Author: Helena

Aluf Benn, writes in today’s Haaretz:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Sunday met with the parents of abducted Israel Defense Forces soldiers Eldad Regev and Udi Goldwasser and told them that Israel will negotiate with Hezbollah over their release. Defense Minister Amir Peretz also attended the meeting.
Olmert gave the parents an update on the UN resolution and on the steps Israel is taking in order to release the three abducted soldiers (including IDF soldier Gilad Shalit abducted on the Gaza-Israel border). The prime minister said that Israel is doing its utmost to bring about the release of the two, who were kidnapped by Hezbollah on July 12 on Israel’s northern border.
The UN resolution on cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon calls for the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers, but is not included as a binding section in the resolution.
A senior diplomatic source said Israel has no information on the fate of Regev and Goldwasser, but it is assumed they are still alive. The source said the IDF has launched high-risk operations to obtain information on the abductees, but they were all unsuccessful.
The source said also that Israel did not condition the cease-fire on the release of the soldiers because it would have led to the continuation of the fighting and the loss of more life…

Olmert the humanitarian. (Irony alert, there.)
Well, I am delighted he has decided to subscribe to the UN ceasefire– even if only in his own very unsweet time. But imagine how much death, devastation, heartache, and hatred he could have avoided if he had decided to negotiate with Hizbullah on July 12 not August 12.
The tragedy of this is beyond words.
(There’s a lot more to say about today’s news. But I’m using my friend Ann Kerr’s landline to connect. I’m blocking her phone, and need to stop doing so. I rely on commenters to flesh out the picture here– thanks!)

Lebanon has a ceasefire resolution. I am happy that there is a chance of the killing being ended soon because of it– But this is clearly only a chance, since the Israeli government has said it won’t stop its military operations that are now pushing ever deeper into Lebanon until 7 a.m. local time Monday, at the earliest, and Hizbullah’s leader has said that Hizbullah will continue fighting as long as Israeli soldiers remained in Lebanon.
The Israeli forces don’t seem to be doing too well. Eleven have been killed inside Lebanon so far today, and “dozens” wounded. It looks as if the ground operations they’ve been undertaking have taken them into a series of well-prepared Hizbullah traps.
A poll conducted by Haaretz on Wednesday found that,

Only 20 percent of respondents said that if the war ended today, it would be possible to declare Israel the winner. Some 30 percent said that Israel is losing, while 44 percent said that neither side is winning.
However, many people said that they had trouble answering this question, as they lacked relevant data.
Only 39 percent of the respondents backed the cabinet’s decision to expand the ground operation.

This does not look like good news for Olmert, to say the least.
Meanwhile, the popularity of Hizbullah and its leader Sayed Hassan Nasrullah, has continued to increase throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds– mainly because of Hizbullah’s ability to keep fighting despite the month of extremely lethal Israeli assaults.
The text of the ceasefire resolution as passed still looks to me to be very favorable to Israel. One very good aspect of it is, of course, the call for a “full cessation of hostilities”– even if, in Israel’s case that is then described only as, “the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations.” But as we all know, everything Israel has done in Lebanon over the past month has been fully “defensive”– right? (Irony alert.)
The resolution, number 1701, also calls for a total Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, which is excellent. But again, it qualifies this by saying that upon full cessation of hostilities the government of Lebanon and Unifil should deploy their forces together throughout the South, and the government of Israel should, “as that deployment begins, … withdraw all of its forces from southern Lebanon in parallel.” In other words, it doesn’t call (as resolution 425 did, back in 1978) for Israel to withdraw “forthwith”… but it allows Israel to stay in Lebanon until UNIFIL is ready to deploy, alongside the Lebanese Army, into the south. Beefing up UNIFIL from its present troop level of 2,000 to its projected level of 15,000 will take some weeks.
For all that time the IOF is in Lebanon, there will be a very high risk of renewed fighting. Plus, what on earth further havoc might they wreak on the infrastructure in the areas under their control?
One of the many other problems with the resolution (as I read it on the BBC website) is that in clause 15 (a) it seems to forbid “the sale or supply to any entity or individual in Lebanon of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, whether or not originating in their territories… ” So not only Hizbullah but also the Government of Lebanon is apparently to be starved of any new arms supply? So how are the government forces supposed to act effectively in South Lebanon or anywhere else in the coming period?
Israel, of course, is subject to no such arms embargo, even as it proceeds with its evidently very lethal operations inside and against Lebanon…
Again, one good aspect of the resolution is that it does now (clause 18) “[Stress] the importance of, and the need to achieve, a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, based on all its relevant resolutions including its resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 and 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973.”
This is a very positive provision to include in the resolution. Not nearly as strong as what I’d advocated for in my CSM column of last Thursday. But it is important that the resolution has given at least some recognition to the fact that the violencebetween Lebanon and Israel is integrally linked to the broader Arab-Israeli peace process.
Let’s hope that future resolutions related to this region go much further in mandating a speedy resolution of the entire Arab-Israeli conflict on the basis of those wellknown resolutions.

