Tikun Olam-תקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

Today’s NY Times bears the rather remarkable news that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was not notified in advance by the IDF command that it would be conducting a raid in Ramallah on the same day as his talks with Hosni Mubarak:

Mr. Olmert’s aides said he had not been informed of the raid in advance and was angry about what had happened.

And according to the Jerusalem Post, Maj. Gen. Yair Naveh didn’t even inform his nominal civilian boss, Amir Peretz, the defense minister:

According to reports, Naveh did not inform Defense Minister Amir Peretz of the raid before it was carried out.

All this could mean many things. First, the IDF may have the cabinet’s approval to conduct such raids without first notifying the civilian echelon. Such a process would be foolhardy in my opinion and guarantee more disasters of this kind in future.

Or the IDF may deliberately be poking its finger in the politicians’ eyes by leaving them out of the loop. This too would be disastrous since it would indicate that the IDF may flaunt its independence with impunity. Essentially, it would mean there is no one exercising any control over the IDF. How can a democracy afford such an extravagance? Imagine if Douglas MacArthur could’ve run an end around on Truman during the Korean War. We could’ve had Chinese troops overrunning the entire Korean peninsula and tens of thousands of U.S. troops trapped there. Not to mention the possibility of a nuclear attack either from China or its ally Comrade Stalin.

Or it could mean that the politicians are lying to cover their asses and save themselves from the embarrassment of having to admit to a foreign leader (Mubarak) that they didn’t know what the hell their army was doing.

Whatever the cause or reason, this incident indicates the utter dysfunction of the current government. I don’t know what’s worse–the army that can’t shoot straight or the Keystone Cops cabinet ministers who appear to be bumbling incompetent fools. They can’t manage their way out of a paper bag.

All of which has brought Israel to the unlikely place of having MKs denouncing an IDF operation within hours of its completion. OF course, there have been MKs who have denounced IDF policy. But I can’t remember an incident in which it happened so quickly after the fact. In the old days, such a thing would never have happened. The IDF was a sacred cow incapable of being criticized. But one indication of the weakness of this government and of the IDF is that there is no longer a taboo against slamming the nation’s armed forces. In a way, this is a good thing since no army should be above reproof. But it is also a bad thing in that it shows how far off course the IDF has come. When the IDF makes its own security policy without civilian oversight and the politicians never buy into such policy, this is a recipe for national disaster, which is precisely what we now see happening.

tags amir-peretz, ehud-olmert, mubarak, no-civilian-oversight-of-israeli-army, olmert-not-informed-by-idf-of-ramallah-raid, peretz-did-not-know-of-idf-raid, yair-naveh-idf-officer

Ehud Olmert is packing his bags for the flight to Washington where he’ll meet with President Bush and Condi Rice. Their two major topics of conversation will be Israeli policy toward the Palestinians, specifically the expected Palestinian national unity government; and Iran’s nuclear programs. Ephraim Sneh, current deputy defense minister, senior Labor MK and former IDF senior commander, “did an Olmert” by acting as Olmert’s stalking horse in a Friday interview in the Jerusalem Post (or read the transcript of the full interview). You’ll recall that whenever Ariel Sharon wanted to say or do something especially bellicose, like threaten to assassinate Yaser Arafat, he had Olmert do the dirty work for him so Sharon’s hands wouldn’t be seen to be unclean.

In a similar way, Sneh warned the world in the interview that Israel would not stand idly by and allow Iran to achieve nuclear weapons capability. If the U.S. and the world refused to act, Israel would:

Israel must be prepared to thwart Teheran’s drive for a nuclear capability “at all costs,” Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh has told the Post.

“I am not advocating an Israeli preemptive military action against Iran, and I am aware of all of its possible repercussions,” Sneh stressed. “I consider it a last resort. But even the last resort is sometimes the only resort.”

…The former IDF brigadier-general described an untenable scenario of Israel “living under a dark cloud of fear from a leader committed to its destruction.”

He said he was afraid that, under such a threat, “most Israelis would prefer not to live here; most Jews would prefer not to come here with their families; and Israelis who can live abroad will. People are not enthusiastic about being scorched.”

Thus the danger, Sneh elaborated, was that Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would “be able to kill the Zionist dream without pushing a button. That’s why we must prevent this regime from obtaining nuclear capability at all costs.”

