After Lebanon, EU to look at wider Mideast peace prospects
Aug 29, 2006, 14:15 GMT
Brussels - European Union foreign ministers meeting in Lappeenranta in Finland later this week will look beyond the current ceasefire in Lebanon to prospects for ending Israeli-Palestinian hostilities, EU diplomats said Tuesday. Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja, whose country holds the current EU presidency and who will be chairing the two day meeting on September 1 and 2, said he wanted ministers to 'take a hard look' at the Middle East peace road map drawn up by the EU, US, Russia and the UN.
The blueprint, which remains largely unimplemented, will need to be updated, Tuomioja said in a letter to EU foreign ministers ahead of the Lappeenranta meeting. The Finnish Foreign Minister also said he wanted to evaluate the EU's role and working methods in tackling crises in the Middle East in order to enhance Europe's impact. EU ministers should look at 'how we can make a real impact and who are our partners and how should we work together with them, said Tuomioja, in apparent reference to the EU's refusal to hold direct political talks with the Hamas-led Palestinian government. The Union has classified Hamas as a terrorist organization and says direct contacts will only be established once it recognizes Israel, renounces violence and vows to abide by past peace accords.
The EU's Middle East envoy Marc Otte also told the European Parliament that international crisis management to solve Middle East problems must be replaced by a longer-term strategy to end conflicts in the region. Otte said the international community must refocus on the Israeli- Palestinian conflict which he said had been put further on the back burner by the recent fighting between Israeli forces and Hezbollah militants. International reconstruction efforts in the region would be a litmus test for a political approach 'that goes beyond mere crisis management,Otte said. He also called on European governments to show 'a leading role in the diplomatic process' in the Middle East. Otte warned that the humanitarian situation in the Palestinian Territories had worsened and that the situation had a potential for deterioration.
New peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Government looked unlikely as the Israelis had been paralysed by the violent conflict with Lebanon, the EU envoy said. Finnish Ambassador Teemu Tanner said the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1701 'could serve as a catalyst to solve the various conflicts in the region. EU governments last week decided to send up to 7,000 soldiers as part of a reinforced 15,000-strong international peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon. The meeting in Lappeenranta will also look at Iran's recent response to a western offer to provide Tehran with peaceful nuclear technology in exchange for an end to uranium enrichment activities.
EU diplomats say there are no firm plans for the bloc's foreign and security policy chief Javier Solana to travel to Iran but added the 'the channels of communication' with Tehran were open. European governments have said Iran's reply does not provide a basis for opening talks on the trade and aid package and insist that Tehran must suspend uranium enrichment before starting negotiations. Tuomioja's letter also asks EU ministers to prepare for discussions on the bloc's strategic relationship with Russia. I would like to invite you to assess the EU's possibilities and means of influencing Russia's development in the mid and long-term perspective,' the Finnish Foreign Minister said. Plans for a new cooperation agreement with Russia must also be reviewed said Tuomioja.
The two-day meeting of EU foreign ministers in Finland kick-starts a series of key EU foreign policy encounters including talks later in the month with Asian leaders, including China and India and with southern Mediterranean foreign ministers. © 2006 dpa - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
Thursday, August 31, 2006
TEXT OF OLMERTS HAIFA SPEECH
Text: PM Olmerts Haifa speech announcing investigation of war
OLMERT'S 28.8.06 HAIFA SPEECH TO LOCAL AUTHORITY HEADS [Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA
I want to make one thing clear: the responsibility for the decision to go to war, to react with military force, not to keep quiet over the attack on our soldiers, citizens and sovereignty, as well as the responsibility for the results of the war, is wholly mine.
But the primary complaint was the flip-flop decision making by the Olmert team during the course of the war that had frustrated soldiers getting their orders changed many times - not mentioned here.
Mr. Olmert's narrative also declines to mention that Hizbullah was rapidly rearmed from Syria after the war.
But perhaps most disturbing of all: instead of recognizing the threat in the Gaza Strip as a practical opportunity to demonstrate that Israel is not being taken a fool a second time, the Olmert team appears to have operations in the Gaza Strip on auto-pilot. The weapons keep rolling over/under the border from "peace partner" Egypt and the only initiative around is the dubious proposal that Israel rely of international inspectors to vouch for inspections at yet another crossing point.]
Link: www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Communication/PMSpeaks/speechhaifa280806.htm
Distinguished Minister, Mayors, Dear Friends,
I am pleased to have this opportunity to meet with you again - we have met quite a few times in the recent period, and this meeting will not be our last.
Later on, I will share with you the ways in which I intend to examine the events of the war, learn all the lessons and prepare for the future as quickly as possible.
I want to make one thing clear: the responsibility for the decision to go to war, to react with military force, not to keep quiet over the attack on our soldiers, citizens and sovereignty, as well as the responsibility for the results of the war, is wholly mine.
During the last campaign, the Israeli, civilian home front was the enemy's main target. And this is not by chance.
Hezbollah's goal was to prove its "spider web" theory. To damage the home front, kill, terrorize with the intention of causing alarm, panic, a public outcry which would paralyze IDF activities. They believed that pressure on our home front was their life boat.
They hoped our civilian home front would not withstand it, and they were surprised. The home front withstood it.
It withstood it, because of the conduct of the citizens in the shelters and workplaces. It withstood it, because of the volunteer spirit and solidarity displayed by Israeli society, which mobilized in its entirety, to help, volunteer, contribute, host, and do whatever was needed. It withstood it, because of your leadership, in your hometowns, among your residents, and because of your wisdom and courage.
It is also because of the actions of the Government, which acted from the first few days, at the height of a difficult military campaign, which was forced on us.
Yes, the home front stood firm, and because of this, largely, the Hizbollah failed in deterring us.
You remember Nassrallah's first speech on television, his smugness, his scorn for us, his confidence in his victory.
I know there are disagreements regarding the level of success, which is perhaps dependent on the level of early expectations. There were those who were quick to summarize. Gentlemen - patience. One thing is clear: in Beirut and other capitals in the Middle East, they understood that we are not going to tolerate attacks on our sovereignty, our citizens and our soldiers. This lesson, which is so important, is one we have learned for ourselves, and the world has also learned it. We saw Nassrallah yesterday say simply in his speech of regret: "If I had known that these would be the consequences, or even one percent of them - I would not have ordered the kidnapping and begun the war. Very simple.
If, two months ago, someone would have predicted results like these, we would have said that he was exaggerating.
What is the situation today?
. Hizbollah has been pushed back from the fence, from the border. There are no more Hizbollah posts over Manara, Dovev, Avivim or Margaliot. There are no positions which control the border.
. Most of the forces on the front line of Hizbollah have been destroyed. Hundreds of dead, hundreds of wounded. This force, which trained for years to attack us, was hit hard from the air and on the ground.
. Most of the long-range missiles, which were the enemy's strategic threat over Israel, were destroyed in the first hours of the campaign, in a grand campaign by our Air Force, within 34 hours - a campaign which reminds one of the destruction of the Arab air forces during the Six Day War and the destruction of the Syrian missiles in the Peace of the Galilee War.
. Hizbollah strongholds in Beirut and all its command centers and facilities were destroyed. The heads of the Hizbollah are homeless, rootless, hunted and seeking shelter.
. The Lebanese Army has deployed in the south, on our northern border, in order to prevent the Hizbollah from renewing its threat to us, for the first time since the outbreak of the Lebanese civil war 35 years ago.
. A strong international force, comprised of armies from European countries is organizing to enter Lebanon and assist in stopping the Hizbollah.
. Resolution 1701 is one of Israel's most important accomplishments in the international arena. If it is fully implemented - our situation along the northern border will be infinitely better than it was on July 12th.
This was not just a war against Hizbollah. Hizbollah was equipped with the best weapons, missiles, night vision equipment, anti-tank missiles, katyushas, and every destructive tool possible. Iran and Syria operated all the mechanisms, provided total backup, and were, in fact, the infrastructure and basis which the State of Israel faced during the last month.
It is clear to the world that Hizbollah has been beaten. The President of the United States, which is Israel's great friend, George Bush said it best a couple of days ago when he said that very soon it would become clear just how much Israel won, and how much Hizbollah was defeated, as well as those who stood behind them.
For the first time, there is a chance for an agreement in Lebanon which would remove the immediate threat on Israel. There is a chance - not a certainty. We must stand guard, continue in our diplomatic efforts, and be prepared to use force in order to defend ourselves if need be, if the political arrangement fails.
We achieved this because we did not hesitate to use force when necessary, but we acted with restraint and responsibility whenever possible. We knew to instruct the Army to act unhesitatingly when there was need, and we also knew to finish when the first appropriate diplomatic opportunity was created.
So, is everything good? No. Not everything is good.
We suffered heavy losses. It is true that they suffered heavier losses, but this does not console us over the loss of one soldier, one person who was killed, one citizen who died.
We were not successful in stopping the katyushas. It must be admitted - we did not, nor did anyone, have a suitable solution to stopping the curved trajectory weapons. Even complete control over the territory did not afford us total immunity. However, it must be remembered that even the katyushas from Lebanon - like the qassams from Gaza - cannot stop us.
Most importantly - we have not brought the boys home. The Government of Israel, and I as its head, will spare no effort to find them and bring them home. I, Ehud Olmert, Prime Minister of Israel, promise you that they will come home, perhaps not as soon as we would like, but they will come home.
And it is true, not everything worked as we would have liked. We were not as ready as we needed to be in every place. We did not always achieve the results we hoped for. Not everything worked. There were incidents. There were deficiencies. There were also failures.
Even if the overall balance is positive, we cannot ignore the failures, we must not cover them up, we must not overlook anything. We do not have time. We must act quickly. It is my duty, as Prime Minister, to examine everything, draw conclusions, learn lessons and fix everything that must be fixed. And I will fulfill this duty, as I promised immediately after the war.
From the first day, we all knew that this war would cost us dearly, on the frontlines and on the home front. We knew that we would be exposed to rocket and missile fire directed at population centers. We seriously considered the risks and decided - if not now - when?
If we had not reacted thus, if we had again restrained ourselves from reacting to this serious provocation to our sovereignty and our citizens' way of life - it is possible that in a short time, we would awaken to a new reality, immeasurably more difficult, dangerous and threatening than that with which we dealt.
The war in the north did not create new dangers of which we were not previously aware. It obligated us to deal with these dangers without compromise, and before it was too late.
It was clear ahead of time to everyone that this war would eventually end in the diplomatic step of a cease fire, because we never intended to stay in Lebanon, and did not want to wallow there for many years as we did in the past.
On Wednesday, August 9, the U.S. government informed us that a process was ripening which would bring about a cease fire under conditions which were acceptable to Israel. The Government, and I as its Head, was convinced that this opportunity should not be missed.
However, in the following days and especially on Friday, August 11, it became clear that the proposed draft of the resolution which would be presented to the Security Council was completely unacceptable to Israel. Under these circumstances, I instructed the IDF to continue to expand its activity on the ground in the south of Lebanon.
On Saturday morning, August 12, the resolution was accepted by the UN, largely due to the continuation of Israel's warfare. The IDF was on the move. Hizbollah declared it would continue to fight. The Lebanese government had not yet convened to approve its support of the resolution. Under those circumstances, in agreement with the top command of the IDF, it was necessary for the troops to move forward to ensure that the best possible conditions for us would be achieved.
We suffered painful, heartbreaking losses, also during the last hours of warfare. Like the rest of the people of Israel and, first and foremost, the bereaved families, I carry in my heart the pain of these losses as also the indescribable sorrow for all the fallen and wounded soldiers. In this case too, I am convinced that this difficult decision was inevitable. Because of it we could end the warfare and remain in Lebanon for two weeks without continuing to fight.
I hear the voices of criticism. There is, of course, professional protest and political criticism. I ignore these. We all know these games, of those who smell the political opportunity or let the surveys go to their heads.
But, there is also true, genuine, heart-felt criticism - that of reservists, citizens - of those who are driven by love and not hatred. They stand and protest - also against me, and I hear them and respect what they have to say.
They are right about certain issues, and I disagree with them on other issues. However, the question is what should be done with this criticism, how we take the rage, disappointment, frustration and despair, as well as the sense of responsibility and the love we all feel for the country, and use them to rectify that which needs to be rectified. And rectification is required.
During the past few days, I struggled with myself on this question. I consulted many people, including the Attorney General, many experts in the fields of security, government and justice, and with my fellow ministers. I mainly debated about my duty as Prime Minister, who bears supreme responsibility not only for what was, but mainly for what will be, and for what may be.
The solution is simple on the surface: a judge will be appointed to chair a State judicial commission of investigation, which will hear witnesses, collect evidence and pass a verdict - an external, impartial, objective body.
This may be a tempting solution, politically, and may appeal to certain public opinion - one which would ensure tranquility for a long period of time until the investigation is completed. However, this is not what the country needs.
But, it is clear to everyone what will happen. For a long period of time the top of the military and security leadership, including the IDF command will be completely paralyzed in fear of the verdict. Many will quickly equip themselves with top lawyers, create narratives, cleanse themselves of guilt and, G-d forbid, place the blame on others. This is the nature of things. This is how it goes. This is how it has been.
And it must be borne in mind: all this, while the warfare has not ended completely, while IDF soldiers are still in Lebanon, while the firing may still be renewed, while the threat has not yet been lifted. Still, beyond the approaching horizon, we should be prepared for the threat from Iran and its Israel-hating president. We do not have the luxury of sinking into years of investigations into the past, which have nothing to do with learning lessons or preparation for the future.
Anyone, in all honesty, knows that this will not repair the defects or prevent incidents.
What we need is an effective, professional inquiry, to examine the issues in depth, draw conclusions, and learn lessons.
Firstly, the army actions. I wish to tell you something personal. I sat with the army commanders during the war and especially during its long nights. I saw the Chief of Staff , chief commanders and many other commanders. I saw them in doubt, in agony over each loss, and anxious about further losses. I saw them shoulder responsibility and do their utmost to forbear.
I will not allow the army to stand a public lineup of collective flogging. We do not have another IDF. We do not have another army. The IDF cannot be replaced. I will not allow the IDF to be paralyzed for many months or more only to please one person or another. I will not let this happen.
The army should be examined in the manner in which a civic democratic society examines its army, and the same applies to us - the political echelon.
My Government will appoint a committee of inquiry chaired by Nahum Admoni, former Head of the Mossad. Among the committee members will be Maj. Gen. (Res.) Yedidya Yeari, Prof. Ruth Gabison, Prof. Yehezkel Dror.
The committee will be charged with the task of examining the functioning of the Government, its proceedings and decision making, and anything else it sees fit to examine. The Government will not be exempt from professional examination and criticism.
The defense system will act, in the framework of its authorities, to conduct a thorough examination in order to implement the necessary changes in the preparedness of the IDF, its combat doctrine and force structuring, in light of the lessons of this war and threatening scenarios.
The Government will request the State Comptroller to conduct an extensive and in depth examination of the defects which were discovered in the home front's preparedness in the face of the threat of missiles and rockets. Thus, the three structures - political, military and civilian - will be examined.
I am confident that these extended examinations will teach us lessons in the shortest time possible, while at the same time conducting a reliable and an open procedure. Upon realization of these procedures our capabilities will improve significantly. In the long term, Israel will emerge from this more resistant, stronger, and, with G-d's help, better prepared for the challenges of the future and its chances. And, the most important thing is that it will happen in a short time.
All of this is not enough.
This war, the difficult trials of a significant part of our civilian population, also revealed the terrible hardships which befell segments of Israeli society in the last few years.
We will not be able to avoid serious and thorough attention to these problems. The Government resolved to carry out an extended action to strengthen the north and Haifa, while placing special emphasis on the physical rehabilitation of the affected areas, but also allocating special budgets to the education system, underprivileged population, single-parent families, new immigrants, minorities, senior citizens of whom many were affected in recent years, children at risk and underprivileged neighborhoods.
This is true not only in regard to the north. This situation undermines the stability of the entire Israeli society and also other areas, especially the south and the Negev.