I know that in every war, the soldiers like to kvetch and complain. But it strikes me the complaining is notably loud, notably early among Israel’s attack force going into Lebanon.
HaAretz’s Roni Singer-Heruti writes in Thursday’s paper:

“I feel like we’ve been thrown into the field and told to get along,” Ram Dagan, who serves with a combat unit called up to the Lebanese border 10 days ago, said on his first leave. “I’m not talking about showers, not even about the food that’s lacking, but about basic equipment to protect us. The helmets we’ve been issued are old-fashioned and hardly can be closed, and the body armor is 30 years old. It doesn’t close on the sides or on the neck. We don’t have a place to take shelter from rocket attack, and we are under fire all the time. We’ve been told that when we come under fire we should go into the APCs. But there are too many soldiers and not enough APCs. And anyway, they’re not missile-proof,” he said…

There’s more.
This is yet more evidence to me that the current assault against Lebanon was not long pre-planned but is being conducted by the strategically illiterate Olmert and Peretz almost completely on-the-fly and day-to-day.
I’ve been trying to define what the IDF/IOF’s actual war aims are as they conduct their horrendously lethal business in Lebanon. I think that, inasmuch as Olmert and Peretz are not merely acting out of childish pique and machismo (though let’s not misunderestimate that portion of their motivation) they probably are determined to try to “re-establish the credibility of the Israeli deterrent”. But they’ve already notably failed in doing so. The battering they gave Lebanon on July 12 did not cause Hizbullah to hold its fire on Juoly 13; and so on and on and on, every day since then.
Hizbullah, of course, is equally determined to to makes its point about not being deterred by Israel’s much greater display and use of lethal might.
Personally, I think Hizbullah has amply made its point by now and could simply retire from the battlefield with good grace, having proven that it is not beaten and not cowed, and therefore that the fates of Israel and its Arab neighbors are indeed tied together in interdependence rather than the region being in a situation where Israel can exercize its colonial domination as it desires over all its neighbors, quite unchecked from any quarter.
Israel, I believe, has failed to make its point. But that uncomfortable fact likely won’t stop Olmert and Peretz from proceeding and proceeding, digging themselves deeper into the mud of the Lebanese quagmire and the opprobrium of the civilized world with each week that passes.
There is a model for this, of course: the Bush administration “staying the course” on a road headed for a quite evident brick wall in Iraq.
Meanwhile, Hizbullah continues to say that it supports Fouad Siniora’s very sensible seven-point peace plan. Siniora spelled out the plan— once again– for a Washington readership in today’s WaPo.
Here’s what he wrote:

