The Pause That Is Not a Cease Fire

by emptywheel

Via Laura Rozen, I found this Haaretz article to be full of amazing details. It offers an explanation of the difference between a "pause" and a "cease fire."

The government source said that the IAF had been told to continue acting against "targets that present a threat to Israel and its troops, including rocket launchers, vehicles transporting ammunition, Hezbollah fighters, weapons stores and Hezbollah assets."

The term "Hezbollah assets" refers to people identified with the organization, including those who do not pose an immediate threat. "If they are identified with Hassan Nasrallah, we will hit them," the source said.

Regarding the instructions to the IAF, the source said, however, "there will be no attacks on buildings that had not been identified" as part of efforts to strike Israel, and held, for example, ammunition, Hezbollah fighters or their commanders."

So under the rules of the pause, here is what is allowed:

• Attacks on rocket launchers, vehicles transporting ammunition, Hezbollah fighters, weapons stores, and Hezbollah assets
• Attacks on people "identified with Hassan Nasrallah" even if they do not pose an immediate threat

That "identified with Nasrallah" sounds like some of the same gibberish Bush uses to defend wiretaps on Americans against whom he can't get a warrant. Identification, after all, can mean a range of things, many of them not legally meaningful.

But otherwise, that sounds like it's about self-defense, right? So what's the difference between what they're doing today that they weren't doing yesterday? Well, there is a restriction on one kind of attack, one that appears to be new with this pause that is not a cease fire.

• "There will be no attacks on buildings that had not been identified" as part of efforts to strike Israel

Granted, they don't say what the rules of engagement were yesterday, but it certainly sounds like this is a new restriction. That's certainly what Human Rights Watch seems to think. A startling admission, if that's what the rules of engagement were yesterday.

Meanwhile, the unwavering unity behind Israel's attacks? It only exists so long as you forget about the Arab population of Israel.

"We cannot agree to an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon because then we will find ourselves in a few months in a similar situation," Peretz told a heated parliamentary debate during which four Israeli Arab lawmakers were escorted out for heckling. One Knesset member called Peretz a murderer.

Huh, in our Congress, it's only people like Cindy Sheehan who get escorted out. But I guess in Israel, they've resorted to escorting out the Arab members of the Knesset (though don't get me wrong--I don't doubt that they, like Mean Jean, violated parliamentary rules)

The article provides more details about the genesis of this pause that is not a cease fire.

After hearing Olmert's explanations for the attack at Qana, Rice asked the prime minister what steps would be taken to prevent such an incident from happening again, in order to avoid having an impact on the war effort. Rice said that when such incidents occurred in Iraq, the operations were suspended until the completion of an investigation.

First of all, did we know about this? Did we know that BushCo halts their operations after they've blown away a bunch of Iraqi citizens? Did we halt our operations in Fallujah when we hit a hospital, for example?

Also note the way this is phrased:

Rice asked the prime minister what steps would be taken to prevent such an incident from happening again, in order to avoid having an impact on the war effort.

This pause that is not a cease fire is, even in Rice's mind, a way to ensure the efficacy of the war effort. (Forgive me for laughing about such claims for efficacy, but I can't help myself.)

But apparently, the Israeli officers doesn't seem to have much respect for Condi's (and Olmert's) notion of efficacy.

Following the meeting, the offices of the prime minister and defense minister decided to limit the aerial activity until the completion of the investigation. The announcement was supposed to have been made by the Israeli military, but due to a misunderstanding, it actually came from the American side.

Am I mistaken in reading a subtext that suggests the Israeli military is only grudgingly maintaining the charade of the pause that is not a cease fire? And wasn't about to acknowledge it unless forced to? Though I can't blame the generals--apparently we've had such pauses that are not cease fires, but I've never heard of them, not once.

Probably. Because the article suggests Condi thinks she can get a cease fire this week. Whereas Defense Minister Amir Peretz sounds like he's just getting started.

"We have to finish the operation, and I will do it," he said. "The army will expand and deepen its actions against Hezbollah."

Comments

[Mimikatz]

You almots, almost, have to feel a bit sorry for Condi. Her reputation and efforts are in ruins. But it does, once again, expose who is really in charge of foreign policy--it's the "creative chaos" bunch (and Bush is nothing if not fully a believer) who thinks there must be a [pony in this somewhere.

[emptywheel]

Mimikatz

Well, I think it all comes down to whether Condi can negotiate a cease fire or not. And I suspect, still, that Blair is a key player in this. If Condi doesn't succeed, after all, the brewing revolt against Tony may finally get some traction.

But in this country, and Israel? Yeah, I'd say the creative chaos folks realize that if they can hold out against Condi's cease fire, they'll have the upper hand. But for what? Holding out requires getting deeper into a war you're not going to win.

[SaltinWound]

I too was skeptical when I saw the announcement came from the American side, due to a "misunderstanding." We understood there was a cease fire, and they understood they were paying lip service to Condi.

[DHinMI]

From the Ha'aretz article linked by mimikatz:

The Europeans, the ambassadors the United Nations, the leaders of Arab states, all those who saw in Rice a stabilizing factor, calculated and reasonable in the Bush
administration, are reevaluating their stance toward her.

All of that may still be true, excpet the "stabalizing factor." What we're seeing roll out is that she's ineffective on the big stuff where President Cheney disagrees with her.

[Mimikatz]

Exactly. Rice is exposed as an empty suit. And Blair? He's in California with Arnold Schwarzenegger touting their new joint market for greenhouse gases, which they had to formulate without Bush--but with a bunch of CEOs.

Things are going from bad to worse. the "ceasefire" has already been broken (by Israel) and we really ought to be worrying more about Iraq.

[knut wicksell]

I've been away for three days on an isolated island with limited access to internet. Seems like things have blown to hell since Friday. How time flies. Yes. Condi is an empty suit. The U.S. is holding a hand that is so weak it can't even put up a respectable bluff. Depending on what Israel does in the next 48 hours, we may be seeing the real end-game, with US supply lines to Kuwsait cut and the troops forced to leave under fire. Heckuvajob, Bushie.

[emptywheel]

Man, knut, you make me look like an optimist.

[freepatriot]

what happened since friday, kurt ???

and ew, you've always been an optimist compared to me

when I give people a "future narrative", it scares the hell out of the poor bastards

and I've seriously underestimated the incometence of george bush while I've been doing it

wanna bet that we're fighting Syria and iran by october ???

[freepatriot]

addendum to my first post:

if you're interested in the long term futures market, bet on China and Russia over the US by a knockout

political parallisis in 2007 due to a Democratic Congress and an intrasigent bush will allow Russia and china to destroy any remaining American economic power

your seeing the death of the dollar on your tv screens folks

welcome to my world