Last update - 02:21 09/01/2008
Katyusha strike in Shlomi / In the eyes of the beholder
By Amos Harel
Like everything that has to do with Lebanon, precisely three weeks before the final Winograd Committee report is released, the firing of two Katyusha rockets yesterday against Shlomi can be interpreted in two fundamentally contradictory ways. The severity of the incident, its implications and meanings, all are in the eyes of the beholder.
One point of view would argue that nothing really happened. Two Katyushas of relatively small caliber (107 mm) struck without causing any injuries or damage. This is only the second attack of its kind since the end of the Second Lebanon War, nearly 17 months ago. The northern border is calm like it has not been for years. Hezbollah - and that is what is important - is being quiet, careful not to initiate any new provocations of Israel.
On the other hand, however, it could be argued that Israel, following the war experience, is now repeating the same mistakes of the past. Once more, Israeli civilians in the North are attacked and the government is holding back, just like it did during the six years between the withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000 and the start of the war in July 2006.
Israel is keeping quiet and feeding itself excuses: The attack was not a major one, Hezbollah was not involved, and in any case, it is not a good time to inflame another front, just when U.S. President George Bush is arriving on a historic visit. It could even said that Israel's ability to maneuver has been significantly narrowed. Until the outbreak of the last war, we could target the Hezbollah positions along the border or threaten to demolish Lebanon's strategic infrastructure in retaliation. Now, however, Hezbollah is no longer responsible for the attack because its control over southern Lebanon has been undermined, and Fouad Siniora's government in Beirut is now clearly on the side of the "good guys," making it immune to Israeli retaliation.
No group took responsibility for the attack yesterday. Israel's Military Intelligence says that it was the work of a small Palestinian group, with links to global jihadists, various cells of Al-Qaeda. Maybe it was Al-Ansar, which was also responsible for the previous Katyusha rocket attack, which used the same kind of caliber weapon. Perhaps it was Fatah al-Islam, which confronted the Lebanese armed forces during the summer in a Palestinian refugee camp in northern Lebanon.
It would appear that the impetus for the attack is President Bush's visit to Israel. In response, Israel will show restraint. Maybe it will carry out a minor military operation. If Hezbollah is not interested in heating up the northern front, then the Israel Defense Force will also seek to avoid this.
What does Defense Minister Ehud Barak think about all this? Last night, at a meeting with local council heads, Barak attributed the incident to a marginal group affiliated with Ahmed Jibril's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
A mere 24 hours earlier, in a closed session of the Council for Peace and Security, Barak spoke in an entirely different tone on the situation in the North. Hezbollah, Barak claimed, is more powerful than ever; it has built up new positions north of the Litani River and has "more rockets than it did on the eve of the war." But the two statements do not necessarily contradict each other. The Defense Minister believes that the situation on the border, following the war, is pretty bad. However, he does not think that the shooting against Shlomi reflects a real change to the situation.
For those particularly sensitive to the nuances, Barak's third statement yesterday was the most interesting. "We will evaluate, we will think and we will decide," was what the Defense Minister said in response to how Israel would react to the Katyusha attacks. This was a jibe at Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's expense - for rushing to go to war a year and a half ago, a move that Barak opposed at the time.
Under growing pressure on Barak to leave the coalition - by Likud, the organization of the reservists and the bereaved parents - it would be reasonable to expect more such statements from the defense minister in the coming weeks. It seems Barak has still not decided what he will do following the publication of the final report of the Winograd Committee. A great deal depends, apparently, on the public pressure on him. But until he decides, the defense minister will make an effort to distinguish himself from Olmert - and remind everyone, as much as possible, that he is not to blame for the failed Second Lebanon War.