Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, August 03, 2010

Zvi dissects the facts of the Lebanese attack

Zvi looks at the events of the day:

Ynet says that: Lt. Col. Dov Harari was indeed killed in the gunbattle. The seriously injured soldier was Capt. Ezra Lakia (res.). May Mr. Lakia recover quickly and completely.

The Scotsman (writer: Bassem Mroue): A Lebanese journalist says that the UNIFIL troops warned the Israelis that the Lebanese would open fire (it is not clear whether this was the "Down, down!" that I mentioned before [in the comments], or something more explicit).

Ronith Daher, 32, a Lebanese journalist who was at the scene, said she saw a Unifil peacekeeper ask Israel not to allow the Israeli soldier to cross the fence and warned them the Lebanese troops would open fire. The Israelis proceeded, however, and Lebanese soldiers fired into the air, Ms Daher said. She said the Israelis fired back directly at the Lebanese soldiers.

Note that the Lebanese video stream broadcast by Israel's Channel 2 appears to contradict Daher's claim that the Lebanese soldiers fired in the air. First of all, the Lebanese soldiers in the video are pointing their guns toward the Israelis, NOT visibly angling them away from the Israelis. In addition, an apparent plume of dust in the video appears to rise immediately in front of the Israeli position, which would not have happened had the Lebanese fired in the air.

It is possible (warning: complete speculation) that the UNIFIL troops heard what was going on among the Lebanese troops and tried to warn the Israelis to take cover (they yelled "Down! Down," gesturing downward). This occurred immediately before the Lebanese opened fire.

Another possibility is that the UNIFIL troops already knew that the Lebanese force was planning to attack the Israelis. In either case, why UNIFIL did not prevent the Lebanese side from ambushing the tree removal patrol is a question that UNIFIL must answer.

The Lebanese Army claimed it had opened fire on Israeli soldiers who infiltrated Lebanese territory.

But as UNIFIL and the Lebanese' own video shows, the Israelis were in fact in Israel. Furthermore, the Israelis had told UNIFIL what they intended to do two weeks in advance. Had the tree in question been in Lebanese territory, then UNIFIL would have had ample opportunity to object and say so. The fact is that UNIFIL merely sent its observers to a point where they could observe the tree removal operation. They also told the Lebanese army, which sent an ambush squad.

Bloomberg and the UK's Telegraph: Maj Gen Eisenkot says that the Lebanese army asked Israel for a ceasefire.

The Israelis believe it to be an isolated incident. The Israelis (Ynet) believe that the officer who ordered the attack was an extremist.

Al Jazeera English (Gregg Carlstrom):
* UNIFIL has promised to announce results of its investigation of the clash on Wed.
* Avital Liebovich: "We coordinated this operation with Unifil. It was not done in a secret manner. We have reason to believe this attack was pre-planned by the Lebanese army."
* Nasrallah followed up with a speech.
* The usual attacks spewed from the offices from Arab officials, who don't mind not knowing the truth because they make it up as they go along anyway.
* Hariri condemned Israel (what else) and demanded that the UN stop the fighting.

Unless Hezbollah wants it to go further, it won't go anywhere.

Let us ask:
1. Who was the Lebanese officer who ordered his men to open fire?
2. Why did UNIFIL only address its requests to the Israelis, who were doing what they had arranged to do 2 weeks before?
3. Why were not one, not two, but more than two Hezbollah-affiliated reporters brought to the scene in advance just to witness Israeli soldiers cutting down a tree in Israeli territory? Hint: if you are Hassan Nasrallah, and you know there's going to be a gunbattle, and you want to milk it for its PR effect, then you send your propagandists to spin the story immediately.
4. Which Lebanese party, writhing under probable indictment for assassinating the former prime minister, benefits from tension with Israel? Okay, so that on is a rhetorical question : - )

Finally, we should remember that in the very possible event that this clash was planned by Hezbollah, then the purpose was to distract people from the pending UN Special Tribunal for Lebanon indictment of a high-level Hezbollah member or members for assassinating Rafik al-Hariri, and maybe to embarrass the UN in the process.

I just looked at the video again, and (again assuming that the edits are roughly in order) the Lebanese "warning shots" are from a machine gun, large enough to jostle the camera significantly - hardly from a pistol or other small gun that one would expect a warning shot to come from.

