Brief Updates
The biggest news of the day, besides the acceptance by Ehud Olmert of a "peace" proposal that may go down in history as one of the most infamous for Israel, was word that the IDF was aggressively pursuing the task of fighting Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. For a brief moment I thought Tzahal was rebelling against Olmert, but...
According to Libération:
Despite the resolution voted at the UN, calling for an end to hostilities, the Israeli army announced on Saturday that it had undertaken the expansion of its land offensive in southern Lebanon and that its forces were heading towards the Litani River.
The army was clear to point out that it was obeying orders issued by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz.
The announcement of this implementation came a few hours after the adoption by the Security Council of the UN calling for an end to the conflict that has been going on for a month.
Israel had previously made it known that it would not stop its military operations immediately. The Hebrew State and Lebanon are to officially examine the UN resolution on Sunday and to announce their decision.
It was also learned that Olmert has already met with Vladimir Putin and Romano Prodi who congratulated him, saying that Italy would send 3000 soldiers to bolster the international force expected to be formed in southern Lebanon. France is scheduled to lead the multinational peace-keeping force.
Another small article from Guysen relates the distress of the inhabitants of northern Israel:
The northern front: border towns in northern Israel, those most affected by the firing of the Katyushas, are asking the IDF to "finish its job." The mayors of the cities involved have assembled to debate the cease-fire resolution of the UN. They are demanding the establishment of a special commission for the development and protection of their municipalities.
"Don't leave us naked and defenseless in the hands of Hezbollah," they declared.
The summary of this day is that the United States perceives Israel as unwilling to fight to the finish, and so may not see any pressing reason to defend Israel in future conflicts. The best thing Bush/Rice could have done would have been to force Olmert to continue on, or to condemn him for not doing so.
But Bush/Rice have no track record of sticking to an offensive against Islamic forces. They, too, like the Israeli left, prefer appeasement and useless "peace" proposals that merely buy time and guarantee that future conflicts will be even bloodier, if not catastrophic.
And so, it would appear, Hezbollah comes out way ahead, unless there is true mutiny in the IDF and they take it upon themselves to either finish what they started or desert in great numbers, or unless Israel itself rises up against its prime minister and replaces him immediately with a patriot. All of this is very unlikely in view of the ideological divides within Israel.
All in all, a depressing day for Israel.
posted by tiberge @ 8:44 PM
4 comments
links to this post
4 Comments:
Tiberge, what do you think about French troops being mixed up in this? If I were Israeli I would be worried about having them in control of S. Lebanese territory. For example: one would think that they would be inclined to let Hezbollah act without hindrance, while preventing (by their presence) any future Israeli attacks on Hezbollah. Do the French armed forces have similar pro-Muslim views to the French government's?...
@ snowpea
As usual I cannot give the specific answers I would like to give. First of all I have read that 20% of the French army is already Muslim! I have no proof of that, nor do I know exactly who will be sent to Southern Lebanon. If I were Israeli, I would be dreading the presence of a UN French-led force there, since the ideology of the French gov't, as you point out, is pro-Hezbollah. If French soldiers are killed by HZ, that will be one thing, but if they are killed by Israelis that will no doubt be something far worse in the eyes of the French public.
The French gov't has really been pushing hard for this cease-fire, and note that the UN resolution says NOTHING about the Israeli prisoners.
It's a calamity for Israel. It's not unthinkable for HZ to kill some soldiers and make it look like Israel did it.
An article by LeConservateur which I will try to post today or tomorrow expresses doubts about the presence of French soldiers there because of the danger from HZ. His patriotic point of view is that not one French soldier's life is worth this venture.
Still, I'm sure most French soldiers will acquit themselves well. They have been helping us in Afghanistan. But they will be caught in hornet's nest, to put it mildly.
Notice also how quick Socialist Italy was to offer 3000 men! When Italian soldiers were killed in Iraq and when that Italian reporter was kidnapped, there was an outcry. Let's see what happens now.
The infuriating thing is that the IDF probably could have permanently disabled HZ. I heard they had an excellent battle plan that was rejected by Olmert, in favor of his "kinder gentler" one.
The following is from an article by J.R. Dunn at The American Thinker. It probably won't come as news to those who are following events closely.
"...if Hezb’allah again starts lobbing Katyushas into Northern Israel, does the UN then turn on Hezb’allah, or do the Israelis attack through the UN forces? (The latest word at publication time is that the Israelis claim the right to do exactly this.)" (Emphasis added.)
(His link for this information seems to be in error, however.) Dunn also comments more generally on Israel's acceptance of a UN force:
"But the most critical development is this: one of the major elements – perhaps the major element – of Israeli foreign policy is the premise that under no circumstances would Israel be dependent on any other nation for its survival. It could scarcely be any other way, the Jews being the sole existing people that the modern world once attempted to destroy. To depend on anyone else would be to invite a repetition of that ordeal. No greater responsibility lies on the shoulders of any Israeli politician than to see that situation maintained.
"But now, thanks to Ehud Olmert, it is over. Israel now depends for its security on the United States and the UN. These are frail reeds. The U.S. has always been faithful, but that can no longer be guaranteed, with the Democrats now being taken over by their maniac wing. That’s unlikely to be permanent, but may continue for several years; and all it takes is one more Jimmy Carter. As for the UN, they have never given a damn and never will...."
@ snowpea
Thanks for the quote. It's an excellent summary of so many articles I've seen. At Front Page Magazine, for example, there's a photo of Olmert with the words "Sell Out". I think even the Israeli Left is shocked, since Olmert is so far down in the polls. He has almost no support.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home