LCCC ENGLISH NEWS BULLETIN
August 20/2006

Latest New from miscellaneous sources for August 20/06
Arab nations urge new Israeli peace plan-AP
France urges clear mandate for UN force in Lebanon-Reuters
Lebanon gives warning after Israeli raid-AP
Israel kills Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon raid-Mail & Guardian Online
Annan pleads for Lebanon troops-BBC News
Bush: Hezbollah Responsible for Lebanon Violence-Voice of America
Mass funerals held in southern Lebanon-AP
Hezbollah leads Beirut rebuilding effort-Canada.com
Who won, Israel or Hezbollah?Chicago Tribune
Babies named Hezbollah-Irish Examiner - Cork,Ireland
When Hezbollah is a way of life, a way of death-The Age
Bush: World should know Hezbollah lost-USA Today - USA
Israel: Hezbollah used Russian missiles-Houston Chronicle
Hezbollah Pays Out $12K in US Cash to Lebanese Who Lost Their ...FOX News

Mubarak: Hizbullah part of Lebanon fabric
Egyptian president says Hizbullah has right to resist occupier if its actions are in accordance with Lebanese national interest
Roee Nahmias
Having blamed Hizbullah for the latest confrontation with Israel, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak softened his stance vis-Ã -vis the Shiite group, telling an Egyptian newspaper on Saturday that it is "part of the Lebanese national fabric."
"Resisting the occupier is a legitimate right under the condition that it springs from free will and in accordance to the supreme national
interest," Mubarak told the semiofficial weekly Akhbar el-Yom newspaper. Mubarak called on all sides to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 to allow the reconstruction of Lebanon. Mubarak says Egypt is working with the international community to ensure Lebanon regains its sovereignty and independence, but said that unity among the various Lebanese factions is necessary at this crucial juncture. Mubarak came under sharp criticism by other leaders including Syrian President Bashar Assad, who said Tuesday that "we do not ask anyone to fight with us or for us ... But he should at least not adopt the enemy's views." In an apparent response, Mubarak said in the interview that the region shouldn't tolerate "cheap rhetoric." Mubarak also said that the United States should refrain from taking military action against Iran because doing so would create instability not just in the Middle East but around the world. "The conflict between the United States and Iran should be solved through diplomacy and direct dialogue because striking Iran means the end of stability in the region and the world," Mubarak said. Iran is facing heightened pressure over its disputed nuclear program and has rejected a United Nations Security Council resolution calling on Tehran to halt uranium enrichment by August 31. Washington has said it intends next month to have the UN impose penalties on Iran for refusing to suspend its uranium enrichment, an important step in making nuclear weapons. US officials have not specified the proposed punishment.

Israel kills Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon raid
Nadim Ladki | Beirut, Lebanon
19 August 2006 10:11
Israeli aircraft and commandos raided a Hezbollah bastion in eastern Lebanon on Saturday in the first big attack since a truce halted Israel's 34-day war with the guerrillas, Lebanese military and Hezbollah sources said.
Three Hezbollah guerrillas were killed in a firefight with the Israeli commandos, Lebanese security sources said. They said commandos in two vehicles unloaded from helicopters were on their way to attack an office of senior Hezbollah official Sheikh Mohammed Yazbek in the village of Bodai when they were spotted and intercepted. The sources said the Israeli force suffered six casualties before pulling out under the cover of fierce air strikes. An Israeli army spokesperson would not comment, but security sources confirmed the raid had taken place, Israel Radio said. The account by Lebanese military and security sources was similar to that given by Hezbollah's al-Manar television, although al-Manar did not mention the Hezbollah casualties. A United Nations-ordered "cessation of hostilities" on Monday halted the war between Israeli forces and Hezbollah guerrillas in which at least 1 183 people in Lebanon and 157 Israelis were killed.
A UN resolution ordered Israel to end all offensive military action and Hezbollah to end all attacks. It also called for the deployment of the Lebanese army in the south alongside a strengthened Unifil, the UN peacekeeping force in the area.
Israeli officials have vowed to stop any attempts by Hezbollah to rearm and to target leaders of the group. Fifty French military engineers arrived at Unifil's main base in Naqoura on the south Lebanese coast, the first contingent of reinforcements to come since the war. The engineers were among 200 pledged by France, which had earlier been expected to form the backbone of the expanded UN force to supervise the truce, support the Lebanese army and monitor the withdrawal of Israeli troops. The United States urged France on Friday to increase its contingent and the UN appealed for Europeans to contribute to the force to create a balance between Western and Muslim troops acceptable to Israel and Lebanon.
UN seeks more troops
UN Deputy Secretary General Mark Malloch Brown welcomed troop promises from Italy and Finland and firm commitments from Nepal and Muslim nations Indonesia, Malaysia and Bangladesh. Israeli officials have said that countries that do not have relations with the Jewish state should not be in the force. Indonesia, Malaysia and Bangladesh are among them. Indonesia's Defence Minister was quoted as saying Hezbollah should be integrated into the Lebanese army, not disarmed. "We want Lebanon to make Hezbollah part of the Lebanese troops so that they can carry out their task as Hezbollah is part of a party in Lebanon," the official Antara news agency quoted Juwono Sudarsono as saying. The UN wants to field an advance force of 3 500 troops by September 2 and the entire complement by November 4. The Security Council on August 11 authorised up to 13 000 troops to join the 2 000 now serving with Unifil. But France's reticence to send a large troop contingent has cast doubt on whether other European nations will step forward.
The Lebanese army began deploying in the south on Thursday. Hezbollah fighters have lain low, without relinquishing their weapons, including the rockets they rained on Israel in the war. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan urged Israel and Lebanon to make "painful compromises" to win the release of captured Israeli soldiers and settle the issue of Lebanese prisoners. The war began after Hezbollah snatched two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid on July 12, saying it wanted to trade them for Lebanese and Arab prisoners held in Israel. Last week's UN resolution called for the unconditional release of the two Israelis and urgently encouraged efforts at settling the issue of Lebanese prisoners in Israel.In the occupied West Bank, Israel seized Palestinian Deputy Prime Minister Naser al-Shaer of the ruling Hamas militant group at his home on Saturday, his wife and two legislators said. Israel has taken more than two dozen Hamas lawmakers and several other Cabinet ministers into custody since late June, after it launched an offensive in response to the capture of a soldier in a cross-border raid from the Gaza Strip. -- Reuters

Israeli soldier killed in Lebanon raid
By SAM F. GHATTAS, Associated Press Writer
BEIRUT, Lebanon - Hezbollah fighters battled Israeli commandos who landed near the militants' stronghold deep inside Lebanon early Saturday, killing one soldier, in the first apparent large-scale violation of the U.N.-brokered cease-fire between the sides. Hezbollah said its guerrillas foiled the raid after a gunbattle, and the Israeli army said one soldier was killed and two were wounded, one seriously. Witnesses said Israeli missiles destroyed a bridge during the raid, and Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora called the military action a "flagrant violation" of the cease-fire, which took effect Monday following 34 days of fighting.
The Israeli army said the special forces operation aimed "to prevent and interfere with terror activity against Israel, especially the smuggling of arms from Iran and Syria to Hezbollah." It said the commando team completed its mission. The army said such operations would be carried out until "an effective monitoring unit" of Lebanese or multinational troops was in place. "If the Syrians and Iran continue to arm Hezbollah in violation of the (U.N. cease-fire) resolution, Israel is entitled to act to defend the principle of the arms embargo," Israeli foreign ministry spokesman Mark Regev said.
Hezbollah TV and Lebanese security officials said Israeli helicopters dropped off a commando team outside the village of Boudai west of Baalbek in eastern Lebanon. The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to release information to the media, said the Israelis apparently were seeking a guerrilla target in a nearby school but had no other details. The officials also reported heavy overflights of Israeli jets. Lebanon's foreign minister said he immediately informed a visiting U.N. delegation of Israel's violation. Such a bold operation risked scuttling the fragile cease-fire and suggested Israel was going after a major target near Baalbek — perhaps to rescue two Israeli soldiers snatched by Hezbollah on July 12, or to try to capture a senior guerrilla official to trade for the soldiers. Hezbollah has said it wants to exchange the two soldiers for Arab prisoners, but the U.N. cease-fire resolution demands Hezbollah unconditionally release the soldiers.
Local media said Sheik Mohammed Yazbeck, a senior Hezbollah official in the Bekaa and a member of the Shura council of the group, may have been the target. Yazbeck is a native of Boudai. Israeli troops have killed several guerrillas who Israel said threatened its troops in south Lebanon since the cease-fire, and warplanes have flown over the country. But the cease-fire allows military action in self-defense, and the commando raid was by far the most serious incident since Monday. Lebanese Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh said Lebanese authorities found blood at the scene of the raid, indicating Israeli casualties. Salloukh, speaking to reporters after meeting with U.N. envoy Terje Roed-Larsen in Beirut, said he informed the U.N. team of the Israeli action in Baalbek and said the U.N. team would raise the issue with Israeli authorities. "If Israel continues its violations, it is the responsibility of the (U.N.) Security Council to take action and ask Israel to stop these violations," he said. A provincial government official, Bekaa Valley Gov. Antoine Suleiman, confirmed the Israeli troop landing. He told the privately owned Voice of Lebanon radio station that the landing party brought with it two vehicles that were later withdrawn after clashes.
Hezbollah's Al-Manar TV said the Israeli commando force landed before dawn and was driving into Boudai when it was intercepted by guerrillas who forced it to retreat under the cover of warplanes, which staged mock raids. Hezbollah officials on the scene said overflights from Israeli jet fighters drowned the clatter of helicopters as they flew into the foothills of the central Lebanese mountains, dropping commandos and two vehicles they used to drive into the village when the Hezbollah fighters intercepted them in a field.  The commandos identified themselves as the Lebanese army, but the guerrillas grew suspicious and gunfire erupted, the officials said. Israeli helicopters fired missiles as the commandos withdrew and flew out of the area an hour later, they said.
Witnesses saw bandages and syringes at the site. The also saw a destroyed bridge about 500 yards from the area where the landing took place, after missiles were fired by Israeli aircraft.
Overflights were reported Friday night in the same area.
Israel said late Friday its warplanes have not attacked Lebanon since the cease-fire took effect.
Baalbek is the birthplace of the Iranian and Syrian-backed Hezbollah. The area in the eastern Bekaa Valley, 60 miles north of the Israeli border, is a major guerrilla stronghold. The U.N. Security Council cease-fire resolution calls for an immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations. In letters to Lebanese and Israeli leaders, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has warned the two countries against occupying additional territory and told them to refrain from responding to any attacks "except where clearly required in immediate self-defense."
Annan also told Israel and Lebanon that once the cessation of hostilities took effect there must be no firing from the ground, sea or air into the other side's territory or at its forces. About 50 French soldiers, meanwhile, landed on Lebanon's Mediterranean coast, and 200 more were scheduled to arrive next week, said spokesman Cmdr. Bertrand Bonneau. The French troops were the first reinforcements to UNIFIL, the U.N. force tasked with keeping the peace in south Lebanon. Some 15,000 members of a U.N. force are expected to accompany the same number of Lebanese army troops deployed to south Lebanon.