We will not be deterred from our commitments to prepare for the multi-annual plan in which the Government decided to deal with this challenge. In the coming weeks the Government will decide on a detailed plan for the fulfillment of these commitments. These plans will be presented to the public.
Dear Friends,
The campaign is not over - neither this campaign nor the others - on other fronts, from without or within. We will continue to discuss these issues.
Right now, I only wish to remember and remind you of:
The families of the victims - bereaved families whose pain is unbearable. We shall not forget.
The wounded who are still in hospital, struggling to recuperate, to be rehabilitated and return to their lives. We shall not forget.
The citizens who face their ruined houses and deserve a helping, constructive, generous hand. We shall not forget.
The employees, the self employed and business owners - small, medium or large businesses - who were the first to suffer the economic burden, and may collapse as a result. We shall not forget.
The reservists who returned to their homes, some of whom are angry or disappointed, and have to make up for that which they missed. We shall not forget.
We shall not forget.
Gilad Shalit who today celebrates his twentieth birthday. I take this opportunity to send a warm embrace on my own behalf and on behalf of all of you, to Gilad, to his family who so fear for his life and to all those who love him.
Udi Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. We shall not forget.
We will examine with one hand and fix with the other. We have an opportunity here.
From here, we will embark on a new path.
Thank you very much.
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis Website: http://www.imra.org.il/
OLMERT'S 28.8.06 HAIFA SPEECH TO LOCAL AUTHORITY HEADS [Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA
I want to make one thing clear: the responsibility for the decision to go to war, to react with military force, not to keep quiet over the attack on our soldiers, citizens and sovereignty, as well as the responsibility for the results of the war, is wholly mine.
But the primary complaint was the flip-flop decision making by the Olmert team during the course of the war that had frustrated soldiers getting their orders changed many times - not mentioned here.
Mr. Olmert's narrative also declines to mention that Hizbullah was rapidly rearmed from Syria after the war.
But perhaps most disturbing of all: instead of recognizing the threat in the Gaza Strip as a practical opportunity to demonstrate that Israel is not being taken a fool a second time, the Olmert team appears to have operations in the Gaza Strip on auto-pilot. The weapons keep rolling over/under the border from "peace partner" Egypt and the only initiative around is the dubious proposal that Israel rely of international inspectors to vouch for inspections at yet another crossing point.]
Link: www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Communication/PMSpeaks/speechhaifa280806.htm
Distinguished Minister, Mayors, Dear Friends,
I am pleased to have this opportunity to meet with you again - we have met quite a few times in the recent period, and this meeting will not be our last.
Later on, I will share with you the ways in which I intend to examine the events of the war, learn all the lessons and prepare for the future as quickly as possible.
I want to make one thing clear: the responsibility for the decision to go to war, to react with military force, not to keep quiet over the attack on our soldiers, citizens and sovereignty, as well as the responsibility for the results of the war, is wholly mine.
During the last campaign, the Israeli, civilian home front was the enemy's main target. And this is not by chance.
Hezbollah's goal was to prove its "spider web" theory. To damage the home front, kill, terrorize with the intention of causing alarm, panic, a public outcry which would paralyze IDF activities. They believed that pressure on our home front was their life boat.
They hoped our civilian home front would not withstand it, and they were surprised. The home front withstood it.
It withstood it, because of the conduct of the citizens in the shelters and workplaces. It withstood it, because of the volunteer spirit and solidarity displayed by Israeli society, which mobilized in its entirety, to help, volunteer, contribute, host, and do whatever was needed. It withstood it, because of your leadership, in your hometowns, among your residents, and because of your wisdom and courage.
It is also because of the actions of the Government, which acted from the first few days, at the height of a difficult military campaign, which was forced on us.
Yes, the home front stood firm, and because of this, largely, the Hizbollah failed in deterring us.
You remember Nassrallah's first speech on television, his smugness, his scorn for us, his confidence in his victory.
I know there are disagreements regarding the level of success, which is perhaps dependent on the level of early expectations. There were those who were quick to summarize. Gentlemen - patience. One thing is clear: in Beirut and other capitals in the Middle East, they understood that we are not going to tolerate attacks on our sovereignty, our citizens and our soldiers. This lesson, which is so important, is one we have learned for ourselves, and the world has also learned it. We saw Nassrallah yesterday say simply in his speech of regret: "If I had known that these would be the consequences, or even one percent of them - I would not have ordered the kidnapping and begun the war. Very simple.
If, two months ago, someone would have predicted results like these, we would have said that he was exaggerating.
What is the situation today?
. Hizbollah has been pushed back from the fence, from the border. There are no more Hizbollah posts over Manara, Dovev, Avivim or Margaliot. There are no positions which control the border.
. Most of the forces on the front line of Hizbollah have been destroyed. Hundreds of dead, hundreds of wounded. This force, which trained for years to attack us, was hit hard from the air and on the ground.
. Most of the long-range missiles, which were the enemy's strategic threat over Israel, were destroyed in the first hours of the campaign, in a grand campaign by our Air Force, within 34 hours - a campaign which reminds one of the destruction of the Arab air forces during the Six Day War and the destruction of the Syrian missiles in the Peace of the Galilee War.
. Hizbollah strongholds in Beirut and all its command centers and facilities were destroyed. The heads of the Hizbollah are homeless, rootless, hunted and seeking shelter.
. The Lebanese Army has deployed in the south, on our northern border, in order to prevent the Hizbollah from renewing its threat to us, for the first time since the outbreak of the Lebanese civil war 35 years ago.
. A strong international force, comprised of armies from European countries is organizing to enter Lebanon and assist in stopping the Hizbollah.
. Resolution 1701 is one of Israel's most important accomplishments in the international arena. If it is fully implemented - our situation along the northern border will be infinitely better than it was on July 12th.
This was not just a war against Hizbollah. Hizbollah was equipped with the best weapons, missiles, night vision equipment, anti-tank missiles, katyushas, and every destructive tool possible. Iran and Syria operated all the mechanisms, provided total backup, and were, in fact, the infrastructure and basis which the State of Israel faced during the last month.
It is clear to the world that Hizbollah has been beaten. The President of the United States, which is Israel's great friend, George Bush said it best a couple of days ago when he said that very soon it would become clear just how much Israel won, and how much Hizbollah was defeated, as well as those who stood behind them.
For the first time, there is a chance for an agreement in Lebanon which would remove the immediate threat on Israel. There is a chance - not a certainty. We must stand guard, continue in our diplomatic efforts, and be prepared to use force in order to defend ourselves if need be, if the political arrangement fails.
We achieved this because we did not hesitate to use force when necessary, but we acted with restraint and responsibility whenever possible. We knew to instruct the Army to act unhesitatingly when there was need, and we also knew to finish when the first appropriate diplomatic opportunity was created.
So, is everything good? No. Not everything is good.
We suffered heavy losses. It is true that they suffered heavier losses, but this does not console us over the loss of one soldier, one person who was killed, one citizen who died.
We were not successful in stopping the katyushas. It must be admitted - we did not, nor did anyone, have a suitable solution to stopping the curved trajectory weapons. Even complete control over the territory did not afford us total immunity. However, it must be remembered that even the katyushas from Lebanon - like the qassams from Gaza - cannot stop us.
Most importantly - we have not brought the boys home. The Government of Israel, and I as its head, will spare no effort to find them and bring them home. I, Ehud Olmert, Prime Minister of Israel, promise you that they will come home, perhaps not as soon as we would like, but they will come home.
And it is true, not everything worked as we would have liked. We were not as ready as we needed to be in every place. We did not always achieve the results we hoped for. Not everything worked. There were incidents. There were deficiencies. There were also failures.
Even if the overall balance is positive, we cannot ignore the failures, we must not cover them up, we must not overlook anything. We do not have time. We must act quickly. It is my duty, as Prime Minister, to examine everything, draw conclusions, learn lessons and fix everything that must be fixed. And I will fulfill this duty, as I promised immediately after the war.
From the first day, we all knew that this war would cost us dearly, on the frontlines and on the home front. We knew that we would be exposed to rocket and missile fire directed at population centers. We seriously considered the risks and decided - if not now - when?
If we had not reacted thus, if we had again restrained ourselves from reacting to this serious provocation to our sovereignty and our citizens' way of life - it is possible that in a short time, we would awaken to a new reality, immeasurably more difficult, dangerous and threatening than that with which we dealt.
The war in the north did not create new dangers of which we were not previously aware. It obligated us to deal with these dangers without compromise, and before it was too late.
It was clear ahead of time to everyone that this war would eventually end in the diplomatic step of a cease fire, because we never intended to stay in Lebanon, and did not want to wallow there for many years as we did in the past.
On Wednesday, August 9, the U.S. government informed us that a process was ripening which would bring about a cease fire under conditions which were acceptable to Israel. The Government, and I as its Head, was convinced that this opportunity should not be missed.
However, in the following days and especially on Friday, August 11, it became clear that the proposed draft of the resolution which would be presented to the Security Council was completely unacceptable to Israel. Under these circumstances, I instructed the IDF to continue to expand its activity on the ground in the south of Lebanon.
On Saturday morning, August 12, the resolution was accepted by the UN, largely due to the continuation of Israel's warfare. The IDF was on the move. Hizbollah declared it would continue to fight. The Lebanese government had not yet convened to approve its support of the resolution. Under those circumstances, in agreement with the top command of the IDF, it was necessary for the troops to move forward to ensure that the best possible conditions for us would be achieved.
We suffered painful, heartbreaking losses, also during the last hours of warfare. Like the rest of the people of Israel and, first and foremost, the bereaved families, I carry in my heart the pain of these losses as also the indescribable sorrow for all the fallen and wounded soldiers. In this case too, I am convinced that this difficult decision was inevitable. Because of it we could end the warfare and remain in Lebanon for two weeks without continuing to fight.
I hear the voices of criticism. There is, of course, professional protest and political criticism. I ignore these. We all know these games, of those who smell the political opportunity or let the surveys go to their heads.
But, there is also true, genuine, heart-felt criticism - that of reservists, citizens - of those who are driven by love and not hatred. They stand and protest - also against me, and I hear them and respect what they have to say.
They are right about certain issues, and I disagree with them on other issues. However, the question is what should be done with this criticism, how we take the rage, disappointment, frustration and despair, as well as the sense of responsibility and the love we all feel for the country, and use them to rectify that which needs to be rectified. And rectification is required.
During the past few days, I struggled with myself on this question. I consulted many people, including the Attorney General, many experts in the fields of security, government and justice, and with my fellow ministers. I mainly debated about my duty as Prime Minister, who bears supreme responsibility not only for what was, but mainly for what will be, and for what may be.
The solution is simple on the surface: a judge will be appointed to chair a State judicial commission of investigation, which will hear witnesses, collect evidence and pass a verdict - an external, impartial, objective body.
This may be a tempting solution, politically, and may appeal to certain public opinion - one which would ensure tranquility for a long period of time until the investigation is completed. However, this is not what the country needs.
But, it is clear to everyone what will happen. For a long period of time the top of the military and security leadership, including the IDF command will be completely paralyzed in fear of the verdict. Many will quickly equip themselves with top lawyers, create narratives, cleanse themselves of guilt and, G-d forbid, place the blame on others. This is the nature of things. This is how it goes. This is how it has been.
And it must be borne in mind: all this, while the warfare has not ended completely, while IDF soldiers are still in Lebanon, while the firing may still be renewed, while the threat has not yet been lifted. Still, beyond the approaching horizon, we should be prepared for the threat from Iran and its Israel-hating president. We do not have the luxury of sinking into years of investigations into the past, which have nothing to do with learning lessons or preparation for the future.
Anyone, in all honesty, knows that this will not repair the defects or prevent incidents.
What we need is an effective, professional inquiry, to examine the issues in depth, draw conclusions, and learn lessons.
Firstly, the army actions. I wish to tell you something personal. I sat with the army commanders during the war and especially during its long nights. I saw the Chief of Staff , chief commanders and many other commanders. I saw them in doubt, in agony over each loss, and anxious about further losses. I saw them shoulder responsibility and do their utmost to forbear.
I will not allow the army to stand a public lineup of collective flogging. We do not have another IDF. We do not have another army. The IDF cannot be replaced. I will not allow the IDF to be paralyzed for many months or more only to please one person or another. I will not let this happen.
The army should be examined in the manner in which a civic democratic society examines its army, and the same applies to us - the political echelon.
My Government will appoint a committee of inquiry chaired by Nahum Admoni, former Head of the Mossad. Among the committee members will be Maj. Gen. (Res.) Yedidya Yeari, Prof. Ruth Gabison, Prof. Yehezkel Dror.
The committee will be charged with the task of examining the functioning of the Government, its proceedings and decision making, and anything else it sees fit to examine. The Government will not be exempt from professional examination and criticism.
The defense system will act, in the framework of its authorities, to conduct a thorough examination in order to implement the necessary changes in the preparedness of the IDF, its combat doctrine and force structuring, in light of the lessons of this war and threatening scenarios.
The Government will request the State Comptroller to conduct an extensive and in depth examination of the defects which were discovered in the home front's preparedness in the face of the threat of missiles and rockets. Thus, the three structures - political, military and civilian - will be examined.
I am confident that these extended examinations will teach us lessons in the shortest time possible, while at the same time conducting a reliable and an open procedure. Upon realization of these procedures our capabilities will improve significantly. In the long term, Israel will emerge from this more resistant, stronger, and, with G-d's help, better prepared for the challenges of the future and its chances. And, the most important thing is that it will happen in a short time.
All of this is not enough.
This war, the difficult trials of a significant part of our civilian population, also revealed the terrible hardships which befell segments of Israeli society in the last few years.
We will not be able to avoid serious and thorough attention to these problems. The Government resolved to carry out an extended action to strengthen the north and Haifa, while placing special emphasis on the physical rehabilitation of the affected areas, but also allocating special budgets to the education system, underprivileged population, single-parent families, new immigrants, minorities, senior citizens of whom many were affected in recent years, children at risk and underprivileged neighborhoods.
This is true not only in regard to the north. This situation undermines the stability of the entire Israeli society and also other areas, especially the south and the Negev.
We will not be deterred from our commitments to prepare for the multi-annual plan in which the Government decided to deal with this challenge. In the coming weeks the Government will decide on a detailed plan for the fulfillment of these commitments. These plans will be presented to the public.
Dear Friends,
The campaign is not over - neither this campaign nor the others - on other fronts, from without or within. We will continue to discuss these issues.
Right now, I only wish to remember and remind you of:
The families of the victims - bereaved families whose pain is unbearable. We shall not forget.
The wounded who are still in hospital, struggling to recuperate, to be rehabilitated and return to their lives. We shall not forget.
The citizens who face their ruined houses and deserve a helping, constructive, generous hand. We shall not forget.
The employees, the self employed and business owners - small, medium or large businesses - who were the first to suffer the economic burden, and may collapse as a result. We shall not forget.
The reservists who returned to their homes, some of whom are angry or disappointed, and have to make up for that which they missed. We shall not forget.
We shall not forget.
Gilad Shalit who today celebrates his twentieth birthday. I take this opportunity to send a warm embrace on my own behalf and on behalf of all of you, to Gilad, to his family who so fear for his life and to all those who love him.
Udi Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. We shall not forget.
We will examine with one hand and fix with the other. We have an opportunity here.
From here, we will embark on a new path.
Thank you very much.
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis Website: http://www.imra.org.il/
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
ANNAN SAYS STOP BLOCKADE
Israel sidesteps calls to end blockade By AMY TEIBEL,
Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 45 minutes ago
JERUSALEM -Israel sidestepped demands by visiting U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan Wednesday that it immediately lift its sea and air blockade of Lebanon and withdraw its forces once 5,000 international troops are deployed. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert indicated Israel would only lift the blockade and withdraw its soldiers from Lebanon after the full implementation of a U.N.-brokered cease-fire.Annan and Israeli officials said they hoped that truce would lead to a full peace accord between Israel and Lebanon.
However, Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora said in Beirut that Lebanon will be the last Arab country that could sign a peace agreement with Israel.And a Hezbollah minister in the Lebanese Cabinet said that the guerrilla group will not unconditionally release two Israeli soldiers whose capture set off the conflict, saying they would only be freed in a prisoner exchange.
There will be no unconditional release. This is not possible, Minister of Energy and Hydraulic Resources Mohammed Fneish said in Beirut. There should be an exchange through indirect negotiations. This is the principle to which Hezbollah and the resistance are adhering.Under the U.N.-brokered truce that ended 34 days of fighting between Israel and Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas, 15,000 Lebanese soldiers and up to 15,000 international troops are to be deployed and enforce an arms embargo on Hezbollah. The 2,500 U.N. observers currently monitoring the Israel-Lebanon border have a very limited mandate.
Israel has said it would not lift its blockade unless international forces, along with Lebanese troops, are deployed on the Israel-Lebanon border and Lebanon's frontier with Syria to prevent the flow of weapons to Hezbollah. Syria has said it would consider the presence of international troops on its border a hostile act and Lebanon has said it would deploy its own forces there, but bar international troops. Annan has backed Lebanon in the dispute.The U.N. chief said that
Lebanese authorities assured him they were serious about enforcing the arms embargo on Hezbollah, and that Israel's security concerns could be addressed in this way.
We need to be flexible, because I don't think there's ever only one way of solving a
problem. We shouldn't insist that the only way to do it is by deploying international forces,he said.The lifting of the blockade is necessary for Lebanon's economy to recover from the war and for Lebanon's government to strengthen.I do believe the blockade should be lifted,Annan said at a news conference with Olmert.
Asked whether Israel would lift the blockade, Olmert was evasive, saying only that Israel wanted a full implementation of the cease-fire.Annan said he was working to increase the size of the international force in Lebanon as rapidly as possible and to double the current number to 5,000 quickly.We hope that as we do that, the Israeli withdrawal (from Lebanon) will continue and by the time we are at that level, Israel will have fully withdrawn,Annan said.Olmert said Israel hoped to pull out from Lebanon as soon as possible,but he also did not to embrace Annan's proposal to pull out all Israeli troops once 5,000 international peacekeepers were in place.
It isn't on one day the 5,000 come in and on one day all the Israelis depart,Israeli government spokeswoman Miri Eisin explained later. It's something in between, and it's something that has to be ironed out, and it is being ironed out. Olmert, Annan and Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni nonetheless all expressed hope the cease-fire deal would evolve into a full-fledged peace accord. The deal could be a cornerstone to build a new reality between Israel and Lebanon,Olmert said in his news conference with Annan.
Israel has long sought a peace deal with Lebanon, but Lebanon has hesitated reaching a separate agreement with Israel as long as Israel's conflicts with the Palestinians and Syria are not resolved. Olmert said that the cease-fire could be a cornerstone to build a new reality between Israel and Lebanon, he said. I would like to emphasize that Israel has no conflict with the people or government of Lebanon, he said. I would certainly hope that conditions would change rapidly in order to allow direct contact between the government of Israel and the government of Lebanon in order to hopefully soon reach an agreement between the two countries.
But Saniora reiterated his country's position.
Let it be clear, we are not seeking any agreement until there is just and comprehensive peace based on the Arab initiative, the Lebanese prime minister said. The Arab initiative calls for an Israeli withdrawal from all territories captured in the 1967 Mideast war and the establishment of a Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital — demands Israel rejects. Both Annan and Olmert demanded the unconditional release of two Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah on July 12, the incident that triggered the war.
A third Israeli soldier was seized by Palestinian Hamas militants in late June and is being held in the Gaza Strip. His capture touched off a 2-month-old Israeli military incursion into Gaza. Annan said he would do all he could to win the release of the three soldiers. He said that during his visit to Lebanon, before coming to Israel, he discussed the soldiers' fate. I did not get the impression that they are not alive. I believe they are alive,he said.
In a meeting later with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Annan said Israel also must lift its closure of the Gaza Strip and open crossing points there. He called for an end to the bloodshed that has led to the deaths of more than 200 Palestinians since the end of June. Israel is the second stop on Annan's 11-day Mideast tour intended to shore up the truce.
Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 45 minutes ago
JERUSALEM -Israel sidestepped demands by visiting U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan Wednesday that it immediately lift its sea and air blockade of Lebanon and withdraw its forces once 5,000 international troops are deployed. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert indicated Israel would only lift the blockade and withdraw its soldiers from Lebanon after the full implementation of a U.N.-brokered cease-fire.Annan and Israeli officials said they hoped that truce would lead to a full peace accord between Israel and Lebanon.
However, Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora said in Beirut that Lebanon will be the last Arab country that could sign a peace agreement with Israel.And a Hezbollah minister in the Lebanese Cabinet said that the guerrilla group will not unconditionally release two Israeli soldiers whose capture set off the conflict, saying they would only be freed in a prisoner exchange.
There will be no unconditional release. This is not possible, Minister of Energy and Hydraulic Resources Mohammed Fneish said in Beirut. There should be an exchange through indirect negotiations. This is the principle to which Hezbollah and the resistance are adhering.Under the U.N.-brokered truce that ended 34 days of fighting between Israel and Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas, 15,000 Lebanese soldiers and up to 15,000 international troops are to be deployed and enforce an arms embargo on Hezbollah. The 2,500 U.N. observers currently monitoring the Israel-Lebanon border have a very limited mandate.
Israel has said it would not lift its blockade unless international forces, along with Lebanese troops, are deployed on the Israel-Lebanon border and Lebanon's frontier with Syria to prevent the flow of weapons to Hezbollah. Syria has said it would consider the presence of international troops on its border a hostile act and Lebanon has said it would deploy its own forces there, but bar international troops. Annan has backed Lebanon in the dispute.The U.N. chief said that
Lebanese authorities assured him they were serious about enforcing the arms embargo on Hezbollah, and that Israel's security concerns could be addressed in this way.
We need to be flexible, because I don't think there's ever only one way of solving a
problem. We shouldn't insist that the only way to do it is by deploying international forces,he said.The lifting of the blockade is necessary for Lebanon's economy to recover from the war and for Lebanon's government to strengthen.I do believe the blockade should be lifted,Annan said at a news conference with Olmert.
Asked whether Israel would lift the blockade, Olmert was evasive, saying only that Israel wanted a full implementation of the cease-fire.Annan said he was working to increase the size of the international force in Lebanon as rapidly as possible and to double the current number to 5,000 quickly.We hope that as we do that, the Israeli withdrawal (from Lebanon) will continue and by the time we are at that level, Israel will have fully withdrawn,Annan said.Olmert said Israel hoped to pull out from Lebanon as soon as possible,but he also did not to embrace Annan's proposal to pull out all Israeli troops once 5,000 international peacekeepers were in place.
It isn't on one day the 5,000 come in and on one day all the Israelis depart,Israeli government spokeswoman Miri Eisin explained later. It's something in between, and it's something that has to be ironed out, and it is being ironed out. Olmert, Annan and Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni nonetheless all expressed hope the cease-fire deal would evolve into a full-fledged peace accord. The deal could be a cornerstone to build a new reality between Israel and Lebanon,Olmert said in his news conference with Annan.
Israel has long sought a peace deal with Lebanon, but Lebanon has hesitated reaching a separate agreement with Israel as long as Israel's conflicts with the Palestinians and Syria are not resolved. Olmert said that the cease-fire could be a cornerstone to build a new reality between Israel and Lebanon, he said. I would like to emphasize that Israel has no conflict with the people or government of Lebanon, he said. I would certainly hope that conditions would change rapidly in order to allow direct contact between the government of Israel and the government of Lebanon in order to hopefully soon reach an agreement between the two countries.
But Saniora reiterated his country's position.
Let it be clear, we are not seeking any agreement until there is just and comprehensive peace based on the Arab initiative, the Lebanese prime minister said. The Arab initiative calls for an Israeli withdrawal from all territories captured in the 1967 Mideast war and the establishment of a Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital — demands Israel rejects. Both Annan and Olmert demanded the unconditional release of two Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah on July 12, the incident that triggered the war.
A third Israeli soldier was seized by Palestinian Hamas militants in late June and is being held in the Gaza Strip. His capture touched off a 2-month-old Israeli military incursion into Gaza. Annan said he would do all he could to win the release of the three soldiers. He said that during his visit to Lebanon, before coming to Israel, he discussed the soldiers' fate. I did not get the impression that they are not alive. I believe they are alive,he said.
In a meeting later with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Annan said Israel also must lift its closure of the Gaza Strip and open crossing points there. He called for an end to the bloodshed that has led to the deaths of more than 200 Palestinians since the end of June. Israel is the second stop on Annan's 11-day Mideast tour intended to shore up the truce.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
EU FOREIGN POLICY FAILS
EU foreign policy failed on Lebanon, Chirac says
28.08.2006 - 17:38 CET By Andrew Rettman
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - The Middle East crisis has exposed weaknesses in EU foreign policy with the 25-member bloc reacting too slowly to stop the destruction of Lebanon, president Jacques Chirac said at an annual gathering of top French diplomats in Paris on Monday (28 August).
Europe was insufficiently active in the Lebanese crisis, although France had recommended on a number of occasions that the high representative be given a mandate to speak out on behalf of the 25 member countries, as he is doing on the Iranian issue, Mr Chirac said.
The future of the European project is today predicated on Europe's ability to be a leading political player," the president added. It must be a player able to contribute to a constructive dialogue with the major world powers.
The EU's so-called high representative on foreign affairs, Javier Solana, flew to Lebanon at the height of the conflict in July but the Finnish EU presidency all-but-ignored Mr Chirac's 20 July plea to give the unofficial EU foreign minister special powers in this case.
Speaking at the time, EU diplomats said the UK was unwilling to let Mr Solana negotiate for the whole bloc because there was no unanimity on how to handle the crisis, while other EU states were afraid of losing control in foreign policy areas.
Meanwhile, Lebanese and Israeli diplomats grumbled about having to host a plethora of EU entities such as Finnish presidency officials, member states' diplomats and European Commission staff.
Lebanon in ruins
The 34-day conflict that started on 12 July claimed over 1,300 lives with Israel continuing to enforce a partial air and sea blockade to stop arms flows into the region.
In a few short days we saw Lebanon laid to waste, its people battered, 15 years of [diplomatic] effort laid to waste,Mr Chirac said on Monday, after the EU last week reached agreement on contributing between 7,000 and 9,000 troops to a new UN peacekeeping force in the region.
The EU's efforts to agree on troop numbers also cast the bloc's foreign policy in a murky light. Many EU states, including France, initially hesitated to commit ground troops, with France eventually agreeing to lead the EU contingent for a while before Italy takes over.
A handful of EU soldiers has already arrived in Lebanon to begin reconstruction efforts, but the first major wave of 3,000 to 4,000 international troops is set to land next week to help enforce a fragile ceasefire with Israeli hostages still in the hands of Hezbollah and Hamas militants.
Special relationship
France has a special relationship with Lebanon, which it ruled between 1920 and 1943 under the auspices of the UN's predecessor, the League of Nations, with Mr Chirac sympathetic to Israeli security needs but critical of its disproportionate use of force in the brief war.
On Monday, the French leader outlined a peace plan for the region that includes: lifting the Israeli blockade on Lebanon, rebuilding Lebanese infrastructure with international money, engaging diplomatically with Iran and Syria and creating a viable Palestinian state.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict concentrates all the incomprehension between different worlds, Mr Chirac said. A major danger looms - the danger of estrangement between the different worlds, between east and west, Islam and Christianity, rich and poor.
28.08.2006 - 17:38 CET By Andrew Rettman
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - The Middle East crisis has exposed weaknesses in EU foreign policy with the 25-member bloc reacting too slowly to stop the destruction of Lebanon, president Jacques Chirac said at an annual gathering of top French diplomats in Paris on Monday (28 August).
Europe was insufficiently active in the Lebanese crisis, although France had recommended on a number of occasions that the high representative be given a mandate to speak out on behalf of the 25 member countries, as he is doing on the Iranian issue, Mr Chirac said.
The future of the European project is today predicated on Europe's ability to be a leading political player," the president added. It must be a player able to contribute to a constructive dialogue with the major world powers.
The EU's so-called high representative on foreign affairs, Javier Solana, flew to Lebanon at the height of the conflict in July but the Finnish EU presidency all-but-ignored Mr Chirac's 20 July plea to give the unofficial EU foreign minister special powers in this case.
Speaking at the time, EU diplomats said the UK was unwilling to let Mr Solana negotiate for the whole bloc because there was no unanimity on how to handle the crisis, while other EU states were afraid of losing control in foreign policy areas.
Meanwhile, Lebanese and Israeli diplomats grumbled about having to host a plethora of EU entities such as Finnish presidency officials, member states' diplomats and European Commission staff.
Lebanon in ruins
The 34-day conflict that started on 12 July claimed over 1,300 lives with Israel continuing to enforce a partial air and sea blockade to stop arms flows into the region.
In a few short days we saw Lebanon laid to waste, its people battered, 15 years of [diplomatic] effort laid to waste,Mr Chirac said on Monday, after the EU last week reached agreement on contributing between 7,000 and 9,000 troops to a new UN peacekeeping force in the region.
The EU's efforts to agree on troop numbers also cast the bloc's foreign policy in a murky light. Many EU states, including France, initially hesitated to commit ground troops, with France eventually agreeing to lead the EU contingent for a while before Italy takes over.
A handful of EU soldiers has already arrived in Lebanon to begin reconstruction efforts, but the first major wave of 3,000 to 4,000 international troops is set to land next week to help enforce a fragile ceasefire with Israeli hostages still in the hands of Hezbollah and Hamas militants.
Special relationship
France has a special relationship with Lebanon, which it ruled between 1920 and 1943 under the auspices of the UN's predecessor, the League of Nations, with Mr Chirac sympathetic to Israeli security needs but critical of its disproportionate use of force in the brief war.
On Monday, the French leader outlined a peace plan for the region that includes: lifting the Israeli blockade on Lebanon, rebuilding Lebanese infrastructure with international money, engaging diplomatically with Iran and Syria and creating a viable Palestinian state.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict concentrates all the incomprehension between different worlds, Mr Chirac said. A major danger looms - the danger of estrangement between the different worlds, between east and west, Islam and Christianity, rich and poor.
Monday, August 28, 2006
OLMERT PUTS OFF INQUIRY
Olmert puts off decision on war inquiry By JOSEF FEDERMAN,
Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 17 minutes ago
JERUSALEM - Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Sunday put off a decision on launching an inquiry into the handling of the recent fighting in Lebanon, officials said. The conduct of the 34-day war has been widely criticized, and the Israeli public is clamoring for a serious investigation.Olmert has expressed support for a war probe, but has not said what type of investigation he would like to see. The most sweeping inquiry would be a state commission, with powers to dismiss government and military officials.
Israeli media said that Olmert had been expected to ask his government to endorse an inquiry at Sunday's Cabinet meeting. But Miri Eisin, a spokeswoman for Olmert, said the issue was not discussed at the meeting because Olmert is still weighing various options presented by the attorney general.The recommendations have not yet been assessed to be brought before the Cabinet, Eisin said, adding that there is no timeline for making a decision. There were other issues that needed to be discussed, she said.
Returning soldiers have complained about confused battle plans and shortages of food, water and equipment, and the government has been criticized for accepting a cease-fire without crushing Hezbollah or winning the release of two soldiers captured by the Lebanese guerrilla group.The deaths of 34 soldiers in last-minute fighting just before a truce took hold only deepened the outrage, as have reports from angry soldiers returning from battle.One group of reservists has called an open-ended protest outside Olmert's office, demanding his resignation. Eight former Israeli prisoners of war joined the protest on Sunday.
Olmert's office said Sunday's Cabinet meeting focused on improving preparations for future emergencies.The recommendations included supplying food and medicine to residents confined to bomb shelters for long periods of time, inspecting bomb shelters in private homes and appointing a military officer to help coordinate aid to communities during emergencies.Olmert told his ministers that rebuilding Israel's north, which was hit by thousands of Hezbollah rockets, is his top priority. Olmert will head a special committee overseeing the task.I wish to emphasize that I view the strengthening of Haifa and the north as a national mission, Olmert said. As such, it will be at the head of the government's priorities.
Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 17 minutes ago
JERUSALEM - Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Sunday put off a decision on launching an inquiry into the handling of the recent fighting in Lebanon, officials said. The conduct of the 34-day war has been widely criticized, and the Israeli public is clamoring for a serious investigation.Olmert has expressed support for a war probe, but has not said what type of investigation he would like to see. The most sweeping inquiry would be a state commission, with powers to dismiss government and military officials.
Israeli media said that Olmert had been expected to ask his government to endorse an inquiry at Sunday's Cabinet meeting. But Miri Eisin, a spokeswoman for Olmert, said the issue was not discussed at the meeting because Olmert is still weighing various options presented by the attorney general.The recommendations have not yet been assessed to be brought before the Cabinet, Eisin said, adding that there is no timeline for making a decision. There were other issues that needed to be discussed, she said.
Returning soldiers have complained about confused battle plans and shortages of food, water and equipment, and the government has been criticized for accepting a cease-fire without crushing Hezbollah or winning the release of two soldiers captured by the Lebanese guerrilla group.The deaths of 34 soldiers in last-minute fighting just before a truce took hold only deepened the outrage, as have reports from angry soldiers returning from battle.One group of reservists has called an open-ended protest outside Olmert's office, demanding his resignation. Eight former Israeli prisoners of war joined the protest on Sunday.
Olmert's office said Sunday's Cabinet meeting focused on improving preparations for future emergencies.The recommendations included supplying food and medicine to residents confined to bomb shelters for long periods of time, inspecting bomb shelters in private homes and appointing a military officer to help coordinate aid to communities during emergencies.Olmert told his ministers that rebuilding Israel's north, which was hit by thousands of Hezbollah rockets, is his top priority. Olmert will head a special committee overseeing the task.I wish to emphasize that I view the strengthening of Haifa and the north as a national mission, Olmert said. As such, it will be at the head of the government's priorities.
Saturday, August 26, 2006
EU PROVIDE 7000 CORE IN LEBANON
HERE WE GO THE EU TROOPS COME IN , NEXT IS GUARENTEEING ISRAELS LAND FOR PEACE 7 YEAR TREATY DEAL WITH THE ARABS, PALESTINIANS AND MANY IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
EUROPEAN UNION ARMY
DANIEL 7:23-25
23 Thus he said, The fourth beast (EU,REVIVED ROME) shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth,(7TH WORLD EMPIRE) which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.(TRADING BLOCKS)
24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings(10 NATIONS) that shall arise: and another shall rise after them;(#11 SPAIN) and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.( BE HEAD OF 3 NATIONS)
25 And he (EU PRESIDENT) shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.(3 1/2 YRS)
DANIEL 8:23-25
23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king (EU DICTATOR) of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences,(FROM THE OCCULT) shall stand up.
24 And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power:(SATANS POWER) and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.
25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes;(JESUS) but he shall be broken without hand.
DANIEL 11:36-39
36 And the king (EU DICTATOR) shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.
37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers,(THIS EU DICTATOR IS JEWISH) nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.(CLAIM TO BE GOD)
38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces:(WAR) and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.
39 Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god,(DESTROY TERROR GROUPS) whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many,(HIS ARMY LEADERS) and shall divide the land for gain.
REVELATION 19:19
19 And I saw the beast,(EU LEADER) and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse,(JESUS) and against his army.(THE RAPTURED CHRISTIANS)
EU nations to provide core of Lebanon force By Mark John Fri Aug 25, 2:23 PM ET
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - European nations agreed on Friday to offer more than half the troops for an expanded United Nations peacekeeping contingent in Lebanon. U.N. chief Kofi Annan hailed the move as creating the backbone of a credible force, which could total up to 15,000 troops, even though EU officials warned it could be months before its full deployment.Annan called for the first troops to arrive in days to begin policing a fragile truce between Israel and Hizbollah and Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi said the Italian contingent could leave as soon as Tuesday.
When you put it all together, Europe is providing the backbone to the force...We can now begin to put together a credible force that the (U.N.) Security Council authorized,he said after an emergency meeting of EU foreign ministers.
We should deploy, I hope, within the next few days, not the next few weeks,he told a news conference.Clarifying doubts over the leadership of the mission, Annan said he had asked France, who will contribute 2,000 troops, to continue to lead UNIFIL until February 2007. The leadership would then pass to Italy, which has pledged up to 3,000 soldiers.European countries feared getting caught in the crossfire of any fresh hostilities between Israel and Hizbollah guerrillas and wanted assurances they would operate under robust enough rules to be able to defend themselves, diplomats said.The significant move of the week was Annan coming
here,said one envoy.
MUSLIM COMMITMENTS
Aside from Italy and France, diplomats at the Brussels meeting said Spain was ready to send up to 1,200 troops.Poland said it was prepared to contribute about 500 troops, Belgium offered up to 400 and current EU president Finland said it was readying a company of up to 250.French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said Europe's total contribution would be between 6,500 and 7,000, while Ireland's Dermot Ahern put it as high as 9,000 and Italy's Massimo d'Alema at as many as 10,000.U.N. officials want a strong European contingent alongside a sizeable Muslim component in the expanded UNIFIL force, which is to work with 15,000
Lebanese troops being deployed in the south.Annan said Malaysia, Indonesia and Bangladesh had offered troops, and that he was in contact with Turkey over its role.
Highlighting divisions in the large Muslim country over the issue, Turkey's president said he opposed any role.Sending soldiers is not our responsibility. I'm against it,private CNN Turk television quoted Ahmet Necdet Sezer as saying. The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), on the other hand, is known to favor sending troops.
FRANCE PERPLEXED
French President Jacques Chirac, whose diplomats helped draft the August 11 U.N. Security Council resolution on the peacekeepers, said a force of 15,000 was completely excessive. Annan insisted in Brussels that 15,000 remained the U.N.'s working figure and added: We will put in the men and assets required to get the job done -- no more, no less. The U.N.-backed truce
took effect on August 14 after 34 days of fighting which killed nearly 1,200 people in Lebanon, mostly civilians, and 157 Israelis, mainly soldiers. Some 150 French soldiers arrived by ship in Lebanon's southern port of Naqoura on Friday to join 50 extra troops already sent as part of France's initial offer of 200. Israel wants the beefed-up U.N. force to move to the border before it withdraws fully from Lebanon. It also has vowed to keep its partial sea and air blockade on Lebanon until the force deploys on the Syrian border to prevent Hizbollah from rearming.Syria has threatened to close the border -- Lebanon's only land outlet -- if U.N. troops are
sent there.
In a sharp public rebuke for failing to deliver a fatal blow to Hizbollah, a poll published on Friday showed 63 percent of Israelis want Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to resign. The Yedioth Aronoth poll showed for the first time a majority favored Olmert quitting, along with a surge in support for the rightwing Likud party and its leader Benjamin Netanyahu. (Additional reporting by William Schomberg, Darren Ennis, David Lawsky and Marcin Grajwski in Brussels and from Jerusalem, Ankara, Paris and Beirut bureaus)
EUROPEAN UNION ARMY
DANIEL 7:23-25
23 Thus he said, The fourth beast (EU,REVIVED ROME) shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth,(7TH WORLD EMPIRE) which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.(TRADING BLOCKS)
24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings(10 NATIONS) that shall arise: and another shall rise after them;(#11 SPAIN) and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.( BE HEAD OF 3 NATIONS)
25 And he (EU PRESIDENT) shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.(3 1/2 YRS)
DANIEL 8:23-25
23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king (EU DICTATOR) of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences,(FROM THE OCCULT) shall stand up.
24 And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power:(SATANS POWER) and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.
25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes;(JESUS) but he shall be broken without hand.
DANIEL 11:36-39
36 And the king (EU DICTATOR) shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.
37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers,(THIS EU DICTATOR IS JEWISH) nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.(CLAIM TO BE GOD)
38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces:(WAR) and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.
39 Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god,(DESTROY TERROR GROUPS) whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many,(HIS ARMY LEADERS) and shall divide the land for gain.
REVELATION 19:19
19 And I saw the beast,(EU LEADER) and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse,(JESUS) and against his army.(THE RAPTURED CHRISTIANS)
EU nations to provide core of Lebanon force By Mark John Fri Aug 25, 2:23 PM ET
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - European nations agreed on Friday to offer more than half the troops for an expanded United Nations peacekeeping contingent in Lebanon. U.N. chief Kofi Annan hailed the move as creating the backbone of a credible force, which could total up to 15,000 troops, even though EU officials warned it could be months before its full deployment.Annan called for the first troops to arrive in days to begin policing a fragile truce between Israel and Hizbollah and Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi said the Italian contingent could leave as soon as Tuesday.
When you put it all together, Europe is providing the backbone to the force...We can now begin to put together a credible force that the (U.N.) Security Council authorized,he said after an emergency meeting of EU foreign ministers.
We should deploy, I hope, within the next few days, not the next few weeks,he told a news conference.Clarifying doubts over the leadership of the mission, Annan said he had asked France, who will contribute 2,000 troops, to continue to lead UNIFIL until February 2007. The leadership would then pass to Italy, which has pledged up to 3,000 soldiers.European countries feared getting caught in the crossfire of any fresh hostilities between Israel and Hizbollah guerrillas and wanted assurances they would operate under robust enough rules to be able to defend themselves, diplomats said.The significant move of the week was Annan coming
here,said one envoy.
MUSLIM COMMITMENTS
Aside from Italy and France, diplomats at the Brussels meeting said Spain was ready to send up to 1,200 troops.Poland said it was prepared to contribute about 500 troops, Belgium offered up to 400 and current EU president Finland said it was readying a company of up to 250.French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said Europe's total contribution would be between 6,500 and 7,000, while Ireland's Dermot Ahern put it as high as 9,000 and Italy's Massimo d'Alema at as many as 10,000.U.N. officials want a strong European contingent alongside a sizeable Muslim component in the expanded UNIFIL force, which is to work with 15,000
Lebanese troops being deployed in the south.Annan said Malaysia, Indonesia and Bangladesh had offered troops, and that he was in contact with Turkey over its role.
Highlighting divisions in the large Muslim country over the issue, Turkey's president said he opposed any role.Sending soldiers is not our responsibility. I'm against it,private CNN Turk television quoted Ahmet Necdet Sezer as saying. The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), on the other hand, is known to favor sending troops.
FRANCE PERPLEXED
French President Jacques Chirac, whose diplomats helped draft the August 11 U.N. Security Council resolution on the peacekeepers, said a force of 15,000 was completely excessive. Annan insisted in Brussels that 15,000 remained the U.N.'s working figure and added: We will put in the men and assets required to get the job done -- no more, no less. The U.N.-backed truce
took effect on August 14 after 34 days of fighting which killed nearly 1,200 people in Lebanon, mostly civilians, and 157 Israelis, mainly soldiers. Some 150 French soldiers arrived by ship in Lebanon's southern port of Naqoura on Friday to join 50 extra troops already sent as part of France's initial offer of 200. Israel wants the beefed-up U.N. force to move to the border before it withdraws fully from Lebanon. It also has vowed to keep its partial sea and air blockade on Lebanon until the force deploys on the Syrian border to prevent Hizbollah from rearming.Syria has threatened to close the border -- Lebanon's only land outlet -- if U.N. troops are
sent there.
In a sharp public rebuke for failing to deliver a fatal blow to Hizbollah, a poll published on Friday showed 63 percent of Israelis want Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to resign. The Yedioth Aronoth poll showed for the first time a majority favored Olmert quitting, along with a surge in support for the rightwing Likud party and its leader Benjamin Netanyahu. (Additional reporting by William Schomberg, Darren Ennis, David Lawsky and Marcin Grajwski in Brussels and from Jerusalem, Ankara, Paris and Beirut bureaus)
Thursday, August 24, 2006
EU SPEECH ON MIDEAST
Speech, General Affairs and External Relations
UN Security Council: EU Statement on the situation in the Middle East
24 Aug 2006, 11:50 en
United Nations Security Council, Debate on the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question, New York, 22 August 2006
Statement by Mr. Jarl-Håkan Rosengren, Minister Counsellor, Chargé d'affaires a.i., Permanent Mission of Finland to the United Nations, on behalf of the European Union
Mr. President,
I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union.The Acceding Countries Bulgaria and Romania, the Candidate Countries Turkey, Croatia* and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia*, the Countries of the Stabilisation and Association Process and potential candidates Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and the EFTA country Iceland, member of the European Economic Area, as well as Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova align themselves with this declaration.
*) Croatia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia continue to be part of the Stabilisation and Association Process.
Mr. President,
The European Union would like to thank Under-Secretary-General Gambari for his briefing on the situation in the Middle East. We would also like to thank the Secretary-General for his report on the implementation of resolution 1701 (2006). The European Union gives its full support to the Secretary-General in his efforts to find ways to implement the resolution.
It is now eleven days since the adoption of the resolution, and eight days since the cessation of hostilities went into effect. The region has started the process of recovering from the violence of the past weeks. A number of encouraging steps have been taken. We welcome the quick decision of the Government of Lebanon to send Lebanese Army forces to the South of the country - and its rapid implementation, as well as the beginning of the withdrawal of the Israeli Defence Forces. The EU commends the constructive way the parties have been coordinating with UNIFIL on the withdrawal of the IDF and deployment of the Lebanese Army. The incidents that have occurred especially during the last days demonstrate that the situation is very fragile. Therefore we strongly encourage all parties to do their utmost to ensure that the cessation of hostilities will be maintained and to transform it into a durable ceasefire.
The international community will have to play an important role in contributing to the stabilisation of the situation on the ground. We know that we need to move swiftly to deploy the international force in South Lebanon, in order to support the full implementation of resolution 1701.
The new UNIFIL will be a challenging operation. It will have to be different from the old UNIFIL to undertake it successfully. Many EU countries are willing to participate in this common effort to help bring peace in the region. Some have already made their decisions to send troops, others are considering.
It is also important that all states in the region play a constructive role in order to first contribute to a reduction in tensions and then to be able to fully implement resolution 1701.
Mr. President,
The European Union welcomes the fact that the cessation of hostilities has greatly improved the frequency and quantity of humanitarian assistance. But much remains to be done, and the Secretary-General's report sets out the key priority areas for the humanitarian community during this immediate post cease-fire phase. It is important that the air and sea blockade be lifted as soon as possible to allow unimpeded access to Lebanon for humanitarian operations. There has been a mass return of displaced people. In addition to the need for aid for basic needs of the people, such as water supply and temporary shelter, support is urgently needed in the disposal of unexploded ordnance and cleaning of oil spills.
The EU Presidency Minister for Development Paula Lehtomäki and Commissioner Louis Michel were in the region last week in order to assess the situation from an EU point of view. The EU will continue to contribute to the humanitarian relief work. EU aid already committed amounts to 74 million euro. It is also clear that when the reconstruction work starts in full scale the EU will, in close cooperation with the government of Lebanon and with other international partners, play a role. The Relief and Early recovery conference that will be hosted by Sweden on 31 August will provide an important forum to continue to discuss these pressing issues.
Mr. President,
In addition to Lebanon, the situation in the Palestinian territories also remains a cause for great concern for the EU. The humanitarian situation has been deteriorating for a long time, civilian infrastructure has been destroyed and civilian lives have been lost. These developments continue to pose a risk of further deterioration of the situation in the region. Both Israel and the Palestinian authority need to act to address this situation. The abducted Israeli soldier must be released quickly and unconditionally.
The parties need to return to the peace process on the basis of the Roadmap. An unequivocal commitment by all parties to a viable independent Palestinian state living side by side with Israel and its other neighbours is a key to stability and security in the whole region.
The EU is committed to promote a comprehensive peace plan for the Middle East in close cooperation with partners and the countries in the region. There is no military solution to any of the problems facing the people of the region.
Thank you.
