Israel Resource Review 5th August, 2006


Contents:

HIZBULLAH ROCKETS APPROACH TEL AVIV WITH IRANIAN ASSISTANCE
Middle East News Line


On August 3rd, the authoritative Middle East News Line confirmed that Iran acknowledged the supply of long-range missiles to Hizbullah. A senior Iranian official, Hujjat Mokhtashemi-Pour, said Hizbullah has obtained the Zelzal-2, which he said contained a range of 250 kilometers.

"Hizbullah acquired some of its expertise and capabilities on the Iranian front," Mokhtashemi-Pour told the Iranian daily Sharq. "Most of Hizbullah's trained forces fought in the [Iran-Iraq] war for eight years. Here in Lebanon, they take part in operations directly or covertly."

Indeed, Hizbullah has fulfilled its pledge to fire rockets that threaten Israel's commercial center.

On Friday night, August 4th, Hizbullah fired long-range rockets that landed in the Israeli city of Hadera, about 40 kilometers north of Tel Aviv. The rocket landings on August 4 marked the deepest penetration by Hizbullah in the 25-day-old war.

The Hizbullah attacks have sparked concern in Tel Aviv, which contains the military's high command and which hosts Israel's leading corporations. companies. Over the weekend, Israeli authorities began to prepare bomb shelters for Tel Aviv residents.

These rocket strikes came as the United Nations Security Council prepared to vote on a draft resolution for a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon.

The resolution, authored by France and the United States, called for the deployment of an international force in southern Lebanon.

Israel has widened its ground offensive in Lebanon in expectation of a halt in fighting by the middle of the week. Thousands of fresh troops have been sent into Lebanon as Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz were said to have disputed the goals of the military operation.

So far, Hizbullah has struck Israel with more than 3,000 Iranian- and Syrian-origin rockets, the military said on Saturday.

Since Israeli intelligence estimates that Hizbullah had more than 12,000 missiles at the inception of this conflict on July 12th, a simple mathematic calculation would show that Israel has not begun to eliminate the missile capacity of Hizbullah.

Israel has sought to attack Hizbullah command centers in southern Lebanon. Over the weekend, navy special operations units entered the Lebanese city of Tyre and struck a Hizbullah rocket center. The military said the center launched the rockets that struck Hadera. At least eight Israeli soldiers were reported injured. And five Israeli soliders were killed over the weekend.

"During the operation, forces killed a number of Hizbullah terrorists responsible for launching long-range rockets into Israel, including the launching of the rockets that hit Hadera," a military statement said.

Printer friendly version of this article

Return to Contents



Full text of UNSC draft resolution on Mideast cease-fire
{With Questions Placed by Dr. Aaron Lerner]


[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA: Imagine if a UN resolution dealing with the drug trade called for an immediate cessation of drug trade by the Mafia balanced by a call on the DEA to halt operations? How about a UN resolution calling for an immediate cessation of Al Qaeda attacks balanced by a call for a halt to all offensive operations against it.

Then again - what constitutes an "offensive" military operation? Is it "offensive" to operate to prevent the resupply of Hizbullah with weapons or is than an act of self defense?

Also: why is the release of the Israelis held hostage on the preamble but forgotten in the resolution?]

[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA: Imagine if a UN resolution dealing with the drug trade called for an immediate cessation of drug trade by the Mafia balanced by a call on the DEA to halt operations? How about a UN resolution calling for an immediate cessation of Al Qaeda attacks balanced by a call for a halt to all offensive operations against it.

Then again - what constitutes an "offensive" military operation? Is it "offensive" to operate to prevent the resupply of Hizbullah with weapons or is than an act of self defense?

