Stunning and confusing developments in Israel

(Note: I’m starting to doubt the judgment of the analysts at Stratfor.com. The below report from Stratfor which I posted here Saturday afternoon strongly suggests that the new Israeli military advance into southern Lebanon shows that the Israeli government has rejected the cease-fire that Olmert had previously agreed to and is embarking on serious aggressive action aimed at gaining complete control of southern Lebanon; but that, as all subsequent news reports have made clear, is not the case at all. Israel has accepted the cease fire and this military advance seems to be more of a political move aimed at improving Israel’s relative position prior to the start of the cease-fire than a serious military attack aimed at defeating Hezbollah. This is not the first time Stratfor has overhyped Israel’s actions. On July 30, Stratfor reported sweeping IDF actions moving westward from the Israeli panhandle deep inside southern Lebanon along the Litani river outflanking and surrounding Hazbollah in southern Lebanon. In the days following, it became clear that nothing of the kind had taken place.)

Yesterday Olmert indicated his support for the cease-fire. Today the UN Security Council approved it unanimously. But now I hear in an e-mailed report from Stratfor.com that “Israel has moved, in force, into southern Lebanon.” At the same time, Olmert has announced his plans to withdraw from the West Bank, and Israeli reservists gathered to fight in Lebanon are vocally protesting. First, the Stratfor story:

Israel has moved, in force, into southern Lebanon.Whatever the political crisis was yesterday, Israel has clearly decided to invade southern Lebanon, at the very least. The apparent battle between those who oppose a full invasion and those who support one appears to have been settled in favor of the latter.

After the U.N. cease-fire resolution was approved, Israel Defense Forces’ (IDF) Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz said that operations in Lebanon were expanding, and that he expected to conduct offensive operations there for another week, despite the resolution. Brig. Gen. Alon Friedman, IDF’s Northern Command chief of staff, told reporters he expects combat operations to push all the way to the Litani River and other areas that Hezbollah has used to launch rockets into Israel. So far, he said, the political leaders “have not instructed us to stop the operation.”

Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz, Halutz and other senior IDF officers visited Northern Command headquarters in Safed late Aug. 11. This meeting appears to have been to approve last-minute changes to the expanded offensive, and to coordinate the initial phase of the attack.

IDF troops began advancing from their staging areas in Israel north and west across south Lebanon toward the Litani River and the Mediterranean. IDF said taking the area would take several days and clearing it could take weeks. The Israeli air force struck Hezbollah positions in the south and other targets all across the country. Power was cut off in Tyre and Sidon, probably to degrade Hezbollah’s command, control and communications. Bottom line: Whatever the U.N. Security Council might have intended, the outcome in Israel was an IDF order to disarm Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. At present, there is only air action in the Bekaa Valley.

For IDF ground forces, the fighting has been intense as units have engaged entrenched Hezbollah positions. IDF reports killing 20 Hezbollah fighters Aug. 12, and Hezbollah claims to have destroyed 21 Israeli armored vehicles and killed or wounded a large number of IDF troops. It appears that the IDF westward advance is pushing west from Taibe and Qantara, on an axis about five miles from the Israeli border. In the largest IDF airlift in 30 years, troops were airlifted into battle by some 50 helicopters.

In one of their deepest incursions into southern Lebanon, Israeli commandos supported by air power assaulted the village of Al Ghandourieh, approximately 10 miles southwest of the Israeli-held town of Marjayoun, early Aug. 12, meeting stiff resistance. This area overlooks valleys used by Hezbollah to conceal and launch their rockets, and can be expected to be heavily contested. The IDF advance appears to have disrupted Hezbollah rocket artillery operations, with no rockets launched during the morning and only 30 launched at Qiryat Shemona and Amirim. Hezbollah had been launching an average of 200 artillery rockets into northern Israel per day.

The advance seen thus far is methodical and, in spite of reports, fairly conservative. The Israelis do not seem to be carrying out slashing armored attacks, but are concentrating on combined arms operations to isolate and destroy strong points. It is now clear that, unless another shift takes place among Israeli leadership, the destruction we expected in the south is taking place. This has already diminished rocket fire into Israel, but we remain doubtful that all rocket attacks can be shut down by attacking the south. Further operations remain an option, although that option is uncertain in this political environment.

How could Israel simultaneously approve the cease-fire and launch a new offensive? The mind reels.

The mind reels further at a report from Galliawatch that Olmert told the AP on August 3 that he was planning to withdraw from the West Bank as soon as the fighting stops in southern Lebanon. The following is an abridged version that the editor of Galliawatch has just sent me.

Eight days ago a French-language article appeared in Arouts Sheva revealing that Ehud Olmert was planning to withdraw from the West Bank very soon. In an address to the Associated Press, Olmert is quoted as saying:

“The delineation of a new border will stabilize the region and will prove that terrorism can be defeated. The moment will then be favorable to prepare the way for a withdrawal that will allow us to separate ourselves from the Palestinians. It won’t be easy, but I’m ready to do it.”

His words set off shock waves throughout the Israeli army, especially among those reservists who were mobilized to go fight in Lebanon. A petition was drawn up against Olmert. One of the initiators of this revolt confided in the website Ynet:

“We were called to fight against Hezbollah in the North. We were preparing to join our unit when we heard the remarks of the Prime Minister who indicated that the victory in Lebanon would give new stimulus to his plan for withdrawal.”

The signatories say in the petition:

“We have learned through the media that for the Prime Minister, the military successes in Lebanon will facilitate the implementation of his new plan to evacuate most of the Jewish localities of Judea-Samaria…These remarks have wounded us deeply just at the moment when we were preparing to rejoin the battle. Are we being called upon to fight and to risk our lives so that our terrorist enemies are rewarded when the war ends? Must we win this battle in order to help the government uproot the houses and destroy the villages of some of its soldiers? The best of them have already given their lives, in these last several days, in the course of combat in Lebanon. Don’t you think that such declarations risk having a deadly influence on the soldiers’ morale?”

Some reservists are going a step further:

“We have just finished our training and we were preparing to leave on our mission. I run a business but I didn’t hesitate when I received my orders. I immediately rejoined my unit. But when I heard Olmert’s declarations, I understood that I was being used for political ends and I don’t think I should continue my service in these conditions.”

Another reservist declared:

“The prime Minister could not hold his tongue and already revealed his withdrawal plans. He introduced the political game right in the middle of the war and triggered a split among the troops. Should I risk my life only to allow him to destroy my family’s house?”

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 12, 2006 02:11 PM | Send