…Sneh said he still hoped the international community would institute effective sanctions against Iran, but that “the chances are not high… My working assumption is that they won’t succeed.”

Interviewed in his Knesset office, Sneh said his priority was to define Israel’s national goals, including “preparing the IDF for victory in the next round with Iran and its proxies.”

Lest we glorify this man’s military strategic abilities, we should remember that he commanded Israel’s first invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and Israel’s creation of the proxy puppet South Lebanese Army. He’s the military man who let Sabra and Shatilla happen though Sharon himself shares the lion’s share of blame.

But whatever one has to say about Sneh’s military abilities, you have to admit that this is a serious shot across Iran’s (and the world’s) bow. He is telling the Security Council: “if you can’t deal with the Iran mess, we will. And if we do it, we’ll do it our way, not yours. So do something or else deal with the consequences.” This is typical Israeli bravado and braggadocio in which threats and bullets substitute for real diplomatic policy. Unfortunately though, that doesn’t mean we can dismiss Sneh as a raving lunatic. As we saw in Lebanon, the lunatics seem to be running the asylum these days as far as the IDF and Israeli political leadership are concerned. In other words, anything Sy Hersh was concerned about the U.S. doing to Iran including using nuclear bunker busting bombs against Iranian nuclear facilities, he should be doubly and triply concerned about regarding Israel’s potential role in this.

George Bush and Dick Cheney have both recently admitted that they saw Israel as their potential warrior proxy regarding Iran. So I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the plan when Olmert meets with them would be to come up with various scenarios and decide how they respond. Will the U.S. attack Iran if the UN fails? Or will Israel do it? And if either does it how will they do it and what will they need from their partner? So, the upcoming meeting is something of a war parley between the two allies. And if Israel needs any of those bunker busters from the U.S. they’ll be sure to get them as they did in the Lebanon war.

But we need to ask whether Israel, even if it uses its considerable might against Iran can hope to succeed in attaining its goals. I am certain that it will fail. Even if it succeeds in knocking out the nuclear program (a highly dubious proposition), such Israeli adventurism will deeply destabilize both the Mideast and the world. If we here in the U.S. think we’re hated now, it will appear like a walk in the park compared to the hatred we will endure if we allow our proxy to do our dirty work for us. Our enemies, not just Iran or Al Qaeda, will be spurred by immense reservoirs of hate and thirst for revenge. My Mideast Doomsday Clock will be set to 30 seconds to midnight. This would be about as bad as it could get short of a full-theater, multi-nation war.

Israeli commentators are stating that they see even less likelihood after the election defeat that the U.S. would attack Iran than before. Which means that the job may go to the IDF after all. Hence, Sneh’s opening verbal salvo.

Iran fully understands the meaning of the gesture and has protested to the UN about the threat made against it by a fellow member of the General Assembly (a serious violation of UN rules). But what good such a protest will do considering how badly Iran is thought of by much of the rest of the world (outside of the Arab world–and perhaps within it as well). Iran’s statements and actions regarding the nuclear issue and Israel have done nothing to win it any friends except in places like Cuba, Russia (perhaps), Lebanon (perhaps), Bolivia, and Venezuela. Not much company.

And returning to Sneh’s comments about an Israel drained of population by the fear of such a nuclear attack, this is utterly preposterous. Israel has been under attack many times in its existence–notably in 1948 and 1967. Israelis steeled themselves rather ran away. He is talking about his own countrymen and women as if they are turncoat cowards. This is deeply insulting to Israelis. No Iranian threat will have such an impact on Israel.

What really causes Israelis to emigrate and potential immigrants to hesitate is the constant state of war which Israel provokes with its neighbors (not that they aren’t helping in propagating this state as well). And Sneh’s bellicosity only worsens these fears. What Israeli mother wants to see her child serve in a war in which he or she might be killed? Yet, to their credit, most Israelis do precisely this; even though their leaders and generals do not deserve such loyalty. So it is Sneh and Halutz who create the atmospherics which discourage aliyah (immigration) and encourage yeridah (emigration).

I am not intending to belittle the danger of an Iranian nuclear weapon. But calm and patience is required in dealing with this prospect rather than saber rattling. Despite Israeli claims (i.e. “lies”) to the contrary, Iran will take years before it can weaponize any nuclear material. There is no urgency whatsoever in attacking Iran now. No need to decide the matter now.