The plan, which also received the full support of the 56 member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, included an immediate, unconditional and comprehensive cease-fire and called for:
* The release of Lebanese and Israeli prisoners and detainees through the International Committee of the Red Cross.
* The withdrawal of the Israeli army behind the “blue line.”
* A commitment from the U.N. Security Council to place the Shebaa Farms and Kfar Shouba Hills areas under U.N. jurisdiction until border delineation and Lebanese sovereignty over them are fully settled. Further, Israel must surrender all maps of remaining land mines in southern Lebanon to the United Nations.
* Extension of the Lebanese government’s authority over its territory through its legitimate armed forces, with no weapons or authority other than that of the Lebanese state, as stipulated in the Taif accord. We have indicated that the Lebanese armed forces are ready and able to deploy in southern Lebanon, alongside the U.N. forces there, the moment Israel pulls back to the international border.
* The supplementing of the U.N. international force operating in southern Lebanon and its enhancement in numbers, equipment, mandate and scope of operation, as needed, to undertake urgent humanitarian and relief work and guarantee stability and security in the south so that those who fled their homes can return.
* Action by the United Nations on the necessary measures to once again put into effect the 1949 armistice agreement signed by Lebanon and Israel and to ensure adherence to its provisions, as well as to explore possible amendments to or development of those provisions as necessary.
* The commitment of the international community to support Lebanon on all levels, including relief, reconstruction and development needs.
As part of this comprehensive plan, and empowered by strong domestic political support and the unanimous backing of the cabinet, the Lebanese government decided to deploy the Lebanese armed forces in southern Lebanon as the sole domestic military force in the area, alongside U.N. forces there, the moment Israel pulls back to the international border.
Israel responded by slaughtering more civilians in the biblical town of Qana. Such horrible scenes have been repeated daily for nearly four weeks and continue even as I write these words.
The resolution to this war must respect international law and U.N. resolutions, not just those selected by Israel, a state that deserves its reputation as a pariah because of its consistent disdain for and rejection of international law and the wishes of the international community for over half a century…

What on earth is there to object to in any of the seven points, or in the call for an “immediate, unconditional and comprehensive cease-fire”? I believe the Siniora plan and the Siniora government should receive strong and immediate backing from all who want the suffering– on both sides of the international border– to end.
(And then all those suffering Israeli soldiers can finally return to the comforts of their homes…. While the hundreds of thousands of Lebanese whose neighborhoods and infrastructure have been obliterated by the IDF/IOF soldiers’ work get to return to– what? Well, at least to an opportunity to rebuild their homes and their lives.)

Jakob Kellenberger, the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has taken the heroic step of putting his life on the line in order to go visit the besieged city of Tyre in south Lebanon.

“Our main concern is access to south Lebanon,” he told reporters in the southern city of Tyre, which he could only reach after walking along a thin log to cross the Litani River after two bridges were destroyed by Israeli strikes.
Desperately needed humanitarian aid has not been able to reach those in the south after Israeli strikes destroyed dozens of roads and bridges in the area.
“Our other main concern is the respect of basic rules of humanitarian law in the conduct of hostilities,” he said, noting that 100,000 people in Lebanon were living in dire conditions.
“You cannot rid yourself of your responsibility by dropping leaflets,” he said.
The Israeli military on Tuesday dropped flyers on south Lebanon, warning it would strike any vehicle travelling south of the Litani river, an area that includes the port of Tyre.
Kellenberger insisted that all sides should make the “distinction between civilians and combatants, between civilian objectives and military objectives.”