Also: why is the release of the Israelis held hostage on the preamble but forgotten in the resolution?] ========================== Full text of UNSC draft resolution on Mideast cease-fire Associated Press, THE JERUSALEM POST August 5, 2006 www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525811296&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Text of draft Security Council resolution to end fighting between Israel and Hezbollah:

The Security Council,

PP1. Recalling all its previous resolutions on Lebanon, in particular resolutions 425 (1978), 426 (1978), 520 (1982), 1559 (2004), 1655 (2006) and 1680 (2006), as well as the statements of its President on the situation in Lebanon, in particular the statements of 18 June 2000 (S/PRST/2000/21), of 19 October 2004 (S/PRST/2004/36), of 4 May 2005 (S/PRST/2005/17) of 23 January 2006 (S/PRST/2006/3) and of 30 July 2006 (S/PRST/2006/35),

PP2. Expressing its utmost concern at the continuing escalation of hostilities in Lebanon and in Israel since Hezbollah's attack on Israel on 12 July 2006, which has already caused hundreds of deaths and injuries on both sides, extensive damage to civilian infrastructure and hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons,

PP3. Emphasizing the need for an end of violence, but at the same time emphasizing the need to address urgently the causes that have given rise to the current crisis, including by the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers,

PP4: Mindful of the sensitivity of the issue of prisoners and encouraging the efforts aimed at settling the issue of the Lebanese prisoners detained in Israel,

OP1. Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations;

OP2. Reiterates its strong support for full respect for the Blue Line;

OP3. Also reiterates its strong support for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized borders, as contemplated by the Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement of 23 March 1949; OP4. Calls on the international community to take immediate steps to extend its financial and humanitarian assistance to the Lebanese people, including through facilitating the safe return of displaced persons and, under the authority of the Government of Lebanon, reopening airports and harbours for verifiably and purely civilian purposes, and calls on it also to consider further assistance in the future to contribute to the reconstruction and development of Lebanon;

OP5. Emphasizes the importance of the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory in accordance with the provisions of resolution 1559 (2004) and resolution 1680 (2006), and of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, for it to exercise its full sovereignty and authority;

OP6. Calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution based on the following principles and elements:

- strict respect by all parties for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Israel and Lebanon; - full respect for the Blue Line by both parties; - delineation of the international borders of Lebanon, especially in those areas where the border is disputed or uncertain, including in the Chebaa farms area; - security arrangements to prevent the resumption of hostilities, including the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the Lebanese armed and security forces and of UN mandated international forces deployed in this area; - full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006) that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of July 27, 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state; - deployment of an international force in Lebanon, consistent with paragraph 10 below; - establishment of an international embargo on the sale or supply of arms and related material to Lebanon except as authorized by its government; - elimination of foreign forces in Lebanon without the consent of its government; - provision to the United Nations of remaining maps of land mines in Lebanon in Israel's possession;

OP7: Invites the Secretary General to support efforts to secure agreements in principle from the Government of Lebanon and the Government of Israel to the principles and elements for a long-term solution as set forth in paragraph 6 above;

OP8: Requests the Secretary General to develop, in liaison with key international actors and the concerned parties, proposals to implement the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), including disarmament, and for delineation of the international borders of Lebanon, especially in those areas where the border is disputed or uncertain, including by dealing with the Chebaa farms, and to present those proposals to the Security Council within thirty days;

OP9. Calls on all parties to cooperate during this period with the Security Council and to refrain from any action contrary to paragraph 1 above that might adversely affect the search for a long-term solution, humanitarian access to civilian populations, or the safe return of displaced persons, and requests the Secretary General to keep the Council informed in this regard;

OP10. Expresses its intention, upon confirmation to the Security Council that the Government of Lebanon and the Government of Israel have agreed in principle to the principles and elements for a long-term solution as set forth in paragraph 6 above, and subject to their approval, to authorize in a further resolution under Chapter VII of the Charter the deployment of a U.N. mandated international force to support the Lebanese armed forces and government in providing a secure environment and contribute to the implementation of a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution;

OP11. Requests UNIFIL, upon cessation of hostilities, to monitor its implementation and to extend its assistance to help ensure humanitarian access to civilian populations and the safe return of displaced persons;

OP12. Calls upon the Government of Lebanon to ensure arms or related materiel are not imported into Lebanon without its consent and requests UNIFIL, conditions permitting, to assist the Government of Lebanon at its request;

OP13. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council within one week on the implementation of this resolution and to provide any relevant information in light of the Councils intention to adopt, consistent with paragraph 10 above, a further resolution;

OP14. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.