The Ideology of Defeatism
By William R. Hawkins
FrontPageMagazine.com | August 18, 2006
John Garth in his biography of J. R. R. Tolkien recounts a meeting between the future author of The Lord of the Rings and an Oxford professor at the outbreak of World War I. As a student, Tolkien had taken part in debates over the looming German threat, but was still dismayed at the turn of events. According to Garth, “the Catholic professor responded that this war was no aberration: on the contrary, for the human race it was merely ‘back to normal’.”
It is the complete rejection of this concept of normality in human affairs that is at the core of liberalism. Though there have been strands of liberalism throughout history, it flowered in the relatively peaceful first decades of the 19th century, following the quarter century of global warfare that had been spawned by the French Revolution and the ambitions of Napoleon. Writing in 1821, James Mill, father of John Stuart Mill, claimed, “There is, in the present advanced state of the civilized world...so little chance of civil war or foreign invasion, that, in contriving the means of national felicity, but little allowance can be rationally required of it.” Any problems remaining, Mill would refer to an international court of arbitration. The French economist J.B. Say called for an end to the diplomatic corps, arguing that "it is not necessary to have ambassadors. This is one of the ancient stupidit­ies which time will do away with." Industrialization would create so much new wealth, there would be nothing to fight about. The British Radical Richard Cobden claimed that commerce was “the grand panacea” and would remove “the motive for large and mighty empires, for gigantic armies and great fleets.”
International and revolutionary violence increased in the second half of the 19th century, undermining liberal notions until their credibility was completely washed away by the world wars of the 20th century. The end of the Cold War, however, seemed to give liberalism the new world order they had long desired. The liberal hope was best described by the title of Tom Englehardt’s 1995 book The End of Victory Culture. In 1999, President Bill Clinton proclaimed: “Perhaps for the first time in history, the world's leading nations are not engaged in a struggle with each other for security or territory. The world clearly is coming together.” It is because the events of the last few years so clearly contradict this liberal vision of a harmonious world, that there is so much hatred of President George W. Bush. The primary defeat of Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman by a neophyte anti-war candidate showed the ability of this aspect of liberalism to trump all other issues.
The disruption of the London terrorist plot to blow up a number of airliners has again raised the “clash of civilizations” issue brought to prominence by Samuel Huntington. But rather than dwell on how Islamic fundamentalism is able to motivate suicide bombers and insurgents, it is more important to look at whether American civilization can still motivate resistance to such assaults. Has liberalism already so weakened society’s will to fight back that even leaders and soldiers committed to do so cannot succeed?
British historian Jeremy Black, looking at Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries, described a “bellicose society.” One in which “killing was generally accepted as necessary, both for civil society– against crime, heresy and disorder– and in international relations. War itself seemed necessary....it was natural as the best means by which to defend interests and achieve goals.” There was also a strong sense of “glory and honor” among the elites, and “by modern Western standards, a large percentage of males served in the military.” This Europe was expanding across the globe and would dominate world affairs for 500 years. It would also produce the United States as the offspring of imperial ambitions.
It is against these values that liberalism has struggled for centuries, its success corresponding with Europe’s decline. It is seen in both domestic and international issues. It is not just today’s Democrat Party leaders who oppose every new weapons system and embrace every disarmament agreement. Historian Heinz Gollwitzer, looking at the 19th century, found “Left-wing liberalism, in so far as it was doctrinaire, put up a strong fight against armaments and power policies, the acquisition of non-European territories, the establishment of naval bases and, above all, the retreat from its economic principles.” Those principles became increasingly socialist. The British scholar Bernard Semmel has argued that liberals advocated expanded welfare programs “against the alternative use of available tax revenues for armaments.”
Liberals have been obsessed since the 9/11 attacks that America not ‘over react” to the threat of terrorism or to the rogue states that support it. The antiwar movement took to the streets long before the invasion of Iraq, to protest a military response to al-Qaeda’s murder of over 3,000 people in New York and Washington. As Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation, wrote at the time, “the most promising and effective way to halt terrorism lies in bringing those responsible to justice through non-military actions in cooperation with the global community and within the framework of domestic and international law.” The constraint of any unilateral action taken by a bellicose America administration by a UN that supposedly embodies liberal ideals has been the centerpiece of liberal foreign policy pronouncements.
It is clear that the objective of liberal policy is not to be more effective, but to uphold liberal values. If this means losing a war, so be it. It is better to accept defeat than to adapt to the needs of an illiberal world.
The treatment of enemy prisoners has been a major focus of liberals, whether at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo or from “rendition” to other countries. Did the interrogation methods used in Pakistan to gain key information about the pending London airline plot violate Sen. John McCain’s strictures against torture? This is not merely an expression of sympathy for the enemy, it is a fear that under the pressures of war, Americans will regain their former “bellicose” attitudes and adopt methods of war as ruthless as those employed by the enemy.
Liberal opposition to the death penalty for any crime, no matter how horrific; and for widening the definition of “cruel and unusual punishment” is the domestic side of this ideology. So is opposition to private gun ownership, as it keeps alive a familiarity with weapons, and a belief in active self-defense. Hunting, whether for sport, food or clothing (fur) is likewise condemned as perpetuating bellicose attitudes. Violence in movies, television or video games is to be censored. Counselors must rush to any disaster or crime scene to ensure the public reacts with the proper amount of panic and never become “desensitized” to the rigors of the real world. And in the schools, competition, whether for grades in glass or points on the playing field, is to be discouraged.
In contrast, Islamic fundamentalists harken back to the glory days when Moslem armies swept across the world from Spain to India, and Mohammed himself approved the razing of villages and the beheading of opponents. They inhabit {and enshrine) the kind of bellicose society that liberalism has done much to bleach out of America. The result is that despite having brave soldiers armed with high-tech weapons who win every pitched battle, American society teeters on the edge of military collapse from a lack of will to do what is needed, on a large enough scale for a long enough period of time, to defeat Islamic militants in any theater of current combat.
Militant Islam’s war against the West is not just normal, it is perpetual. If campaigns of conquest are not possible, then ghazi (raiding) warfare is to be conducted. This is more than mere “terrorism.” It is the tradition of weakening bordering communities by attrition until conquest is possible. That the London plotters were from Pakistan, whose theater of conflict is Kashmir, on the Indian frontier of Islam, indicates that they see a world war, not a struggle limited to Gaza, Lebanon or Iraq. Many Moslems have been recruited into extremism while living in the midst of liberal societies (like London), having found their surroundings decadent and corrupt. Thus liberalism’s much vaunted ideals of tolerance and passivity are seen by foes as a lack of honor and strength.
As a student, Tolkien had argued for the proposition in prep school debates that the West had become too civilized for its own good; and by civilized is meant having adopted too many liberal notions. The triumph of the Anglo-American alliance in all but one of the great wars of the 20th century (Vietnam being the exception) indicate that Tolkien’s pessimism was pre-mature. But a century later, his case is much stronger.

