Attacks Force Israel to Weigh Lebanon Pullout

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came under renewed pressure Friday to extricate Israel from its debilitating war of attrition in southern Lebanon after seven Israeli soldiers were killed there in less than two weeks.

The surge in fatal clashes with Islamic guerrillas is forcing the government to reexamine its costly occupation of southern Lebanon amid growing public anger and demands for a withdrawal.

On Friday, upon receiving news of the latest two deaths, Netanyahu abruptly cut short a tour in Europe, where he was winning praise for having signed a new peace agreement with the Palestinians.

He returned home and held emergency consultations with his defense minister and other security advisors. On Sunday, the Cabinet also will debate ways to respond.

Arriving at the Tel Aviv airport, Netanyahu said he will consider withdrawing from southern Lebanon if the safety of Israelis in the north and members of the pro-Israeli South Lebanon Army can be ensured.

The pro-Iranian Hezbollah guerrilla army claimed responsibility for the latest attacks and vowed to attack Israeli civilians if Israel retaliates against Lebanese civilians.

The latest fatalities have been especially alarming to the Israeli military because they showed that Hezbollah is able to infiltrate the Israeli “security zone” in southern Lebanon, plant bombs or land mines within a few hundred feet of army posts and, in at least one case, detonate the explosives as soldiers passed.

Israeli forces arrested an undisclosed number of alleged collaborators in area villages, an army spokesman said.

In a now-familiar pattern of retribution, Hezbollah pounded Israeli army posts with mortar fire while Israel launched air raids against suspected Hezbollah positions.

Israel invaded Lebanon in 1978 and 1982 to destroy Palestinian guerrilla camps, and in 1985, it withdrew to a 9-mile-deep buffer in southern Lebanon.

Israel said this “security zone” protected Israelis from cross-border attacks by Hezbollah and other Lebanese guerrilla groups, which in turn have been fighting to eject Israeli forces since then.

Public opposition in Israel to troops remaining in Lebanon has grown, especially after the 1996 “Grapes of Wrath” offensive in which 150 mostly civilian Lebanese were killed.

A Gallup poll in Friday’s Maariv newspaper showed support for unilateral withdrawal nearly doubling, although 50% still oppose it. Protesters organized by the mothers of soldiers in southern Lebanon demonstrated loudly Friday in Tel Aviv.

Moshe Cohen, the father of a 20-year-old sergeant killed Thursday night, said at his home that he is ready to join the protest movement.

“What are we sending kids out there for, to be shot like sitting ducks?” Cohen said, his bright blue eyes welling with tears. “This is bereavement without a goal, without an aim. . . . Fathers are saying kadish [a mourning prayer] over their sons. This is a world turned upside down. Enough! Enough!”

Although senior army commanders continue to oppose an Israeli withdrawal, politicians inside and outside the government advocate a range of plans, from a unilateral withdrawal to a campaign of punitive airstrikes against roads, bridges and other infrastructure within Lebanon.

All of the options facing Israel carry risks.

“A military response, combined with a strong political initiative, is a risky strategy but one that is more likely as the costs increase,” said Gerald Steinberg, a military affairs expert at Bar Ilan University in Tel Aviv. “Israel cannot continue to send out soldiers to be killed at this rate.”

Debate over what to do about the Israeli presence in southern Lebanon swirls periodically in Israel and has led to a gradual shift in the government’s official position, if not the reality on the ground.

In April, the Cabinet voted to adopt a U.N. resolution that requires Israel to withdraw “immediately” from Lebanon.

Israel had steadfastly rejected the 20-year-old resolution, and in its April acceptance it said Israeli withdrawal had to be accompanied by a deployment of Lebanon’s army to prevent guerrilla operations. Neither movement happened.

The debate is now taking place against a different background. Netanyahu is politically weakened and his coalition in turmoil after the acceptance and execution of a recent U.S.-brokered peace agreement with the Palestinians.

A leading proponent of withdrawal, former army Gen. Ariel Sharon, who led the 1982 war with Lebanon, is now Netanyahu’s foreign minister and, theoretically, occupying a position more likely to have influence.

Sharon’s proposal, as he outlined earlier this week to the diplomatic corps in Israel, involves withdrawal combined with a concrete threat to bomb Lebanon if Israel is attacked and if Lebanon’s army does not deploy against guerrilla strongholds.

Many in Israel believe that the upsurge in Hezbollah attacks has been inspired by Syria, the de facto ruler of Lebanon that helps Iran supply the guerrillas with most of their weaponry and backing.

Syria, one of the biggest critics of the new Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, may be trying to reassert its own role in the regional peace equation. Syria is demanding the return of the Golan Heights, captured by Israel in 1967.

On Friday, army officers said they are reviewing operational changes in southern Lebanon, but they continued to reject calls for a unilateral withdrawal unless a broader security agreement is in place.

“A unilateral withdrawal would be an unreasonable gamble,” said Lt. Gen. Shaul Mofaz, the army chief of staff. “We pay a heavy price for this fighting. . . . Anyone should know there are no magical solutions to this situation.”