When its forces entered Lebanon today, Israel lost no time making it clear to the world that its sole objective is to establish a security belt along the entire length of the Israeli-Lebanese frontier and thereby eliminate once and for all the terrorist strongholds from which repeated incursions against Israeli civilians have been launched.
The latest such assault was Saturday’s terrorist raid on Israel’s coast. With that carnage fresh in mind, the government is confident that it stands on firm moral ground in explaining its action in south Lebanon. The government has the duty to defend its citizens, sources here explain, and any other government would have acted in a similar manner. They quoted Article 51 of the United Nations Charter which justifies military action in self-defense. (See related story an Israeli operation in Lebanon.)
Unlike similar actions in the past, information as to the military aspects and purposes of the operation was given to the public promptly, barely 12 hours after it began. Defense Minister Ezer Weizman and Chief of Staff Gen. Mordechai Gur met with reporters in Tel Aviv at 9 a.m. local time.
Both stressed repeatedly that Israel has no claims on Lebanese territory and is not fighting Lebanon, nor is it taking retaliation for Saturday’s outrage. Its sole aim, they said, is to try to “annihilate and root out terrorist concentrations in southern Lebanon.” They indicated that the planned security belt would extend only some 5-7 miles north of the border.
But it was clear from Weizman’s remarks that Israel will not pull out of Lebanon as soon as the military mission is over, as it has in the past. He said the forces will stay “as long as we find it necessary to remain in the area to secure order and prevent hostile activities.”
ISRAEL REASSURES SYRIA
Inevitably, this will raise questions once the shooting stops and events move into the political arena. Whether Israel can effectively establish a terrorist-free region in south Lebanon will depend on many factors–the Syrians, the Lebanese, the Lebanese Christians and last, but not least, the United States.
The establishment of an orderly, meaning secure, situation for Israel in south Lebanon will have to be approved by the Syrians, at least tacitly. Weizman took pains to convey to the Syrians Israel’s purpose lest its action be misinterpreted in Damascus. He assured them they were not the target and initial reaction from Syria indicated that the message was received.
Damascus radio stuck to straight accounts of the fighting in its news broadcasts today and stressed that the Israeli attack was directed at the Palestinians, not the Syrians deployed in Lebanon. Damascus radio refrained from any evaluative comments on the Israeli action.
The Lebanese government will have to concur in the Israeli security plan and because it is too weak to act on its own, it is expected to seek the approval of the Syrian government. The Beirut regime of President Elias Sarkis is, in fact, a protectorate of Syria which maintains a 30,000-man peace-keeping force composed largely of Syrian troops. Israel would prefer to have a Lebanese army in the south. But as Weizman noted at his press conference, Sarkis admits that his government cannot exercise control in that region.
The question thus arises: if the legitimate government of Lebanon could not master the situation until now, how can it in the future?
The Christian community in south Lebanon is another element. For two years of civil war, Israel was its closest ally in the area. But the Christians were no military match for the heavily armed Palestinians. Weizman and Gur may have implied that Christian phalangists would be in charge of maintaining the security belt once Israeli forces withdraw. But there is no indication that they will be able to do this more effectively in the future than they have in the past.
Israel’s plans also depend to a large degree on the good offices of the United States. In the past, Israel always pulled its forces out of south Lebanon at the request of the U.S. So far, there has been no negative reaction from Washington to the Israeli operation. But it remains to be seen whether the U.S. will continue its silence if Israeli troops stay in Lebanon for any length of time.
JTA has documented Jewish history in real-time for over a century. Keep our journalism strong by joining us in supporting independent, award-winning reporting.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
