The Israeli enemy has continued making intensive air strikes at the
districts and villages in the south, turning southern villages into
isolated islands. Meanwhile the intensity of the bombardment on other
parts of the country has decreased (the southern Beirut suburbs, the
Beqaa, Baabda, an-Na’imah, the North). This has meant more casualties
among the peaceful civilian population and more destruction of
civilian facilities, residences, bridges, roads . . . . There have
been somewhat longer battles on the ground all along the border where
the Resistance has inflicted more losses on the enemy. Refugees are
moving out of the area and Israeli warplanes have dropped leaflets
calling on the residents to leave their villages for locations north
of the al-Litani River.

 Economic Losses in Lebanon.

Some experts say that the amount of material loss as a result of the
Israeli aggression against the infrastructure, public facilities, and
private economy has reached about 3.2 billion dollars by today. These
estimates do not include losses suffered by the citizens such as the
destruction of private homes, cars, and personal property in addition
to the thousands spent by Lebanese fleeing from the area and securing
the vital necessities for themselves such as food, medicine,
transport, etc.

 New position statements by various forces.

Kofi Annan - the United Nations - condemned the violence on both
sides (Israel and Hizballah) and the excessive use of military force
by Israel, as well as the rockets that rain down on Israeli cities.
He reviewed a report by an international deputation that had been
sent to Lebanon and could be summed up as follows:

The two captive Israeli soldiers should be transferred to the legal
Lebanese Authorities under International Red Cross supervision and
there should be a cease fire.

An expanded peacekeeping force should be formed to work with the
Lebanese government to help imposing Lebanese army control over the
border.

President Siniora should confirm clearly to the Security Council and
Annan that the Lebanese government will respect the UN-delineated
blue line until an agreement has been reached on the location of the
border.

A framework for donors should be set up so they can fund an immediate
aid package to rebuild Lebanon.

An international conference with Lebanese participation should be
organized to organize a time schedule for quickly implementing the
Ta’if Agreement (specifically the provision concerned with disarming
the militias) and UN Resolutions 1559 and 1680.

The international community should be called on to work out a
framework for final delineation of the Lebanese border and the
resolute activisation of the peace process for the Middle East.

Annan indicated that Hizballah had taken Lebanon hostage and that the
deputation had said that the [Israeli] military operations had not
yet nearly approached its set objectives.

He made no mention of the matter of an exchange of prisoners, that
is, nothing was said about the Lebanese prisoners in Israeli prisons.

Russia: has called for a comprehensive solution in the Middle East
and an immediate ceasefire. A new element in the Russian position
came in a statement by the Russian Foreign Minister, who is to visit
the region, that the aims that have been announced for the purpose of
securing the release of Israeli prisoners have in actuality gone far
beyond the framework of a so-called ’anti-terrorist" operation, and
that a comprehensive settlement must be reached for the current
Middle East crisis. "The time has come and it has become objectively
necessary more than at any time in the past for a comprehensive
discussion of all sides of the situation in the Middle East without
exception on the basis of the relevant UN resolutions.“The American position:”the allies of Washington in the region,
namely Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan are regarded as important
countries for finding a solution to the Lebanese crisis, as a new
indication pointing to America’s strategy for solving the conflict
between Hizballah and Israel."

Rice went to New York to renew the cohesion of the European and
American position, which had begun to show signs of diference. The
Americans appear to be in nor hurry to stop the shooting before the
main Israeli goals have been achieved, namely to finish off
Hizballah. A spokesman for the White House said "it is premature to
hold discussions about sending a force to keep peace or to aid in
rebuilding Lebanon." Rice now is coordinating with Jordan, Saudi
Arabia, and Egypt on the situation in the region and the coming
diplomatic routes to be followed in dealing with it in order to work
out a unified position.

Saad al-Hariri: His statements after his meetings on his trips
contain demands for a final and comprehensive solution to the crisis
and the issue of sending an international force to Lebanon. He also
said that "Iran and Syria have their interests in the region and even
though other countries interfered we must find a final solution to
the conflict“while repeating the same position:”only the Lebanese
government is authorized to declare war and peace with any side" and
he emphasized the importance of fighting against any internal
divisive strife.

