Special Blog on Current Hizbollah and Israel Scenario
July 12, 2006 (U.S. Date)
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/
I will simply let the excerpts extracted from the two Jerusalem Post articles, which follow, speak for themselves as representing the current status of the situation along the northern
Israeli border with Lebanon.
This is the second Special Blog we have issued in the last 18 hours.
Begin Excerpts from Article 1
Atmosphere of War in Cabinet Meeting
Herb Keinon, THE JERUSALEM POST
July 13, 2006 (Israel Date)
The cabinet met in emergency session Wednesday night to approve military actions in the North, amid growing sentiment that the region was sliding toward war and that Hizbullah’s morning attack necessitated a dramatic, widespread and painful response.
The ministers approved plans to push Hizbullah back from the northern border and place pressure on the Lebanese government to dismantle the Islamist organization, as called for under UN Security Council Resolution 1559.
Following the meeting, the cabinet issued a statement saying, “A new, complicated situation has been created that Israel is obliged to deal with.” The statement said this new situation would include special preparations to deal with the possibility that “the enemy will try to cause damage to the home front.”
Head of the Home Front Command, Maj.-Gen. Yitzhak Gershon, was instructed to prepare for a possibility of a major bombardment of Israeli communities.
According to estimates, Hizbullah has thousands of rockets aimed at Israel, including ‘hundreds’ of Fajar 5 rockets that can reach Haifa and Hadera.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said at a press conference with visiting Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi a few hours after learning of the attack that it was clear that as a result of this “act of war,” Israel would respond in “an unequivocal fashion that will cause those who started this act of war to bear a very painful and far-reaching responsibility for their actions.”
“I want to make it clear, this morning’s events were not a terrorist attack but the action of a sovereign state that attacked Israel for no reason and without provocation,” he said.
“The Lebanese government, of which Hizbullah is a member, is trying to undermine regional stability,” Olmert said. “Lebanon is responsible and Lebanon will bear the consequences of its actions.”
The ministers were briefed on the day’s events, and were presented with military options which one government source characterized as “attacking Lebanon, attacking Syria, or attacking both.”
Government officials said that Olmert decided to convene the full cabinet, rather than just the security cabinet, to increase the dramatic impact and give himself the widest possible domestic political legitimacy for his actions.
Tourism Minister Isaac Herzog told reporters after the meeting that Israel would respond in an “appropriate manner,” but he did not elaborate. Herzog said, “It is clear to everyone that the responsibility rests on the Lebanese government’s shoulders. It is a government that has Hizbullah ministers, and it knows well that Hizbullah is a terrorist organization that receives Iranian and Syrian sponsorship.”
“Throughout the recent period, Syria has proven that it is a terrorist government,” Olmert said. “It supports terrorism, it is a government that backs terrorism, it is a government that encourages the murderous actions both of terrorists located on its soil and those beyond it. Of course, there will have to be an appropriate preparation in order to deal with the conduct of the Syrian government.”
Olmert, at the press conference with Koizumi, sounded very much as if he was putting the country on a war footing.
“The State of Israel and its citizens now stand in an hour of trial,” Olmert said. “We have withstood difficult tests in the past, even more difficult and complex than these. We, the State of Israel, the entire nation, will know how to overcome those who are trying to hurt us.”
Koizumi, who said he understood Israel’s desire to exact “an eye for an eye,” urged restraint.
Olmert responded that Israel’s actions “will be very restrained, but will be very, very, very painful, as is necessitated by the reality.”
On the diplomatic front, Foreign Ministry Tzipi Livni issued a statement saying that Israel has been attacked from Lebanon, and viewed Beirut as responsible for the day’s “unprovoked aggression.”
She said the attack was a result of Lebanon’s failure to implement UN Security Council Resolution 1559 and dismantle Hizbullah.
Livni drew a line from Iran through Syria and Hizbullah to Hamas. “There is an axis of terror and hate, created by Iran, Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas that wants to end any hope for peace. The world cannot let them succeed,” she said.
The message Livni was sending to the international community was that Israel had no alternative “but to defend itself and its citizens. We also expect the international community to act.” She spoke during the day with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
So far, diplomatic officials said, the international reaction had been satisfactory.