I think it is pretty clear that the entire "warning shot" scenario is a sham meant to try to square away the obvious evidence of Lebanese aggression with a face-saving lie.

By the way, Al Quds al-Arabi has a fawning op-ed glorifying the LAF for its position of defending the homeland, and saying that their bravery shames other Arab countries.

Israel's concerns towards UNIFIL (updated)

I was wondering to which UNIFIL contributing country the blue helmets belong to. I think my question was answered when seeing this picture on which the flag of Indonesia can be seen:

In April this year Israel expressed its concern:

that Indonesia could take up command of UNIFIL’s naval force, making it difficult for the IDF and particularly the Israel Navy to maintain a high level of coordination with the peacekeeping force.

Israel’s concern is that if Indonesia takes command of the force, coordination and ties will deteriorate, since Israel and Indonesia do not have formal diplomatic or military relations. Indonesia already contributes to UNIFIL 1,300 soldiers who are deployed in the eastern sector near the southern Lebanese village of Tayba.

Tayba (or Taibe) is just northwest of Aadaisse and kibbuts Misgav Am, where the incident of today took place.

This could explain a lot.

UNIFIL has to take action the sooner the better or worse incidents might take place in future.

(In the background you see the "tree-cutter". And a hill with a road. It looks very much as if it was taken in the near this position.)

UPDATE:

UNIFIL confirms Israel's version: IDF troops didn't enter Lebanon

Lebanese officials said an IDF bulldozer crossed the international border and entered about 18 meters into Lebanon.

A spokesman for UNIFIL, however, confirmed the exchange was initiated by the Lebanese Army after an IDF bulldozer crossed the border fence "in an apparent attempt to clear mines between the Blue Line (international border) and the fence."

"We characterise this as a serious incident between the Lebanese Army and the IDF," the spokesman said.

UPDATE: From YNet:

UNIFIL forces who toured the site of Tuesday's deadly exchanges of fire on the northern border said the IDF's activity did not warrant the attack launched by Lebanese Army soldiers, Israeli army officials who spoke to UNIFIL representatives said.

Not that the UN will demand an investigation or anything. (EoZ)

Map of where Lebanon fired on the IDF (update: video)

The IDF released a map of where today's incident occurred:

As the map shows, the Blue Line is not tremendously close to the road adjoining the fence.

But if you don't believe the IDF, here's what Google Maps has to say (click to enlarge)::

UPDATE: Here's video from the Lebanese side:

Assuming it wasn't edited to show things out of order, we see the UNIFIL forces yelling towards Israel to "stop!" (stop firing? We do not hear any IDF fire at that point.) and then we see the command for the LAF to fire - which they do.

Sure looks like UNIFIL is sworn to protect one side.

(h/t Jed)

Hezbollah accuses Israel of killing Hariri

The anticipated speech by Hassan Nasrallah is over, and guess who he is accsing of assassinating Rafik Hariri?

Go ahead. Take a guess.

Here's the relevant part of the speech:

We all want the truth and refuse politicization of issues, just as we want justice, not only for the family of Rafik Hariri.

I will hold a press conference on Monday, August 9, at 8:30 p.m., in which we will address Hezbollah’s accusation, based on evidence, that Israel is behind Rafik Hariri’s assassination.

In the past weeks, we made a lot of efforts. We formed a team to review all the details. I will present evidence during the August 9 press conference proving that Israel was plotting to accuse Hezbollah of killing Rafik Hariri.

I have information. We accuse Israel of killing Rafik Hariri on February 14, 2005.

I will present during the press conference information that will help lead to conclusions on the Rafik Hariri investigation.

I will reveal a very important secret about the work of the Resistance to prove my arguments on August 9.

After August 9, the Lebanese government should appoint a responsible [committee on the issue] if it finds what I say to be noteworthy. We are ready to collaborate with the government.

We will manage to uncover the real criminals behind the Rafik Hariri murder.

Notice the political theatre - he is buying another week, rather than unveiling his evidence today.

Of course, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon is expected to find that Hezbollah members killed Hariri, possibly senior members.

Reuters video of incident - and bias

To Reuters, the first shots were indeed done by the LAF - but, somehow, they can report with certainty that they were "warning shots."