The French Position: the Europeans, specifically France, are offering
a proposal on a “humanitarian truce” and the opening of routes to
supply humanitarian aid. There is difference concerning the nature
and location of these routes: one proposal being by sea between
Lebanon and Cyprus, another overland via Syria - all this is "under
study"! There are Israeli preconditions concerning routes that have
not been disclosed.

Nabih Barri: addressed criticism in general at the Council of the
Arab League, seeking solidarity at least with the disaster-stricken
people in Lebanon and for an immediate cease fire and the holding of
a prisoner exchange.

Walid Junblatt: sent a delegation from the “Democratic Encounter”
group to Barri declaring that the Jabal Druze region [Junblatt’s
region] is in solidarity and his Progressive Socialist Party is
taking part in relief operations and in receiving refugees, but in
his latest interviews he focused on the idea of “the axis” and the
idea that Lebanon is paying the price, while blaming Syria, Iran, and
Hizballah for the situation.

Hizballah: Hasan Nasrallah said that the reason for the capture of
the Zionist soldiers was the need to use that as a basis for a later
prisoner exchange and expressed his satisfaction at the steadfastness
and confirmed that Hizballah is holding fast to their conditions and
that they are ready for battle even if it should be prolonged. He
contested the proposals of some political forces but softly, noting
the party in the negotiations is the government. In addition he noted
that what has happened and will happen will have a big impact on the
internal situation.

Salim al-Hoss: harshly criticized the position of some Arabs, in
addition to Saudi Arabia, saying, "what do they think they’re doing
standing by and watching?" He warned that the goal of the aggression
is to drag the country into sectarian strife like the sectarian
strife in Iraq that has been manufactured by the American occupation.

The Legislative Council: "We must either fight Israel together or we
will fight each other". The war that Israel is waging against Lebanon
has gone beyond the stated reasons for it. It is aggression against a
people and a state but the aggression will never attain any political
results. It called for continued steadfastness until international
initiatives crystallize and for closing the door to any form of
sectarian strife - the thing that Israel is trying to provoke. It
called for extending the authority of the state and the withdrawal of
Israel from the Shebaa Farms area and praised the efforts of the
government through the Supreme Relief Board and warned against
attempts to impose private security arrangements in any region. It
concluded by praising the army and expressing solidarity with the
Palestinian people.

Saudi Arabia: the time has come for a cease fire and "the Hebrew
state must not be given free rein to do whatever it wants" and it
supports the deployment of an international force.

 The viewpoints in the Zionist newspapers:

Haaretz: Air power cannot be decisive in the battle in Lebanon, even
if the air force succeeds in attaining goals and even if it kills
Hasan Nasrallah. The air strikes injure more than they injure
Hizballah. The air strikes did not succeed in stopping the firing of
missiles and in breaking up the guerrilla army, and at the end of the
battle Nasrallah will emerge to threaten Israel. And if he is killed
then Hizballah will rise and turn the south into an Iranian
mini-state and continue their rocket threats. Then the lesson for the
Middle East will be hat a small ideological army will remain capable
of provoking Israel, which becomes unable to accept this situation.
What is needed therefore is a decisive response and therefore the
dilemma facing Israel is: do you complete the air war with a
political solution policy that might return to Hizballah its power,
or do you complete the air war with a land war that could lead to
huge losses and to getting stuck?

Elsewhere the paper noted that Israel knows that it will never get
back its prisoners without an exchange but it wants to carry out that
exchange from a position of strength, not of weakness.

Maariv: confirmed that the land war is beginning, recognizing that
the first land battles have produced losses and showed that there is
fear of direct engagement between the army and Hizballah, and of the
mine fields, and the rockets that will be a part of ground
operations. It concluded that the war is still a long way from its
end and that the army will be forced to bring more of its forces into
the depths of Lebanon, but in small groups so as to avoid losses.

 Some preliminary conclusions:

First: disagreement and difference is on the rise within the Zionist
Israeli army entity, especially after the recognition that the air
force cannot attain a clear military victory over the resistance
structure and Hizballah, or succeed in stopping the rocket barrages,
even though military operations have reached their peak. Therefore
there has begun to be talk about the need for a decisive solution
able to break up Hizballah and the Resistance, getting rid of their
armed strength. Thus the likelihood of an imminent ground offensive
has increased, despite the dangers of this course for the Israeli
army. Indications that this is the most likely prospect are:

The failure of the military so far to achieve “some kind of victory”
with air strikes.

