Guardian Special

Guardian:
Israel to escalate offensive

Staff and agencies
Tuesday August 8, 2006

Heavy ground fighting between Israeli troops and Hizbullah guerrillas was today continuing as UN diplomats struggled to stop a peace plan from collapsing.

Israel - continuing to carry out air strikes - pounded villages and hills throughout the south of Lebanon, and the Israeli military said a complete curfew had been imposed on any civilians still trapped in the war zone.

Leaflets warning residents that the offensive would be escalated were dropped from Israeli planes.

Israel said humanitarian convoys would be permitted into the area, but warned that any other vehicles on roads south of the Litani river, around 18 miles north of the border, could be targeted.

It also attacked some villages north of the river, according to reports.

This afternoon, it was reported that Israeli air strikes had hit a neighbourhood in Ghaziyeh, a Shia town south of the port city of Sidon, in which a funeral procession was taking place.

Reports conflicted on how many people had been killed, with some claiming one fatality and others six.

Mourners had been burying the 15 people killed in yesterday's Israeli air strikes. Around 1,500 people were seen running through the streets in panic, the Associated Press said.

Reuters said the immediate surroundings of the procession had not been hit, but nearby buildings had collapsed.

The mayor of Ghaziyeh said five bodies had been pulled from the rubble, and up to 15 people were trapped. The town is overflowing with people displaced by the fighting, and its population has swelled to around 23,000.

Witnesses claimed one of the destroyed buildings belonged to a cleric with links to Hizbullah.

Around 80 air Israeli strikes were launched against Lebanon overnight, Reuters said, while Hizbullah fired more than 140 rockets into Israel. At least 49 Lebanese people and three Israeli soldiers were killed.

The Israeli military claimed to have killed 15 Hizbullah fighters in fierce fighting around the hilltop town of Bint Jbeil today. Israel has been attempting to control the Hizbullah stronghold for weeks.

Anti-tank missiles killed one Israeli soldier and wounded five others near the town, the Israeli army said, while Al Arabiya television said two more Israeli soldiers had been killed.

Hizbullah claimed its fighters had destroyed an Israeli tank on the outskirts of the village of Ainata, causing casualties. Hizbullah television said pre-dawn attacks had been made on Israeli forces near Naqoura, around two and a half miles north of the border.

At least 961 Lebanese have been killed in the conflict, which began after Hizbullah's capture of two Israeli soldiers on July 12, and 98 Israelis have died.

The main obstacle facing the UN is resistance by Lebanon and its Arab allies to part of a resolution, drafted by the US and France, that would allow Israel to keep troops in southern Lebanon until a UN peacekeeping force arrived. There are around 10,000 Israeli troops in Lebanon.

Arab envoys have travelled to the UN and New York to argue Lebanon's case for getting Israel to withdraw its soldiers.

Washington and Paris were today expected to circulate a new draft in response to amendments proposed by Qatar - the only Arab nation on the 15-nation security council - and other members, diplomats said.

A vote is not expected to take place until tomorrow at the earliest.

The proposed changes include a call for Israeli forces to withdraw from Lebanon once fighting stops, handing over their positions to UN peacekeepers.

Arab states also want the UN to take control of the disputed Shebaa Farms area, which Israel seized in 1967.

Tony Blair told Sky News a UN resolution could be secured by tomorrow, but said it would not include the demand for an Israeli pullout called for by Lebanon.

The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, said the Lebanese announcement of a plan to send 15,000 of its troops to the south when Israel pulls out was an "interesting step".

"The faster we can leave south Lebanon, the happier we will be," Mr Olmert said, adding that there had never been any intention to occupy the country.

It appears Israeli leaders are reluctant to embrace Lebanon's offer more strongly because of concerns it could be a ploy to get Israeli troops out of south Lebanon without having first removed Hizbullah.

The US president, George Bush, has said he is concerned that Hizbullah could exploit any vacuum created by an interim period between the end of hostilities and the arrival of international troops.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1839799,00.html

---

Guardian:
Lebanon ready to deploy army in south

Ewen MacAskill and Oliver Burkeman in New York
Tuesday August 8, 2006

The Lebanese army called up 5,000 reservists last night to prepare for deployment along the border to try to speed up the departure of Israeli forces, the main hurdle to the United Nations security council adopting a ceasefire resolution.

