
The official pointed to Sunday’s volley by Hezbollah – one day before the cease-fire was imposed – of over 240 rockets into Israel, the largest number the group has fired so far. One Israeli civilian was killed in the attacks; 26 others were injured.
“The message sent is that Hezbollah absolutely maintains the capability of firing hundreds of rockets per day into Israel. Wasn’t one of the military campaign’s main goals to eliminate the rocket threat?” commented the military official.
But military intelligence officials tell WND they have been asked not to talk to the media unless they receive authorization from the IDF spokesman’s office. They say some officials have been asked to highlight Israel’s military gains in Lebanon.
IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz yesterday sent an e-mail letter to military officials asking them to limit their public comments.
The letter, obtained by WND, states unauthorized leaks to the media could endanger Israeli soldiers.
“Extensive media coverage has its price, primarily in the unchecked exposure of force movement, size, objectives, and so on. Unchecked information endangers our goals and puts the lives of our soldiers at risk,” wrote Halutz.
Some military leaders here told reporters they have questions as to the timing of Halutz’s missive.
“Perhaps it’s a sensitive issue for [Halutz],” one of the officers told the Ynet news website. “But it seems that the first missive to IDF officers since the onset of the current conflict should first offer encouragement and support to commanders in these difficult days, and then touch on other issues.”
The Real Winner in Lebanon
Strategy Page
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/israel/articles/20060816.aspx
August 16, 2006:
The success of the ceasefire in Lebanon hinges on a condition that Lebanon and Hizbollah both insist will not happen. Hizbollah is supposed to disarm, but says bluntly that it will not do so. The Lebanese government says it will not force Hizbollah to disarm. So what’s going to happen? It appears that Israel is going to hold the UN responsible for carrying out its peace deal, and disarm Hizbollah. To that end, Israel will withdraw its troops from Lebanon, and leave it to UN peacekeepers to do what they are obliged to do. But here’s the catch, not enough nations are stepping forward to supply the initial 3,500 UN forces, much less the eventual 15,000 UN force. However, it is likely that, eventually, enough nations will supply troops. But many of those contingents may not be willing to fight Hizbollah. Israel says it will not completely withdraw from Lebanon until the UN force is in place.
The Israeli strategy appears to be to allow the UN deal to self-destruct. If the UN peacekeepers can disarm Hizbollah, fine. If not, Israeli ground troops will come back in and clear everyone out of southern Lebanon. At that point, it will be obvious that no one else is willing, or able, to deal with the outlaw “state-within-a-state” that Hizbollah represents. Hizbollah will still exist after being thrown out of southern Lebanon, and it will be up to the majority of Lebanese, and the rest of the Arab world, to deal with Hizbollah and radical Shias.
Hizbollah suffered a defeat. Their rocket attacks on Israel, while appearing spectacular (nearly 4,000 rockets launched), were unimpressive (39 Israelis killed, half of them Arabs). On the ground, Hizbollah lost nearly 600 of its own personnel, and billions of dollars worth of assets and weapons. Israeli losses were far less.
While Hizbollah can declare this a victory, because it fought Israel without being destroyed, this is no more a victory than that of any other Arab force that has faced Israeli troops and failed. Arabs have been trying to destroy Israel for over half a century, and Hizbollah is the latest to fail. But Hizbollah did more than fail, it scared most Moslems in the Middle East, because it demonstrated the power and violence of the Shia Arab minority. Sunni Arabs, and most Arabs are Sunnis, are very much afraid of Shia Moslems, mainly because most Iranians are Shia, not Arab, and intent on dominating the region, like Iran has done so many times in the past. Hizbollah’s recent outburst made it clear that Iran, which subsidizes and arms Hizbollah, has armed power that reaches the Mediterranean. This scares Sunni Arabs because a Shia minority also continues to rule Syria (where most of the people are Sunni). The Shia majority in Iraq, which have not dominated Iraq for over three centuries, is now back in control.
Hizbollah did enjoy a victory in its recent war, but it was over Sunni Arabs, not Israel.
Why Hezbollah will not be disarmed
Times Online
Nick Blanford, Times Correspondent in Lebanon, explains why Hezbollah will keep its weapons - but that the Shia group has problems of its own.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2315467,00.html
August 16, 2006
"I think you can forget about Hezbollah being disarmed. It is just not going to happen. Hezbollah doesn’t want to be disarmed and there is nobody else willing to do it. In that simple fact lies the potential for future trouble.
