PM Olmert declares Hizbullah attack 'act of war' by Lebanon
yaakov katz, herb keinon and jpost staff, THE JERUSALEM POST
Jul. 12, 2006

Seven IDF soldiers were killed Wednesday in a Hizbullah attack on IDF forces patrolling the Lebanese border, the army has confirmed.

Three of the soldiers who were killed were riding in a Hummer jeep when it was attacked, while two other soldiers in the same jeep were kidnapped.

IDF ground troops were sent into Lebanon to search for the abducted men.

The other four soldiers died when the tank in which they were riding drove over an explosive device. The force of the blast ripped the tank apart, and IDF forces were searching for the remains. All of the soldiers' families have been notified.

Wednesday morning's attacks, which occurred 17 days after IDF soldier Gilad Shalit was abducted in Gaza, opened a second front on Israel's northern border, including barrages of Katyusha rockets and mortar shells.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared the attack as an "act of war" and not terror. During a press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi Wednesday afternoon, he called it an unprovoked assault by a sovereign nation and held Lebanon, where Hizbullah has a minister in the government, fully responsible.

"Israel's response will be restrained but very, very, very painful," Olmert added.

The ground troops that were sent into Lebanon to search for the two were aided by IAF jets, helicopters and UAVs, which were also flying above Lebanon searching for the soldiers. Several jets were flying patterns above Beirut, Channel 10 reported. Simultaneously, Navy gunboats and artillery along the border were shelling Hizbullah targets in Lebanon.

The army has destroyed 30 targets and Hizbullah outposts in Lebanon, as well as three bridges, since the beginning of the operation.

While Hizbullah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah announced at Wednesday afternoon press conference that the two kidnapped soldiers were "in a safe and very distant place," a senior Hizbullah official claimed that at least one of the two was still alive.

The army announced that there were blood stains on the ground near where the soldiers were kidnapped, but they were not big. There is no way to know what condition the soldiers are currently in, but the army is operating under the assumption that the two are still alive, said OC Northern Command Maj.-Gen. Udi Adam at a Wednesday afternoon press conference.

A senior IDF officer landed in the northern Druse village of Kfar Yanuh on Wednesday afternoon, apparently to inform a family there that their son had been kidnapped.

The morning attack began around 9:15 a.m., when Hizbullah launched a heavy barrage of Katyusha rockets and mortar shells at IDF positions and communities along the northern frontier. One rocket scored a direct hit on a house in Shtula. Magen David Adom said they had treated six people. Both soldiers and civilians were wounded; they were evacuated to Nahariya hospital.

As the Katyushas rained providing cover for the operatives, an explosive charge detonated under an IDF tank, killing the four soldiers onboard. A Hummer was attacked as well - three soldiers were killed and two abducted.

IDF Northern Command officers were in touch with UN and Red Cross officials in Lebanon to try and conduct negotiations through those organizations with the Lebanese government in an effort to retrieve the captured soldiers diplomatically.

According to IDF estimations, military campaigns in Lebanon had little chance of retrieving the soldiers.

Adam said that Israel does not plan to negotiate with the Hizbullah, a terrorist organization by UN definitions.

Meanwhile, police all over the country were on high alert to prevent terror attacks.

Hizbullah has offered to exchange the two soldiers and Cpl. Gilad Shalit for thousands of security prisoners.

IDF sources estimated that the attack was a Hizbullah response to Israel's early Wednesday attempted strike on top Hamas terrorist Mohammad Deif in Gaza.

Residents of the Western Galilee entered their shelters, and in the community of Shlomi, residents were asked to enter fortified rooms.

Adam stated that northern residents would have to go into a new mode of operation in the next few days, entering and exiting their shelters.

The northern border has been on high alert since Operation Summer Rains began.

Arab MK: 'I Advised PA to Kidnap Soldier'
Sunday, July 9, 2006 / 13 Tammuz 5766

Knesset Member Wasal Taha, corresponding publicly with internet surfers on the Arabic-language IslamOnline site, said he repeatedly advised PA terrorists to battle and kidnap Israeli soldiers.

MK Zevulun Orlev (National Religious Party), who last week submitted a bill to negate Knesset membership to MKs who support terrorists, said that Taha's "traitorous" remarks are further proof that Israeli democracy must protect itself.

