THE CRITICAL PHASE - 23-Apr-96

(Commentary by Ze'ev Schiff, "Ha'aretz", April 23, 1996, p.B1)

Operation "Grapes of Wrath" is entering the final phase. Now it will be determined if the military campaign will bear fruit, if its goals were achieved or if the operation changed nothing. This is the phase in which its administration passes more to the political echelon even if the military command continues to be involved in determining terms for its conclusion. This is also the phase in which both sides generally step up their efforts on the battlefield to gain more at the last minute.

In the Arab-Israeli conflict, we have already seen circumstances in which the defeated side succeeds in achieving more in negotiations at the end of the battle than the side which had the upper hand. Therefore, a great deal of determination and patience are necessary due to the presence of psychological processes at this phase which are no less important than the military ones. It is also possible that the negotiations will stall and, in those circumstances, we should not recoil from escalating military pressure on additional targets.

The feeling that prevails among us is that due to the tragic mishap in which many Lebanese civilians were killed by artillery fire in Kafr Kana, we must make concessions in the political negotiations. This is incorrect. We do not have to agree to the assertion voiced even from the American team that negotiations will now be more difficult. This is a suggestion for concessions on justifiable basic demands. The tragic mistake in Kafr Kana does not suddenly turn Hizbullah, which is responsible for bombing the Israeli embassy and strives to derail the peace process, into the good side in this war. Syria too, which supports various terrorist organizations, does not become a positive source which must be worshipped.

If Washington agrees to the Lebanese government being totally removed from the negotiations on what is happening in Lebanon, it will be handing this country to the Syrians on a platter and recognizing a de facto Syrian occupation. Logically, therefore, why should the Syrian government stop its support of the Islamic Jihad, Hamas and the Turkish PKK?

Nevertheless, the mishap in Kafr Kana worsened Israel's position in international public opinion, but it must not be permitted to determine the well-being and security of Galilee communities. Very few of the preachers of this message can claim moral right when the killing of civilians in military actions is at issue. Does Russian Foreign Minister Primikov wish to instruct us regarding how to eliminate the Chechnyan people in bombs directed at cities and villages? How is this better than what Assad did to the residents of Hama in his own country? The American team mocks Primokov on this issue, but it is worthwhile reminding them how they mistakenly shot down a planeload of Iranians into the Persian Gulf using a sophisticated missile. Egypt, which executes dozens of people and eliminated hundreds without trial in the elite Egypt, in their war against terrorism, certainly has no right to preach to us about how to defend ourselves.

The tragic mishap in Kafr Kana is a problem that, first and foremost, we must resolve among ourselves and it must not influence our firm resolve to achieve better understandings intended to prevent additional military campaigns in the future.

The right to self-defense stands at the forefront. This means the right to return fire to its source with any weapon. If Assad insists on Hizbullah's right to continue fighting in the security zone, he must know that this grants the IDF the right to pursue them and attack them beforehand even beyond the security zone. If not, we will restrain the IDF in fighting and in defense action. It is incumbent upon the Chief of Staff to clarify this point to the government and, on this topic, he has the support of the ministers.