Lebanon troops move into south
Beirut/Tel Aviv (dpa) - Lebanese soldiers took up their posts in the southern part of the country on Friday, setting up near the Israeli border for the first time in a generation. Lebanese soldiers were welcomed with open arms as they moved into southern villages. Citizens greeted them as convoys of jeeps and armoured personnel carriers rode through. As many as 15,000 Lebanese troops are expected to arrive in the south as part of an international plan to stabilize the region and wrestle control away from Hizbollah militants who have sparred with Israeli soldiers along the border for years. Despite the end to the fighting and the celebrations surrounding the arrival, the tension does not seem to have dissipated. Israel continued fighter jet overflights, and there were contradictory reports of an Israeli air raid late Friday. Lebanese authorities said the jets fired two missiles in an area near Yamouneh, but UN sources said Israel denied launching an attack while Hizbollah's al-Nour radio reported they were mock raids.
Earlier, Israeli jets flew at low altitude over areas of northeastern Beirut, including mainly Christian areas in Byblos, Aoun al Siman and the Kesrowan areas, the police said. The Hizbollah assault on Israeli soldiers July 12 provoked the month-long Israeli assault that killed more than 1,000 Lebanese and promoted a major international effort to end the fighting. A UN ceasefire began early Monday morning.
A Lebanese military jeep reached the border village of Kila, which lies on the other side of the border from the northern Israeli city of Metulla. The border fence destroyed in the fighting must be repaired before the soldiers establish a permanent presence. Lebanese army surveillance squads were seen arriving in Shebaa, where Lebanon borders on the Israeli-occupied Syrian Golan Heights, to pave the way for the 10th army brigade to deploy in Kfar Chouba. The Israelis have begun withdrawing and are to continue to do when a UN peacekeeping force arrives, an issue that has been a sticking point over the lack of countries willing to send a significant number of troops. As the Lebanese forces moved in, elderly women in Shebaa threw rice. The Lebanese army troops deployed in Khiyam, which lies seven kilometres from the border and was heavily bombed during the conflict. All Israeli reservists had been withdrawn and two-thirds of the region handed over to the UN observation force UNIFIL, an Israeli military spokesman confirmed Friday in Tel Aviv. A UN resolution seeks to expand the UNIFIL force of 2,000 to 15,000. Israeli army units would remain in strategically important locations in southern Lebanon for a limited time, Israel Radio reported. Meanwhile, criticism of the Israeli military at home for not properly planning and executing the assault continued. Many troops have complained the plans and equipment were inadequate. Reservists said that they had often had insufficient food and water supplies in southern Lebanon, the daily Yediot Ahronot reported Friday. The lack of fluids in particular had been difficult to cope with during the fierce battles in sweltering heat. "We were so thirsty that we even took the drink cans from dead Hizbollah fighters," an army reservist told the daily.

Defense minister on the defensive
Peretz believes that without a settlement with Syria, there will be no quiet in Lebanon.
By Akiva Eldar
At the height of the fighting in Lebanon, the Spanish foreign minister, Miguel Moratinos, returned from a visit to Damascus and immediately ran to report to the Spanish media that President Bashar Assad is determined to make peace with Israel.
Moreover, our old friend also reported that he passed on a message to Assad from Defense Minister Amir Peretz that Syria has a partner for negotiations. The Israeli embassy in Madrid updated the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni sent question marks in the direction of the Defense Ministry.
Peretz told her that there was no reason to get excited - all that happened was that Moratinos called him on the eve of his trip to Damascus, and as one socialist to another, he asked if Peretz wanted to send regards to his neighbor. According to the defense minister, he made some entirely general remark about his famous aspirations for peace, nothing specific.
Peretz's associates confirmed, with unconcealed sorrow, that Peretz had told Livni the truth. They believe that unless there was a settlement with Syria, there would be no peace and quiet in Lebanon. The lack of a decisive outcome in the war in the north and the doubts regarding UNIFIL's abilities or the desire of the Lebanese army to contend with the large Hezbollah pockets that remain in South Lebanon make Syria the key element in the implementation of Resolution 1701.
Dr. Rubi Sabel, an expert on international law and former legal adviser to the foreign ministry, says that because Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter was conceded in the Security Council resolution, it is not clear whether the embargo section of the resolution obligates foreign countries to refrain from supplying Hezbollah with arms. According to his interpretation, the Lebanese army and UNIFIL have the authority but not the obligation to prevent the transfer of arms to Lebanon without the permission of the Siniora government. Consequently, cutting Hezbollah off from its missile suppliers in Iran is dependent mainly on Assad's goodwill.
Fights with the boss
With all the importance that he attributes to this matter, Peretz is not willing to fight over it with the boss, Ehud Olmert. So far, the prime minister has not shown any interest in launching negotiations with Syria. It is not clear if this is because he doesn't want to pay the nominal price of the negotiations - a withdrawal from the Golan Heights - or because he is not willing to fight with his boss - George W. Bush. Perhaps both reasons are true.
As long as Syria belongs to the "Axis of Evil," any Israeli that makes overtures towards it will be considered evil, too.
While Peretz realizes that the path to Assad goes through Bush's ears, so far he has not done anything of substance to convince him that it is worthwhile. The only telephone number with a Washington area code in the defense minister's phonebook is that of chairman of the Washington workers' union (the counterpart of the Histadrut Labor Federation). He won't get very far with that.
However, Peretz's coterie of advisors is teeming with people with excellent connections in Washington, especially David Kimhi, former director-general of the foreign minister and personal friend of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and David Ivry, former director-general of the defense ministry and Israeli ambassador to Washington. But before he sends envoys across the sea, Peretz will have to finally decide what he wants to be when he grows up - a statesman or functionary.
Renew talks with the Palestinians
The defense minister went Tuesday to a bar mitzvah for IDF orphans, and declared that "every war creates an opportunity for a new diplomatic process," and that consequently, "we have to renew talks with the Palestinians."
In view of his situation in the polls the day after the war in the north, talks - first and foremost with the Palestinians - are Amir Peretz's opportunity to rehabilitate his political and public standing. If he misses this opportunity, his fellow Laborites will be standing in line to turn him into the scapegoat of the failure on the home and war front.
Even so, five generals-turned-politicians (Matan Vilnai, Danny Yatom, Ami Ayalon, Benjamin Ben-Eliezer and Ephraim Sneh) are waiting to pounce on him. They cannot forgive Peretz, who is compulsively suspicious, for choosing to invite to his war table generals (in the reserves) devoid of political ambitions (Amnon Lipkin-Shahak, Amos Malka, Danny Rothschild and David Ivry).
However, what value is there in waxing poetic about "a new diplomatic process," when down at the bottom, in the field, the generals in active service only talk to the Palestinians in the language of power? That is the language of which GOC Southern Command Major-General Yoav Gallant has demonstrated a particularly impressive command. Gallant's jurisdiction includes the Gaza Strip, the area where it will be shown, perhaps very soon, whether Peretz is indeed a political leader, or merely an IDF spokesman in a suit.
So far, perhaps because of the din of the war in the north, the rumor that Peretz has replaced Shaul Mofaz has not yet reached the Southern Command. There are Palestinians in the Gaza Strip that claim that the IDF did not dare try playing on Mofaz the Likudnik, the tricks that Gallant has been playing on Mofaz's successor, the "man of peace."
Gallant's interpretation of the "dialogue" that his big boss is talking about is barring the entry of newspapers personnel and mail items to the Gaza Strip. He refuses to allow the Nesher concrete company to operate a concrete pipeline that it has built in partnership with a Palestinian company to the tune of millions of dollars in order to bypass the frequent closures of the Karni terminal. The concrete is crucial for the rebuilding of the bridges and buildings that the IDF destroyed in Operation Summer Rains, including those built with American and European funding.
At a d ebate held recently in the General Staff, diplomatic-security coordinator Amos Gilad reported that the American administration is pressuring to have the pipeline opened. Major General Yosef Mishlav, coordinator of activities in the territories, explained that thousands of Palestinian construction workers are sitting at home without work.
The forum decided to open the pipeline. Gallant appealed the decision before the chief of staff and Dan Halutz rejected the appeal. Despite this, the pipeline remains closed most of the time, "because of warnings of terror attacks."
Since the incident on June 25 in which Gilad Shalit was abducted, exports from the Gaza Strip have been almost completely blocked. Only the restricted entry of merchandise, mainly food staples, is permitted. In July, the Karni terminal operated only 15 days, and this further exacerbated the shortage.
The Erez checkpoint has been closed since March, and the same goes for the Sufa crossing (through which metal and packed concrete are sent) and the Kerem Shalom crossing (through which staples such as sugar, flour and rice are sent). According to figures collected by the Peres Center for Peace, the supplies of flour in the Gaza Strip will run out within two days. The rice they have is sufficient for another six days, oil for nine days and sugar for another 16 days.
Learning the hard way
The Rafah crossing was opened for only a few days, and there is no way for Gazans to go to Egypt or Jordan in order to receive urgent medical care. In the absence of any ability to manufactur e, workers do not receive salaries and harm is also caused to the Israeli industries that are connected to local factories (for example in the textile, furniture and agricultural sectors).
Due to the increasing restrictions on fishing, the boats cannot go out to sea and the livelihoods of some 35,000 people have been adversely affected. In wake of the bombing of the power station in Gaza, the people of Gaza receive electricity for only 6-8 hours a day.
The defense minister is learning the hard way that compared to the intrigues in the IDF, the machinations of the workers committees are child's play. He is realizing that the title of "defense minister" sounds a lot better outside his plush office than it looks from the inside. He is finding out, slowly but surely, that if he does not hurry to learn how to swim among the currents of the army top brass, he will soon start pining for the Histadrut.
The office of the IDF spokesperson has responded by saying that the IDF is working to prevent terror threats.
It was further reported that as of yesterday, the IDF has begun to allow the entry of mail items and newspapers through the Erez crossing. The concrete pipeline at the Karni crossing was operated in the days that it was open to the passage of merchandise, based on the assessment of the situation in accordance with the terror warnings. w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m