UN Security Council: EU Statement on the situation in the Middle East
24 Aug 2006, 11:50 en
United Nations Security Council, Debate on the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question, New York, 22 August 2006
Statement by Mr. Jarl-Håkan Rosengren, Minister Counsellor, Chargé d'affaires a.i., Permanent Mission of Finland to the United Nations, on behalf of the European Union
Mr. President,
I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union.The Acceding Countries Bulgaria and Romania, the Candidate Countries Turkey, Croatia* and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia*, the Countries of the Stabilisation and Association Process and potential candidates Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and the EFTA country Iceland, member of the European Economic Area, as well as Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova align themselves with this declaration.
*) Croatia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia continue to be part of the Stabilisation and Association Process.
Mr. President,
The European Union would like to thank Under-Secretary-General Gambari for his briefing on the situation in the Middle East. We would also like to thank the Secretary-General for his report on the implementation of resolution 1701 (2006). The European Union gives its full support to the Secretary-General in his efforts to find ways to implement the resolution.
It is now eleven days since the adoption of the resolution, and eight days since the cessation of hostilities went into effect. The region has started the process of recovering from the violence of the past weeks. A number of encouraging steps have been taken. We welcome the quick decision of the Government of Lebanon to send Lebanese Army forces to the South of the country - and its rapid implementation, as well as the beginning of the withdrawal of the Israeli Defence Forces. The EU commends the constructive way the parties have been coordinating with UNIFIL on the withdrawal of the IDF and deployment of the Lebanese Army. The incidents that have occurred especially during the last days demonstrate that the situation is very fragile. Therefore we strongly encourage all parties to do their utmost to ensure that the cessation of hostilities will be maintained and to transform it into a durable ceasefire.
The international community will have to play an important role in contributing to the stabilisation of the situation on the ground. We know that we need to move swiftly to deploy the international force in South Lebanon, in order to support the full implementation of resolution 1701.
The new UNIFIL will be a challenging operation. It will have to be different from the old UNIFIL to undertake it successfully. Many EU countries are willing to participate in this common effort to help bring peace in the region. Some have already made their decisions to send troops, others are considering.
It is also important that all states in the region play a constructive role in order to first contribute to a reduction in tensions and then to be able to fully implement resolution 1701.
Mr. President,
The European Union welcomes the fact that the cessation of hostilities has greatly improved the frequency and quantity of humanitarian assistance. But much remains to be done, and the Secretary-General's report sets out the key priority areas for the humanitarian community during this immediate post cease-fire phase. It is important that the air and sea blockade be lifted as soon as possible to allow unimpeded access to Lebanon for humanitarian operations. There has been a mass return of displaced people. In addition to the need for aid for basic needs of the people, such as water supply and temporary shelter, support is urgently needed in the disposal of unexploded ordnance and cleaning of oil spills.
The EU Presidency Minister for Development Paula Lehtomäki and Commissioner Louis Michel were in the region last week in order to assess the situation from an EU point of view. The EU will continue to contribute to the humanitarian relief work. EU aid already committed amounts to 74 million euro. It is also clear that when the reconstruction work starts in full scale the EU will, in close cooperation with the government of Lebanon and with other international partners, play a role. The Relief and Early recovery conference that will be hosted by Sweden on 31 August will provide an important forum to continue to discuss these pressing issues.
Mr. President,
In addition to Lebanon, the situation in the Palestinian territories also remains a cause for great concern for the EU. The humanitarian situation has been deteriorating for a long time, civilian infrastructure has been destroyed and civilian lives have been lost. These developments continue to pose a risk of further deterioration of the situation in the region. Both Israel and the Palestinian authority need to act to address this situation. The abducted Israeli soldier must be released quickly and unconditionally.
The parties need to return to the peace process on the basis of the Roadmap. An unequivocal commitment by all parties to a viable independent Palestinian state living side by side with Israel and its other neighbours is a key to stability and security in the whole region.
The EU is committed to promote a comprehensive peace plan for the Middle East in close cooperation with partners and the countries in the region. There is no military solution to any of the problems facing the people of the region.
Thank you.
UN NEW PEACE PROCESS NOW
U.N. Chief Seeks New Mideast Peace Process
By EDITH M. LEDERER The Associated Press Wednesday, August 23, 2006; 3:30 AM
UNITED NATIONS -- The U.N. political chief called for a new international effort to settle decades of Arab-Israeli conflict, saying the Middle East peace process has reached a sorry juncture.The crises in the region must be addressed in a comprehensive approach to bring peace and stability to the region as a whole, Undersecretary-General for Political Affairs Ibrahim Gambari told the U.N. Security Council on Tuesday.
His call came a week after Arab League nations also proposed starting a new peace process, arguing the U.S.-backed road map for peace, unveiled in 2003, was no longer viable.Gambari did not mention the Arab initiative. But he said the vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in peace has slipped further away during the past year.We have reached this sorry juncture in the Middle East peace process,he said.
Progress towards a two-state solution would undoubtedly facilitate the resolution of conflicts elsewhere in the region, and vice versa,he added. The stalled state of the peace process should therefore be regarded as unacceptable.
Arab League foreign ministers have asked for a ministerial meeting of the U.N. Security Council in September to discuss their initiative, which would include establishing a Palestinian state and promoting peace with Lebanon after the brutal 34-day war between Israel and Hezbollah.Israeli U.N. Ambassador Dan Gillerman said last week he doubted a new Arab League initiative would fairly consider Israel's security needs and insisted the 2003 peace plan remained the only viable option.
That plan, drafted by the U.N., the United States, the European Union and Russia, called for simultaneous steps by the Israelis and Palestinians leading ultimately to a Palestinian state.On Tuesday, Gillerman blamed extremists throughout the Middle East for the failure to achieve peace. He called for the defeat of what he termed the quartet of terror Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and the Palestinian militant group Hamas.
The Middle East is a region caught between rifts of extremism, where radicals engage in fierce battles that have no rules of play, he told the council. Israel finds itself lodged between these currents, trying to navigate a peaceful solution to the turmoil and allow civilization to grow and prosper as it should.
Palestinian U.N. envoy Riyad Mansour, however, strongly supported the Arab initiative.Clearly the peace process in which we have been engaged for 15 years now ... has not fulfilled its stated goals, as it has been repeatedly hampered by delays, stalemates, gross violations, cycles of violence and major crises,he said.For Palestine, Mansour said, instead of the dramatic improvement anticipated in the situation on the ground and in the lives of the Palestinian people, the situation ... has steadily and gravely deteriorated over these years in all aspects.
By EDITH M. LEDERER The Associated Press Wednesday, August 23, 2006; 3:30 AM
UNITED NATIONS -- The U.N. political chief called for a new international effort to settle decades of Arab-Israeli conflict, saying the Middle East peace process has reached a sorry juncture.The crises in the region must be addressed in a comprehensive approach to bring peace and stability to the region as a whole, Undersecretary-General for Political Affairs Ibrahim Gambari told the U.N. Security Council on Tuesday.
His call came a week after Arab League nations also proposed starting a new peace process, arguing the U.S.-backed road map for peace, unveiled in 2003, was no longer viable.Gambari did not mention the Arab initiative. But he said the vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in peace has slipped further away during the past year.We have reached this sorry juncture in the Middle East peace process,he said.
Progress towards a two-state solution would undoubtedly facilitate the resolution of conflicts elsewhere in the region, and vice versa,he added. The stalled state of the peace process should therefore be regarded as unacceptable.
Arab League foreign ministers have asked for a ministerial meeting of the U.N. Security Council in September to discuss their initiative, which would include establishing a Palestinian state and promoting peace with Lebanon after the brutal 34-day war between Israel and Hezbollah.Israeli U.N. Ambassador Dan Gillerman said last week he doubted a new Arab League initiative would fairly consider Israel's security needs and insisted the 2003 peace plan remained the only viable option.
That plan, drafted by the U.N., the United States, the European Union and Russia, called for simultaneous steps by the Israelis and Palestinians leading ultimately to a Palestinian state.On Tuesday, Gillerman blamed extremists throughout the Middle East for the failure to achieve peace. He called for the defeat of what he termed the quartet of terror Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and the Palestinian militant group Hamas.
The Middle East is a region caught between rifts of extremism, where radicals engage in fierce battles that have no rules of play, he told the council. Israel finds itself lodged between these currents, trying to navigate a peaceful solution to the turmoil and allow civilization to grow and prosper as it should.
Palestinian U.N. envoy Riyad Mansour, however, strongly supported the Arab initiative.Clearly the peace process in which we have been engaged for 15 years now ... has not fulfilled its stated goals, as it has been repeatedly hampered by delays, stalemates, gross violations, cycles of violence and major crises,he said.For Palestine, Mansour said, instead of the dramatic improvement anticipated in the situation on the ground and in the lives of the Palestinian people, the situation ... has steadily and gravely deteriorated over these years in all aspects.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
UN PEACE PROCESS PLEASE
Senior UN official urges renewed effort on Mideast peace process
A senior UN official urged on Tuesday the international community to renew an effort aimed at pushing forward the Middle East peace process that had been bogged down in crises. Continued conflicts between Israel and Palestine and the month- long war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon have dashed hopes of moving forward the Middle East peace process, said Ibrahim Gambari, the UN under secretary-general for political affairs. Last year, Israel had been in the process of disengaging from Gaza and part of the northern West Bank, and the international community, led by the Quartet, had been working to ensure that step would lead the parties back to the Road Map and the revival of the economy of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, he told the Security Council.
These hopes have not been fulfilled,he said, adding that far from advancing towards the vision of two States, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, we have seen that vision slip further away during the past year. We have reached this sorry juncture in the Middle East peace process, he said, adding it was now clear the challenges that lay ahead for the wider international community. He recognized that the absence of a comprehensive solution in the peace process was the root cause of the region's problems and that progress towards a two-state solution would undoubtedly facilitate the resolution of conflict elsewhere in the region and vice versa. The stalled state of the peace process should, therefore, be regarded as unacceptable both on its own merits, and because of its broader implications,he said.
Gambari said it was time to consider a renewed international effort sanctioned and championed" by the Security Council, to bring peace and stability to the region. The tragedy such as the international community had witnessed in the past month should be converted into an opportunity to take prompt, concerted action by all parties to resolve the problems and issues in the region, which had confronted everyone, without resolution, for far too long, he said. Gambari's remarks reflected an earlier call by UN Secretary- General Kofi Annan for a comprehensive approach to addressing the various crises in the region. The UN chief said in a speech to the council on Aug. 11 that crises in the region must be addressed, not in isolation or bilaterally, but as part of a holistic and comprehensive effort, sanctioned and championed by the Security Council, to bring peace and stability to the region as a whole. Source: Xinhua
A senior UN official urged on Tuesday the international community to renew an effort aimed at pushing forward the Middle East peace process that had been bogged down in crises. Continued conflicts between Israel and Palestine and the month- long war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon have dashed hopes of moving forward the Middle East peace process, said Ibrahim Gambari, the UN under secretary-general for political affairs. Last year, Israel had been in the process of disengaging from Gaza and part of the northern West Bank, and the international community, led by the Quartet, had been working to ensure that step would lead the parties back to the Road Map and the revival of the economy of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, he told the Security Council.
These hopes have not been fulfilled,he said, adding that far from advancing towards the vision of two States, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, we have seen that vision slip further away during the past year. We have reached this sorry juncture in the Middle East peace process, he said, adding it was now clear the challenges that lay ahead for the wider international community. He recognized that the absence of a comprehensive solution in the peace process was the root cause of the region's problems and that progress towards a two-state solution would undoubtedly facilitate the resolution of conflict elsewhere in the region and vice versa. The stalled state of the peace process should, therefore, be regarded as unacceptable both on its own merits, and because of its broader implications,he said.
Gambari said it was time to consider a renewed international effort sanctioned and championed" by the Security Council, to bring peace and stability to the region. The tragedy such as the international community had witnessed in the past month should be converted into an opportunity to take prompt, concerted action by all parties to resolve the problems and issues in the region, which had confronted everyone, without resolution, for far too long, he said. Gambari's remarks reflected an earlier call by UN Secretary- General Kofi Annan for a comprehensive approach to addressing the various crises in the region. The UN chief said in a speech to the council on Aug. 11 that crises in the region must be addressed, not in isolation or bilaterally, but as part of a holistic and comprehensive effort, sanctioned and championed by the Security Council, to bring peace and stability to the region as a whole. Source: Xinhua
Monday, August 21, 2006
16 COUNTRIES COMMIT TO LEBANON
16 countries commit to Lebanon peacekeeping August 20 2006 at 08:23PM
The United Nations on Thursday outlined a robust mandate for thousands of international peacekeepers to be deployed in Lebanon and urgently called on member states to pledge troops.UN Deputy Secretary General Mark Malloch Brown said the force would be robust but not offensive and set out draft rules of engagement.
The peacekeeping force is the keystone in UN Resolution 1701, which outlines the ceasefire and a deployment of Lebanese and international troops to the south of the country to fill the vacuum left by withdrawing Israeli units.Under the resolution, the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) is to swell from its current 1 990-strong force.The United Nations hopes an initial deployment of more than 3 000 troops for the strengthened UN force can be in place within
two weeks.
Here is a provisional breakdown of countries prepared to contribute troops:
FRANCE
France, tapped to retain command of UNIFIL, has pledged to send 200 troops to Lebanon -- around one-tenth of the number the United Nations had expected.About 150 French troops departed France for Lebanon, a former French colony, on Sunday to join the other 50 already on the ground.Another 200 French soldiers are already incorporated into UNIFIL under its previous mandate, bringing the total French representation in the force to 400.
ITALY
Italy has approved a motion to contribute troops to UNIFIL, but with no formal indication of numbers, and has delayed their departure until the new force's role is defined.Italian defence officials cited by the media have spoken of contributing between 2 000 and 3 000 soldiers.
BELGIUM
Belgian Defence Minister Andre Flahaut told AFP that Brussels intended to send troops but would not say how many because the mandate has yet to be clearly defined.
FINLAND
Finland has said it could send around 200 soldiers but that they could not be deployed for a month or two.
GERMANY
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has announced that Germany will send a small navy unit to help secure Lebanon's coastal waters. She has ruled out deploying combat troops in Lebanon to avoid the risk of a direct confrontation with Israel, where memories of the Holocaust are still fresh.
INDONESIA, MOROCCO and TURKEY
These three Muslim countries have all agreed to take part, according to the Lebanese prime minister's office, but Turkey indicated that it would wait for an expected new UN resolution to bring more clarity. A press report said Turkey could send 600 troops.
MALAYSIA
Malaysia has offered between 850 and 1,000 troops, but is among the countries that Israel has said would not be acceptable to serve in UNIFIL.
BANGLADESH
Bangladesh has said it is willing to send peacekeeping troops to Lebanon but has not yet made any commitment of forces.
PAKISTAN
Pakistan is considering a possible participation in the UN force but has said it would send troops only if they would be welcomed by all parties to the conflict.
LITHUANIA
Lithuanian Prime Minister Gediminas Kirkilas said his country should contribute to the force, but that a formal decision had not yet been made.
BULGARIA
Prime Minister Sergey Stanishev has said Sofia is ready to send troops but demanded that the United Nations define UNIFIL's new rules of engagement.
PORTUGAL
Portugal has said it is willing to contribute troops, without specifying how many.
RUSSIARussia is considering the possibility of participating, but the foreign ministry said a decision has not been made.
SPAIN
A government official told AFP that Spain planned to send 700 soldiers.
THAILAND
Thailand has said it would consider positively a UN request for troops, without giving a number.These countries are undecided or have apparently ruled out supplying soldiers to the new force:
AUSTRALIA
Australian Prime Minister John Howard has said he was undecided whether to supply troops. If we were to make a decision to make a commitment it would be a very small, niche commitment, he said.
We have other responsibilities.
BRITAIN
British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said his country's military - engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan - is too stretched to be involved in the reinforced UNIFIL deployment.
INDIA
India said there were no plans to add to its 672 soldiers already serving in the current UNIFIL. A foreign ministry spokesman said: I see nothing leading to that.