According to a report in Maariv newspaper on Sunday, Taha told surfers on Thursday that he repeatedly advised the PA Arabs to stop shooting and targeting civilians, and to concentrate on IDF targets. An English translation of Maariv's Hebrew translation of Taha's Arabic words:

"We told them more than once that the Palestinians, who are subjected to murder and ongoing crimes on the part of the Israeli army, have two options: One is to explode and kill civilians - and these are much easier operations. The second option is the military option, in the framework of which a military unit from the resistance [i.e., terrorist infrastructures - ed.] is established in order to break into a military camp, clash with the soldiers and battle them and take them and the conquest into captivity."

Taha also had words of advice for the PA on the publicity front, saying that the kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit should not be called "kidnapped" but rather "imprisoned" or "captive." Taha said, "Kidnapping is an act carried out by gangs, terrorists, and the like. But 'captive' means that [it is carried out by] an organized, legitimate group that makes decisions. Israel is trying to present our resistance as something less - as terrorism, murder, and kidnapping - in order that the diplomatic circle will be closed to it."

Asked by Arutz-7's Uzi Baruch if Taha condemns the abduction of Corp. Gilad Shalit, the MK's aide said, "We do not condemn actions against IDF soldiers, we condemn actions only against innocent civilians."

Taha himself later said that when he said that the PA had two options, he was speaking with the Israelis. However, this is not borne out by the Maariv report. In any event, he still insists that he does not object to warfare against the IDF: "What I meant was that the Palestinians... have two options: one is to fight the conquest via harming Israeli civilians, which is the easier way but not legitimate, and this we oppose; or fighting the Israeli conquest via an organized attack against the IDF, as occurred in the case of Gilad Shalit."

MKs Orlev and Effie Eitam said Attorney General Menachem Mazuz should indict Taha for treason. MK Gilad Erdan has called upon Mazuz to indict Taha for incitement to violence, and for Interior Minister Roni Bar-On to consider stripping Taha of his Israeli citizenship. Minister Yaakov Edri (Kadima) said that Taha's words "border on grave incitement."

MK Tzvi Hendel (National Union) said in response, "I suggest that we trade the Arab MKs for the kidnapped Israeli soldier."

MK Orlev said, "The traitorous words of MK Taha prove that Trojan horses have invaded the Knesset, and the democracy must protect itself from them. Taha brags about his collaboration with the enemy and shows that the instructions for the kidnapping did not emanate only from Khaled Meshaal in Syria."

Prominent attorney Yoram Sheftel said that Taha's statement "is one that no democratic country can tolerate from a parliament member when that country is at war with the enemy with whom he was talking... I believe he violated the law and aided the enemy."

DEBKAfile reports: Iran’s national security adviser Ali Larijani flies to Damascus aboad special military plane Wednesday night as war tension builds up around Hizballah kidnap of 2 Israeli soldiers

July 12, 2006, 10:14 PM (GMT+02:00)

Larijani is also Iran’s senior nuclear negotiator. He will remain in Damascus for the duration of the crisis in line with the recently Iranian-Syrian mutual defense pact. His presence affirms that an Israeli attack on Syria will be deemed an assault on Iran. It also links the Israeli hostage crisis to Iran’s nuclear standoff with the West.

The White House released a statement holding Syria and Iran responsible for Hizballah abduction and demanding their immediate and unconditional release.

The Syrian army has been put on a state of preparedness.

DEBKAfile’s military sources add that the Iranian air force, missile units and navy are also on high alert.

DEBKAfile’s counter-terror sources report Hizballah acted on orders from Tehran to open a second front against Israel, partly to ease IDF military pressure on the Hamas in the Gaza Strip. This was in response to an appeal Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal made to the Iranian ambassador to Damascus Mohammad Hassan Akhtari Sunday, July 9.

DEBKAfile’s Iranian sources report Tehran’s rationale as composed of three parts:

1. Iran shows the flag as a champion and defender of its ally, Hamas.

2. Sending Hizballah to open a warfront against Israel is the logical tactical complement to its latest order to go into action against American and British forces in southern Iraq.