The Lebanese army will only be deployed when Israel and Hizbullah agree to end hostilities.

The army, regarded as neutral by Israel, has not been involved in the present conflict. Its deployment would mark a significant change in the balance of power within the country: for more than 20 years southern Lebanon has been a virtual no-go area for the Lebanese army.

Timing on a vote on the draft ceasefire resolution slipped again yesterday. The draft calls for a full cessation of hostilities but would allow the Israeli army to take "defensive" action against Hizbullah.

Diplomats at the security council last night suspended discussion to await the arrival of a three-man delegation from the Arab League, which represents all the Arab states, to put counter-proposals on behalf of Lebanon.

Fouad Siniora, the Lebanese prime minister, told a meeting of his cabinet that he wanted the troops deployed much quicker than had been generally expected. With tears in his eyes at an emergency meeting in Beirut of the Arab League, he rejected the ceasefire resolution until it contains a provision demanding Israel withdraws from Lebanon. Under Mr Siniora's proposal, up to 15,000 Lebanese troops would fan out in the south to guarantee an end to fighting, and the present UN peacekeeping force would be doubled to 4,000 troops to help until the international force arrives, an aide to the prime minister said.

Arab foreign ministers at the Beirut meeting vented their fury over the draft resolution they described as failing to "take Lebanon's interest and stability into account". Yahya Mahmassani, the Arab League's UN representative, said: "The presence of Israeli soldiers on Lebanese soil means that this is an army of occupation and therefore we are back to square one."

The US president, George Bush, speaking at his ranch at Crawford, Texas, said that whatever happened at the UN, the US would not permit a vacuum in southern Lebanon into which Hizbullah, backed by Iran and Syria, could move fresh weapons.

He said the two-stage peace plan under discussion envisaged the Lebanese army, backed by an international force, probably led by France, moving into the Israeli border area and the international force also patrolling the Syria border to stop illegal arms shipments. "As these Lebanese and international forces deploy, the Israeli Defence Forces will withdraw and both Israel and Lebanon will respect the Blue Line that divides them," Mr Bush said.

An international force of about 15,000-20,000 is proposed to back up the Lebanese army. A Lebanese army statement last night called on retired officers and regular soldiers who completed service five years ago to report to various military sections across the country from August 10 to 16.

But there are many hurdles before the Lebanese army will be in a position to deploy, not least a ceasefire.

The Israeli government is reluctant to accept a truce until it can claim victory over Hizbullah. Brigadier-General Yossi Kuperwasser told a press conference in Jerusalem yesterday that the militia group was far from defeated. "Crushing Hizbullah is not like ordering pizza. It takes time," he said.

Although Tony Blair and Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, predicted more than a week ago there would be a deal within days, a vote at the UN security council is unlikely before tomorrow at the earliest.

US, French and British diplomats expressed irritation over the delay. The British government believes the presence of an Arab League ambassador at the UN means there is no need to await the three-man delegation. The government is also puzzled as to why France, which it had been assumed was negotiating on behalf of Lebanon, failed to square it with Beirut before going public with the draft resolution.

The US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, said Lebanon had been involved in early drafts of the plan. "Throughout the entire consultation process ... we were in very close contact with the government of Lebanon and the government of Israel."

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006

http://www.guardian.co.uk/syria/story/0,,1839398,00.html

---

Guardian:
Analysis: ceasefire resolution

UN deal may come too late to end fighting as obstacles to truce continue to mount

Ewen MacAskill and Rory McCarthy
Tuesday August 8, 2006

The UN security council will almost certainly adopt a ceasefire resolution this week, in spite of objections from Lebanon and others in the Arab world. But diplomats and analysts were united in despair yesterday, expressing doubts that the resolution could stop the fighting.

"It does not look good," one European diplomat said. "There is nobody interested in stopping now. Hizbullah has no reason to stop. The discrepancy between what is being discussed at the diplomatic table and what is happening on the ground is terrible."

They fear the draft resolution may have come too late. There is concern it is too weighted towards Israel and risks destabilising Lebanon's moderate government.

Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, said on Sunday that once there was a resolution in place, it would be clear who was interested in peace and who was not. The assumption behind her words was that Israel would obey the ceasefire call and Hizbullah might not.