Warning shots that were aimed at the supervising officers!

Also, it is clear that UNIFIL troops were alongside the Lebanese forces. Why would they allow the LAF to shoot anything? Why wouldn't the LAF be embarrassed to fire even warning shots unless they knew that UNIFIL was going to cover for them?

Worse yet, UNIFIL knows very well that the IDF was on its side of the Blue Line. Israel informed them in advance of the action.

The entire episode is very, very suspicious.

Grudging admission at Sky News, plus Gaza's water park

I can guarantee that if bloggers like me never made an issue over the existence of a middle-and upper-class in Gaza, this section of a Sky News piece would never have been written:

The sight of a brand new Chevrolet with 2010 plates cruising through down town Gaza City begs the question: how on earth did it get there?

...For example, a mid-spec Chevrolet Cruze automatic, which sells in the UK for about £15,000, was on sale at around £30,000.

So, who in Gaza can afford that?

Gaza's middle and upper classes do not feature much in news reports - but they do exist.

This explains why there are swimming pools and water parks, boutique hotels, excellent restaurants and a brand new shopping mall.

They are doing well out of the minority of those lucky enough to have jobs.

The UN estimates that 40% of people here are unemployed.

Of those in work, about a third are on the government payroll and the cultural norm here is that wages are used to take care of the extended family.

That spreads available cash thinly, but the well-stocked supermarkets, luxury goods and new cars show that there is a level of society that can afford them.

That stratum is small but it is wrong to depict all Gazans as spending their lives in abject poverty scrabbling through the ruins of buildings bombed by the Israeli Defence Forces.

The poverty levels seen here can be found in many parts of the Middle East.

Which has been my point for at least a year.

The video report accompanying the story includes about one second's worth of one of the the water parks mentioned:

Not bad for a starving, impoverished, crowded, dirty enclave.

(h/t David)

Media bias in Lebanon incident (Barry Rubin)

Worth reading:

Along the border with Lebanon, east of Metulla, some bushes were pushing in on the border fence. The fence is set in slightly from the border precisely so that Israeli soldiers can work on it. The IDF called UNIFIL and informed the UN that this work was going to be done today so that they could tell the Lebanese army that there was no aggression going on but just routine maintenance. Soldiers from UNIFIL came to observe and can be seen standing next to Israeli soldiers in the photos. Photographers were also standing by to film the operation.

But Lebanese soldiers opened fire on the Israelis who were working and in no way acting aggressively. The fact that journalists were standing next to the Lebanese soldiers shows that they knew Israel was going to do this maintenance and were observing. After the Israeli soldiers were ambushed, they returned fire. Reportedly, one Israeli officer, three Lebanese soldiers, and a Lebanese (?) journalist were killed.

So how did Reuters and Yahoo using an AP photo report this? By captions on photos saying that Israeli soldiers had crossed into Lebanon and been fired on! Other news agencies merely reported: Israel says the soldiers were inside Israel; Lebanon says they were on Lebanese territory.

Reuters: "An Israeli soldier is seen on a crane on the Lebanese side of the Lebanese-Israeli border near Adaisseh village, southern Lebanon August 3, 2010. Israeli artillery shelled the Lebanese village on Tuesday, wounding two people, after Lebanese Army troops fired warning shots at Israeli soldiers."

Yahoo: "A Lebanese officer spoke on condition of anonymity under military guidelines, said the clash occurred as Israeli troops tried to remove a tree from the Lebanese side of the border." No Israeli is quoted.

AP also missed explaining the story properly: "The violence apparently erupted over a move by Israeli soldiers to cut down a tree along the border, a sign of the high level of tensions at the frontier where Israel fought in 2006 with the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah....There was no sign of any extensive Israeli preparations for a large-scale operation — an early indication the clash might not trigger a wider conflict."

The truth is easy to ascertain--did Israel announce the maintenance, permit the photographers and UN people to watch and then cross deliberately into Lebanon?--but Israel is being portrayed as an aggressor that caused the outbreak of fighting. So millions of people will either believe that Israel was at fault or that the event is in question.

The narrative, however, is simple: In an unprovoked attack, Lebanese soldiers fired on Israelis and murdered one soldier.