"The UN Security Council resolution 1559 certainly calls for all the militias operating in Lebanon to be disarmed, but the Lebanese Government has side-stepped the whole issue since that resolution was passed two years ago. People here accept that it is a very difficult thing to disarm Hezbollah against its will.
"Even if the Lebanese Government had been crazy enough to try to force the army to do it, I think the army would have refused. A lot of its senior officers are loyal to President Emile Lahoud, the last leading ally of Syria to remain in office in Lebanon.
"Many people regard the army as almost a proxy of Hezbollah. The Shia contingent in the army, which represents about 60 per cent of all soldiers, would have refused to take on their Shia brothers in Hezbollah.
"If they had accepted the job, they would have been annihilated in a face-to-face confrontation. Hezbollah has just fought the most powerful army in the Middle East to a standstill - the Lebanese army is weak, lightly armed and used to performing more of a policing than a military role.
"The alternative option is to send international troops to disarm Hezbollah, when the United Nations mission in South Lebanon is given a new mandate and beefed up with an extra 13,000 peacekeepers.
"But that is not going to happen either. It is clearly understood that the last thing that foreign countries sending troops to maintain the ceasefire want to do is to get involved in disarming Hezbollah - or even in preventing Hezbollah from reaching the border and attacking Israel. There is no way they want to be caught in the middle, or seen as Israel’s extra line of defence against Hezbollah.
"This is what is behind the delay in agreeing the new UN mission. That is why the countries willing to offer troops for the new UN mission are still talking, why the French Foreign Minister is in Beirut today, still asking searching questions about what the mission’s mandate means, what the situation is on the ground, and who else is going to be there.
"Countries like France and Australia are willing in principle to commit soldiers, but they worry that if their forces suddenly find themselves surrounded by potentially less reliable troops from other countries and acting as the front line of defence for Israel, then they don’t want to be involved.
"They want a level of political understanding to be in place at the start, that Hezbollah won’t attack Israel and that when they arrive in south Lebanon they will not find Hezbollah guerillas still deployed in their bunkers along the border.
"In effect, they want the UN force to be mainly a PR stunt to reassure the international community that the situation in Lebanon is under control.
"Naturally they are not going to get explicit reassurances sent direct to their foreign ministries, but I think the countries contributing troops can safely assume that Hezbollah is not interested in exacerbating the situation on the ground just now. It has its own internal worries.
"I think Hezbollah realises that they made a big mistake by kidnapping those Israeli soldiers on July 12. They have already admitted that they thought it would cause nothing more than a mini flare up, they didn’t expect the powerful military reaction they got from the Israelis.
"To the rest of the world, at the moment Hezbollah is basking in success. The perception among Muslims throughout the world is that they won the war, and can rest on their laurels.
"But Hezbollah has hard political work to do at home in reassuring and maintaining their support among the Shia community, whose homes and livelihoods have been utterly destroyed by Israeli bombs.
"The Shia ideology is long-suffering, and you won’t often find a Shia ready to admit that Hezbollah fouled up. They are very stoical. Yesterday I was talking to an old guy in a southern village where 80 per cent of the buildings were lying in rubble, and he shrugged philosophically and said that the Israelis bombed his house in 1996 and 1999 and now again in 2006, so he would just build it again.
"But I think it is clear that the reason why Hezbollah is now promising to pay a year’s rent for homeless Shia families and compensate them for damaged property is because they have a lot of work to do to bring their supporters back on board.
"What is more, I think the recriminations are about to start in earnest from the other sectarian communities in Lebanon, who stayed quiet during the war out of loyalty to the country. Shias only represent 35 per cent of Lebanon - the rest is divided between Sunnis, Christians and Druze. Overall, the conflict has made an already polarised society even more polarised.
“The long term danger is that if Hezbollah does not disarm, then the other communities may decide that if they cannot beat them they may as well join them, and will start rearming in their turn. And that could be the start of the slippery slope back towards civil war.”