Last update - 07:49 18/08/2006
ANALYSIS: A new 'Mini-Iran' is emerging in southern Lebanon
By Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondents
Thursday was supposedly a historic day in Lebanon. For the first time in 30 years, the Lebanese Army deployed south of the Litani River. This time, too, as was expected, the civilians threw rice at yet another military force.
But, as the leading Lebanese officer on the scene read out the unit's orders, the real picture emerged: "The army will deploy on the wounded Lebanese land alongside the men of the resistance."In other words: The Lebanese Army has no plans to drive Hezbollah out of the South or to confront them.
Lebanon's president and commander in chief of the army, Emile Lahoud, made it clear on Wednesday that Hezbollah would not be disarmed, not even in the area south of the Litani River. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah may have promised that his men will not carry their arms openly but they could rebuild their bunkers and fill them up with rockets in preparation for the next confrontation in the future.
Meanwhile, the deployment of the multinational force is being delayed, and France is in no rush to send many soldiers. UN Security Council Resolution 1701, passed a week ago, is already on the path to becoming meaningless. While the Americans are declaring that the new forces in southern Lebanon will not allow Hezbollah to resume their positions along the border, Nasrallah is proving them wrong. His forces are patroling without hindrance in the villages of southern Lebanon (some of them not having left during the fighting); they are recording the Israel Defense Forces activities, and are giving interviews, while armed, to Arab television stations.
These developments are worrisome to the other religious groups in Lebanon that fear an Iranian-Syrian takeover in the South. Walid Jumblatt, Sa'ad al-Din Hariri and others sharply criticized Syrian President Bashar Assad for his efforts to intervene in domestic Lebanese politics. But as far as they are concerned, the real threat stems from Hezbollah's plans to reconstruct southern Lebanon, using billions of Iranian dollars that are meant to further establish the organization in the country by pushing aside the government organs.
It is not surprising therefore that there are celebrations in Tehran: Thursday, a public transport company there announced a day of free travel in the Iranian capital to celebrate Hezbollah's victory over Israel. In the wake of the Israeli invasion, it turns out that the regime of the Ayatollahs is on the verge of witnessing the realization of its dream for a "mini-Iran" in southern Lebanon.
It turns out that the political and military echelons in Israel were no less concerned than Hezbollah over the war of perceptions. Ministers recall that Olmert's aides joked about the possibility that he would make a victory speech in Bint Jbail, the site of Nasrallah's speech on Israel's spider web in May 2000. The Shin Bet security service's VIP protection detail would have never authorized this, but the mere fact that it was discussed is an indication of how surrealistic the conversations became among decision makers.
The IDF carried out three operations in Bint Jbail during the war, and did not conquer it because of its sprawling urban character. The public are not alone in not understanding the army's plans; the officers are hard pressed to comprehend them too.
During the war, Olmert bypassed Defense Minister Amir Peretz on a number of occasions and worked directly with Chief of Staff Dan Halutz. While relations became frayed, no one in the cabinet or the General Staff challenged their decisions.
Since the passing of the favorable resolution, Israel is having to withdraw from the territory it has occupied, following heavy losses; but Hezbollah continues to hold the ground and maintain that it won. w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m

Last update - 06:51 17/08/2006
Olmert - the end?
People are already talking about it everywhere, political candidates are getting ready for the next battle, the newspapers print bad news almost daily. It's definitely in the air: The end of yet another era - but how close is it really?
Signs that the Olmert administration is going down: People began saying that the word "Netanyahu" does not scare them anymore.
Signs that the Olmert administration is going forward: Netanyahu has a way of frightening people as soon as he becomes a possible reality.
Signs that the Olmert administration is going down: Olmert was an accidental Prime Minister in the first place. Sharon collapsed and there was nobody else around to replace him in Kadima. Had he succeeded in his job, maybe the public could get used to him. But now, after they've seen him in action, it's time to reconsider.
Signs that the Olmert administration is going forward: Who's going to replace him - the "novice with no military experience" Livni? The "first unpopular Defense Minister ever" Peretz? The "we've tried it before thank-you-very-much" Barak and Netanyahu?
Signs that the Olmert administration is going down: No government can survive the public's loss of faith in its leaders. This is not a Presidency - it's the constant coalition of the willing, and the weaker the Prime Minister gets, the faster he will be abandoned by his partners.
Signs that the Olmert administration is going forward: The Knesset was elected six months ago. Do we really believe that these shrewd politicians will suddenly decide that it's time for them to go home?
Signs that the Olmert administration is going down: When the military Chief is in trouble, the Prime Minister is in trouble. If Dan Halutz will be forced out, he will retaliate by revealing everything he knows about the ways in which this government conducted the war in Lebanon. This will be an ugly scene.
Signs that the Olmert administration is going forward: The head of Halutz is on the plate. The public-beast will be fed, and will lose appetite for yet another meal. Olmert and Peretz will be safe.
Signs that the Olmert administration is going down: The comptroller, feeling that Olmert is weak, has joined the crowd. Is there any other possible reason for him to inform us that he intends to investigate Olmert at such a delicate moment?
Signs that the Olmert administration is going forward: This specific comptroller has already made a name for himself as somewhat obsessed with getting the media's attention. This is just another spin, not a serious matter.
Signs that the Olmert administration is going down: An investigation of Olmert is the last straw. Earlier there was the decision to indict Tzahi Hanegbi and the possibility that another government member, Haim Ramon, would also be indicted. Do you need more than that?
Signs that the Olmert administration is going forward: All these allegations and probes deal with personal behavior and corruption, not with the war. Ariel Sharon survived months and years with a similar shadow hanging over his head. Who cares about corruption?
Signs that the Olmert administration is going down: This is not just corruption; it is the melting down of the new and promising Kadima party. How can anyone think of voting for this party again?
Signs that the Olmert administration is going forward: And what is the alternative to Kadima - the Peretz-led Labor? The almost-vanished Likud?
Signs that the Olmert administration is going down: Moshe Yaalon, former Chief of Staff, packed his belongings and is going back to Israel after a fruitful year at the Washington Institute. Do we need a new Defense Minister or what?
Signs that the Olmert administration is going forward: In order for Yaalon to be appointed Defense Minister, Netanyahu has to win an election first, and as far as I remember, he got less than 15 mandates last time he tried.
Signs that the Olmert administration is going down: The "core reason" for the establishment of this government was "realignment". When people hear "realignment" today they immediately start laughing, or crying.
Signs that the Olmert administration is going forward: OK, plans will have to change. But what will Israel do when the world starts pushing it to negotiate with Abu Mazen? Olmert is the only one who has a plan.
Signs that the Olmert administration is going down: The Arabs are not afraid of him, rather, they are making fun of him. Israel needs a scarier leader.
Signs that the Olmert administration is going forward: Replacing the government now will give Hezbollah yet another opportunity to gloat.
Signs that the Olmert administration is going down: After this outrageous management of war, how can he stay?
Signs that the Olmert administration is going forward: How can Israel switch horses in the middle of a crisis?
Signs that the Olmert administration is going down/forward: This is where you, the readers can contribute to this dialog. w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m