So why do so? One very good reason. After the savage Beit Hanun massacre, and the ensuing black eye Israel received for killing 18 innocent Gaza civilians in their sleep, Olmert is desperate to change the channel. How else to do that by dramatically changing the subject. His thinking is, you do this by talking about Iran’s nuclear weapon, which nobody in the world wants and regarding which everyone sympathizes (or so Olmert believes) with Israel as an almost certain target. Et voila, presto chango, the subject is changed. Israel goes from monster to victim overnight. “Nice work if you can get it,” as the song lyric says.

tags ehud-olmert, ephraim-sneh-interview-in-jerusalem-post, iran-protests-at-un-to-Israeli-threat, israel-must-prevent-iran-from-obtaining-nuclear-capabil, israel-u.s.-proxy-to-attack-iran, saber-rattling-against-iran

Haaretz published a report today claiming that Israel is responsible for holding up the release of kidnapped soldier, Gilad Shalit:

Gaza source: Israel delaying deal for Shalit

The source, who is located in the Gaza Strip, said Israel and Hamas have agreed on the principle of exchanging Shalit for Palestinian prisoners, but that the two parties have not yet decided the exact nature of the deal or how it will be carried out.

He said the kidnappers, with whom he is in contact, have made realistic demands. The source would not say how many prisoners Hamas is demanding in the swap, but he did say the number is not in the thousands, as had previously been stated.

“Moreover, Hamas has not completely rejected the Egyptian proposal that Shalit first be transferred to the Egyptians, after which Israel will free prisoners,” the source said. “The problem is that the Egyptian mediation team has no response from Israel, like as to when the prisoners would be released, how many and what type. Only with these responses will the mediators be able to offer something to the kidnappers. But Israel is not clarifying its positions. It is not taking any initiative that indicates its desire to complete the deal. There is no sign of readiness, there are no messages via Israel’s overt channels, and the problem is  there are no messages even via the covert channels.”

It is hard to read into these blasted unnamed sources used by Israeli publications, but it would appear to me that the source must be from Hamas or from someone very close to Hamas. It would also appear that Olmert’s government has been so crippled by the Lebanon war that it cannot make any significant policy decision such as agreeing to a prisoner swap to liberate one of Israel’s most important detainees. Olmert of course denies this:

The Prime Minister’s Office said the charges are incorrect, and would not discuss the talks taking place. Israel would not conduct negotiations with Hamas regarding the release of prisoners, and the country is using all means to bring home the abducted soldiers, it said.

If Olmert won’t negotiate with Hamas then he isn’t “using all means to bring home” Shalit, now is he? And if the charges are incorrect and Israel isn’t stalling–then why hasn’t Shalit been freed? It seems clear that there is some merit, and perhaps a good deal of merit, to the charge against Israel. When will it get off its duff and get this thing done?

My guess is that Olmert is petrified at the threat from his right regarding the failure of the war. He is afraid that by releasing Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Shalit that he will leave himself open to a frontal attack from the Netanyahu types. And this is true. They will go after him. But if it were Sharon he would laugh in their faces and dare them to land a blow on his reputation. Unfortunately, we’re dealing with a far more fragile political figure than Sharon. And it seems a shame that a young soldier’s fate is held hostage not only to Hamas, but also to Ehud Olmert’s perhaps waning political career.

tags ehud-olmert, gilad-shalit, haaretz, hamas, israel-delays-release-of-kidnapped-soldier

Israel has reached an inauspicious milestone of sorts. It has crossed the century mark in terms of combined civilian and military deaths in this war. Billmon does something interesting (albeit ghoulish) math tonight to compute how many more Israeli soldiers could be killed if Olmert chooses to advance to the Litani:

Let’s do some rough back-of-the-envelope calculations, just to see what the Israelis have gotten themselves into.

The estimates I’ve seen of the number of Hizbullah main force fighters in southern Lebanon range between 2,000 to 5,000 — let’s say 3,500.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Hizbullah’s leadership were be willing to accept 75% casualties in order to bleed the Israelis on the way to the Litani. That’s 2,625. (And Gen. Nasrallah might very well be willing to accept more, since he appears to have other units — in the Bekaa Valley, for example — that could be fed into the battle.)