You can learn more about the ICRC’s efforts in Lebanon by following the links on this page.
The ICRC is a key actor in internationational humanitarian affairs since it has been the “depositary body” for the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Conventions, and many other crucial treaties in the field of international humanitarian law. Very often, it works quietly and behind the scenes, careful to keep its ability to gain access to vulnerable populations, including POWs, by not angering the governments who control access to these persons.
Kellenberger and his secretariat must have decided that the need for humanitarian access to the scores or hundreds of thousands of beleaguered south Lebanese citizens whose entire region has now been declared a “free-fire zone” by Israel has become so dire that heroic, demonstrative action is necessary.
Another group seeking to create space for nonviolent, humanitarian action in south Lebanon is the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), which has sponsored many previous heroic acts of witness in Palestine.
Today, a respected friend in Beirut sent me this important announcement:

Press Release-Lebanon: An Open Country for Civil Resistance
Beirut August 7, 2006
Press Contacts:
Rasha Salti, +961 3 970855
Huwaida Arraf, +961 70 974452
Samah Idriss, +961 3 381349
Wadih Al Asmar, +961 70 950780
On August 12, at 7 am, Lebanese from throughout the country and international supporters who have come to Lebanon to express solidarity will gather in Martyr’s Square in Beirut to form a civilian convoy to the south of Lebanon. Hundreds of Lebanese and international civilians will express their solidarity with the inhabitants of the heavily destroyed south who have been bravely withstanding the assault of the Israeli military. This campaign is endorsed by more than 200 Lebanese and international organizations. This growing coalition of national and international non-governmental organizations hereby launches a campaign of civil resistance for the purpose of challenging the cruel and ruthless use of massive military force by Israel, the regional superpower, upon the people of Lebanon.
August 12 marks the start of this Campaign of Resistance, declaring Lebanon an Open Country for Civil Resistance. August 12 also marks both the international day of protest against the Israeli aggression.
“In the face of Israel’s systematic killing of our people, the indiscriminate bombing of our towns, the scorching of our villages, and the attempted destruction of our civil infrastructure, we say No! In the face of the forced expulsion of a quarter of our population from their homes throughout Lebanon, and the complicity of governments and international bodies, we re-affirm the acts of civil resistance that began from the first day of the Israeli assault, and we stress and add the urgent need to act!,” said Rasha Salti, one of the organizers of this national event.
After August 12, the campaign will continue with a series of civil actions, leading to an August 19 civilian march to reclaim the South. “Working together, in solidarity, we will overcome the complacency, inaction, and complicity of the international community and we will deny Israel its goal of removing Lebanese from their land and destroying the fabric of our country,” explained Samah Idriss, writer and co-organizer of this campaign.
“An international civilian presence in Lebanon is not only an act of solidarity with the Lebanese people in the face of unparalleled Israeli aggression, it is an act of moral courage to defy the will of those who would seek to alienate the West from the rest and create a new Middle East out of the rubble and blood of the region,” said Huwaida Arraf, co-founder of the International Solidarity Movement and campaign co-organizer. “After having witnessed the wholesale destruction of villages by Israel’s air force and navy and having visited the victims (so-called displaced) of Israel’s policy of cleansing Lebanese civilians from their homes,” continued Arraf, “it is imperative to go south and reach those who have stayed behind to resist by steadfastly remaining on their land.”
If you are in Lebanon and want to sign up and join the convoy, contact either:
Rasha Salti. Email: convois.citoyens.sud.liban@gmail.com. Tel: +961 3 970 855
Rania Masri. Email: rania.masri@balamand.edu.lb. Tel: +961 3 135 279
or +961 6 930 250 xt. 5683 or xt. 3933
If you are outside Lebanon and want to sign up and join the convoy, you should know:
1) You need to obtain a visa for Lebanon and for Syria if your plan is to enter Lebanon from Syria.
2) We don’t have the funds to cover for the cost of your travel, however we can help with finding accomodations.
For questions and help for all internationals please contact Adam Shapiro at: adamsop@hotmail.com
You can also sign up on our website: www.lebanonsolidarity.org [They have Arabic and Spanish versions of their announcement there, too. ~HC]
This campaign is thus far endorsed by more than 200 organizations,
including: The Arab NGOs Network for Development (ANND), International
Solidarity Movement (ISM), Cultural Center for Southern Lebanon, Norwegian
People’s Aid, Lebanese Center for Policy Studies, Lebanese Association for
Democratic Elections, Frontiers, Kafa, Nahwa al-Muwatiniya, Spring Hints,
Hayya Bina, Lebanese Transparency Association, Amam05, Lebanese Center for
Civic Education, Let’s Build Trust, CRTD-A, Solida, National Association
for Vocational Training and Social Services, Lebanese Development Pioneers,
Nadi Li Koul Alnas, and Lecorvaw.