3. Tehran hopes to hijack the agenda before the G-8 summit opening in St. Petersberg, Russia on July 15. Instead of discussing Iran’s nuclear case and the situation in Iraq along the lines set by President George W. Bush, the leaders of the industrial nations will be forced to address the Middle East flare-up

Any Israeli decision taken at prime minister Ehud Olmert’s high level consultation in Jerusalem Wednesday night must take this turn of events into account before deciding on limited air strikes against Hizballah and Lebanese civil targets without delay.

Our sources also report that immediately after Nasrallah’s statement to the media, Hizballah’s leaders went into hiding, their bases were evacuated and their fighting strength transferred to pre-planned places of concealment. Ahead of the abduction, Hizballah ordnance and missile stocks were transferred to the Palestinian Ahmed Jibril’s tunnel system at Naama, 30 km south of Beirut, which was built in the 1980s by East German engineers.

The Israel navy has long tried to smash this coastal underground fortress from the sea without success.

Israel began calling up an armored division, air crews and technicians from the reserves Wednesday night. DEBKAfile’s military experts: If Israel’s leaders opt for an anti-Hizballah operation on the lines of Operation Summer Rain against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, the IDF can expect the same measure of success as it has had in recovering Gilead Shalit and ending the Qassam missiles barrage.

 

Red Alert: Hezbollah's Motives

Hezbollah's decision to increase operations against Israel was not taken lightly. The leadership of Hezbollah has not so much moderated over the years as it has aged. The group's leaders have also, with age, become comfortable and in many cases wealthy. They are at least part of the Lebanese political process, and in some real sense part of the Lebanese establishment. These are men with a radical past and of radical mind-set, but they are older, comfortable and less adventurous than 20 years ago. Therefore, the question is: Why are they increasing tensions with Israel and inviting an invasion that threatens their very lives? There are three things to look at: the situation among the Palestinians, the situation in Lebanon and the situation in the Islamic world. But first we must consider the situation in Hezbollah itself.

There is a generation gap in Hezbollah. Hezbollah began as a Shiite radical group inspired by the Iranian Islamic Revolution. In that context, Hezbollah represented a militant, nonsecular alternative to the Nasserite Fatah, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other groups that took their bearing from Pan-Arabism rather than Islam. Hezbollah split the Shiite community in Lebanon -- which was against Sunnis and Christians -- but most of all, engaged the Israelis. It made a powerful claim that the Palestinian movement had no future while it remained fundamentally secular and while its religious alternatives derived from the conservative Arab monarchies. More than anyone, it was Hezbollah that introduced Islamist suicide bombings.

Hezbollah had a split personality, however; it was supported by two very different states. Iran was radically Islamist. Syria, much closer and a major power in Lebanon, was secular and socialist. They shared an anti-Zionist ideology, but beyond that, not much. Moreover, the Syrians viewed the Palestinian claim for a state with a jaundiced eye. Palestine was, from their point of view, part of the Ottoman Empire's Syrian province, divided by the British and French. Syria wanted to destroy Israel, but not necessarily to create a Palestinian state.

From Syria's point of view, the real issue was the future of Lebanon, which it wanted to reabsorb into Syria, or at the very least economically exploit. The Syrians intervened in Lebanon against the Palestine Liberation Organization and on the side of some Christian elements. Their goal was much less ideological than political and economic. They saw Hezbollah as a tool in their fight with Yasser Arafat and for domination of Syria.

Hezbollah strategically was aligned with Iran. Tactically, it had to align itself with Syria, since the Syrians dominated Lebanon. That meant that when Syria wanted tension with Israel, Hezbollah provided it, and when Syria wanted things to quiet down, Hezbollah cooled it. Meanwhile the leadership of Hezbollah, aligned with the Syrians, was in a position to prosper, particular after the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.

That withdrawal involved a basic, quiet agreement between Syria and Israel. Israel accepted Syrian domination of Lebanon. In return, Syria was expected to maintain a security regime that controlled Hezbollah. Attacks against Israel had to be kept within certain acceptable limits. Syria, having far less interest in Israel than in Lebanon, saw this as an opportunity to achieve its ends. Israel saw Syrian domination under these terms as a stabilizing force.

