On Monday 2 August 2010, the Israeli army staged its “tree trimming” provocation at the Lebanese-Israeli truce line in the Lebanese village of Assaniyeh.
Israel “informed” the UNIFIL HQ that it intended to send forces to the truce line in the village and then took action without waiting for a response from UNIFIL or from Lebanon via UNIFIL. According to a report published in Ha’aretz late last week, at UNIFIL HQ the Israelis were informed that the official normally in charge of maintaining official contact between Lebanon and Israel about any military maneuvers at the truce lines was ‘away on vacation.’ Hence, the Israeli move was bound to be interpreted as a provocation, not as an innocent exercise.
It must be inferred from the facts disclosed so far (now more than a week since the incident) that the Israelis expected the Lebanese army would be asleep or not rouse themselves, but the surprise was that the army was alert and fired warning shots into the air when they saw the Israelis approach the fence at the truce line in Assaniyeh.
Whether according to plan, or spontaneously, the Israelis responded with deadly fire, killing three Lebanese soldiers and a civilian Lebanese journalist. The Lebanese then replied and killed the Israeli Lieutenant-General at the scene responsible for directing the conduct of the Israeli military at the scene. After that point, further military engagement broke off.
The following evening, Hizbullah Secretary General Sayyed Nasrallah disclosed three things during a special nationwide broadcast:
1. that Hizbullah had received advance word from the Lebanese Prime Minister Sa’ad Hariri that the so-called Special Tribunal on Lebanon [STL] intended to name three Hizbulah members in connection with its investigation of Rafik Hariri’s assassination;
2. that the Lebanese army at the truce line in Assaniyeh had taken action without calling upon Hizbullah to mobilise, but aware that Hizbullah was ready to assist the army if and when asked; and
3. that Hizbullah would disclose in a week’s time its evidence of Israeli involvement in and likely responsibility for the assassination of Rafik Hariri.
After the unexpected turn of events during the Assineyeh incident, followed by Nasrallah’s throwing down of this gauntlet, Israeli ‘Defence’ i.e. War, minister Ehud Barak sought support from France and the United States for an Israeli full-scale military assault on Lebanon. It is being reported this morning (Wed 11 August 2010) that French president Sarkozy and US Secretary of State Clinton requested Barak hold back from further attacks for the moment. Meanwhile, Nasrallah’s widely-anticipated Monday evening (9 August 2010) broadcast included a bombshell public disclosure of the existence of Hizbullah’s capabilities to download live in-real-time message traffic between an Israeli command centre on the ground and airborne reconnaissance drones monitoring Rafik Hariri’s motorcade in Beirut on the day he was assassinated. In the wake of this disclosure, the U.S. announced suspension of any further aid to the Lebanese military. The French President Sarkozy was headed meanwhile to Beirut (last night?this morning?)for urgent talks with the Lebanese Prime Minister Sa’ad Hariri.
The Islamic Republic of Iran responded this morning to the U.S. cutoff of military aid to Lebanon by offering to step in and assist the Lebanese armed forces with whatever they might need to ensure the best arrangements for continued defence of the nation from further attacks. Does or would this portend a delivery of medium-range missiles? Iran is said to have produced and to possess these in great profusion, and to have perfected them to a high degree of accuracy.
There is no response yet publicly from the U.S. Doubtless the State Department now has to be assessing whether this announcement
1. has some substance in it that should concern the immediate plans of US-NATO, or;
2. sends a signal to Syria [which may already have some of these missiles stockpiled for delivery to Lebanon precisely in an eventuality such as this], or;
3. serves some other purpose[s].
Last night, meanwhile, leader of the Cuban revolution Fidel Castro posted a brief “Reflection” laying out an analysis suggesting that, via the terms and conditions set out in UNSC Resolution 1929 passed at the start of this month, Israel seemed to have extricated itself from the position of having to be the cat’s paw to attack Iran first on behalf of the U.S. (and absorb the first retaliatory measures).
Now it becomes clear why Israel was so keen to get out from under any commitment to any pre-emptive action against Iran this summer. Hizbullah’s measures seem to be based on a strong suspicion that Israel was using the Iran war danger all this past spring and early summer as a cover to prepare a renewed attack on Lebanon this month. The latest events appear to confirm the correctness of that analysis. The timing certainly fits the bill: mid-August upcoming marks the start of Ramadan this year. At this time, the entire Muslim world becomes absorbed in prayers and fasting; much conventional business in the public and private sectors is set aside, possibly including some degree of military vigilance and preparedness.