Let’s assume half of those Hizbullah casualties are KIA. One in three or one in four would be a more normal ratio, but these guys seem pretty set on martyrdom. That’s 1,313, rounded up.

At a kill ratio of 2:1, that would equal 656 (rounded down) Israeli KIA — about a quarter of Israel’s combat deaths in the Yom Kippur War, when it was fighting the armies of two Arab states. At a 4:1 kill ratio, it would be 328 KIA – about half of total Israeli deaths in the first Lebanon War.

Of course, if Israel goes to the Litani it would then find itself waist deep in a prolonged guerrilla war of attrition, which no doubt would result in even more Israeli casualties…

Israel has a total population of just over 6 million — about 2% of the U.S. population. So proportionally, 656 Israeli KIA would equal roughly 33,000 American combat deaths, or about two-thirds of U.S. losses for the entire Vietnam War. And like I said, that would probably just be for starters.

Does the Olmert government have the stomach for that kind of fighting? Is the Israeli public willing to pay so much blood to conquer a piece of ground that almost certainly will have to be given back later? And what if the big push doesn’t stop the rocket attacks but only reduces them temporarily? Would it still be worth such a price?

When you start thinking about somewhere between 300-600 IDF dead in this war it starts reminding you of that ever climbing U.S. casualty rate in that other swamp war in Iraq.

It may be that some of these same cold calculations are going through the mind of Ehud Olmert right about now as he debates whether or not to heed the Svengali like call of Butcher Dan Halutz to take the troops all the way to the Lebanese Big Muddy–the Litani River:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is still debating whether to approve the proposed expansion of the Israel Defense Forces’ ground operation in south Lebanon…Olmert fears that the plan presented by the defense establishment will result in hundreds of casualties, and therefore, wants to subject it to a careful cost-benefit analysis. In Tuesday’s fighting in Lebanon, five soldiers were killed and 23 others wounded, two of them seriously.

I’m certain that utterances like this one will boost his confidence in the outcome of such an expansion of the war:

IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz said Tuesday that such an operation is necessary “in order to end this war differently.” People who participated in discussions of the plan with him said they had never heard him speak as forcefully in favor of anything as he did in favor of the proposed ground operation.

While I have said many negative things in this blog about Olmert, he is a lawyer and prides himself on the same type of realpolitik practiced by the likes of Henry Kissinger. If he really has the courage of his convictions, he will run from this plan as fast as his feet can carry him. When Dan Halutz tells you it’s a slam dunk that’s when you know you’re up to your ass in alligators if you take his advice. I can’t say what Olmert will do. Thus far, he has taken all the wrong advice in prosecuting this war. But perhaps now, after he sees how badly it’s going for both his civilians and his troops, he will see reason and bargain seriously for a ceasefire and Israeli withdrawal coordinated with a Lebanese deployment in the south and Hezbollah retreat from the border.

tags dan-halutz, ehud-olmert, hezbollah-war-of-attrition, idf-advance-to-litani-river, israeli-dead-in-lebanon-war

This is rich, I tell you. Israel, which has historically detested all international forums, finding them to be biased against it; and which detests UNIFIL with even greater venom has announced that UNIFIL will do quite nicely, thank you, as the ceasefire monitor in southern Lebanon:

Israel has lifted its demand for the deployment of a new multinational force in southern Lebanon and agreed that UNIFIL, the United Nations force already in place, would oversee the cease-fire.

In a draft text for a UN Security Council resolution on ending the crisis in Lebanon, agreed Saturday by the United States and France, it was concluded that the UN Interim Force in Lebanon would be replaced by a new force only after Israel and Lebanon reach agreement on the principles of a long-term accord.

In the immediate future, UNIFIL will be reinforced with more troops in order to be able to carry out its new mandate.

Returning to Israel’s intense dislike of UNIFIL, you’ll recall the direct hit on the Qhiam UNIFIL fortress which killed four of its soldiers. Much of the world finds this incident a deliberate act by the IAF. Even Ehud Olmert himself has rejected the notion that UNIFIL could police southern Lebanon:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said last week that Israel “will not accept a force of the UNIFIL type, that was proven not to be effective. The force that will be deployed will have to comprise of armies, not pensioners who come to vacation in southern Lebanon, but real soldiers capable of fighting.