Destabilization

Two things converged to destabilize this situation. The emergence of Hamas as a major force among the Palestinians meant the Palestinian polity was being redefined. Even before the elections catapulted Hamas into a leadership role, it was clear that the Fatah-dominated government of Arafat was collapsing. Everything was up for grabs. That meant that either Hezbollah made a move or would be permanently a Lebanese organization. It had to show it was willing to take risks and be effective. In fact, it had to show that it was the most effective of all the groups. The leadership might have been reluctant, but the younger members saw this as their moment, and frankly, the old juices might have been running in the older leadership. They moved.

The second part of this occurred in Lebanon itself. After the death of former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri, outside pressure, primarily from the United States, forced a Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon. Now, do not overestimate the extent of the withdrawal. Syrian influence in Lebanon is still enormous. But it did relieve Syria of the burden of controlling Hezbollah. Indeed, Israel was not overly enthusiastic about Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon for just that reason.

Syria could now claim to have no influence or obligation concerning Hezbollah. Hezbollah's leadership lost the cover of being able to tell the young Turks that they would be more aggressive, but that the Syrians would not let them. As the Syrian withdrawal loosened up Lebanese politics, Hezbollah was neither restrained nor could it pretend to be restrained. Whatever the mixed feelings might have been, the mission was the mission, Syrian withdrawal opened the door and Hezbollah could not resist walking through it, and many members urgently wanted to walk through it.

At the same time the Iranians were deeply involved in negotiations in Iraq and over Tehran's nuclear program. They wanted as many levers as they could find to use in negotiations against the United States. They already had the ability to destabilize Iraq. They had a nuclear program the United States wanted to get rid of. Reactivating a global network that directly threatened American interests was another chip on the bargaining table. Not attacking U.S. interests but attacking Israel demonstrated Hezbollah's vibrancy without directly threatening the United States. Moreover, activities around the world, not carefully shielded in some cases, gave Iran further leverage.

In addition, it allowed Iran to reclaim its place as the leader of Islamic radical resurgence. Al Qaeda, a Sunni group, had supplanted Iran in the Islamic world. Indeed, Iran's collaboration with the West allowed Tehran to be pictured among the "hypocrites" Osama bin Laden condemned. Iran wants to become the dominant power in the Persian Gulf, and one part of that is to take away the mantle of Islamic radicalism from al Qaeda. Since al Qaeda is a damaged organization at best, and since Hezbollah pioneered Islamist terrorism on a global basis, reactivating Hezbollah made a great deal of sense to the Iranians.

Hezbollah's Position

Syria benefited by showing how badly it was needed in Lebanon. Iran picked up additional leverage against the United States. Hezbollah claimed a major place at the negotiations shaping the future of Palestinian politics. It all made a great deal of sense.

Of course, it was also obvious that Israel would respond. From Syria's point of view, that was fine. Israel would bog down again. It would turn to Syria to relieve it of its burdens. Israel would not want an Islamic regime in Damascus. Syria gets regime preservation and the opportunity to reclaim Lebanon. Iran gets a war hundreds of miles away from it, letting others fight its battles. It can claim it is the real enemy of Israel in the Islamic world. The United States might bargain away interests in Iraq in order to control Hezbollah. An Israeli invasion opens up possibilities without creating much risk.

It is Hezbollah that takes it on the chin. But Hezbollah, by its nature and its relationships, really did not have much choice. It had to act or become irrelevant. So now the question is: What does Hezbollah do when the Israelis come? They can resist. They have anti-tank weapons and other systems from Iran. They can inflict casualties. They can impose a counterinsurgency. Syria may think Israel will have to stay, but Israel plans to crush Hezbollah's infrastructure and leave, forcing Hezbollah to take years to recover. Everyone else in Lebanon is furious at Hezbollah for disrupting the recovery. What does Hezbollah do?

In the 1980s, what Hezbollah did was take Western hostages. The United States is enormously sensitive to hostage situations. It led Ronald Reagan to Iran-Contra. Politically, the United States has trouble handling hostages. This is the one thing Hezbollah learned in the 1980s that the leaders remember. A portfolio of hostages is life insurance. Hezbollah could go back to its old habits. It makes sense to do so.

It will not do this while there is a chance of averting an invasion. But once it is crystal clear it is coming, grabbing hostages makes sense. Assuming the invasion is going to occur early next week -- or a political settlement is going to take place -- Western powers now have no more than 72 hours to get their nationals out of Beirut or into places of safety. That probably cannot be done. There are thousands of Westerners in Beirut. But the next few days will focus on ascertaining Israeli intensions and timelines, and executing plans to withdraw citizens. The Israelis might well shift their timeline to facilitate this. But all things considered, if Hezbollah returns to its roots, it should return to its first operational model: hostages.