But the reality may be that neither side will obey a ceasefire call. The draft resolution would allow Israel to continue "defensive" operations against Hizbullah and for its forces to remain in southern Lebanon. It is doubtful if Israel could, at this stage, accept a ceasefire when Ehud Olmert, the prime minister, has so little to show for almost four weeks of fighting.

Hizbullah could welcome a ceasefire and declare itself victorious, having stood up to the Israelis longer than any Arab army. But the group has said it would not accept any deal that leaves Israel occupying southern Lebanon.

There are face-saving measures available for both sides. If Israel were to secure the release of the two soldiers held by Hizbullah, that would help Mr Olmert persuade the Israeli public the war was justified. If Israel was to hand over Sheba'a Farms, a pocket of land it held after its withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, Hizbullah could claim a symbolic victory. But a deal on either is not in the draft resolution.

Nadim Shehadi, a specialist on Lebanon at the thinktank, Chatham House, was pessimistic. His estimate was that the draft resolution had a "less than 50% chance of success".

He said the resolution offered a chance to contain the conflict locally but that might be too late. The danger was of a wider regional engagement of Syria and Iran. In that case the Bush administration had two choices: make a deal with Syria, which would be a high price to pay, or go to war.

"If the US says 'we do not have the stomach [to make a deal] and do not accept defeat', then probably you have a regional military escalation," he said.

"If there was an attack on Syria, it will involve Iran because they have a pact. It means Iraq goes up in smoke. Everything in Iraq could look like a warm-up if Iran manages to set off a Shia rising. You would have the British army in a Zulu situation."

He said Iran had been playing chess while the US has been playing poker. "The Americans have been bluffing, saying 'we are going to attack you'. Either you are bluffing or not. It is time to show the cards," Mr Shehadi said.

Shlomo Avineri, a professor of political science at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, held out hope that the intervention of the Arab League, which represents all Arab governments, in support of Lebanon at the UN might yet avoid such an apocalyptic outcome. "What's happening here is an example of the strong hold that Hizbullah has over the Lebanese government," he said. "I think the Lebanese government would have accepted the draft resolution, but Hizbullah insist on their terms, which is that a ceasefire comes after an Israeli withdrawal.

Professor Avineri said there might be a way forward if the Arab League were to "provide a shield" against Hizbullah. "If they have that shield, then Lebanon might be able to accept that first step of the US-French draft and perhaps one can see progress," he said.

He said the Israeli public was still behind the government, but it expected a positive result from the conflict. "The Israeli government has to insist on the deployment of an international force and cannot accept the Hizbullah ultimatum," he said. "You don't go back to square one at the end of this war.

"The Israeli government has to respond to what is now a very angry Israeli population that wants to see some sort of result."

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006

http://www.guardian.co.uk/syria/story/0,,1839464,00.html

---

Guardian: Israel responded
to an unprovoked attack by Hizbullah, right? Wrong

The assault on Lebanon was premeditated - the soldiers' capture simply provided the excuse. It was also unnecessary

by George Monbiot; August 07, 2006

Whatever we think of Israel's assault on Lebanon, all of us seem to agree about one fact: that it was a response, however disproportionate, to an unprovoked attack by Hizbullah. I repeated this "fact" in my last column, when I wrote that "Hizbullah fired the first shots". This being so, the Israeli government's supporters ask peaceniks like me, what would you have done? It's an important question. But its premise, I have now discovered, is flawed.

Since Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000, there have been hundreds of violations of the "blue line" between the two countries. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil) reports that Israeli aircraft crossed the line "on an almost daily basis" between 2001 and 2003, and "persistently" until 2006. These incursions "caused great concern to the civilian population, particularly low-altitude flights that break the sound barrier over populated areas". On some occasions, Hizbullah tried to shoot them down with anti-aircraft guns.

In October 2000, the Israel Defence Forces shot at unarmed Palestinian demonstrators on the border, killing three and wounding 20. In response, Hizbullah crossed the line and kidnapped three Israeli soldiers. On several occasions, Hizbullah fired missiles and mortar rounds at IDF positions, and the IDF responded with heavy artillery and sometimes aerial bombardment. Incidents like this killed three Israelis and three Lebanese in 2003; one Israeli soldier and two Hizbullah fighters in 2005; and two Lebanese people and three Israeli soldiers in February 2006. Rockets were fired from Lebanon into Israel several times in 2004, 2005 and 2006, on some occasions by Hizbullah. But, the UN records, "none of the incidents resulted in a military escalation".