Printer friendly version of this article

Return to Contents



What is a War Crime?
Ben-Dror Yemini
Editorial Page Editor, MAARIV


So what exactly is our story with the bombs and civilians injuries? Are we the most evil element in the world, as the Evil and Stupidity Front claims, from Professor Noam Chomsky and Jose Saramago, through Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah, and up to some of the moviemakers and authors, among us too, that agree that Israel commits crimes against humanity?

A short historical reminder. This time we won't say a word about Muslims that butcher Muslims. We got used to it. The Muslims, especially in the eyes of the Left, are the retarded kids of the world. From them there is no need to demand responsibility, morale, international law. They are allowed.

This time we will deal with the West. We won't head as far as the bombing of Dresden. We'll go to recent history. It happened in 1999. Just 7 years ago. Milosevic irritated the Free World when he tried to take control of Kosovo. NATO started bombing. Following is an incomplete list of the injuries. Just of civilian ones.

On April 12th 12 killed in a bombing of a civilian train; on April 14th 70 refugees are killed in a "hunt after warriors". NATO forces admit that they find it hard to estimate the number of casualties; Apri 27th 16 civilians are killed. Two missiles diverted from their course; April 28th A stray missile reaches a peaceful neighborhood in Sophia, capital of Bulgaria. May 1st 27 killed in a bombing of a bus on a bridge in Belgrade. According to other claims 47 were killed. All of them civilians; May 6th 15 civilians are killed in the town of Nis in Yugoslavia; on May 7th the Chinese embassy in Belgrade is erroneously bombed. 3 civilians were killed; May 13th at least 100 civilians are killed in the village of Korisa. Burnt bodies of kids are presented in the world media. NATO's spokesman announces that the bombings were against "legitimate military targets". May 19th NATO airplanes are bombing the Belgrade hospital. At least 3 patients end their lives; May 30th 11 civilians are killed in the bombing of a bridge. They were on their way to the local market. On the same day the NATO bombers manage to bomb an old age home, causing the death of 20 of its residents; on May 31st another 11 civilians are killed in a bombing.

NATO, by the way, spread leaflets telling the civilians that bridges are about to be bombed. Obviously that didn't help. Does this reminds something to somebody? There was a general sorrow for hurting innocents, but nobody dreamt of a cease fire. The bombings continued. It took months. Not days or weeks. The determination proved itself. Milosovic was forced to accept the international terms.

We've been in this situation before

Let's continue to November 2004. The Ivory Coast Air Force attacked rebel concentrations. Since when does anybody count black people at all? That's it, to the bombers' bad luck 9 French were killed by accident. Soldiers. Not civilians. The French were angry. So angry that they wiped out the entire Ivory Coat Air Force and took control of the country's airport. And that was only the beginning. When it was the natives' turn to get angry, the French were sure to enforce order in a very aggressive way, which included killing 27 protesters.

Now let's go back and discuss the proportions. Milosovic didn't announce that he intends to destroy all of Europe. The Ivory Coast didn't announce that its intention is to destroy France. And yet, the reactions of NATO and French were harsh and hard. The Security Council did not call for a cease fire. Au contraire. It was obvious that it's necessary to get rid of the bad guy in the story. It took a lot of time. In the end he had to bend.

We should be sorry for every innocent that gets hurt. The question is whether somebody has invented a formula in which it's possible to battle evil without hurting the innocents. In NATO they didn't find that formula. In France neither. When we get to Israel the rules are being changed. Israel is required to restrain itself. Why? After all Nasrallah is much more dangerous than Milosovic. The Hezbollah is not a guerilla organization. It's an organization that possesses long-range missiles. In normal countries the state has an army. In the case of Lebanon, Hezbollah has a state. The Hezbollah controls Lebanon and Iran controls the Hezbollah. And also develops nuclear weapons, and also announces that it wants to wipe Israel off the map.

These are just declarations, the members of the Evil Front will tell us, the stupidity and reconciliation, those signed on various petitions. If we will just turn over the second cheek, Ahmandinejad and Nasrallah will send us flowers.

We've been in this situation before. We have the right to prevent it from recurring.

Printer friendly version of this article

Return to Contents

Go to the Israel Resource Review homepage

The Israel Resource Review is brought to you by the Israel Resource, a media firm based at the Bet Agron Press Center in Jerusalem, and the Gaza Media Center under the juristdiction of the Palestine Authority.
You can contact us on media@actcom.co.il.