Coverage on the Israeli-Lebanese conflict continues as the bloodshed seems to be witnessing its last hours
CAIRO: Egypt’s newspapers continue to report on what they call “the last hours of the Israeli-Lebanese exchange of fire after both countries’ cabinets approved a United Nations cease-fire deal, due 8 a.m. Monday. In their columns, many of the papers’ political analysts have roughly calculated damage to both countries, while arguing the notion of the disarmament of Shiite militant group Hezbollah and the repercussions it might have on Lebanese security.
“Fatal damage to Israel in [its] last hours, reads an Al-Akhbar headline, referring to the fallout from the continuing battles between Hezbollah fighters and Israeli forces on the Jewish state. Hezbollah targeted Israeli tanks and soldiers in the south of Lebanon hours before the truce was officially implemented.
Israel has also been carrying out air raids on the country, chiefly pounding on the Hezbollah-dominated southern suburb, killing at least seven civilians and wounding dozens. According to reports, more than 20 explosions rocked the southern suburb in less than two minutes. One rumor had it that Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s spiritual leader and first in command, was wounded, but Al-Jazeera’s Beirut correspondent denied the reports shortly after they circulated, adding that none of the group’s leaders were hurt.
Although bound by the UN resolution, Israel has warned that using force against Hezbollah is still possible, even after a cease-fire, in order to prevent the group from rearming. The Israeli foreign minister also told the press that Israeli forces will only withdraw from the south when the international peacekeeping forces have been deployed, adding that the release of two Israeli soldiers, captured by Hezbollah guerillas, is a prerequisite.
Israel’s comments have lead some newspapers, including Al-Akhbar, to express their concern that Israel might very well recommence its offensive against Lebanon, even in the presence of a binding UN security council peace plan.
Meanwhile, the Egyptian government welcomed the UN resolution, albeit with reservations, according to President Hosni Mubarak, who called the peace deal “unbalanced . [Nevertheless] a step in the right direction. Mubarak, who was quoted by Al-Akhbar, urged Israel to abide by the UN resolution “in good intention and to commit to peace.
In an earlier statement, Mubarak had said that Egypt would support any international action aimed at promoting peace in the region and that Egypt’s policy is “the same and is clear, explaining no further. The president also said that Egypt is making efforts toward the release of the Israeli-captured Palestinian premier (affiliated with Hamas) and his companions.
*Addressing the need for an emergency Arab summit, which was repeatedly called for during the Israeli-Lebanese bloodshed and whose date is still being debated, Mubarak only said that a summit needs adequate preparations in order to produce an outcome “that the [Arab] peoples would approve.
Israel’s position and the called-for cease-fire have, in the meanwhile, spurred expectations marked by concern in Egypt’s independent press.
Amr Hashem Rabie, of Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, told Al-Masry Al-Youm in an interview that the UN resolution has benefited both Lebanon and Israel. “However, the resolution did not decide on the nationality of the Shebaa farms (deemed a Lebanese territory by Hezbollah), one of the main reasons an [Israeli] occupation was still present in Lebanon.
Lebanon’s cabinet has not decided on the state of Hezbollah’s arms and thus postponed their previously scheduled session; opinions are clearly split.
Similar confusion was evident among analysts, with some claiming that Israel’s actions and demands are actually meant to decapitate Hezbollah, not only disarm it, while others expressed fears that disarming the resistance group would only empower Israel and increase Lebanon’s vulnerability.
“The [Lebanese] army is no longer capable of protecting the Lebanese borders, we can’t guarantee the performance of this army, political analyst Ahmed Al-Mosalemany was quoted by Al-Masry Al-Youm as saying. “The [disarmament] of Hezbollah is a loss for the national security of Lebanon and its presence in the south brings safety to Lebanon, especially while the [UN] security council acknowledges it and does not obligate it to remove arms.