Last update - 10:18 18/08/2006
Not Sparta - and just as well
By Doron Rosenblum
When Israel embarked on Lebanon War I, one of its secondary aims was said to be "to heal the trauma of the Yom Kippur War." And what will heal us from the trauma of Lebanon War II? In this regard, there is almost complete consensus - only the next war. Yes, it is always the next war - the redeeming, corrective war that restores our "honor" and defines us until the war thereafter.
Lebanon War I began on June 5 - and not by chance: This is attributed to the melodramatic historical sense of then prime minister Menachem Begin, who saw it as some kind of an allusion to the date of the start of the Six-Day War - the queen of all our wars. That stunning (alas, one-time) victory that they remembered neither lets up nor gives rest, a victory that has been seeping since then into the national bloodstream like a toxic drug. Toxic, because nothing during the past 40 years even came close to the glory of those six days in the summer of 1967 (okay, except for the Entebbe operation and the triumph in the Eurovision song contest), yet we are living in its shadow and are not letting go of the longing for its return.
The roots of the failures of this war - the excessive ease with which it began, the arrogance and scorn for the enemy, the conceit and mystical belief in the power of the air force - can also be explained as distant by-products of those "three hours in June" 40 years ago. And it is not by chance that the smoking embers that now remain symbolize this - the hubris of a chief of staff like Dan Halutz and the myth of the all-powerful, haughty and arrogant air force in which he wrapped himself.
In any case, the tremendous Katyusha barrages that landed on Israel for an entire month are already beginning to diminish in the face of the barrages of self-torture, reciprocal floggings and accusations - barrages that no cease-fire will halt and will continue for years no doubt. Make room, therefore, on the shelf for the trauma of Lebanon War II - the third volume in the trilogy (so far), a continuation of the Yom Kippur War and the "War for the Peace of the Galilee."
But before we "investigate" and decapitate the leaders who have disappointed, and without exempting them from their responsibility, one must nevertheless remember: The haste, the wild gambling with human lives and the shoddy planning that accompanied this war did not arise in a vacuum and did not stem from some mental disturbance reserved exclusively for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Amir Peretz and Halutz. They were not the only ones who were deceived into thinking that they had in their hands an all-powerful tool that is replete with gadgets - the Israel Defense Forces and the air force - and can be put into operation and stopped by pressing a button, when the main thing is the fact of the desire to operate it and not the concern for its operation.
And indeed the semi-messianic slogan, "Let the IDF win," was, and is still, despite everything, the demesne of most of the Israeli public. No empirical proof, not even repeated bereavement and failure, have shaken the naive belief that somewhere out there is a huge, mystical, redeeming victory that failed leaders are preventing from taking place.
This longing, which reduces all of our existence to military bullying, does not stop at the country's borders: Of all the barrages of blame and disappointment that are falling on us after the war, the most annoying are the ones that are coming at us from the direction of our "friends" and "well-wishers" from the United States - those politicians and article-writers, Jews and others, who are clicking their tongues in disappointment at our performance on the battlefield and are even starting to wonder whether the investment of billions of American dollars is not being wasted on a hapless ally like us.
But to both those who send us into battle in order to derive joy from our performance, and those among us who are thoroughly depressed by the results of the war, it must be said: Comfort, comfort, my people. With all the acute importance of military might, Israel cannot be solely a derivative of victories or tactical defeats on the battlefield. Its existence is far richer and far more meaningful and varied than that.
If the Israeli mentality is "inferior" to that of Hezbollah, Iran and Hamas in that it does not seek suicidal death, the virgins in Paradise and genocide for its neighbors; if Israel has pity on the lives of its sons, on its comfort, on the nurturing of its landscapes and even on bed and breakfasts, wineries and the pleasures of life, it is nothing to be ashamed of. On the contrary: We shall proudly bear our weaknesses as fragile, vulnerable human beings.
Israel is not Sparta, and this is a good thing. It was not established in order to be a spearhead against global Islam, or in order to serve as an alert squad for the Western world. It was established in order to live in it. And after the obvious is stated - with respect to the importance of might and strength - this too shall be said: Unlike some of its enemies, Israel has a far more means of existential solace - in vitality, culture and in creativity - than the planting of a flag of victory among the ruins. w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m

Last update - 10:19 18/08/2006
Sorry, we reached our goal
By Uri Savir
In a guerrilla war, words like "we'll win" are inappropriate. There are no victors in a guerrilla war. You cannot defeat guerrilla units that have no interest in territory: all they want to do is cause casualties. Nevertheless, although we were not victorious in absolute military terms, the campaign just ended was properly conducted and most of the goals were achieved.
The best way to fight guerrillas is to set goals that encourage the other side to bring the war to an end. A campaign of this sort has to be conducted at three levels: the military effort, which will influence the enemy's decision-making; an effort aimed at preserving morale and consensus on the home front; and diplomatic efforts.
In the military sphere, Hezbollah has been seriously weakened. Its future deployment will likely be north of the Litani River, with the Lebanese army to the south; an effective multinational force will oversee the new arrangements; and the abducted Israeli soldiers will be released, apparently as part of a prisoner exchange. The home front stood firm and supported the military campaign.
The all-important diplomatic front is the one where our success was most impressive, however. The international community, almost in its entirety, supported our goals, as the UN Security Council resolution illustrates. But the greatest achievement was that even most Arab states silently prayed for our success, and a rift developed between moderates and extremists. In the eyes of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the North African states, the Fatah leadership and others, Islamic fundamentalism is dangerous. In fact, strategically speaking, they are on our side of the equation; and one may say the same thing about Fouad Siniora, the Lebanese prime minister. And what of the extremists? Despite their feeling that they remain undefeated, our renewed deterrent power shows them that "messing with us" is not worth their while.
Right now, what we have to do is examine our environment in the wake of the war. The lesson learned by the radical states is that the way to defeat Israel is by missiles and terror, while the moderate states have interests in common with us. The conclusion is that we should shape our national security through a network of agreements with the moderate states, and create a defensive circle against fundamentalism.
The conclusion we have to draw is that a genuine deterrent will not be achieved by proper preparation for the next war, but by widening the circle of peace. In an era of missiles and terrorism, our defensive wall is a network of peace agreements with our neighbors. Therefore, we have to enter at once into intensive negotiations with [PA chairman] Abu Mazen towards a permanent arrangement, accompanied by a demand for a complete end to violence by Hamas.
Unilateral solutions have received a death-blow: it is time for diplomatic arrangements. A solution of the Palestinian issue is possible, but it will involve far-reaching concessions. Its importance is subject to a reduction of the "fuel" that provides the negative anti-Israeli energy in the Arab and Muslim community. Such an agreement will also bring about a weakening and a moderation of Hamas.
At the same time, we have to dismember the "triangle of evil" - Iran, Syria and Hezbollah - through renewing negotiations with Syria, on condition that it stops its support for terrorist organizations. Quite possibly the price will be the return of the (demilitarized) Golan Heights, but if there is one clear lesson of the recent war, it is the unimportance of territory. Peace with Syria will reduce the Iranian threat. We are not interested in facing the Hezbollah and Katyusha rockets, a few years from now, nor Iran and Syria, well-armed with long-range missiles and weapons of mass destruction.
The writer is the president of the Peres Peace Center. w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m

Last update - 11:01 18/08/2006
Class war in the IDF
By Staff Sgt. (res.) Ori Berzak
On a hill overlooking the bloody battleground of Waterloo, Meir, a British Jew, stood at noon on June 18, 1815. By 10:00 PM, when the battle was over and the sides began counting their dead - 25,000 French and 15,000 British and Prussian dead - Meir was already on the other side of the English Channel in a boat he had readied in advance. He was in a rush to buy stock on the London Stock Exchange while prices were still low. At the end of a single day of trading, on June 19, by the time Wellington had found the time to send letters summing up the battle and Napoleon's defeat, Meir Rothchild was a millionaire. Just like in any war, there are winners and losers.
On a hill near Jebel Bilat, on the evening of August 7, 2006, a supply convoy with reinforcements was being delayed. The cause: brigade commander Colonel Shlomi Cohen's convoy was getting public relations services from Yedioth Ahronoth reporter, Nahum Barnea. The Colonel received another dose of "promotion coverage," and his soldiers, who did not receive s upplies, had to break into local shops and steal foodstuffs.
On a hilltop overlooking the bay of Tyre at 8:30 AM, on August 15, 2006, slightly more than 24 hours since the cease-fire went into effect, reconnaissance unit 609 is sitting in a Lebanese house, taking cover from the anti-tank missiles that could appear at any moment. They are not sure about what the next day will bring.
The sniper on team 3 is waiting to receive a warning that he will be fired. He has been away from his new job for a month. The medic, the team leader and the guy handling the grenade launcher are unsure about what to do with the semester exams that they have missed. Those who are single are planning to flee the country. The family men are due home to wives who have not slept for a month, to children dying for their embrace, but also to mortgages and the rest of the payments that need to be made.
On the map, the company's movement looks like a green arrow, cutting through on the right of the security zone in a semi-circle. On the generals' maps, it is yet another promise to increase the defense budget, salaries for the career staff and for their stock options in their own personal, crazy start-up called "the next war." Just like in any war, there are winners and losers.
On the hills covered in pine and cypress trees in Israel, the fighting class is burying its dead and licking its wounds. The commanding class is granting another interview to reporters and waiting for the findings of the committees of inquiry. The debate over the budget has already been won, and the aid from the U.S. is already on the way. Just like in any war, there are winners and losers.
On a hill between Mount Meron and Safed, at 2:00 PM on August 16, 2006, the brigade commander talked with his troops from the reconnaissance unit. In response to the claims there had been no orders, no relevant training, about the hunger, the lack of equipment, and the journalists that risked our lives with their camera flashes prior to our entry into Lebanon, Colonel Cohen lectured us for lacking motivation. The soldiers quickly surrounded him, the tempers flared, the tones rose very high. Pretty soon there was booing. A moment before there was real violence, the brigade commander carried out a brilliant withdrawal. If he had a smoke grenade available, surely he would have used it.
A class war is a war between winners and losers. A new chapter was written in the age-long book on class war: the IDF class war. In such a war, the fighting class can only lose everything that sustains it: comradery, ethics and responsibility for the defense of the state. w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m