The presence of the photographers ahead of time, and particularly the fact that the journalist who was killed worked for the Hezbollah-aligned Al Akhbar newspaper, combined with the fact that the initial fire was not towards the soldier who was cutting the tree but towards his commanders, all indicate something being planned ahead of time.

(The Hezbollah-Al Akhbar link was reported in Corriere.)

Israel's statement on Lebanon incident

From Docstalk:

Earlier today Israeli soldiers were fired upon by the Lebanese Army-please note our soldiers were on the Israeli side of the border. There is a gap between the “fence” and the actual border. Our soldiers had coordinated with UNIFIL the ongoing the maintenance work on the fence. We were simply clearing some brush and shrubs from the fence area. You are reminded that this was the location of the abduction of several of our Israeli soldiers a few years ago. There was nothing unique about this ongoing maintenance work.Without provocation our soldiers were fired upon by a sniper(s) and we are still gathering intel on this point of the story. The facts are the soldiers doing the clearing work were located in one position and the Israeli commanders who were supervising the activity were located in an another location. It was these commanders that were initially shot at and regrettably a reserve Lt. Col was killed. A second commander , a Captain, was critically wounded and rushed to hospital. No further information available as to his condition.

This was a clear provocation-the soldiers doing the brush work were not initially fired upon, the Lebanese Army fired directly upon our commanders-clearly violating UN Res. 1701. I can confirm that there were no mortars fired onto our northern border. However, we were asked to cease retaliatory fire when our men were hit-we did so in order to allow the enemy to clear away its fallen soldiers (3). Thirty minutes after we honored the cease fire a RPG unit fired on one of our tanks. They missed, we responded and the RPG group went silent.

The border is now quiet, has been for a few hours. Israel is now engaged in more intel information gathering. This was the worst violation of the border since 2006. An evolving story and we thank the IDF for its work.

From The Muqata, summarizing the Q&A:

Noah Pollak (Commentary Mag): Why was this so well documented on the Lebanese side? Seems odd.

Lt. Col Avital: We are investigating. Were snipers brought especially for this attack? We will know in next few hours.

Michael Totten: Rumors of Hizbollah fighters on scene. Is this true?

Lt. Col Avital: Right now, full responsibility on Lebanese Army. This will be checked.

Lt. Col Avital: Soldiers conducting maintenance work; it was the IDF commanders who watched the work who were shot at.

The Border is currently calm.

Official Casualty Statement:

Lt Col (res) killed: Dov Harari.
Critically wounded (res) company commander (Captain).

Another report I saw via email says that Hezbollah officers might have been in LAF uniforms, because their actions were more Hezbollah-like than LAF-like.

Keep in mind, as I've been reporting, that Hezbollah has been under political pressure from Lebanon for the likelihood that Hezbollah members were behind the assassination of Lebanese prime minister Hariri. This would provide a perfect way to deflect from that scandal.

Reporters present during clash Israel Lebanon

Surprisingly there were reporters present when the clash happened. No-one wonders why they were there. Reporters are not all the time present where the army (of any country) is, or are they? Why were they there?

The journalist who got killed is Assaf Abu Rahhal and he was connected to the newspaper Al-Ahkbar. Interesting detail is that Druze leader Walid Jumblatt said the following about this newspaper on March 16, 2006:

On March 16, 2006, the Druze leader Walid Jumblatt appeared on the popular LBC talk show Kalam Alnas, and he seemed unusually agitated over plans for the launch of Beirut’s newest paper. “Who says the Syrians are really gone,” he declaimed. “Together with the Iranians, they are funding a new newspaper called Al Akhbar.”

The new paper, Jumblatt said, was a tool of Hizbollah, the core of the opposition and an ally of Iran and Syria. He repeated rumours that its mandate was to promote Khomeinism, brainwashing readers into supporting the allegedly fanatical militants dragging Lebanon into war with Israel. The paper, he claimed, would take an Islamist position on individual liberties and endorse Baath-style repression.

Jumblatt made these comments when the first issue of the newspaper was not out yet. It's odd to blame the unborn baby. However, the article continues:

Al Akhbar was the brainchild of the widely admired left-wing journalist Joseph Samaha, who quit his job editing As Safir – one of Lebanon’s two leading dailies, which he helped found in 1974 – for the chance to launch his own paper. But months before its debut, Samaha’s vision of a critical, reader-friendly paper was already being overshadowed by his stated sympathies for the opposition and the newspaper’s purported association with Hizbollah.