 

'Israel has a window of opportunity to hit Hizbullah'
Herb Keinon, THE JERUSALEM POST Jul. 15, 2006

Israel believes it has a 48-72-hour "window of opportunity" to pound Hizbullah and damage its operational capabilities before the world steps in and stops the fighting, senior diplomatic officials in Jerusalem said Saturday night.

The officials noted positively that Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora had said Saturday at a press conference that his government would reassert government authority over all Lebanese territory - an allusion to the possibility of deploying the Lebanese army in south Lebanon, which is effectively controlled by Hizbullah.

Senior sources in the Prime Minister's Office said that dislodging Hizbullah from southern Lebanon and getting the government in Beirut to assert its authority over the area as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1559 were among the primary goals of the IDF's current campaign. However, the officials said, the two abducted IDF soldiers also needed to be returned.

"It is a good plan," one senior diplomatic official said of Saniora's statement. "The big question is whether he has the ability to do it."

The official said the deployment of Lebanon's army south would be a good way out of the crisis. "But Israel would also like more time to inflict more damage on Hizbullah's operational capabilities," he said.

"It's an excellent declaration but he doesn't need our permission...We have to see what they do and not what they say," Vice Premier Shimon Peres told Israel's Channel 2 TV. He said Lebanon has to prove it is serious by deploying on the southern border. "A foreign body has entered the area and it's your job to get them out of there," he said.

During the press conference, Saniora - his voice shaking with emotion - called for an immediate cease-fire brokered by the United Nations. "We call for an immediate and comprehensive cease-fire under United Nations auspices," he said in a televised speech aired on local and Arab satellite television channels.

Saniora criticized Hizbullah without naming the group, saying Lebanon "cannot rise and get back on its feet if its government is the last to know." "The government alone has the legitimate right to decide on matters of peace and war because it represents the will of the Lebanese people," he said.

"We call for working to extend the state's authority over all its territories in south Lebanon, in cooperation with the United Nations, and working to recover all Lebanese territories and exercising full sovereignty of the state over those territories."

The assessment in Jerusalem of a 48-72 hour window of opportunity for further military action came as Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz met Saturday evening in Tel Aviv to approve further action against Hizbullah. European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana is expected in Jerusalem Sunday, as is a high-level United Nations delegation dispatched by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

In addition, Jerusalem is keeping a careful eye on declarations coming out of the G-8 summit in St. Petersburg, a meeting of EU leaders Monday, and the UN Security Council.

So far, one senior diplomatic official said, Israel has been able to fend off a "collapse on the diplomatic front." The official noted favorably the comments made by British Prime Minister Tony Blair Friday, in which he refused to condemn Israel, and US President George Bush's comments at the G8 summit during which he placed responsibility for the situation fully on Hizbullah's shoulders.

Although many statements coming from foreign ministries around the world called for Israeli restraint and for the use of proportionate force, Foreign Ministry officials said that this was all within the framework of "agreed upon language that the EU is recycling - old formulas of restraint from both sides, and ideas of moral equivalency. But if you look at the basic components of the statements, Israel's main interests are being preserved - calls for Lebanon to implement Security Council Resolution 1559, and the release of the soldiers."

In addition, senior diplomatic officials said a significant anti-Hizbullah line has emerged in the Arab world that goes beyond Egypt and Jordan, and that there was anger at Hizbullah for destabilizing the region and plunging it into a crisis without any coordination with the Arab world.

Sharp rifts among Arab foreign ministers appeared at an emergency meeting in Cairo, with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal calling Hizbullah's actions "unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible," and said they have set the whole region back years, "and we cannot simply accept them."

This position was reportedly accepted by representatives of Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain.

In his address, Saniora declared Lebanon a "disaster-stricken country" and accused Israel of executing an "immoral and illegitimate collective punishment" on the Lebanese people. He appealed for national unity and spoke to the Lebanese people, saying, "We will surpass the ordeal, and we will face up to the challenge. We will rebuild what the enemy has destroyed as we always did."