NORWAY
A Norwegian foreign ministry spokeswoman said it is too early to go into any detail about a Norwegian contribution to a peacekeeping force for Lebanon.
UNITED STATES
The United States, Israel's closest ally, is thought unlikely to contribute to a force in Lebanon. Although moves are being made to get the new UNIFIL deployed as quickly as possible, there is no firm timetable. Israel has said its soldiers will remain in strategic positions in southern Lebanon until UNIFIL troops take over.UNIFIL, under its original mandate, has been operating in southern Lebanon for 28 years. That rolling mandate was extended for one month by a UN Security Council vote on July 31.
It currently counts troops from China, France, Ghana, India, Ireland, Italy, Poland and Ukraine, under French command.Under UN resolution 1701, the expanded force is to support the Lebanese army as it takes up positions in southern Lebanon, formerly a Hezbollah
controlled zone, and help in humanitarian work.The resolution says UNIFIL will take all necessary action in areas of deployment of its forces, and as it deems within its capabilities, to ensure that its area of operations is not utilized for hostile activities of any kind. Sapa-AFP
The United Nations on Thursday outlined a robust mandate for thousands of international peacekeepers to be deployed in Lebanon and urgently called on member states to pledge troops.UN Deputy Secretary General Mark Malloch Brown said the force would be robust but not offensive and set out draft rules of engagement.
The peacekeeping force is the keystone in UN Resolution 1701, which outlines the ceasefire and a deployment of Lebanese and international troops to the south of the country to fill the vacuum left by withdrawing Israeli units.Under the resolution, the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) is to swell from its current 1 990-strong force.The United Nations hopes an initial deployment of more than 3 000 troops for the strengthened UN force can be in place within
two weeks.
Here is a provisional breakdown of countries prepared to contribute troops:
FRANCE
France, tapped to retain command of UNIFIL, has pledged to send 200 troops to Lebanon -- around one-tenth of the number the United Nations had expected.About 150 French troops departed France for Lebanon, a former French colony, on Sunday to join the other 50 already on the ground.Another 200 French soldiers are already incorporated into UNIFIL under its previous mandate, bringing the total French representation in the force to 400.
ITALY
Italy has approved a motion to contribute troops to UNIFIL, but with no formal indication of numbers, and has delayed their departure until the new force's role is defined.Italian defence officials cited by the media have spoken of contributing between 2 000 and 3 000 soldiers.
BELGIUM
Belgian Defence Minister Andre Flahaut told AFP that Brussels intended to send troops but would not say how many because the mandate has yet to be clearly defined.
FINLAND
Finland has said it could send around 200 soldiers but that they could not be deployed for a month or two.
GERMANY
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has announced that Germany will send a small navy unit to help secure Lebanon's coastal waters. She has ruled out deploying combat troops in Lebanon to avoid the risk of a direct confrontation with Israel, where memories of the Holocaust are still fresh.
INDONESIA, MOROCCO and TURKEY
These three Muslim countries have all agreed to take part, according to the Lebanese prime minister's office, but Turkey indicated that it would wait for an expected new UN resolution to bring more clarity. A press report said Turkey could send 600 troops.
MALAYSIA
Malaysia has offered between 850 and 1,000 troops, but is among the countries that Israel has said would not be acceptable to serve in UNIFIL.
BANGLADESH
Bangladesh has said it is willing to send peacekeeping troops to Lebanon but has not yet made any commitment of forces.
PAKISTAN
Pakistan is considering a possible participation in the UN force but has said it would send troops only if they would be welcomed by all parties to the conflict.
LITHUANIA
Lithuanian Prime Minister Gediminas Kirkilas said his country should contribute to the force, but that a formal decision had not yet been made.
BULGARIA
Prime Minister Sergey Stanishev has said Sofia is ready to send troops but demanded that the United Nations define UNIFIL's new rules of engagement.
PORTUGAL
Portugal has said it is willing to contribute troops, without specifying how many.
RUSSIARussia is considering the possibility of participating, but the foreign ministry said a decision has not been made.
SPAIN
A government official told AFP that Spain planned to send 700 soldiers.
THAILAND
Thailand has said it would consider positively a UN request for troops, without giving a number.These countries are undecided or have apparently ruled out supplying soldiers to the new force:
AUSTRALIA
Australian Prime Minister John Howard has said he was undecided whether to supply troops. If we were to make a decision to make a commitment it would be a very small, niche commitment, he said.
We have other responsibilities.
BRITAIN
British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said his country's military - engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan - is too stretched to be involved in the reinforced UNIFIL deployment.
INDIA
India said there were no plans to add to its 672 soldiers already serving in the current UNIFIL. A foreign ministry spokesman said: I see nothing leading to that.
NORWAY
A Norwegian foreign ministry spokeswoman said it is too early to go into any detail about a Norwegian contribution to a peacekeeping force for Lebanon.
UNITED STATES
The United States, Israel's closest ally, is thought unlikely to contribute to a force in Lebanon. Although moves are being made to get the new UNIFIL deployed as quickly as possible, there is no firm timetable. Israel has said its soldiers will remain in strategic positions in southern Lebanon until UNIFIL troops take over.UNIFIL, under its original mandate, has been operating in southern Lebanon for 28 years. That rolling mandate was extended for one month by a UN Security Council vote on July 31.
It currently counts troops from China, France, Ghana, India, Ireland, Italy, Poland and Ukraine, under French command.Under UN resolution 1701, the expanded force is to support the Lebanese army as it takes up positions in southern Lebanon, formerly a Hezbollah
controlled zone, and help in humanitarian work.The resolution says UNIFIL will take all necessary action in areas of deployment of its forces, and as it deems within its capabilities, to ensure that its area of operations is not utilized for hostile activities of any kind. Sapa-AFP
Sunday, August 20, 2006
GENEVA ACCORD MAYBE HERE WE COME
Arabs seek new Mideast peace initiative 2006/8 By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer 6 minutes ago
UNITED NATIONS - Arab nations want the U.N. Security Council U.N. Security Council to help launch a new peace process to end the broader Arab-Israeli conflict, saying the road map unveiled in 2003 to establish a Palestinian state is dead. Yahya Mahmassani, the Arab League‘s envoy to the United Nations , said he had personally discussed the foreign ministers‘ request with the 15 Security Council members and "there is very strong support for the idea of convening a council meeting.
It will likely take place between Sept. 20-24, he said. He said bringing the question of the Arab-Israeli conflict to the Security Council will be one of the main items on the agenda of an Arab ministerial meeting on Sunday at Arab League headquarters in Cairo. The Arab ministerial
delegation to go to New York will probably be selected at the meeting, he said.
Arab foreign ministers decided to take the issue to the Security Council at a meeting in Cairo on July 15, two days after Israel launched an offensive against Hezbollah militants after they captured two Israeli soldiers, he said. The Middle East peace process has failed, Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa said after that meeting. We are going to the Security Council this is a unanimous position — to discuss the whole situation from scratch. The road map was drafted by the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia — known as the Quartet — and aimed to end the most recent Middle East violence and establish a Palestinian state by 2005. But Israel and the Palestinians have failed to carry out the parallel steps in the peace plan and it has languished.
Arab nations have fought several wars with Israel — in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973, as well as Israel‘s previous two invasions of Lebanon. The first three were heavy defeats for Arab armies, and though Egypt‘s army saw dramatic successes in 1973, the battle had swung to Israel‘s favor by the time it ended. Arab states that have been traditional allies of the United States are concerned about Hezbollah‘s moves to consolidate their political position and capitalize on what many perceive as a military victory in the fighting against Israel. To counter Hezbollah‘s rising influence, diplomats said the Arab moderates sought to restart an Arab-Israeli peace process.
On Saturday, Russia‘s Foreign Ministry also said it is time to rethink the issue, saying the conflict with Hezbollah was rooted in the lack of a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East.
The Quartet still supports the road map as the best plan for peace. The Group of Eight — the seven major industrialized nations and Russia — also stuck to its previous support for the road map at its July summit in Russia. Before Arab ministers arrive in New York in September, the issue of the best way to achieve Palestinian-Israeli peace is certain to be raised by Secretary-General Kofi Annan , British Prime Minister Tony Blair and ministers from other council nations during their upcoming travels to the Middle East. (AP)
UNITED NATIONS - Arab nations want the U.N. Security Council U.N. Security Council to help launch a new peace process to end the broader Arab-Israeli conflict, saying the road map unveiled in 2003 to establish a Palestinian state is dead. Yahya Mahmassani, the Arab League‘s envoy to the United Nations , said he had personally discussed the foreign ministers‘ request with the 15 Security Council members and "there is very strong support for the idea of convening a council meeting.
It will likely take place between Sept. 20-24, he said. He said bringing the question of the Arab-Israeli conflict to the Security Council will be one of the main items on the agenda of an Arab ministerial meeting on Sunday at Arab League headquarters in Cairo. The Arab ministerial
delegation to go to New York will probably be selected at the meeting, he said.
Arab foreign ministers decided to take the issue to the Security Council at a meeting in Cairo on July 15, two days after Israel launched an offensive against Hezbollah militants after they captured two Israeli soldiers, he said. The Middle East peace process has failed, Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa said after that meeting. We are going to the Security Council this is a unanimous position — to discuss the whole situation from scratch. The road map was drafted by the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia — known as the Quartet — and aimed to end the most recent Middle East violence and establish a Palestinian state by 2005. But Israel and the Palestinians have failed to carry out the parallel steps in the peace plan and it has languished.
Arab nations have fought several wars with Israel — in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973, as well as Israel‘s previous two invasions of Lebanon. The first three were heavy defeats for Arab armies, and though Egypt‘s army saw dramatic successes in 1973, the battle had swung to Israel‘s favor by the time it ended. Arab states that have been traditional allies of the United States are concerned about Hezbollah‘s moves to consolidate their political position and capitalize on what many perceive as a military victory in the fighting against Israel. To counter Hezbollah‘s rising influence, diplomats said the Arab moderates sought to restart an Arab-Israeli peace process.
On Saturday, Russia‘s Foreign Ministry also said it is time to rethink the issue, saying the conflict with Hezbollah was rooted in the lack of a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East.
The Quartet still supports the road map as the best plan for peace. The Group of Eight — the seven major industrialized nations and Russia — also stuck to its previous support for the road map at its July summit in Russia. Before Arab ministers arrive in New York in September, the issue of the best way to achieve Palestinian-Israeli peace is certain to be raised by Secretary-General Kofi Annan , British Prime Minister Tony Blair and ministers from other council nations during their upcoming travels to the Middle East. (AP)
Thursday, August 17, 2006
PERES REMARKS AT THE UN
Peres Delivers Remarks to U.N.
CQ Transcripts WireWednesday, August 16, 2006; 3:19 PM
AUGUST 16, 2006
SPEAKER: SHIMON PERES, ISRAELI VICE PREMIER
PERES: Good morning, and I shall make a very brief introduction.
From our perspective, we think that the present confrontation is not necessarily just between us and the Hezbollah or us and the Palestinians. We see it in the wider context.
We think, number one, it's going to be decided who and what will be Lebanon in the future, a Shiite country or a multinational country. This war is not yet over.
The second is: Will the Middle East be under the spell of the Iranian ambition or is it going to remain Arab and within the Muslim world -- basically Sunnites?
Again, the alternative is Iranian and Shiites.
The third is: Will terror win this battle or not, which is worldwide? And clearly that is the first problem for us about Israel. For us it was the sixth war in 60 years, but contrary to (inaudible) when we were outnumbered and outgunned, this was a war which is more ballistic than territorial. Namely, the human factor played a secondary role to modern technology.
This is the first confrontation between a state and a terroristic organization that is equipped like a state. We estimated that Hezbollah is being paid $100 million a year by the Iranians. They've got the most sophisticated weapons that Iran has or Iran bought from Russia, from China, and elsewhere. They are being trained by the Iranians. We estimate there are over 100 Iranian instructors in Lebanon -- of Hezbollah. And also many of the Hezbollah fighters were trained in Iran and in Syria.
Those are all the problems that we have to face.
PERES: We don't say it was easy. For us, it was difficult, for these following reasons:
A, we weren't prepared for it. To this day, we don't understand: Why did Hezbollah start the attack? What were its purposes?
And now they will have to conclude: What was the damages?
We estimated there was a force of 2,500 Iranians in Hezbollah, fighting. We estimated 600 of them lost their lives. Close to a thousand were wounded.
So we are not so much impressed by the speeches. We look at the facts of life. And then, again, they had an arsenal of 12,000 rockets and missiles, long-range, middle-range, short-range.
They were under the impression that with this arsenal, they could Israel. They fired a third of it, at least, basically, from the short-range because the long-range and the middle-size range were destroyed by our air force. The short-range, we tried to destroy by our armed forces.
For us, we know that maybe the battles are over, but not the campaign and not the confrontation.
Our priorities will be the following: to restore the damage that was done in the upper north of Israel (inaudible) to release our two hostages and, at the same time, to see if we can renew the peace process.
PERES: We are not looking for a military victory. We are looking for the renewal of the peace process.
So if we shall be attacked, we shall fight.
If there will be an opportunity, we shall negotiate.
And finally, at the same time in parallel, we shall try to build a new economic zone of peace common to the Jordanians, to the Palestinians and to us, all the three parties agreed.
We shall do it hand in hand with the United States. We appreciate very much the role the United States played in bringing an end or at least a halt to this confrontation.
On Friday night, when we have decided to go on with the campaign, it looked like the resolution of the United Nations is going to be unacceptable to us, but in a matter of hours it was changed, and we appreciate it.
We recognize the role of the secretary of state and the president in introducing this change that has three unprecedented items.
For the first time, the Security Council, including Arabs, condemned Hezbollah as the aggressor. Never happened before.
Secondly, that Russia agreed to an embargo against Arab countries, against an Arab or terroristic organization. Never happened again.
And the third is that all 15 members voted unanimously to make clear who started it, how to stop it, and what are the obligations of the parties. We appreciated it.
We know now the test will be in the implementation. We shall try our very best to implement the United Nations resolution.
PERES: Thank you.
QUESTION: Sir, before the fighting broke out, Mr. Abbas was prepared to challenge Hezbollah -- I'm sorry, Hamas in its own territories, a mutual recognition with a referendum. Then the attacks came.
What, if anything, is Israel doing to reach out to Mr. Abbas and strengthen his hand for a two-state solution?
PERES: Well, we didn't change our mind. We shall support the establishment of a Palestinian state, as we promised. We intend to leave most of the territories as we promised, in spite of the war. We shall have some problems with the unilateral efforts because Gaza in a way was a disappointment -- shall try to do it bilaterally.
The rest depends upon Abu Mazen. We shall do our very best to support him as a peacemaker -- not as a part of the Israeli government. Actually, before they hijack of our soldiers, Mr. Olmert, our prime minister, told openly and privately to Abu Mazen that he is ready to meet with him and start to consider the release of many of the prisoners.
What's holding back is the failure to try to do it by force by taking hostage our soldier.
QUESTION: What, if any, conversations has the Israeli government had with Mr. Abbas since the fighting began, sir?
PERES: Recently, there were none.
QUESTION: I'm sorry?
PERES: Recently, there were none. The only conversations we have -- I'm sorry.
QUESTION: I'm sorry. There's been none since the fighting began?
PERES: The only one was necessary (inaudible). For example, Mr. Abu Mazen was put in charge of the passages in Gaza, and we are cooperating on that. We're also cooperating in building an economic base, as I have said, jointly done by the triangle -- the Jordanians, the Palestinians and us.
QUESTION: Have you considered the possibility, as a gesture of good will, of donating some of the funds that you will raise, to the people of Lebanon to help them rebuild also?
PERES: You know, we suffered a great deal of damages -- billions and billions of dollars.
In the United Nations resolution, it wasn't said that whoever was damaged, there will be help. All the help is going to Lebanon, so it's started from the Lebanese. We shall do everything we can to facilitate and help to rebuild Lebanon.