Indicative of this was a statement issued by Finland, which holds the rotating presidency of the EU. That statement c alled on
Hizbullah to “unconditionally release the captured Israeli soldiers and cease all attacks on Israel.”
The statement also said the Lebanese government “has a responsibility to prevent a deterioration of the situation. In this context, the presidency recalls the need for the Lebanese State to restore its sovereignty over the whole of its national territory and to exercise the sole rights to the use of force on that territory.” The statement also called on all parties to exercise restraint.
Olmert said at his press conference that Wednesday’s capture of two more soldiers had not changed his position on a possible prisoner exchange.
“We have made it clear throughout that we will not give in to extortion and that we will not negotiate with terrorists regarding the lives of Israeli soldiers,” he said. “This was true yesterday and it is true today as well.”
Begin Excerpts from Article 2
War and Peace
THE JERUSALEM POST
July 13, 2006 (Israel Date)
An act of war. This is how Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has correctly described the Wednesday morning attacks on soldiers defending Israel’s sovereign border in the North. The words may also be applied to the escalating attacks across Israel’s sovereign borders in the South. The responsibility of the Israeli government in such circumstances, the responsibility of any government, is to cripple the attackers and to restore security to its people.
Hizbullah on Wednesday killed three IDF soldiers on border patrol and captured two more in an onslaught that included heavy Katyusha and mortar fire. Four more IDF soldiers died when their tank was blown up as the IDF moved into Lebanon in response.
Olmert said, “The events this morning are not terror attacks but actions of a sovereign state that attacked Israel for no reason.
The Lebanese government, of which Hizbullah is a member, is trying to undermine regional stability. Lebanon is responsible and it will bear responsibility.”
Later, Olmert elaborated on the role of Syria in supporting Hizbullah. Indeed, not only Syria but Iran are also clearly responsible for these attacks, the former by preventing Lebanon from exercising its full sovereignty and the latter as Hizbullah’s chief international sponsor. It is inconceivable that Hizbullah would carry out such attacks without the knowledge and acquiescence of the Iranian and Syrian governments, on which it is deeply dependent.
Defending Israel requires both military and diplomatic action.
Hizbullah and Hamas must be dealt direct, heavy blows from which they will not quickly recover.
The Israeli operation early Wednesday in which chief Hamas terrorist Muhammad Deif was reportedly wounded in Gaza is an example, and it is clear that the IDF’s military pressure on Hamas continues to increase.
In the North, Hizbullah’s rocket arsenal, army and terrorist training camps in southern Lebanon should be destroyed to the maximum extent possible, within the constraint of Israel’s desire not to reoccupy Lebanese territory over an extended period. We can also expect, given Olmert’s remarks, that the IDF will strike targets of importance to the Lebanese, and perhaps the Syrian governments.
It is Israel’s responsibility to defend itself by destroying the capabilities of
its attackers and imposing sufficient costs at all levels of responsibility. The government must also, however, call on the international community to reinforce, rather than undermine, the deterrent effect of such actions.
In the past, the UN Security Council has actually provided a vital incentive to Israel’s attackers by standing silent when Israel is attacked and stepping in only to restrain the Israeli response. If the international community wants to prevent future crises, this pattern must be reversed.
The European Union has appropriately called for the immediate release of the IDF soldiers captured by Hizbullah, and it clearly regards this attack as an act of unprovoked aggression.
The logic of the withdrawal from Lebanon, of last year’s disengagement, and of Olmert’s planned continuation of that strategy in Judea and Samaria, was and is the same: taking military risks, sometimes severe ones, to improve Israel’s international position in a way that deters further attacks against us. If this international support is not forthcoming or is insufficient, as has proven to be the case so far, this strategy will continue to unravel, as we have seen in recent weeks.
Israel should do what it can on its own to restore deterrence and maintain its security. But the international community must also choose whether it wants, by refusing to speak out forcefully and unequivocally against aggression, to lay the groundwork for endless and escalating rounds of attacks. An international community that has continually demanded that Israel take risks for peace must do its part to ensure that Israel’s security is increased, not decreased, as a result.
End Two Jerusalem Post Articles
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.
We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. You may use material originated by this site.
However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.