Doubts About War Growing at Hawkish Israeli Daily

By: E&P Staff From the beginning of the Israel-Hezbollah war last month, the popular daily, Ha?aretz, like other publications (and most of the citizens) in that country, has taken a very hawkish position on the conflict, with some dissenting opinions also aired. But on Friday, the tone at the paper, as reflected on its Web site, changed dramatically, on the day after 15 Israeli soldiers were killed in Lebanon.. Several news stories and opinion columns expressed harsh truths or critical views.

There was even a column bemoaning the "crushing" of the Beirut music scene.

A top news story stated: ?The public consensus that had accompanied the current fighting in Lebanon from the first day officially dissolved yesterday afternoon, following the cabinet's decision to expand ground operations in Lebanon.

?Meretz Knesset members, who had previously backed the Israeli military response, came out openly against expanding the ground offensive, with some warning of tragedy ahead.?

Another dispatch by well-known reporter Ze?ev Schiff opened: ?The large number and the location of the casualties that the Israel Defense Forces sustained yesterday indicate that the army does not yet control the narrow strip along the border, although this stage of the ground operation was supposed to have been completed already.?

The opinion section of the Web site is now called ?In the Quagmire.?

One columnist begged for ?truth, not spin.? Another stated: ?The result of this whole mess is that an incursion deep into Lebanon will leave Israel with a choice between cholera and the plague, between sitting for a prolonged period in fortified positions in the killing fields around the Litani or abandoning the whole of Lebanon to the hands of the war coalition of Hezbollah-Syria-Iran.?

The lad editorial closes: "The war is being waged not only under fire, but also under a barrage of 'fighting words,' systematic leaks, a 'loudmouth' policy on the part of senior officers and statements about what is going to be discussed and what has already been discussed in the diplomatic-security cabinet and the war room. This is not the way to run a war, and it is not the way to make changes in the leadership of the command that is doing the fighting."

A column by Meron Benvenisti, titled ?Regressing a Full Generation,? begins: ?Every time we have gone to war with the slogan of creating "deterrence capability" (at least three times), it has actually spurred the enemy to prepare for a more serious confrontation. The last time it was called "searing the Palestinians' consciousness," and its results were the victory of Hamas and a bleeding blind alley in the West Bank and Gaza Strip....

?The war and the atmosphere that has prevailed in its wake have caused Israel to regress by a generation. It is no wonder that people see history as a cyclical process, and that this war (like its predecessors) is also seen as the "last lap of Israel's War of Independence." And with what fury we are stoning those who do not rush to fill the heroic role being forced on them, and instead counter it with a desire for normalcy. Those who began this unrestrained war want to inflate its importance, in order to justify the terrible - and steadily increasing - price that is being paid solely in order to achieve a victory for the gambler. But perhaps the fact that they are conducting a 1950s strategy with a 21st-century society and culture is cause for optimism: It will not work.?

Uzi Bensiman, meanwhile, declares: ?It is to be hoped that the United Nations Security Council will quickly pass the resolution ending the war in Lebanon in the spirit of the agreement revealed on Thursday. Ehud Olmert must be encouraged to lead the cabinet firmly to adopt it.

?This war broke out in no small way because of the Israeli leadership's lack of diplomatic-military experience and failure to predict the future. Olmert will have to be magnanimous in accepting the compromise taking shape internationally, because it will be an admission of Israel's inability to achieve its declared goals.

?There is reason to believe he has this quality. He is not a cynic who, for reasons of prestige or other extraneous considerations, would take tens of thousands of soldiers into battle to risk their lives.

?The diplomatic solution, in spite of its limitations and the bitter pills to be swallowed, is preferable to expanding the war, since a new military move would not change the outcome of the armed conflict. Even if the military limits considerably Hezbollah's short-range Katyusha launch capabilities, it will not erase the impression that this organization has made in its challenge to Israel.?