I want to mention something that wasn't published; that even during the war, some Arab countries wanted to send civilian aid to Lebanon and (inaudible) during the war.
So, again, our approach will be basically constructive. As much as the Lebanese government and people are concerned, we shall be very careful when it will come to Hezbollah so they won't misuse it to bring in arms.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
PERES: I'm not sure they will be happy if I shall say it.
QUESTION: When you say you're going to everything to facilitate, sir, the direct question was, were you going to give anything to Lebanon as a gesture of goodwill? Was that a yes, sir?
PERES: You know, we have our own agenda. We went out of war, which was costly to us. But there's a lot of possible joint ventures. One of the things that we have learned is to distinguish between financial aid and economic aid.
PERES: We have helped the Palestinians to get, for example, financial aid. But the donor conference came to almost $10 billion, over the last 11, 12 years.
Unfortunately, the aid that was given to the Palestinians brought down Fatah because it created corruption. And we're afraid that Fatah lost the elections, not because of ideology but because of corruption.
So look what happened. We tried to help. And the result was in contradiction to it.
The lesson is: Be careful with financial aid because financial aid means to take the money of the poor people in the rich countries and then (inaudible) to the rich people in the poor countries. So it creates corruption.
Instead, we prefer to build industrial parks, joint ventures on water, on tourism. On all that, we are ready to cooperate.
QUESTION: So the answer to my colleague's question, then, is no, just so I'm clear?
PERES: No to what? We aren't asked for anything to do. You know, we are, as I mentioned, in six years, we had six wars. We never asked anybody to fight instead of us. Our relations with the United States are, from our point of view, of a moving nature.
But we never asked the United States to send soldiers to defend Israel. We don't want any American mother to be concerned because her boy may be in danger because of us.
PERES: We didn't ask for it. And now, with all the damages, we didn't approach the American government, we didn't ask for help. We have to mobilize billions and billions of dollars to enable our people to come back to life.
QUESTION: Mr. Peres, talking about helping Lebanon, is Israel prepared to lift the blockade on Lebanon? Presumably, one would hope -- one would think that to help the Lebanese government get ahead in rebuilding is a good thing. And France, I think this morning, called for a lifting of the blockade.
PERES: Everything which is civilian, yes.
QUESTION: I'm sorry?
PERES: Everything which is of a civilian nature, yes. Everything which is of a military effort, no. We know that the speech yesterday of the president of Syria was a terrible speech.
You know, Syria lost two wars against Israel that they have initiated. And they lost five initiatives by Israel to make peace.
The first was when President Sadat suggested to President Assad to go with him to Camp David and sign an agreement. He would probably get back as Egypt got all of the territories. He refused. He said he has time.
Before it, Mr. Kissinger suggested to have an interim agreement with the Syrians, as it was with the Egyptians. They refused.
Then three prime ministers of Israel actually made a promise more or less to hand over the Golan Heights, if not all of it, part of it. Our late Prime Minister Rabin, Mr. Netanyahu, Mr. Barak and myself, too.
On all that, we got negative answers. President Clinton flew to Geneva to meet Assad. He was sure that he'll get a positive yes.
PERES: I think that a person that lost the two trains, the train of war and the train of peace, cannot be appointed as a conductor of trains. They have had their opportunity; they missed it. And even now, we are telling them, "Look, you want peace? Let's meet. Why are you being shy?"
Sadat wanted peace; he came to Jerusalem. King Hussein wanted peace; we met. Even with Arafat, we met face-to-face.
The only one that to this very day refused to make the slightest move in the direction of peace is Syria. But, instead, he says he will continue to help Hezbollah. What for? And in which way is he going to help them? To terrorize, to fire missiles.
So when it comes to the civilian aid, yes. If they will start to reship weapons, no.
QUESTION: But then that basically means you're going to keep up a blockade by...
PERES: No, no, no, no. We have agreed even during the war to have corridors where people that wanted to leave Lebanon could have left safely. But this time it will be corridors not only for people but also for materials.
We didn't start the war; we don't want to continue it. And we are basically a country that uses the army for defense, not for aggression.
QUESTION: If this conflict is part of the larger battle for the Middle East, as you said at the outset, sir, what's Israel's next step, then, assuming that you can get everything rebuilt?
PERES: There is a quartet of four terrorist groups: two states, Iran and Syria; one state-in-being, the Palestinians; one state within an state, the Hezbollah. We are facing two of them: the Hamas and the Hezbollah.
PERES: We think, when it comes to Tehran and Damascus, the world should lead, not us. Now, again, even if those two states -- and those states (inaudible) -- will not open fire, we shall not open fire.
QUESTION: Can you give us any updates on the release of the soldiers? Do you have anything?
PERES: Yes. First of all, to the best of our information, they're alive and healthy. Second, in the preamble of the United Nations resolution, there was a clear call to release them, without conditions and without (inaudible). We expect that this will be implemented.
QUESTION: Do you have any knowledge that that is about to happen?
PERES: I can't answer the question; we don't have knowledge enough. The problem is if really the Lebanese will fulfill what they said, that the whole territory of Lebanon will be under the control of the Lebanese government, this must include the two soldiers too. And they have to hand it over to us.
Why did they take them hostage? Hezbollah violated the land, has broken the sovereignty, they killed other soldiers. What for? And now they have to give it back.
QUESTION: Mr. Minister, as you know, Jesse Jackson is trying to be a middle man now. He called at the Syrian embassy yesterday. And he's hopeful but being very cautious. He, too, thinks they're well.
Is that going to get off the ground, do you think?
Does that have Israel's approval, his effort?
He says he's willing to go to Syria. And, you know, he's had a lot of success, in fact, in Syria, with a pilot years ago.
PERES: In order to be a middle man, you must have two parties that want peace. I'm afraid he has just one party. And you cannot applaud with one hand.
QUESTION: Does Israel have any regrets?
Or do you think that you made any mistakes in the campaign in Lebanon?
PERES: I think we have discovered some weaknesses. And we are going to correct them.
QUESTION: Such as?
PERES: Such as the exact use of armed forces and equipment, basically.
It came out that the Hezbollah has had more advanced equipment. Like, for example, they got the Chinese missiles against boats. They got the Russian missiles against tanks. And all those sorts of things we can correct and we shall correct it as soon as possible.
We are not going to engage -- that's my hope -- into an internal in-fight.
You know, after a war, people accuse this and that. You know, the past never runs away. You can remain safe with the past. You cannot change the past. So, judging the past, we have time.
On the other hand, peace -- the future is impatient. So we are going to devote all our energy to correct what is possible in the future and not to pass judgment on what happened in the past.
QUESTION: Are you confident, sir, that Israel did everything it could to minimize civilian damage in Lebanon?
PERES: Yes, 100 percent.
QUESTION: One hundred percent?
PERES: I want to tell you, they say 1,000 people were killed. I regret it very much. But among them undoubtedly there are Hezbollah people. Don't forget it.
And then, again, they did something which again is a novelty. They used human shelters to hide arms. And before we attacked, say, a village or a place, we called the people and told them, "Gentlemen, either get rid of the missiles or leave your house." Some of them did, some of them did not. According to international law, it's a crime to use human shelters for an attack.
But I can tell you for sure, look, in war you always have mistakes. The greatest mistake is the war itself. But look what happened in Kosovo. Close to 10,000 civilians lost their life. The Chinese embassy was bombed. I'm sure it wasn't done intentionally. And we tried our very, very best not to hit any civilian person, old or young or clearly not children.
I spoke with many of our pilots. In addition to what the headquarters did, the pilots themselves were extremely careful not to hit civilian targets.
QUESTION: Ambassador, looking ahead, if I may, one of the things I don't understand about the agreement that's now to be implemented is how will sending a force to the south and sending 15,000 Lebanese troops to the south protect Israel against the delivery of weapons through other roads into Lebanon.
In other words, you know what I'm saying, you have a safeguard, you will have a safeguard in the south, but are you just depending on good will for weapon deliveries to stop?
PERES: Well, nothing is hermetic in life, and we don't look upon it as a foolproofed security.
PERES: Southern Lebanon is not a very large piece of land and it will be now full with 30,000 soldiers; 15,000 Lebanese; 15,000 UNIFIL; with added sources of forces from Europe.
The other following changes: This time UNIFIL will have the right to defend itself, which they didn't have previously. The numbers are larger. And also, finally, the Lebanese have to recognize that an army is an instrument of defense, and that the collection (inaudible) so they have 70,000 soldiers. If they want to defend their life, they don't do it for us, they do it for themselves.
Lebanon cannot remain an independent country if they have two armies. So they have their own incentives to do so. But that was our initial demand that, instead of the Hezbollah, it will be guarded by the Lebanese army (inaudible).
This is also the nature of Resolution 1559. And we cannot say (inaudible) that was decided that I'm not satisfied. That could have been done in pragmatic terms and in accordance with the United Nations resolution.
QUESTION: There are several ways in. There's the sea, for instance. There are roads. They're not in the south entirely.
PERES: Well, if we shall be attacked, we shall do whatever we can. And we didn't use our full force.
What happened in the war is that Hezbollah started with everything they had, and we at the beginning have had to analyze: What are they doing? So we started to build our force slower. By the end of the confrontation, Hezbollah emerged weak and Israel emerged strong. It took a month's times to learn the nature of the war and the purpose of the fighting.
But once we did it, we still didn't use our full force.
QUESTION: What did you learn of the status of building up the UNIFIL forces? Have you found -- can you say anything of what you know about the pace of recruitment and putting them in place?
PERES: Well (inaudible) do it relatively in a short while. And also they cannot be a force of observers to report what is happening on the battlefield, but a force that observes the peace -- that the peace will become a reality. And for that reason, they'll have the right of self-defense.
QUESTION: I want a bit more, please, on the...
PERES: Yes, please. I'm sorry.
QUESTION: ... a little bit more, pleas on the overflights that Israel permitted by Arab countries. Do they continue? And can you describe what was allowed to fly over?
PERES: Whenever we are being asked, we agree once we are convinced that this is honest to God help.
QUESTION: In your opinion, have you found the Lebanese government to be cooperative in taking ownership over -- the Lebanese government in taking ownership over Hezbollah's actions?
PERES: What we found during this month is the support of Israel was the greatest we ever had, but the strength of the supporters was the weakest we ever saw. There was a contradiction between the size of the support and the strength of the supporters.
And it's particular true about the Lebanese. They don't (inaudible) Israel. They, too, want to have an independent state. And actually Hezbollah, in our terms, is an Iranian division, serving Iranian interests, in the midst of the life of an otherwise quiet country.
We don't have any historic conflict nor actual disagreement with the Lebanese government. I think that the Lebanese people are a fine people. We can live with them peacefully. We don't have any demand from them. Neither am I aware of any claim they have as far as Israel is concerned. We left it completely.
We may feel a little bit, you know, skeptical about a past slogan that said, "land for peace." Israel gave back all the land. We are not sure that we got back all the peace.
QUESTION: So does that mean, without getting personal about it, but you're identified most prominently -- well, Mr. Barak, too, but you go back much further as determined to have peace, even at the risk of yielding a maximum of territory.
QUESTION: That is, basically, the Palestinians...
PERES: I'd say that you've prepared for me a trap. So, in order to escape it, let me...
QUESTION: It's a preface.
PERES: I understand what you're saying.
QUESTION: Sure. And you know, you're a Nobel Peace Prize winner. Your commitment to peace is well known.
But do you now -- is your advice now not to give up 99 percent of the West Bank and half of Jerusalem?
PERES: No, no, no, no. In spite of this disappointment and in spite of the past, we have to continue with the peace process. I didn't change my mind.
I can say, jokingly, with your permission, that peace is like love. You have to close, a little bit, your eyes.
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: Could you say how many Arab countries were allowed overflights?
PERES: I wouldn't like to go into it, not from our standpoint. I don't want to embarrass them.
QUESTION: But if Hezbollah has an Iranian division, why, then -- I mean, isn't the logical conclusion of this that the war has to be taken to Iran, eventually?
PERES: I think the Iranians used their division for diversion. What happened is that Mr. Solana, the foreign minister of Europe went to Tehran to get their hands on the nuclear story on July 11.
The campaign of Hezbollah started on July 12. So the Iranians thought that the best way for them to continue and escape the need to answer the call for the restriction on the development of the nuclear bomb was by developing another front.
And now, I think, they feel a little bit alone. I mean, they don't have two fronts. They have just one.
Now, the Iranians will have to answer, gentlemen. And they promised to give an answer by the 23rd, I believe, or 24th of August. So let them do it.
Anyway, we think Iran is a world problem. We are satisfied with the portion of (inaudible) we have. We are not looking for more. We think that the Iranian story and the Syrian story should be handled by the international community, not by us.
Clearly, whoever will attack us, we shall defend ourselves. It's not our purpose. And in spite of all the difficulty we mentioned, historically, and even today, our supreme consideration will be peace.
QUESTION: On the occasion of your 83rd birthday, sir, can you reflect on where Israel is at, trying to make peace with its neighbors?
PERES: It's a tough world. And it includes disappointments and disillusions. But I can say two things clearly, that in spite of us being inferior in manpower and arms, we won all the six wars, different in nature.
For me, the credit belongs to an outstanding young generation, here now, young, courageous people that are really ready to sacrifice their lives. And I'm saying it with deep conviction.
And the second is that, while we have had disappointments and setbacks, at least two things we achieved and which are of historic value.
PERES: One is peace with Egypt. Twenty years ago, nobody would believe that we shall have peace with Egypt. Abdul Nasser was as popular as Nasrallah; was the hero of the Arab world. Who remembers him today? What is his legacy? He brought (inaudible) to the Egyptians to 150,000 young Egyptians losing their lives.
And I listen with respect to President Mubarak who says: My army is for Egypt, not for anybody else. Historic conclusion.
The second is with Jordan. We have a peace, a meaningful peace, even a dynamic peace.
So these two achievements that I wasn't sure 60 years ago that we would achieve.
This started with the Palestinians. The Palestinians until now suffered from their own division, particularly the military one, and for the lack of a leader that could have united them.
I hope you will take it in the sense of proportion. They didn't have a (inaudible). All the time thinking, what would happen to the United States if (inaudible) and not go and says let's take a decision even at the cost of a civil war.
And I know that Lincoln was advised by (inaudible) France not to go for a civil war -- stood out alone. It's tough to do it.
But when you're occasionally tough to your children, you save their lives.
PERES: In our case, on a smaller scale, it's Ben Gurion. We were also divided. We were also different armed groups. Ben Gurion, again, following the example of Lincoln, did the same. He decided that our guns will fire at a ship that was carrying arms and Jews. I was on his side day and night. I can remember it vividly. It was a tough decision alone.
I wish the Palestinians would have it, too, for their own sake, not for us. We don't ask them to serve us. But they have to show a talent to build a state, a talent to unite their forces, a talent to take historic decisions.
So if you ask me for the lessons, they are varied and many. But one thing, you know, I am a mentor of Ben Gurion. I started to work with him. He's my mentor. He's my hero. And from him I learned one thing that I shall never forget, and that is, the highest level of wisdom is the moral choice. There is nothing wiser than to give preference to moral supremacy.
QUESTION: Thank you.
PERES: Thank you very much.
END
.ETX
Aug 16, 2006 14:34 ET .EOF
Source: CQ Transcriptions © 2006, Congressional Quarterly Inc.
CQ Transcripts WireWednesday, August 16, 2006; 3:19 PM
AUGUST 16, 2006
SPEAKER: SHIMON PERES, ISRAELI VICE PREMIER
PERES: Good morning, and I shall make a very brief introduction.
From our perspective, we think that the present confrontation is not necessarily just between us and the Hezbollah or us and the Palestinians. We see it in the wider context.
We think, number one, it's going to be decided who and what will be Lebanon in the future, a Shiite country or a multinational country. This war is not yet over.
The second is: Will the Middle East be under the spell of the Iranian ambition or is it going to remain Arab and within the Muslim world -- basically Sunnites?
Again, the alternative is Iranian and Shiites.