And states eventually:

Many inside Lebanon still see it as a more sophisticated front for Hizbollah – though unlike Al Manar, Hizbollah’s TV channel, the paper could not be reasonably accused of propaganda.

From what I grasp of the rest of the article is that the newspaper does a pretty well job, but still - if it is true that inside Lebanon it is seen as a more sophisticated front for Hezbollah... - it is something to keep in mind.

It might be coincidence, but the other journalist, Ali Chaayeb, who was present at the time of the clash and who got injured, is connected to al-Manar.

The Gulf's problem with Blackberry

Al Arabiya reports:

The United Arab Emirates' looming crackdown on BlackBerry services will extend to foreign visitors, putting the government's concerns over the smart phones in direct conflict with the country's ambitions to be a business and tourism haven.

The Emirates' telecoms regulator said Monday that travelers to the city-state of Dubai and the important oil industry center of Abu Dhabi will - like the 500,000 local subscribers - have to do without BlackBerry e-mail, messaging and Web services starting Oct. 11, even when they carry phones issued in other countries. The handsets themselves will still be allowed for phone calls.

And what exactly is the UAE problem with Blackberries?

Emirati authorities say the move is based on security concerns because BlackBerry data are automatically shipped to company computers abroad, where it is difficult for local authorities to monitor for illegal activity or abuse.

The security issues are not, as has been framed in some sources, that Emirati data is being saved on Canadian servers where they cannot control it. The issue is that the UAE wants to monitor personal communications that are now being encrypted.

I found the following from Arab News, about rumors of a similar Saudi move, to be more troubling:

...The Al Arabiya satellite channel reported Monday that the Communications and Information Technology Commission (CITC) will not ban BlackBerry services after the Kingdom's three major telecommunication companies reached a solution with Research In Motion (RIM), the company behind BlackBerry phones, to provide CITC with monitoring services.

So does this mean that Saudi Arabia can now read all Blackberry messages that originate or terminate in the kingdom?

Does the US or Canada have that ability?

Apparently, India also has a deal with Blackberry to watch messages, and Kuwait got RIM to block certain adult websites from its browser.

A few years ago, Skype caved to Chinese demands that its messages be visible to authorities, and created a less-secure version of Skype which the Chinese can monitor. This sounds very similar.

Muqata, Israellycool liveblogging attack on Lebanese border (updated)

Details are sketchy but there was a "massive" exchange of fire between the IDF and Lebanese forces. The Muqata is liveblogging, and so is Aussie Dave.

So far it looks like 4 Lebanese killed, including a journalist. Lebanese media report an Israeli soldier was killed and one seriously wounded.

AP released this photo, saying that it shows an Israeli soldier on the Lebanese side of the border, possibly installing a camera in what might have been the spark that started the fire. The Muqata points out that the border fence is not exactly along the route of the Blue Line and the soldier was inside the border itself.

The IDF says "The border area is east of the Israeli town Metula. The incident occurred west of the internationally recognized "Blue Line" (the border between Israel and Lebanon) and east of the security fence, thus lying in Israeli territory."

UPDATE: Both Muqata and Israellycool are uncovering some disturbing wire service photos that seem to imply that UNIFIL was on the scene during the incident. The fact that there are photos from what seem to be beforehand (like the one above) makes this look a little like this incident was pre-planned, with both UNIFIL and media knowledge. I'm no fan of conspiracy theories, but the time to research these issues is now, not months from now. It is not as if we haven't seen cooperation between Hezbollah, UNIFIL and the media before.

UPDATE 2: Commenter David sends us this photo from Ha'aretz showing blue-bereted UN "peacekeepers" next to Lebanese forces, although I don't know the timeframe.

Ha'aretz also confirms the Israeli soldier killed, 45-year-old Lt. Col. Dov Harari, from Netanya.

UPDATE 3: From Israel Matzav:

Israel Radio reports (6:00 pm) that Northern sector commander Gadi Eizencott ... said was that the IDF was ambushed while doing work, they returned fire, then stopped firing to let the LAF (at the LAF's request) retrieve bodies and wounded, and then got 'sucker punched' with an RPG shot at a tank.

