On CNN Europe this morning a spokesman for the Israeli foreign office was interviewed. He said that the Israelis would comply with resolution 1701; that the terms of 1701 meant that Hizbollah would be removed from the area south of the Litani; and allowed for Israeli troops to remain in position (but not attack) until the international force (which includes the IDF anyway) is in place. He said that any breach of the ceasefire would authorise Israel to respond.
The anchorwoman said that Hezbollah had said that they would not stop fighting until all Israeli soldiers had gone away. The spokesman said that yes, this was a problem, and that the international community, including Lebanon, would have to pull its finger out and deal with Hezbollah.
So it looks like Israel knows very well that Hizbollah will have not accepted 1701 and that the ceasefire is meaningless. Sure enough, on the front page of the Post is an article headlined, “Jerusalem expects UN accord to fail”:
The officials [close to the PM] said the working assumption at the Prime Minister’s Office was that Hizbullah would not honor the agreement and that the world would then comprehend Israel’s predicament more than ever.
A prediction:Â Hizbollah will attack Israeli troops, Israel will respond, the ceasefire will be broken and everyone will still blame Israeli for “not giving the ceasefire a chance”.
Update 11.45: According to CNN Europe the ceasefire is still holding for now. (Er, but not quite according to The Muqata, see e.g. the 12:35pm entry.) So what else is in the Post today?
The main front page story is “IDF vows tough response to cease-fire violations”. They are suspending all offensives against the “guerilla group” but a high ranking Northern Command officer said the cease-fire was “fragile”.
An analysis by Yaakov Katz talks about infighting in Israel. Apparently a “commission of enquiry into the directing and management of the war in Lebanon” is likely to be launched. This will involve a lot of finger pointing and asking of questions such as why did it take “so long for the ground operation in Southern Lebanon to be launched”; why “did the Northern Command lower the level of alert along the border two days before” the soldiers were kidnapped; and why have reservists not had enough training? This all sounds quite routine politics to me.
Anshel Peefeer’s analysis suggests that “even if you accept the government’s claims that [1701 is] good for Israel, there is no way that it can be good for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.”
Now the feeling is that while the public was prepared to grin and bear it, it was the politicians, especially Olmert, who weren’t able to go the extra mile.
Page 2 has photos and descriptions of 24 Israeli soldiers killed in Lebanon, and two stories, one about a man who was evacuated from Gush Katif and then killed fighting in Lebanon, and one about an anti-war author and peace activist’s son dying in battle.
Page 3 has a stories including reconnaisance company Palsar 401 being ambushed; the IDF logistics chief expressing confidence and saying that the army could supply another front with Syria if needs be; an AP photo of a man playing the violin for resting soldiers at an army camp near the lebanese border; an analysis titled “The cease-fire is less impressive than the war’s accomplishments”: “Everyone knows that this cease-fire doesn’t mean much”.
 Page 4 has two stories about Muslims. Five gunmen identifying themselves as “Islamic Jihad” killed a man they said had collaborated with the Israelis and helped them kill two terrorists. There is an AP photo of a crowd taking photos of a man kicking the dead body, of, the caption says, the collaborator. Below that is a story titled “Mostly Muslims rally against Israel in Washington”.
Page 5 has some good news stories about children from the North finding refuge in Lodz and Hungary. There is also a story about dogs and cats abandoned and traumatised by the noise of the Katyusha rockets.
On the front page of “Comments & Features” are two columns:Â “Yes, the problem is ‘Islamic fascism’” and “Syria and Iran get off scott-free”.
Update 16:58: Complete details about the shooting of an alleged “Israeli collaborator” at a Palestinian demo, including some I’ve not seen reported elsewhere, are on Riehl World View, found via a comment on The Muqata.
I scanned the “Yes, the problem is ‘Islamic fascism’” article in the Post by William Shawcross, author of Allies — Why the West Had to Remove Saddam, and it contains this comment about the BBC:
In a live BBC interview recently, I called Hizbullah “Islamo-fascists.” The interviewer said nervously, “That’s a very controversial description.” I replied that it was merely accurate. She brought the interview to a very swift close.
But how else should one describe a military machine that marches under the banner of a demogogic leader who seeks above all to kill Jews?
Well an article in today’s Times casts doubt on the durability of the ceasefire. Apparently the members of Hezbollah in the Lebanese government have to all intents and purposes said there’s no way that Hezbollah’s fighters will give up their arms to the Lebanese army, who it seems aren’t exactly keen on enforcing matters themselves for a number of reasons.