Last update - 14:29 18/08/2006
The longest month
By Amir Oren
In a plain government office, in a room no different from the standard medical facility, a DNA sample from the body of a Lebanese man has been kept for almost nine years. It belongs to Hadi Nasrallah, the son of the Hezbollah leader, who was killed in a battle with the IDF in 1997. The body was taken by fighters from the Egoz reconnaissance unit and returned to Lebanon in return for the body of a Shayetet 13 (Naval Commando) fighter, Itamar Iliya, who was killed in the failed Naval Commando raid in the village of Ansariya in Lebanon.
Hassan Nasrallah commemorated his son at the dock of Hezbollah's naval force in Beirut, which was attacked two weeks ago in a joint air force-navy operation - another operation that was swallowed up in the melee of the war. What remains in Israel is rare intelligence material: the DNA of the Nasrallah dynasty, in the event that the IDF or the Mossad espionage agency succeeds in killing the Hezbollah leader and want to identify the body definitively.
This story is typical of the emotional seesaw of the Israeli war against Hezbollah. On the one hand, frustration that Nasrallah evaded the bombs and the assassination attempts and is making fun of his adversaries; on the other hand, determination to pursue him relentlessly, almost at any price, and implement a death sentence - "Hitler," one of the heads of the intelligence community called him this week in Tel Aviv - and thus also to overturn the gloomy atmosphere among the public and in the army.
A perusal of thick and detailed dossiers shows how deeply Israeli intelligence was able to penetrate certain levels of Hezbollah's alignments, but also how limited in importance this was in the decisive test of utilizing the secrets. The resources that were focused on Yasser Arafat in recent years were not aimed at Nasrallah. What was collected by Military Intelligence and the Mossad was so compartmentalized that it was kept hidden from its consumers in the operative bodies. "Hezbollah's Combat Concept" (January 2006) is a 130-page booklet, crammed with data, bunkers and Katyusha rockets and nature reserves. Its author is a lieutenant colonel in Military Intelligence who is the intelligence aide to MI director Amos Yadlin and formerly head of the Lebanon section in the intelligence department of Northern Command. The rub lies in the classification: not just "Top Secret" but "Restricted Purple" - for a select few, and not every major general was allowed to feast his eyes on it, only those who were cleared for this subject.
The result was that the intelligence officer of the 91st Division - the Galilee Division, which was in charge of preventing abductions and of moving immediately to war - a lieutenant colonel who had clearance - would have taken his life in his hands had he dared allow the division's commander to have a look at the material.
Well-prepared for war
And contrary to the popular impression, which some in the IDF were at pains to create - as part of the envy and the competition for a place at the top - the 91st Division was in fact well- prepared for the war. The division's deputy commander, Colonel Dror Paltin, organized an efficiency effort from the division's budget in favor of dedicated training. With the aid of Northern Command, and on the basis of a general blueprint of the material in the purple booklets, a facility at which to practice combat in conditions approximating Hezbollah's forward deployment was built at the Elyakim training base.
The division's reserve brigades, Alexandroni in infantry and Chariots of Steel in armor, trained there, along with the division's regular-army Druze battalion, and these units excelled in the war in carrying out their assignments, no less than the well-known units and brigades that were rushed north from the territories and had had little training. Northern Command also complained about the minimal training the IDF gives its combat soldiers - members of the Armored Corps go through four courses instead of 17 - and expressed nostalgia for Ground Forces Headquarters and the professionalism of its corps (armor, infantry, artillery, engineers), which withered on the vine in the transition to the present army headquarters.
The report about the bombing in the village of Qana, which had the effect of prolonging the war and gave Nasrallah time to recover - in the wake of which the position of Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora was weakened - reached U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice while she was in the middle of a discussion with Defense Minister Amir Peretz, minutes after she had expressed amazement mixed with displeasure at the Israeli insistence on continuing the fighting until the abducted soldiers, Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, were returned.
The Americans could not understand why Israel was ready to put at risk so many soldiers and civilians for the sake of two abductees.
Israel had a strategic warning concerning an abduction attempt. It was provided by a top source in Hezbollah - Nasrallah - in his public declarations. But Nasrallah did not supply the essential details for a report - journalistic or intelligence - or for a tactical warning: who, what, where, when, how. The authority to issue such warnings is the perogative of the head of MI's research division. A warning, in this context, is not just rhetoric; it has practical implications in terms of awareness of the need to reinforce the line by bringing in forces from other sectors. The division is not authorized to issue a warning. The command has limited authority. Only MI has full authority.
Between the official warnings, the division resorted to stratagems and internal alerts, and for months on end was successful in this. First there was the "Hill and Valley" event at Raghar, in November 2005, and afterward preparedness that was codenamed "Dew and Rain," in the spring of this year. Finally, in June-July, following the abduction of Gilad Shalit at Kerem Shalom, on the Gaza border, the state of alert was raised to the highest level. Condition "National Asset" - recall of soldiers from leave - was declared and home leaves on successive weekends were canceled; officers did not get home for a month and more. Tension at this level cannot be maintained indefinitely. The fear of an abduction was not realized and the alert level was lowered, though it was still higher than in other sectors. The abduction occurred two days later. This was not by chance: Hezbollah monitored the IDF's activity, and if the high alert had continued, the other side, too, would have continued waiting patiently for its unavoidable end.
No complacency
One floor up, in Northern Command, understanding was shown for the division's approach, but as part of the policy of "containment," restraint and cooling down - passive observation of Hezbollah's preparations, monitoring of its ability to mount a sudden attack on targets on the Israeli side of the border, put a ban on a preemptive operation on the Lebanese side. The list of Northern Command goals, which was presented in June to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, contained, in third place "rapid passage from routine to combat." In second place was "preventing abduction." These goals constitute irrefutable proof that there was no complacency - but first place on the list was reserved for "security and tranquillity for the communities in the north," meaning prevention of escalation that would bring in its wake volleys of Katyushas, cause civilian casualties and damage the economy.
During the first days of the fighting there were pointed arguments and heated exchanges between the GOC Northern Command, Major General Udi Adam, and the division commander, Brigadier General Gal Hirsch. According to members of the General Staff, who heard faint echoes of all this, the differences of approach between Adam and Hirsh concerning the format and consecutiveness of combat left the two on the verge of an irreparable personal and professional rift. As time passed, and Adam understood that the dangerous front for him was above him and not below, tempers cooled and a uniform line was adopted in the north. Now one can hear personnel in the Northern Command war room, the "Castle" on Mount Canaan, quoting effusive praise Adam is heaping on Hirsch and on the commanders and fighters in the division's brigades and battalions.
One of the positive surprises of the war was the quiet influence of a bland, almost anonymous major general who is on retirement leave - Eyal Ben Reuven - who was until recently the commander of an armored formation and of the National Defense College. Ben Reuven acted as Adam's deputy. Alongside a GOC who sought to delay, but without trying to overshadow him, Ben Reuven suddenly stood out as the spokesman for an aggressive and decisive approach, which impressed the General Staff and the divisions. "A wolf in sheep's clothing," one of his colleagues said of him, and also gave grounds for his assessment. Ben Reuven is the last of the IDF's ground generals who went through a real war - the Yom Kippur War of 1973 - in addition to fierce armored battles in the Lebanon War of 1982.
The chain of knowledge that characterized the IDF from one generation to the next was severed toward the end of the 1990s with the retirement of the generation of Amnon Lipkin-Shahak and Matan Vilnai. The territorial commanders in the Six-Day War of 1967 were brigade commanders (or heads of departments in the General Staff) in the Sinai War of 1956 and battalion and company commanders in 1948. The territorial commanders of 1973 were the brigade commanders of 1967; the brigade commanders of 1973 were the major generals of 1982. In 2006 it is difficult to find a major general, let alone division and brigade commanders, with experience in activating large troop formations in a war against an army that is deployed for defense - which, according to Adam, is how Hezbollah units deployed in southern Lebanon.
The demand from the IDF to operate against an enemy in Lebanon but not against Lebanon, created a serious limitation: to swat a mosquito on a porcelain statuette. Fouad Siniora was marked as the designated postwar partner, and therefore the bombings were concentrated on Hezbollah infrastructures - they sustained damage of $10 billion, in the IDF's estimate - but not on those that the Siniora government would have to rebuild. And there was also the fear of the military advocate general, Brigadier General Avihai Mandelblit. Any target that is not saliently military requires his approval or that of his assistants or of the legal advisers of the air force and Northern Command. Mandelblit sent the army to carry out operation "Salvation for the South" - the dissemination of flyers warning civilians of an impending attack and urging them to leave. The old method of two previous operations in Lebanon, "Accountability" (1993) and "Grapes of Wrath" (1996) - getting masses to move north in order to pressure Beirut to pressure Damascus to pressure Hezbollah - was barred as too dangerous: not for civilians, but for soldiers, and not in Al Khayam but in The Hague.
Fish in an aquarium
The central personnel operated in the war like fish in an aquarium. Everything is transparent, everything is exposed, everything is reported to the world even before it happens. In these circumstances it would have been better for Moses, too, not to come down from Sinai with the Tablets of the Law straight into a special day of broadcasts brought to you by the Golden Calf. A disparity was created between substance and show: what is seen is not necessarily, not always, what is actually going on, and between the events that did occur there was no simple causal connection.
The hitches with the equipment and training of the reservists, and to a lesser extent with the regular army, are intolerable but not exceptional. They have characterized all the wars with perhaps the exception of the Six-Day War, thanks to the three-week waiting period that preceded it. Wars are not one-time operations (of the likes of Entebbe or the Iraqi nuclear reactor). In June 1982 the ground divisions marked time and the air force excelled in downing Syrian planes and destroying surface-to-air missile batteries, but also killed dozens of Israeli soldiers in attacks on ground forces; and then, as we know, the defense minister and the chief of staff were seasoned war veterans, experienced commanders of Paratroop brigades and armored divisions and territorial headquarters.
It is foolish to say this time the IDF performed less well than in other wars just because the chief of staff comes from the air force. Not every chief of staff who was a skilled force builder also knew how to activate it - a case in point is Yitzhak Rabin - and not every chief of staff who projected charm justified his image, in war or ahead of it (Moshe Dayan). It was not Dan Halutz who raised the generation of senior ground commanders who were put to the test this time; he only headed it for the past year, and before that was commander of the very air force which proved again this time that it is unsurpassed.
Despite the traditional rivalries between the Golani Brigade and the air force and between both of them and the Armored Corps, the voodoo rite of sticking pins into the Halutz doll had the scent of a khaki putsch, an effort to liquidate the competitors from the air. Halutz contributed to this: the commander who was known for his warm interest in subordinates who were hurt broadcast waves of coldness in the war. And they returned to him as frost in his hour of distress. Two weeks ago it was already clear that he was disappointed in the behavior of the major generals who until the war were the closest of his loyalists. Even as he talked about a "bank of targets" it turned out that he is the target in the bank.
The chief of staff and the army were senior partners, albeit not exclusive ones, in one of the three components of the war - the military aspect, of which the supreme commander is the government. In the case of the other two aspects - the civilian population and the diplomatic effort - the failures are those of the political level alone. w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m

