Comments Posted By 235h1kjh14h
Displaying 1 To 1 Of 1 Comments
From the very beginning Olmert never wanted a big military operation. From the very beginning he saw military action as a means to a diplomatic solution. Olmert executed this strategy very well with the last minute escallation of the ground invasion to get the best terms possible in the UN resolution, but at this point in time, the strategy itself while executed well, does not seem to have been very wise.
Israel's diplomatic/military strategy is explained at the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affiars web site faq questions 1 and 2.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the+Ministry/Behind+the+Headlines/Israels+counter+terrorist+campaign+-+FAQ+18-Jul-2006.htm
The web page says, "The purpose of the Israeli operation was two-fold - to free its abducted soldiers, and to remove the terrorist threat from its northern border.
Israel understood from the outset that although military operations were necessary to defend its citizens by neutralizing the threat posed by Hizbullah’s terrorist infrastructure, the eventual solution would indeed be diplomatic.
The components of such a solution were as follows:
# the return of the hostages, Ehud (Udi) Goldwasser and Eldad Regev;
# the effective deployment of the Lebanese army in all of southern Lebanon;
# the expulsion of Hizbullah from the area, and
# the fulfillment of United Nations Resolution 1559.# the preservation of IDF gains in removing Hizbullah from the border region
# the elimination of the Hizbullah long-range missile threat
# the prevention of Hizbullah’s re-arming by closely monitoring of the possible routes into Lebanon from Syria or elsewhere (an arms embargo)."People thought that the point of the resolution was to give Israel justification for continuing the war when Hezbullah failed to comply. This did not take into account that Olmert really didn't want to continue the war.
Comment Posted By 235h1kjh14h On 17.08.2006 @ 12:46