This looks like an extremely important initiative. Well-organized, nonviolent nationalist mass action is the very best way for Lebanon to win its liberation while guarding its national unity and building the basis for a sustainable, robust national society. I am going to find out what else all of us can do to help this initiative.

On Monday, Lebanese PM Fuad Siniora annopunced his cabinet’s intention of sending 15,000 Lebanese Army troops to south Lebanon, and the call-up of reservists in order to constitute this force. President Bush has said that he welcomes both the general strengthening of the central Lebanese government and– more cautiously– the plans for the forward deployment into the south. But his snow-jobber Tony Snow has been at pains to argue that the Lebanese army will need a lot of help if they are to undertake this deployment, “and we’re working with allies to try to figure out the proper way to do it.”
Is this “working with allies” business really just about winning more time for the Israelis to continue their military actions in Lebanon? Is it about trying to ensure that the Lebanese army comes under even more intense western tutelage as it deploys down near the Israeli border? Or is it that, despite the rhetoric, the Bushites really sympathize a lot with the feelings of those Israeli strategists who would prefer not to have any meaningful Lebanese-and-UN force deployed in south Lebanon at all, since that would constrain Israel’s ability to act just as it wants to in and over Lebanon?
The largest U.N. force that’s in south Lebanon today is UNIFIL, which was deployed there in March 1978, in the wake of Israel’s first sustained ground-force movement into Lebanon. (In the resolution that established UNIFIL, resolution 425, the Security Council called on Israel to withdraw the forces it had sent into Lebanon “forthwith.” It took Israel a further, um, 22 years to comply. So you can just imagine what Israel might do this year, if the Lebanese government is not even able to get a demand for Israel to withdraw “forthwith”– i.e., immediately– into the text of the ceasefire resolution… )
Anyway, 425 also called for the deployment of Lebanese army units into the south alongside the UNIFIL troops. On July 31, 1978, the army sent a first detachment of 500 troops southward down the Bekaa Valley to enter the south– and guess what, Israel’s puppet forces of the so-called “South Lebanon Army” shelled the soldiers as they approached. And they haven’t been back there since.
Now, Haaretz has an AP piece in Wednesday’s paper that it has cautiously titled: “U.S. says doesn’t consider Lebanese deployment proposal a setback”. In it, the reporter writes that Tony Snow, “said the White House did not consider the offer a setback to negotiations over a cease-fire resolution among members of the UN Security Council.” That sounds like a distinctly less-than-glowing endorsement of Siniora’s proposal, don’t you think?
And over in this article by Aluf Benn and his colleagues, they write:

American officials are … deeply worried that other council members, such as France, might seize on the Lebanese Army’s deployment as an excuse to avoid creating [the desired kind of] international force. Israeli officials also said that they now doubt such a force will ever be established.
…However, American officials also stressed in their talks with Israeli counterparts that the administration is committed to ensuring the survival of Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora’s government, and this commitment will be a determining factor in its decisions.
Olmert also reacted unenthusiastically to Siniora’s offer to deploy the Lebanese Army Tuesday, saying merely that it was “interesting” and needed study. Government sources explained that Israel wants to know how the proposal will be implemented, and what the Lebanese Army actually intends to do about Hezbollah, before formulating its position. “We will not be satisfied with vague promises, like Abu Mazen’s promises to fight terror in the territories,” said one, referring to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.
Olmert stressed that Israel insists on full implementation of Security Council Resolution 1559, which calls for Hezbollah’s disarmament, and believes that this will require “strong military assistance from other countries.”