Why would they do something so preposterous as to revert to an entity they find impotent? Two reasons that I can see. First, Condi must’ve told them that the war has to wind down very soon and that the deal establishing the new peacekeeping force could not be readied in time (if ever). She must’ve told them that UNIFIL is the only other viable option. Second, Israel knows that UNIFIL is a paper tiger and would never stand in the way of another Israeli incursion against Hezbollah. Essentially, maintaining UNIFIL’s presence is a green light for Israel to attack the south at will. That’s very nice for Israel and the U.S. Even very nice for Hezbollah since UNIFIL will not deter it either from attacking Israel (and attack it they will). But Lebanon suffers because there can be no peace without a meaningful and proactive force maintaining a buffer between the two sides.

The Haaretz article also notes this ominous omission from the draft U.S.-French UN Security Council resolution attempting to end the war:

An official with knowledge of the document said the draft calls for a “full cessation of violence” between Israel and Hezbollah, but would allow Israel the right to launch strikes if Hezbollah attacks it.

“It does not say immediate cessation of violence,” the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the draft had not yet been made public.

That appeared to be a major victory for the U.S. and Israel. France and many other nations had demanded an immediate halt to the fighting without conditions as a way to push the region back toward stability.

The proposal does not include a demand that Israel withdraw its troops from positions in southern Lebanon, as demanded by Hezbollah.

So what exactly does this resolution do? It doesn’t end the violence. It doesn’t demand that Israel withdraw to its own territory. What the f(&k does it provide to Hezbollah or Lebanon that would make it interested in signing on? Zip. Nada. Zilch. Efes. Bubkes.

There is a plan to pass a later resolution which would attempt to lay out a longer term plan for a full resolution of the conflict. But in the Middle East, indefinite plans have a funny way of disappearing into the ether. Even firm agreements are often ignored if it is in the perceived interests of one of the parties. So how likely is it that we will see the second resolution? And if we don’t, then the first one will eventually disintegrate as well. The NY Times’ coverage picks up on this potential problem:

“There is considerable risk in this two-stage approach,” one [U.S. official] said, requesting anonymity because of his involvement in confidential negotiations. Among those risks, he said, is that a second resolution might not be adopted or that Hezbollah could use any cessation of hostilities to resupply. That in turn could prompt the Israelis to bomb or seize supply routes, provoking counterstrikes by Hezbollah and reigniting the conflict.

And this comment from an Israeli official seals the (doomed) fate of this resolution:

The Israeli official, who said he could not be identified discussing security matters, said Israel fully expected Hezbollah to attack the Israeli soldiers remaining in southern Lebanon. He argued that such an attack would give Israel the right to retaliate and return to the offensive.

Endless war. That’s what both sides seem to long for.

Here’s another delicious irony embedded in the resolution text:

The resolution calls upon “the international community” to extend aid to the government of Lebanon to help people return and begin the process of reconstruction.

How will the U.S. respond to this? We supplied the most damaging weaponry used against Lebanon. Will we feel under any obligation to repair the damage we have wrought? Nah, doubtful. Condi pledged a measly $30 million if I recall the number correctly. But just think. The U.S. could announce a plan to plow some serious money into Lebanese reconstruction, trumpet its humanitarian concern for the Lebanese, and farm the work out to Halliburton and Bechtel, their usual corporate suspects. Then U.S. contractors make money destroying the country AND rebuilding it. Diabolical, no?

Condi’s Not Going to Beirut

The Lebanese have finally agreed to meet with a Bush Administration official in the negotiations leading up to the UN resolution. But it’s not Condi who’s going. You’ll recall that after Qana, the Lebanese rescinded their invitation for her to hold talks with the prime minister (for some strange reason the NY Times, when it talks about this incident, always says that it was Condi who cancelled–trying to make Condi look less a fool than she already is?). Another person not going to Lebanon is Elliot Abrams, one of her point-people on the Mideast. Wonder why he’s not going? Could it be his slavish allegiance to Aipac and the entire anti-Arab neocon ideology. David Welch gets the nod on this trip. He’s also negotiated with the Palestinians. Welch seems to be the designated hitter with the Arabs and Abrams with the Israelis. Maybe if we had a more balanced Mideast policy you wouldn’t have to segregate our representatives because they all would be seen as honest brokers. I know, please don’t blow any of that liquid you’re drinking out of your nose. It was a preposterous wish to begin with.