Last update - 14:32 18/08/2006
Line of defense
By Yossi Verter
The first minister Ehud Olmert met a few hours after the cease-fire went into effect was Vice Premier Shimon Peres. It was impossible to ignore the symbolism: On Monday at noon, the most veteran, most scarred politician, graduate of the Grapes of Wrath operation and Kfar Kana and the terror attacks of 1996, the man who has experienced the most searing defeats and has seen all the victors and losers in Israeli politics from close up, sat with a prime minister who had completed exactly 100 days of his term. Only 100 days, one-third of them at war, and he is already bruised and battered, a loser. Always, at a time like this, when things get complicated, they ask for the tribal elder's advice and comfort.
Peres, who from the very first moment was skeptical about the war, did not celebrate a victory. He spoke, and Olmert took notes. "I promised him full backing," said Peres, shortly after the meeting.
Politicians who have seen Olmert this week met a man different from the one they had known. Less arrogant, less sure of himself, one who is asking more questions and consulting more. Old age has descended upon him, said one of these politicians. He is disappointed. He is frustrated, said another. But not with himself. He is disappointed in the army. The fighters, up to the level of brigade commander, were wonderful. In every battle they fought, they won. The problem began from the division commanders on up. He gave them a free hand, adopted their plans, and it came out badly.
Even the imbroglio with Chief of Staff Dan Halutz and his stocks has not succeeded in encouraging him. It's true that it has deflected the fire, said close associates of Olmert, but there is a country here, isn't there?
When the associates made these comments, they didn't yet know about the investigation that awaits Olmert at the state comptroller's office, on suspicion of bribery in the deal for the purchase of the Olmert family home in Jerusalem. This investigation could end with nothing, but it could also end with an indictment and resignation.
This is how the State of Israel looks today: leaders of the ruling party - the prime minister, the justice minister, the chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee and the chairman of the coalition - are all embroiled in various investigations. And this even before an official commission of inquiry is established on the matter of Lebanon War 2, which will entirely paralyze any government activity.
Olmert will not say a bad word about the chief of staff or the GOC Northern Command. Or the division commanders. He knows that this would look awful. But there are people who are already saying it on his behalf. They are not even making an effort to conceal that this is in fact Olmert's line of defense. This is the spin.
"Publicly, he will give backing to the army," said a senior figure in the Kadima party who is in close contact with the prime minister, "but he does not intend to take all the military failures upon himself. Most of the failures came from the army, above all the grand strategy: that it was possible to finish the business from the air. And all the problems with the missing equipment, and the lack of preparedness, and the mission on the ground that changed from minute to minute, and the food and the water - it isn't him."
"I spoke to him many times during the war," reconstructs another politician, who isn't a member of the government, "and he would tell me how he'd be sitting at home at 2 or 3 A.M., with heads of the army, and they're showing him maps and telling him, here there is a vulnerable element, here there isn't a vulnerable element. And he, with his stomach churning, had to approve actions."
These versions are not necessarily flattering to Olmert. They present him as a captive infant, as a pawn on Halutz's sand table. The public expects its prime minister and its defense minister to manage the army, and not the other way around. What will happen in the second round? If, in another two or three months, a war breaks out again, won't Olmert find himself with the same army, the same command on which, according to his interlocutors' testimony, he does not entirely rely?
Therefore, there are those who are pressing Olmert to bring former prime minister Ehud Barak, former minister Dan Meridor and perhaps former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu into his cabinet immediately. The first two do not get along with the third and he does not get along with them. Not necessarily personally; their positions regarding this war are completely different. From the outset of the campaign, Meridor and Barak believed that there was no need to go so far and so vehemently - not much would come of it. Netanyahu thought exactly the opposite: Were it up to him, the army would still be shedding its blood in Lebanon in a chase after every rocket and every launcher and in pursuit of the abducted soldiers.

On the second day of the war and in the following days Meridor held a number of conversations with journalists and government officials in which he accurately predicted the end of this war. Right in the first days he raised the questions, pointed to the difficulties, described the future complications and analyzed the fruitlessness of the entire campaign. Because of his shaky relations with Olmert, he did not succeed in getting to him personally. But his message, insofar as is known, was transmitted to the prime minister.
No need to inflate
On Wednesday, Olmert held a series of meetings at his bureau with "leaders of the economy," security people and a number of close associates. In these conversations he sounded more self-confident. Predictably, he is vehemently opposed to the establishment of a commission of inquiry. Insofar as it is up to him, it will not happen. He does not understand what a commission is supposed to examine. Should the government have embarked on the war? Should the government have accepted the United Nations Security Council resolution? These are policy considerations. There is no reason to conduct a regime of commissions of inquiry in Israel that will paralyze and neutralize the entire system.
According to him, there is definitely scope to examine the functioning of the home front and the conduct of the army, but not under the Commissions of Inquiry Law. There is no need to inflate everything. In Olmert's immediate surroundings, they were not impressed by the speed with which Defense Minister Amir Peretz announced the establishment of the Lipkin-Shahak commission to investigate the IDF. From Olmert's perspective, it was possible to wait a bit, until all the soldiers are back home. But this is within Peretz's authority and he did not want to open a front with him. They need each other these days. Therefore Olmert is also making a point of complimenting Peretz. On two occasions Wednesday he said that contrary to the charges, Peretz functioned in a level-headed way and responsibly, and also knew how to encourage the commanders at their most difficult moments. "An alliance of the weak," said a senior person in the Labor Party this week, "is the strongest alliance."
Forget convergence
Someone asked Olmert whether the time had not come to climb down from the convergence plan. This time, Olmert no longer spoke about "the achievements of the war that will advance convergence." His reply was different: At the moment, he said, it would not be serious to talk about convergence. Something changed in this country during the past weeks, and it cannot be ignored. He told his interlocutors he understands that he must adjust the priorities of his actions and the actions of his government to the new reality. Although, he said, we cannot ignore the Palestinian problem, at the moment we are facing a gigantic challenge: rehabilitating the north. We have to deal with this challenge. It will take up most of our attention and resources. In effect, Olmert said: There is no convergence. Forget convergence.
Olmert does not see any danger to the coalition. He is aware of what is going on around him, he sees Benjamin Netanyahu sewing and airing suits, but he is convinced that the business is stable. At least at the moment. He has no intention of establishing an emergency government. Although convergence is going into the freezer now, which could help the right-wing factions to join, Olmert is aware that both in the Likud and in MK Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu party, they think that the war should have gone on and on, "in order to get to all of the launchers."
Had I acted in accordance with the demands of the right, said Olmert this week to one of the government ministers, we would have found ourselves in Beirut in October. In these (relatively open) conversations he praised Chief of Staff Halutz. He has only esteem for him and a warm hug, says Olmert. The air force's achievements were amazing and the person who was the conductor of the aerial activity, with astounding equanimity, was Halutz.
One of the economists asked Olmert: what about the abducted soldiers? After all, it was because of them that we went to war. Not so, said Olmert, not only because of them. After all, on the morning of July 12, massive Katyusha fire was opened on the northern locales. Something that hadn't happened for years. The question that faced me that morning, said Olmert, was: whether to respond the same way we had responded on previous occasions, by meaningless fire on Lebanon that would have ended within a day, and then we would have gone into years of negotiations over the abducted soldiers, and in the meantime Hezbollah would have increased its firing capability, accumulated more long-range missiles and some years hence, when the conflict erupted, Israel would have been caused inestimable damage.
And no, he does not regret the expansion of the action between Friday evening and Sunday morning, which cost 34 dead. The prime minister's people are saying that the price that was paid lies heavy on his heart. But, according to them, Olmert believes that had he not given the order to expand the action, it is possible that the war would still be going on today, because Israel could not have lived with the UN Resolution that was submitted to it on Friday.
The hard feelings today, it is believed in Olmert's inner circles, were born of the expectation that the war would end quickly, with a swifter decision from the military perspective. This did not happen. Olmert's people prefer to ignore the fact that he contributed to the emergence of these feelings in a number of speeches he delivered during the course of the war.
His interlocutors asked him whether he believed, on the eve of his election, that a hundred days later he would find himself in a situation like this. I hadn't assessed that it would break out, he replied to them. There wasn't a single person who assessed that we could expect a confrontation like this. But, he added, I still believe that at the end of my tenure Israel will be a country where it is fun to live. I didn't promise that this would happen at the end of four months, but rather at the end of my term. I, he added somewhat ironically, intend to do everything possible to ensure that my term will run its full length, so that I can keep my promise.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Traditional holding pattern on Nazi-era cases has made Canada a magnet
for modern day war criminals, says B’nai Brith
TORONTO, August 18, 2006 – B’nai Brith Canada has welcomed the decisions of the Federal Court, which today has found accused Nazi war criminals Josef Furman of Edmonton, and Jura Skomatchuk of St. Catharines, guilty of falsifying their records upon entry into Canada.
“We hope that these decisions will pave the way for the immediate revocation of citizenship of these two individuals, leading to their swift deportation,” said David Matas, Senior Legal Counsel to B’nai Brith Canada. “Unfortunately, we have observed all too often in the past foot dragging and lack of resolve to bring to justice Nazi criminals who have lied their way into Canada and have received safe haven in this country.
“To date, there are four cases that are currently awaiting a decision of Cabinet regarding revocation of citizenship where Federal Court rulings found the individuals entered Canada by deception. They are Wasyl Odynsky, Vladimir Katriuk, Jacob Fast and Helmut Oberlander. Eight others have died at various stages of the proceedings.
“The onus is on the Government to abandon what has become a traditional Canadian holding pattern, by moving swiftly and efficiently to deport Furman and Skomatdchuk and to act decisively on all outstanding World War II cases. Canadians joined with allied forces to stave off the Nazis in World War II and justice demands action now before it is too late. Canada’s dysfunctional system for dealing with Nazi-era cases has made it magnet for modern day war criminals.”

