What Lies Behind IDF Spokesperson Statements Over the Past Three Days?
Photo: Michael Giladi, Flash90 What lies behind IDF Spokesperson statements over the past three days? Itzhak Abuhatzira 12 minutes ago 5 1
Since the cabinet decision that any fire toward Israel will be answered with a strike in Beirut, the IDF Spokesperson has repeatedly emphasized that the launches were aimed at forces operating in southern Lebanon, even when alerts were activated in northern communities. • Is this only an operational description, or wording intended to prevent a regional escalation, and was there an instruction to avoid acknowledging Hezbollah fire toward Israel? • Residents in Shlomi claim, “Even if there is a moon above the city, they will say it did not cross, all so as not to strike.” • The Defense Minister firmly denies it: “Such an instruction was never given.”
Since the beginning of the week, and especially after the Israeli threat, backed by a cabinet decision, that fire toward Israeli territory would lead to a significant response in Beirut, an interesting pattern can be identified in the statements published by the IDF Spokesperson. Time after time, even when alerts are activated in northern border communities, the main emphasis in the statements is not on fire toward Israel, but on the fact that the launches were directed at IDF forces operating in southern Lebanon.
3 + Israeli strike on a building in Beirut, archive | Photo: Reuters
For example, in statements published in recent days it was noted that “three launches were identified from Lebanon toward IDF forces operating in southern Lebanon,” that “one launch fell in an area where IDF forces are operating in southern Lebanon,” and that a hostile aircraft was intercepted “in an area where IDF forces are operating in southern Lebanon.” This was despite the fact that alerts were simultaneously activated in nearby Israeli communities. The repeated wording raises a question, is this only a factual description of the target of the fire as determined by intelligence and control systems, or is there also a political and strategic significance to the choice of words?
3 + Photo, archive: Arab networks
Since the beginning of the current escalation, Israel has set a relatively clear public line, according to which fire toward northern communities could lead to a harsher response, including strikes deep in Lebanon and in Beirut. At the same time, Iran and its allies warned that an Israeli strike in Beirut would trigger a significant response against Israel. In such a reality, the definition of whether a particular barrage was aimed at an Israeli community or at a military force operating across the border may carry much broader significance than the tactical incident itself.
It should be noted that, for now, there is no public evidence that the IDF is changing its description of the events for political reasons. It is entirely possible that the launches were indeed aimed at the forces operating in southern Lebanon, and that the alerts in northern communities were activated in accordance with defensive policy because of the trajectory of the launches or concern about shrapnel and interceptions.
3 + Photo: Eyal Margolin, Flash90
Still, the unusual sequence of statements with nearly identical wording over the past three days, דווקא after the mutual threats surrounding the possibility of a strike in Beirut, raises questions, whether behind the carefully chosen words there is also an attempt to prevent a rapid deterioration into a wider confrontation.
Testimonies from residents in Shlomi that reached C14 say, “Even if there is fire over the city, they will say it did not cross, all so as not to strike.” Some residents feel that if there are no recordings of the fire, even if it is over their heads, “they will say it did not cross.”
3 + A hit in Shlomi, archive | Photo: Yoni Balleli
One resident of Shlomi was furious at the IDF Spokesperson’s statement that alerts were activated in Shlomi because of fire toward forces in southern Lebanon. “Two targets were over Shlomi, one target penetrated and one target disappeared. Impossible to believe the lies.”
In conclusion, it must be said that a reality in which the political echelon allows fire toward forces in southern Lebanon and infiltration by terrorists without triggering the need for an immediate and severe response in Beirut is completely problematic. Likewise, a lack of response in Beirut following launches fired toward Israel, but which did not cross the border only because they were intercepted, is no less problematic.
The Defense Ministry said, “Such an instruction was never given.” The IDF Spokesperson said, “The reports in question were checked and approved in the IDF’s technological systems and by the commanders in the sector. Any attempt to attribute to the IDF a deliberate policy of distorting facts is entirely baseless.”
Iran Hezbollah Lebanon border area Shlomi 0 Write a comment