The transformation of the villages in the south into a bunch of
disconnected islands,

The Israeli demand that residents leave their villages,

The need to take advantage of the fact that the grace period given to
Israel by the international community and in particular by the United
States has not yet expired,

The preconditions for the other alternatives (like expanding the
aggression outside Lebanon’s borders, for example) have not yet been
completed,

The Zionist enemy might use more than one scenario for its ground
offensive (an invasion of the area south of the al-Litani River,
airborne landings, special operations).

Second: although some distinctions have appeared in the unified
international stance, this is still within the grip of the American
administration which is pushing for giving more time to Israel to
make progress in its military operations such that it is able to draw
benefits from them in its plan for the region, taking advantage of
the disgraceful position of the official Arab regimes that are
providing cover for the aggression.

Those differences that have emerged so far do not affect essential
issues but only matters of appearance. (Agreement on the French
request for secure humanitarian routes, but with the stipulation that
they be by sea, in accordance with Israel’s desires; the proposals of
the UN General Secretary that are in essence no more than the Israeli
conditions with a bit of makeup).

The essential point of the American position is complete support for
Israel until it attains all its goals by means of aggression and
military action. For this reason the convening of the UN Security
Council was postponed and Rice’s visit to the region was postponed.

 Third: On the Lebanese Internal Situation:

The Lebanese government continues to maintain its policy of "looking
the other way" as if what is going on doesn’t concern it. It is
waiting to see what the military operation sand the "international
orders" will produce. Rather than being in the van of those calling
for resistance to the aggression and for removing this issue from the
realm of internal disputes, the authorities have fallen behind the
’14^th of March Coalition’ forces [anti-Syrian, “Lebanon First”
political forces] that have taken positions that have had a negative
impact on the resistance and increased the level of internal tension
within Lebanon, including religious sectarian tension. Various
dimensions of this have benefited the Israeli enemy and have provided
support for the Arab regimes and international community, which are
giving cover for the Zionist aggression and encouraging it. This
stance of the authorities has also weakened the unity and solidarity
of the nation that are necessary as a basic weapon in confronting
dangers threatening the country (which today means Israel) and after
the end of the conflict.

In addition it has greatly lagged in undertaking relief work and does
not want to press for the opening of all possible routes for bringing
in aid, particularly the land route, as if it were required to
conform to the international position that is working to open a sea
route exclusively through the port of Jounie.

This policy will complicate the internal situation more as the
aggression continues and expands, moving to a land offensive, and in
view of the economic difficulties and problems with services - all of
which will expose the internal situation to man more divisions and
sources of tension and could push things towards a serious
governmental crisis that opens the door for anything to happen in
Lebanon.

This situation makes the political forces conflicts worse. Along
these lines we believe that there is a danger of rhetoric about
resorting to arms and establishing private security increasing
tension. (For example, the statement by Michel Aoun yesterday in
as-Safir - and the Declaration of the Islamic Legal Council).

This necessitates that we undertake more political initiatives
together with various parties in order to insure that political
forces really line up to confront the aggression. To that end,
Hizballah must participate in this side of things, first, by helping
to turn the task of confronting the aggression into a national task
that is not the monopoly of Hizballah alone. And secondly by
dispelling the predominant feelings that some people have that
Hizballah deals with the country as if it were an arena for fighting
out a regional conflict. (Nasrallah’s interview yesterday might help
in this regard). Third, by exercising a certain discipline on the
Syrian axis group and also on Salim al-Hoss and the Michel Aoun
faction so that they enter more into this effort to get political
forces lined up against the aggression.

Fourth: The battle that is going to take place will have many
ramifications internally and externally and will decide the course of
the political operation that will be taking place in Lebanon and the
region. This demands that we draw on all our Arab and international
contacts so that these forces may take part in curbing and halting
the aggression.

Fifth: The activism of the Party mush increase in all fields of work
so that it can play the best possible role in resisting the
aggression and securing the things needed for popular and national
resistance.

The Political Bureau of the Lebanese Communist Party.

Arabic original at: http://www.lcparty.org/210706_1.html