IT WAS ALWAYS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE
By Frank Dimant
Jewish Tribune, August 17, 2006
Immediately following Stephen Harper’s leadership victory campaign to head the Alliance Party, a senior delegation of B’nai Brith Canada met with him in his office. The atmosphere was chilly, and the reception was less than welcoming. As we proceeded to speak, I informed Harper that B’nai Brith Canada had an agreement with Preston Manning and Stockwell Day that should an antisemite be found within the ranks of their party, the individual would immediately be removed from their membership. I requested the same understanding with him. Without batting an eye, he looked at me and said, “Frank, do you have the same agreement with the Liberals?” A fascinating response and something that made everyone sit up and rethink what was happening politically in Canada.
As the conversation became warmer, Harper questioned why the Jewish community advocacy organizations did not debunk Eleanor Caplan’s allegation that the Alliance Party was a haven for hate mongers. Harper then reiterated that the position of his party was most supportive on issues of concern to the Jewish community. We were reminded, for example, that Stockwell Day attempted to find a remedy for fair school funding so that the parents who were over-burdened with tuition fees would have some form of tax relief. The meeting ended very warmly and it was followed by numerous meetings in subsequent years. Stephen Harper had demonstrated to us there was no hidden agenda; he was a friend and he was a man of principle.
His principles mirror those of B’nai Brith Canada. As a truly non-partisan Jewish advocacy organization, B’nai Brith is committed to the security and safety of the Jewish community and of all Canadians, working with both the government and the opposition parties to encourage recognition of Israel as a sister democracy to Canada sharing the same ideals and the same threat of global terrorism.
Since the platform of the Conservative Party has always embodied those positions, B’nai Brith Canada felt that the Jewish community should have the opportunity to meet with Stephen Harper and judge for themselves, to be privy to all the facts related to issues we care about.
We, therefore, introduced Harper to the general Jewish leadership to present his platform. We know that for him – as well as for his predecessors Preston Manning and Stockwell Day, it was never an issue of pandering to Jewish votes or being the beneficiary of Jewish fundraising; it was always a matter of principle. All they wanted was a fair hearing. B’nai Brith and the Jewish Tribune gave them that.
B’nai Brith works with all parties to advance these principles. Realizing that the previous government was certainly vocal in its support for Israel, but its voting record at the UN was dismal, B’nai Brith publicly asked the Liberal government to refrain from supporting resolutions that clearly discriminated against Israel. On another occasion, B’nai Brith made it clear that a Canadian Foreign Minister should not be paying tribute and homage to the memory of Yasser Arafat whose Fatah and al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade were instrumental in carrying out terrorist acts against Israel. Floral wreaths should not be placed on his tomb.
Similarly, B’nai Brith, as a matter of principle, felt that it was unconscionable that Hezbollah was not included in its entirety on the list of banned organizations in Canada. We took the unprecedented step of launching legal action against our own government on this issue, and we prevailed.
Ironically, when we launched this legal challenge, we came under attack from some in the community who felt government was sacrosanct and should never be publicly challenged, but the leadership of B’nai Brith acted on a matter of principle. It was the same sense of principle that prompted B’nai Brith Canada to warn of the growing rise of antisemitism and to warn of the danger that would confront our students on campus.
Today Israel faces a new threat, the threat which endangers the safety and security of the entire world as we know it. With Hezbollah, an Islamist terrorist group, shelling civilians in northern Israel on a daily basis, Prime Minister Harper has acted as he has done throughout his career. His response was predicated on principle. Our prime minister deserves our respect for his clear decisive actions, and this was not the first such action of his term.
B’nai Brith Canada was the only Jewish organization that publicly issued a statement commending this government for its decision not to recognize the Hamas terrorist government and the Palestinian Liberation Organization.
Let there be no misunderstanding, the Jewish community has many good friends in the Liberal Party as well as within the NDP and Bloc Quebecois. Our job is to ensure that our friends in those parties also act on principle and not waver in the face of a bad poll. We commend members of the Jewish community, some of whom worked actively to defeat the Conservative party in the last election, for now publicly recognizing the leadership qualities of the prime minister. We hope that the Liberal Party of Canada will also elect a leader of principle who will likewise support Israel as a sister democracy and stand committed to eradicating terrorism, domestically and internationally.
Defence of Israel, a strong stand against global terrorism, abhorrence of antisemitism – these should not be partisan issues. B’nai Brith Canada will continue to work with the leadership of all political parties in this country and we trust that, as a result of recent action by some Jewish leaders, we can reunite the Jewish community and work in an atmosphere of mutual respect, advancing the issues which are of utmost concern to us all.
Our cause is a better Canada, a tolerant Canada, and a strong world-class leader in the fight to protect democracy and oppose the tyranny of global terrorism – wherever it may strike.
Frank Dimant is Executive Vice-President of B’nai Brith Canada

Hezbollah pays cash to those who lost homes
Associated Press
Published August 19, 2006
QANA, Lebanon -- In an embarrassment to the Lebanese government, Hezbollah began handing out $100 bills Friday to residents who lost their homes in the Israeli bombing campaign--$12,000 to each claimant at a school in south Beirut.
Applicants who had signed up for the aid this week showed up at a school in the Bourj el-Barajneh neighborhood, showed identification papers and only had to sign a receipt. Hezbollah workers promptly handed the residents stacks of bills from a suitcase. The militant group is financed by oil-rich Iran.
The Lebanese government said government officials and UN agencies were undertaking assessments countrywide.
Meanwhile, in a televised speech, Lebanese President Emile Lahoud paid tribute to Hezbollah fighters, who he said "brought down the legend of the invincible [Israeli] army. I also salute the leader of the resistance, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, who wanted this victory to be for all the Lebanese and Arab people."
But the government in Beirut also moved to rein in the power of the militant group, vowing to take over all border crossings nationwide, including 60 known smuggling routes from Syria that were used to supply arms to Hezbollah. And to the southeast, the Lebanese army took control of their first border village, Kfar Kila, from withdrawing Israeli forces.The deployment marks the first time the Lebanese army has moved in force to a region that was held by Palestinian guerrillas in the 1970s and by Hezbollah since Israeli troops withdrew from the area in 2000.
Lebanese troops also deployed in the town of Shebaa near the Israeli-occupied and disputed Shebaa Farms, which Lebanon claims but which Israel seized from Syria in 1967.