German troops may face Jews - as part of mission for peace
Times Online
From Roger Boyes in Berlin and Richard Beeston in Beirut
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2314986,00.html
August 16, 2006
GERMANY was poised yesterday to shatter its most enduring postwar taboo by sending troops into the cauldron of Lebanon, where they risk coming into direct conflict with Israelis.
As troops from France, Italy, Spain, Turkey and other donor nations prepared to deploy in southern Lebanon, Germany’s late decision to participate ranked as its most delicate foreign policy move since it was held to account for the Holocaust in 1945. Since then, it has been unthinkable that Germans would put themselves in a combat situation in which their soldiers could shoot at Jews.
The decision to deploy troops to join the 15,000-strong Unifil peacekeeping force was made by Angela Merkel, the Chancellor, in consultation with three Cabinet ministers. They agreed to take on such a role in their first venture into the Middle East because of the difficulties of recruiting enough properly equipped peacekeepers for the mission.
“We have to do this, not in spite of the Holocaust, but because of it,” Werner Sonne, a leading commentator, said on German state television. “If German troops guard Israel’s borders, they are there to protect Jewish lives. Frankly, there has never been a better reason to bring in soldiers in German uniform.”
That set the tone yesterday of what promises to be a huge national debate, not only about Middle East policy but about how the Nazi past should inhibit Germany’s expanding role in world politics.
Frau Merkel seems ready to send some 3,000 troops, of whom about 1,000 will be Pioneers with heavy earth-moving equipment to help to rebuild airports and harbours. The navy, already in the eastern Mediterranean on Operation Active Endeavour, would be strengthened with frigates to patrol the coast of Lebanon.
The German Air Force is being put on stand-by to fly reconnaissance missions from Cyprus and the German Border Service could be put on patrol along the Lebanese-Syrian border to stop the transfer of weapons to Hezbollah. German soldiers could find themselves drawn into a firefight in any of these theatres.
France will command the force with lead elements arriving in the coming days. The French appear ready to send 5,000 soldiers, Italy 3,000 soldiers and Turkey a further 1,500. German diplomats say that one priority is to convince other Muslim countries, such as Malaysia and Indonesia, to commit troops as well.
Unifil is supposed to patrol the rugged region of southern Lebanon from the Israeli border north to the Litani river, an area dominated by Hezbollah.
The peacekeepers intend to offer support to 15,000 troops from the Lebanese Army. Last night the UN said it hoped that up to 3,500 of its peacekeepers would be in Lebanon within two weeks.
Hezbollah remains the most powerful military force in Lebanon and Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, its leader, dismissed any suggestion that his men should lay down their arms. The danger for the peacekeepers is that the ceasefire will break down and tit-for-tat attacks resume, leaving them with the choice of using force against the Israeli military or Hezbollah fighters, or doing nothing.
Germany has been encouraged to send a big contingent by the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, a sign that the Holocaust taboo is beginning to crumble. In an interview with the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung this month, Mr Olmert said he had told Frau Merkel that Israel had “absolutely no problem with German soldiers in southern Lebanon”.
“There is at the moment no nation that is behaving in a more friendly way towards Israel than Germany,” Mr Olmert said. “If Germany can contribute to the security of the Israeli people, that would be a worthwhile task for your country. I would be very happy if Germany participated.”
Yet some German observers believe that a degree of calculation lies behind the Israeli enthusiasm. In a fast-moving exchange of fire, German soldiers might give the Israelis the benefit of the doubt.
Poll: 70 Percent of Israelis Oppose Cease-Fire
NewsMax.com
By the NewsMax.com Staff
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/8/16/122420.shtml?s=icp
Wednesday, Aug. 16, 2006
Israel’s defense minister has created a military committee to investigate how the war in Lebanon was conducted, military officials said Monday. The decision came amid a U.N.-imposed cease-fire, and as the government came under increasing criticism over strategy in the conflict.
Newspapers and radio shows were filled with outrage over army chief Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz’s decision to sell off his stock portfolio just hours before launching Israel’s biggest military operation since its 1982 invasion of Lebanon.
Halutz declared himself a victim of malicious reporting, saying he has been turned “into a Shylock.”
The 34-day war against Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas, widely seen here as just, had united Israel’s fractured society. Hezbollah was considered a growing threat after it had vastly expanded its arsenal of missiles in recent years.