On May 26 this year, two officials of Islamic Jihad - Nidal and Mahmoud Majzoub - were killed by a car bomb in the Lebanese city of Sidon. This was widely assumed in Lebanon and Israel to be the work of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency. In June, a man named Mahmoud Rafeh confessed to the killings and admitted that he had been working for Mossad since 1994. Militants in southern Lebanon responded, on the day of the bombing, by launching eight rockets into Israel. One soldier was lightly wounded. There was a major bust-up on the border, during which one member of Hizbullah was killed and several wounded, and one Israeli soldier wounded. But while the border region "remained tense and volatile", Unifil says it was "generally quiet" until July 12.

There has been a heated debate on the internet about whether the two Israeli soldiers kidnapped by Hizbullah that day were captured in Israel or in Lebanon, but it now seems pretty clear that they were seized in Israel. This is what the UN says, and even Hizbullah seems to have forgotten that they were supposed to have been found sneaking around the outskirts of the Lebanese village of Aita al-Shaab. Now it simply states that "the Islamic resistance captured two Israeli soldiers at the border with occupied Palestine". Three other Israeli soldiers were killed by the militants. There is also some dispute about when, on July 12, Hizbullah first fired its rockets; but Unifil makes it clear that the firing took place at the same time as the raid - 9am. Its purpose seems to have been to create a diversion. No one was hit.

But there is no serious debate about why the two soldiers were captured: Hizbullah was seeking to exchange them for the 15 prisoners of war taken by the Israelis during the occupation of Lebanon and (in breach of article 118 of the third Geneva convention) never released. It seems clear that if Israel had handed over the prisoners, it would - without the spillage of any more blood - have retrieved its men and reduced the likelihood of further kidnappings. But the Israeli government refused to negotiate. Instead - well, we all know what happened instead. Almost 1,000 Lebanese and 33 Israeli civilians have been killed so far, and a million Lebanese displaced from their homes.

On July 12, in other words, Hizbullah fired the first shots. But that act of aggression was simply one instance in a long sequence of small incursions and attacks over the past six years by both sides. So why was the Israeli response so different from all that preceded it? The answer is that it was not a reaction to the events of that day. The assault had been planned for months.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that "more than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to US and other diplomats, journalists and thinktanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail". The attack, he said, would last for three weeks. It would begin with bombing and culminate in a ground invasion. Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University, told the paper that "of all of Israel's wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared ... By 2004, the military campaign scheduled to last about three weeks that we're seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it's been simulated and rehearsed across the board".

A "senior Israeli official" told the Washington Post that the raid by Hizbullah provided Israel with a "unique moment" for wiping out the organisation. The New Statesman's editor, John Kampfner, says he was told by more than one official source that the US government knew in advance of Israel's intention to take military action in Lebanon. The Bush administration told the British government.

Israel's assault, then, was premeditated: it was simply waiting for an appropriate excuse. It was also unnecessary. It is true that Hizbullah had been building up munitions close to the border, as its current rocket attacks show. But so had Israel. Just as Israel could assert that it was seeking to deter incursions by Hizbullah, Hizbullah could claim - also with justification - that it was trying to deter incursions by Israel. The Lebanese army is certainly incapable of doing so. Yes, Hizbullah should have been pulled back from the Israeli border by the Lebanese government and disarmed. Yes, the raid and the rocket attack on July 12 were unjustified, stupid and provocative, like just about everything that has taken place around the border for the past six years. But the suggestion that Hizbullah could launch an invasion of Israel or that it constitutes an existential threat to the state is preposterous. Since the occupation ended, all its acts of war have been minor ones, and nearly all of them reactive.

So it is not hard to answer the question of what we would have done. First, stop recruiting enemies, by withdrawing from the occupied territories in Palestine and Syria. Second, stop provoking the armed groups in Lebanon with violations of the blue line - in particular the persistent flights across the border. Third, release the prisoners of war who remain unlawfully incarcerated in Israel. Fourth, continue to defend the border, while maintaining the diplomatic pressure on Lebanon to disarm Hizbullah (as anyone can see, this would be much more feasible if the occupations were to end). Here then is my challenge to the supporters of the Israeli government: do you dare to contend that this programme would have caused more death and destruction than the current adventure has done?

www.monbiot.com

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1839280,00.html