Arabs freak when Tunisian singer chants "Long live Netanyahu!"

A Tunisian entertainer, Mohsen Sharif, has been captured on video entertaining a group of visiting Jewish pilgrims who annually come to Tunisia to visit the ancient synagogue in Djerba on Lag B'Omer, last May.

On the video, he starts a chant, "Long live Netanyahu! Long live Bibi!"

Not surprisingly, the Arab reaction has been a bit negative.

A Facebook group immediately popped up, calling him a traitor and demanding that his nationality be stripped, complete with disparaging (and some threatening) images.

Hamas infighting?

Firas Press reports about some serious Hamas infighting between the Al Qassam Brigades and the official Gaza security forces. These include kidnappings, beatings and public accusations of indecency.

Firas Press does very little original reporting, and usually directly rips stories off other Palestinian Arab sites. This story was copied from Palvoice.com, which is also Fateh.org - so it is hardly unbiased. Nevertheless, it does name some names, so it might have some validity.

Also at the same site is a story about a senior Hamas sheikh, 42 year old Mahmoud Abu Abdallah of Deir al-Balah, caught red-handed molesting a girl. The case was closed and hushed up when Hamas officials intervened.

Jordan says rocket from Sinai; Egypt denies

From AFP:

Jordan has proof a Grad-type rocket that hit its port city of Aqaba killing one person and wounding five others was fired from Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, a senior official told AFP on Tuesday.

"We can now say without hesitation that the Grad rocket was launched from Sinai," said the official close to the investigation who was speaking on condition of anonymity 24 hours after the rocket slammed into Aqaba.

"We have strong suspicions about the identity of the group behind this attack," he added, declining to name the group for now.

Egypt denies it:

A senior Egyptian official on Tuesday rejected allegations that the rockets that struck the Jordanian port of Aqaba and the vicinity of the neighbouring Israeli city of Eilat the previous day were fired from the Sinai Peninsula.
South Sinai governor Mohamed Abdel-Fadil Shousha told the German Press Agency dpa: 'Let the media say whatever they want. The border between Egypt, Israel and Jordan is a region of mountains and it does not make sense to launch the type of missiles they are talking about.'

But, just to make sure, Egypt decided to look anyway:

Egypt has launched a search operation in the Sinai Peninsul after the firing of rockets that have reached the territories of Israel and Jordan on Monday, an Egyptian security official said Tuesday. The source claimed the move was in response to Jordanian declarations of holding proof the rocket fire was performed from the Sinai Peninsula.

Arab media quotes Israeli reports that a sixth missile was found in the Sinai, aimed towards Eilat, which would indicate that the rockets were indeed shot from Egypt.

The group suspected of firing the rocket is called Global Jihad. Haaretz' Avi Issacharoff thinks that Aqaba could have been an intended target as well, as the jihadists hate Jordan almost as much as they hate Israel. He says that Global Jihad often trains in Gaza but operates in the Sinai, indicating a relationship with Hamas.

Free Gaza ignores increased aid to Gaza

Israel has steadily been working to increase the number of goods being brought into Gaza. The average number of trucks entering Gaza with goods has gone up from 140 to 250, and Israel is expanding both the number of hours and the size of the Kerem Shalom crossing.

This is all in response to the flotilla incident, so pretty much anyone would agree that the organizers of the flotilla have succeeded in helping ordinary Gazans, as prices have plummeted for consumer goods and the Gaza economy is in significantly better shape today than it was only two months ago.

Yet the Free Gaza movement is almost silent on this accomplishment. In fact, rather than celebrate its role in helping Gaza, it is dismissive of any increased aid, quoting UNRWA's Chris Gunness on its website as saying that any limitations on goods going into Gaza is still collective punishment and illegal. One would think that they would at least be somewhat self-congratulatory on helping Gazans - their supposed goal - but they are not.

I have not seen anything from Free Gaza or similar groups that suggest any way to limit Hamas' ability to build or import weapons aimed at Israeli civilians.

It sure sounds like their goal is not to help Gazans but to help Hamas. Which would be consistent with the published positions of these "peace activists" in favor of violent "resistance."