But the unity crumbled after Israel’s fabled army pulled out of south Lebanon without crushing Hezbollah or rescuing two soldiers whose July 12 capture by the guerillas during a raid in Israel triggered the fighting.
The war began just two months after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz, men with little military experience, took office. Surveys in two major Hebrew-language dailies on Wednesday showed low approval ratings for both.
A poll of 500 people by TNS-Teleseker showed support for Olmert sinking to 40 percent after soaring to 78 percent in the first two weeks of the offensive.
Peretz’ approval rating plunged to 28 percent from 61 percent, according to the poll, which has a margin of error of 4.4 percentage points. A second poll, by the Dahaf Research Institute, showed 57 percent calling for his resignation.
The Dahaf poll, which had a margin of error of 4.5 percentage points, showed 70 percent opposed to a cease-fire that did not include the return of the captured soldiers, and 69 percent backing an official inquiry into the war’s prosecution.
Under the truce, Israel is to withdraw from southern Lebanon, and 15,000 Lebanese army forces, backed by a similar number of U.N. peacekeepers, are to patrol the territory, which had been controlled by Hezbollah before the war. Critics of the truce question the ability of the new force to keep Hezbollah at bay.
Halutz’s wartime decisions did not score him many points with the public: Fifty-two percent of those polled by TNS and 47 percent of those surveyed by Dahaf said they were dissatisfied with his handling of the fighting.
Politicians and military commanders called for his resignation after a newspaper reported he sold his stock portfolio just before the fighting began. Halutz has acknowledged selling about $28,000 worth of stocks at noon July 12, three hours after Hezbollah launched the cross-border raid that touched off the war.
He has expressed no regret over the timing of the sale, saying he has finances to manage like any other Israeli.
“They’ve turned me into Shylock,” he told the Yediot Ahronot daily, referring to Shakespeare’s despised Jewish “Merchant of Venice.”
Also being criticized is Halutz’s decision to rely heavily on airstrikes in the first phase of the war. In another controversial decision, a massive ground offensive was ordered just as a cease-fire deal was within reach. More than 30 Israeli soldiers died after the U.N. Security Council had already approved the truce deal.
The government has said its final push deep into Lebanon was necessary to maximize gains against Hezbollah before the cease-fire went into effect.
One of the last casualties was Staff Sgt. Uri Grossman, the son of internationally acclaimed novelist David Grossman. The elder Grossman supported the war, but two days before his son was killed he condemned the last-ditch campaign as dangerous and counterproductive.
“I won’t say anything now about the war in which you were killed,” Grossman said in his eulogy to his son. “We, your family, have already lost in this war.”
Syria President Assad Threatens War
NewsMax.com
By the NewsMax.com Staff
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/8/16/102740.shtml?s=lh
Wednesday, Aug. 16, 2006
Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad says his country is prepared for war with Israel and warned that the Golan Heights would be seized "by Syrian hands.”
In an interview with the Egyptian publication Al-Usbu after the ceasefire in Lebanon went into effect, Assad declared: "Syria has been prepared and ready since the first day of the war . . .
"We and the resistance (Hezbollah) read clearly that the day of confrontation was definitely approaching. The current war is five years old, and there were widespread preparations for this day.”
Assad said he is convinced that steps toward peace "have fallen off, and that the Golan will be liberated by Syrian hands.”
Asked what the expected results would be if Israel launched an attack against Syria, Assad said: "If Israel acts with adventurism and enters into a war with Syria, this will be the beginning of a heavy price that it will pay.”
Assad said Hezbollah’s conflict with Israel marks "a new stage in the history of [the Arab] nation, and he remarked ominously: "To this day no one in American intelligence or Israeli intelligence knows what the true capabilities of the resistance are.”
The Syrian government daily Al-Thawra claimed Hezbollah had achieved a military victory over Israel, which "forced the Americans to make huge diplomatic efforts aimed at preventing [the victory] from being translated into a new political reality.”
On Tuesday, Germany’s foreign minister abruptly canceled a planned visit to Syria after Assad gave a speech ridiculing Israel’s military offensive in Lebanon and warning against disarming Hezbollah.
Frank-Walter Steinmeier had already boarded a plane in Jordan for the flight to Syria when he canceled the trip, saying Assad’s speech was "going in completely the wrong direction” on the need for peace in the region.