The Fog of War Propaganda

The NY Times tells us that Israel has continued its valiant fight to enlist every possible ethnic group within Lebanon to hate it. It announced that it would attack Sidon, which is decidedly NOT a Hezbollah stronghold:

There were signs the fighting could expand: Israeli planes dropped leaflets over the city of Sidon, south of here, warning people to evacuate before expected airstrikes on “terrorist infrastructure.”

Sidon is an overwhelmingly Sunni Muslim city, rather distant from Hezbollah strongholds farther south. In recent weeks it has been a collection point for many of the hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing the fighting.

The Israeli Army also issued a statement saying it did “not consider the Lebanese people to be its enemy and does not want to harm them.”

As I started this post: that’s rich.

tags condi-rice, david-welch, ehud-olmert, international-peacekeeping-force-in-lebanon, israeli-attitude-toward-unifil, u.s.-negotiations-with-lebanon, un-security-council-resolution-ending-lebanon-war

Haaretz reports the highest combined civilian/military single-day death toll since the war's inception. So much for Olmert's statement yesterday that the IDF has "dismantled" Hezbollah's military capacity: A barrage of Hezbollah rockets slammed into northern Israel on Thursday, killing at least eight Israelis. Four people were killed when a rocket crashed directly into a house near the northern town of Ma'alot, and another four were killed when a rocket exploded near their vehicle in Acre... Shimon Zaribi, 44, and Albert ben Abu, 41, both of Acre, were killed in the rocket attack on their hometown. Sinati Sinati, Amir Naeem and Mohammed Fouad, all 17-year-old residents of the village of Tarshiha, were killed in the attack near Ma'alot. Also Thursday, four Israel ...

And the beat goes on. Or should I say 'beating a dead horse' goes on? That would be Israel's failed Lebanon war. The logic seems to be--if we haven't won this thing thus far let's sink even more troops into it so that we finally can. Just the trap that John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson fell into in their escalation of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. The NY Times writes this telling passage explaining what might be the Israeli thinking behind this latest escalation: Israeli troops may push northward to the Litani River, 15 miles from the border, cabinet ministers said after their latest meeting, which ended in the early hours on Tuesday. But the Israeli intention ...

Having learned nothing in the aftermath of Qana II, Haaretz reports that Israel is rolling up its sleeves and mounting an expanded ground invasion of southern Lebanon: Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's political-security cabinet voted in the early hours of Tuesday morning to expand Israel's ground operation in south Lebanon. Under the plan, and similar to last week's [ed., highly successful] operation carried out in Bint Jbail, IDF forces will mount raids on villages that have served as Hezbollah bases... The cabinet voted nearly unanimously in favor of the plan, with none opposed and one abstention. It shows the depths of cluelessness of the Israeli government and the IDF's military strategy. What strikes me is the fact that Israel does not want to ...

Right off the bat, let me say that I'm not about the argue that Israel's invasion of Gaza is precisely like its 1982 invasion of Lebanon (known then as Operation Peace for Galilee). But there are important and interesting similarities. Today's Haaretz already notes that Ariel Sharon used the attempted assassination of Shlomo Argov, Israel's ambassador to England as a pretext to launch the attack. The kidnapping of Gilad Shalit serves the same purpose today. Military strategists note that the most important guarantee of success on the battlefield is having a carefully considered and precise plan. Knowing what you do not want to do is as important as knowing what you do. If you ...

Today's Haaretz reveals that the Hamas-Popular Resistance Committee joint terror operation which killed two IDF soldiers took place at an outpost within the Green Line. **UPDATE: In the past few minutes, the reference to the outpost being inside Israel has been removed. The article retains this seemingly contradictory statement: The gunmen attacked an IDF post near Kerem Shalom just outside the border fence with southern Gaza...The gunmen seized Shalit and fled with him across the border I can't tell from this passage where precisely the outpost was located.** Which means that this action would've violated the Prisoner's Document had it been in effect. It calls for a cessation of all resistance against targets within the Green Line. It is only ...