The third is: Will terror win this battle or not, which is worldwide? And clearly that is the first problem for us about Israel. For us it was the sixth war in 60 years, but contrary to (inaudible) when we were outnumbered and outgunned, this was a war which is more ballistic than territorial. Namely, the human factor played a secondary role to modern technology.
This is the first confrontation between a state and a terroristic organization that is equipped like a state. We estimated that Hezbollah is being paid $100 million a year by the Iranians. They've got the most sophisticated weapons that Iran has or Iran bought from Russia, from China, and elsewhere. They are being trained by the Iranians. We estimate there are over 100 Iranian instructors in Lebanon -- of Hezbollah. And also many of the Hezbollah fighters were trained in Iran and in Syria.
Those are all the problems that we have to face.
PERES: We don't say it was easy. For us, it was difficult, for these following reasons:
A, we weren't prepared for it. To this day, we don't understand: Why did Hezbollah start the attack? What were its purposes?
And now they will have to conclude: What was the damages?
We estimated there was a force of 2,500 Iranians in Hezbollah, fighting. We estimated 600 of them lost their lives. Close to a thousand were wounded.
So we are not so much impressed by the speeches. We look at the facts of life. And then, again, they had an arsenal of 12,000 rockets and missiles, long-range, middle-range, short-range.
They were under the impression that with this arsenal, they could Israel. They fired a third of it, at least, basically, from the short-range because the long-range and the middle-size range were destroyed by our air force. The short-range, we tried to destroy by our armed forces.
For us, we know that maybe the battles are over, but not the campaign and not the confrontation.
Our priorities will be the following: to restore the damage that was done in the upper north of Israel (inaudible) to release our two hostages and, at the same time, to see if we can renew the peace process.
PERES: We are not looking for a military victory. We are looking for the renewal of the peace process.
So if we shall be attacked, we shall fight.
If there will be an opportunity, we shall negotiate.
And finally, at the same time in parallel, we shall try to build a new economic zone of peace common to the Jordanians, to the Palestinians and to us, all the three parties agreed.
We shall do it hand in hand with the United States. We appreciate very much the role the United States played in bringing an end or at least a halt to this confrontation.
On Friday night, when we have decided to go on with the campaign, it looked like the resolution of the United Nations is going to be unacceptable to us, but in a matter of hours it was changed, and we appreciate it.
We recognize the role of the secretary of state and the president in introducing this change that has three unprecedented items.
For the first time, the Security Council, including Arabs, condemned Hezbollah as the aggressor. Never happened before.
Secondly, that Russia agreed to an embargo against Arab countries, against an Arab or terroristic organization. Never happened again.
And the third is that all 15 members voted unanimously to make clear who started it, how to stop it, and what are the obligations of the parties. We appreciated it.
We know now the test will be in the implementation. We shall try our very best to implement the United Nations resolution.
PERES: Thank you.
QUESTION: Sir, before the fighting broke out, Mr. Abbas was prepared to challenge Hezbollah -- I'm sorry, Hamas in its own territories, a mutual recognition with a referendum. Then the attacks came.
What, if anything, is Israel doing to reach out to Mr. Abbas and strengthen his hand for a two-state solution?
PERES: Well, we didn't change our mind. We shall support the establishment of a Palestinian state, as we promised. We intend to leave most of the territories as we promised, in spite of the war. We shall have some problems with the unilateral efforts because Gaza in a way was a disappointment -- shall try to do it bilaterally.
The rest depends upon Abu Mazen. We shall do our very best to support him as a peacemaker -- not as a part of the Israeli government. Actually, before they hijack of our soldiers, Mr. Olmert, our prime minister, told openly and privately to Abu Mazen that he is ready to meet with him and start to consider the release of many of the prisoners.
What's holding back is the failure to try to do it by force by taking hostage our soldier.
QUESTION: What, if any, conversations has the Israeli government had with Mr. Abbas since the fighting began, sir?
PERES: Recently, there were none.
QUESTION: I'm sorry?
PERES: Recently, there were none. The only conversations we have -- I'm sorry.
QUESTION: I'm sorry. There's been none since the fighting began?
PERES: The only one was necessary (inaudible). For example, Mr. Abu Mazen was put in charge of the passages in Gaza, and we are cooperating on that. We're also cooperating in building an economic base, as I have said, jointly done by the triangle -- the Jordanians, the Palestinians and us.
QUESTION: Have you considered the possibility, as a gesture of good will, of donating some of the funds that you will raise, to the people of Lebanon to help them rebuild also?
PERES: You know, we suffered a great deal of damages -- billions and billions of dollars.
In the United Nations resolution, it wasn't said that whoever was damaged, there will be help. All the help is going to Lebanon, so it's started from the Lebanese. We shall do everything we can to facilitate and help to rebuild Lebanon.
I want to mention something that wasn't published; that even during the war, some Arab countries wanted to send civilian aid to Lebanon and (inaudible) during the war.
So, again, our approach will be basically constructive. As much as the Lebanese government and people are concerned, we shall be very careful when it will come to Hezbollah so they won't misuse it to bring in arms.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
PERES: I'm not sure they will be happy if I shall say it.
QUESTION: When you say you're going to everything to facilitate, sir, the direct question was, were you going to give anything to Lebanon as a gesture of goodwill? Was that a yes, sir?
PERES: You know, we have our own agenda. We went out of war, which was costly to us. But there's a lot of possible joint ventures. One of the things that we have learned is to distinguish between financial aid and economic aid.
PERES: We have helped the Palestinians to get, for example, financial aid. But the donor conference came to almost $10 billion, over the last 11, 12 years.
Unfortunately, the aid that was given to the Palestinians brought down Fatah because it created corruption. And we're afraid that Fatah lost the elections, not because of ideology but because of corruption.
So look what happened. We tried to help. And the result was in contradiction to it.
The lesson is: Be careful with financial aid because financial aid means to take the money of the poor people in the rich countries and then (inaudible) to the rich people in the poor countries. So it creates corruption.
Instead, we prefer to build industrial parks, joint ventures on water, on tourism. On all that, we are ready to cooperate.
QUESTION: So the answer to my colleague's question, then, is no, just so I'm clear?
PERES: No to what? We aren't asked for anything to do. You know, we are, as I mentioned, in six years, we had six wars. We never asked anybody to fight instead of us. Our relations with the United States are, from our point of view, of a moving nature.
But we never asked the United States to send soldiers to defend Israel. We don't want any American mother to be concerned because her boy may be in danger because of us.
PERES: We didn't ask for it. And now, with all the damages, we didn't approach the American government, we didn't ask for help. We have to mobilize billions and billions of dollars to enable our people to come back to life.
QUESTION: Mr. Peres, talking about helping Lebanon, is Israel prepared to lift the blockade on Lebanon? Presumably, one would hope -- one would think that to help the Lebanese government get ahead in rebuilding is a good thing. And France, I think this morning, called for a lifting of the blockade.
PERES: Everything which is civilian, yes.
QUESTION: I'm sorry?
PERES: Everything which is of a civilian nature, yes. Everything which is of a military effort, no. We know that the speech yesterday of the president of Syria was a terrible speech.
You know, Syria lost two wars against Israel that they have initiated. And they lost five initiatives by Israel to make peace.
The first was when President Sadat suggested to President Assad to go with him to Camp David and sign an agreement. He would probably get back as Egypt got all of the territories. He refused. He said he has time.
Before it, Mr. Kissinger suggested to have an interim agreement with the Syrians, as it was with the Egyptians. They refused.
Then three prime ministers of Israel actually made a promise more or less to hand over the Golan Heights, if not all of it, part of it. Our late Prime Minister Rabin, Mr. Netanyahu, Mr. Barak and myself, too.
On all that, we got negative answers. President Clinton flew to Geneva to meet Assad. He was sure that he'll get a positive yes.
PERES: I think that a person that lost the two trains, the train of war and the train of peace, cannot be appointed as a conductor of trains. They have had their opportunity; they missed it. And even now, we are telling them, "Look, you want peace? Let's meet. Why are you being shy?"
Sadat wanted peace; he came to Jerusalem. King Hussein wanted peace; we met. Even with Arafat, we met face-to-face.
The only one that to this very day refused to make the slightest move in the direction of peace is Syria. But, instead, he says he will continue to help Hezbollah. What for? And in which way is he going to help them? To terrorize, to fire missiles.
So when it comes to the civilian aid, yes. If they will start to reship weapons, no.
QUESTION: But then that basically means you're going to keep up a blockade by...
PERES: No, no, no, no. We have agreed even during the war to have corridors where people that wanted to leave Lebanon could have left safely. But this time it will be corridors not only for people but also for materials.
We didn't start the war; we don't want to continue it. And we are basically a country that uses the army for defense, not for aggression.
QUESTION: If this conflict is part of the larger battle for the Middle East, as you said at the outset, sir, what's Israel's next step, then, assuming that you can get everything rebuilt?
PERES: There is a quartet of four terrorist groups: two states, Iran and Syria; one state-in-being, the Palestinians; one state within an state, the Hezbollah. We are facing two of them: the Hamas and the Hezbollah.
PERES: We think, when it comes to Tehran and Damascus, the world should lead, not us. Now, again, even if those two states -- and those states (inaudible) -- will not open fire, we shall not open fire.
QUESTION: Can you give us any updates on the release of the soldiers? Do you have anything?
PERES: Yes. First of all, to the best of our information, they're alive and healthy. Second, in the preamble of the United Nations resolution, there was a clear call to release them, without conditions and without (inaudible). We expect that this will be implemented.
QUESTION: Do you have any knowledge that that is about to happen?
PERES: I can't answer the question; we don't have knowledge enough. The problem is if really the Lebanese will fulfill what they said, that the whole territory of Lebanon will be under the control of the Lebanese government, this must include the two soldiers too. And they have to hand it over to us.
Why did they take them hostage? Hezbollah violated the land, has broken the sovereignty, they killed other soldiers. What for? And now they have to give it back.
QUESTION: Mr. Minister, as you know, Jesse Jackson is trying to be a middle man now. He called at the Syrian embassy yesterday. And he's hopeful but being very cautious. He, too, thinks they're well.
Is that going to get off the ground, do you think?
Does that have Israel's approval, his effort?
He says he's willing to go to Syria. And, you know, he's had a lot of success, in fact, in Syria, with a pilot years ago.
PERES: In order to be a middle man, you must have two parties that want peace. I'm afraid he has just one party. And you cannot applaud with one hand.
QUESTION: Does Israel have any regrets?
Or do you think that you made any mistakes in the campaign in Lebanon?
PERES: I think we have discovered some weaknesses. And we are going to correct them.
QUESTION: Such as?
PERES: Such as the exact use of armed forces and equipment, basically.
It came out that the Hezbollah has had more advanced equipment. Like, for example, they got the Chinese missiles against boats. They got the Russian missiles against tanks. And all those sorts of things we can correct and we shall correct it as soon as possible.
We are not going to engage -- that's my hope -- into an internal in-fight.
You know, after a war, people accuse this and that. You know, the past never runs away. You can remain safe with the past. You cannot change the past. So, judging the past, we have time.
On the other hand, peace -- the future is impatient. So we are going to devote all our energy to correct what is possible in the future and not to pass judgment on what happened in the past.
QUESTION: Are you confident, sir, that Israel did everything it could to minimize civilian damage in Lebanon?
PERES: Yes, 100 percent.
QUESTION: One hundred percent?
PERES: I want to tell you, they say 1,000 people were killed. I regret it very much. But among them undoubtedly there are Hezbollah people. Don't forget it.
And then, again, they did something which again is a novelty. They used human shelters to hide arms. And before we attacked, say, a village or a place, we called the people and told them, "Gentlemen, either get rid of the missiles or leave your house." Some of them did, some of them did not. According to international law, it's a crime to use human shelters for an attack.
But I can tell you for sure, look, in war you always have mistakes. The greatest mistake is the war itself. But look what happened in Kosovo. Close to 10,000 civilians lost their life. The Chinese embassy was bombed. I'm sure it wasn't done intentionally. And we tried our very, very best not to hit any civilian person, old or young or clearly not children.
I spoke with many of our pilots. In addition to what the headquarters did, the pilots themselves were extremely careful not to hit civilian targets.
QUESTION: Ambassador, looking ahead, if I may, one of the things I don't understand about the agreement that's now to be implemented is how will sending a force to the south and sending 15,000 Lebanese troops to the south protect Israel against the delivery of weapons through other roads into Lebanon.
In other words, you know what I'm saying, you have a safeguard, you will have a safeguard in the south, but are you just depending on good will for weapon deliveries to stop?
PERES: Well, nothing is hermetic in life, and we don't look upon it as a foolproofed security.
PERES: Southern Lebanon is not a very large piece of land and it will be now full with 30,000 soldiers; 15,000 Lebanese; 15,000 UNIFIL; with added sources of forces from Europe.
The other following changes: This time UNIFIL will have the right to defend itself, which they didn't have previously. The numbers are larger. And also, finally, the Lebanese have to recognize that an army is an instrument of defense, and that the collection (inaudible) so they have 70,000 soldiers. If they want to defend their life, they don't do it for us, they do it for themselves.
Lebanon cannot remain an independent country if they have two armies. So they have their own incentives to do so. But that was our initial demand that, instead of the Hezbollah, it will be guarded by the Lebanese army (inaudible).
This is also the nature of Resolution 1559. And we cannot say (inaudible) that was decided that I'm not satisfied. That could have been done in pragmatic terms and in accordance with the United Nations resolution.
QUESTION: There are several ways in. There's the sea, for instance. There are roads. They're not in the south entirely.
PERES: Well, if we shall be attacked, we shall do whatever we can. And we didn't use our full force.
What happened in the war is that Hezbollah started with everything they had, and we at the beginning have had to analyze: What are they doing? So we started to build our force slower. By the end of the confrontation, Hezbollah emerged weak and Israel emerged strong. It took a month's times to learn the nature of the war and the purpose of the fighting.
But once we did it, we still didn't use our full force.
QUESTION: What did you learn of the status of building up the UNIFIL forces? Have you found -- can you say anything of what you know about the pace of recruitment and putting them in place?
PERES: Well (inaudible) do it relatively in a short while. And also they cannot be a force of observers to report what is happening on the battlefield, but a force that observes the peace -- that the peace will become a reality. And for that reason, they'll have the right of self-defense.
QUESTION: I want a bit more, please, on the...
PERES: Yes, please. I'm sorry.
QUESTION: ... a little bit more, pleas on the overflights that Israel permitted by Arab countries. Do they continue? And can you describe what was allowed to fly over?
PERES: Whenever we are being asked, we agree once we are convinced that this is honest to God help.
QUESTION: In your opinion, have you found the Lebanese government to be cooperative in taking ownership over -- the Lebanese government in taking ownership over Hezbollah's actions?
PERES: What we found during this month is the support of Israel was the greatest we ever had, but the strength of the supporters was the weakest we ever saw. There was a contradiction between the size of the support and the strength of the supporters.
And it's particular true about the Lebanese. They don't (inaudible) Israel. They, too, want to have an independent state. And actually Hezbollah, in our terms, is an Iranian division, serving Iranian interests, in the midst of the life of an otherwise quiet country.
We don't have any historic conflict nor actual disagreement with the Lebanese government. I think that the Lebanese people are a fine people. We can live with them peacefully. We don't have any demand from them. Neither am I aware of any claim they have as far as Israel is concerned. We left it completely.
We may feel a little bit, you know, skeptical about a past slogan that said, "land for peace." Israel gave back all the land. We are not sure that we got back all the peace.
QUESTION: So does that mean, without getting personal about it, but you're identified most prominently -- well, Mr. Barak, too, but you go back much further as determined to have peace, even at the risk of yielding a maximum of territory.
QUESTION: That is, basically, the Palestinians...
PERES: I'd say that you've prepared for me a trap. So, in order to escape it, let me...
QUESTION: It's a preface.
PERES: I understand what you're saying.
QUESTION: Sure. And you know, you're a Nobel Peace Prize winner. Your commitment to peace is well known.
But do you now -- is your advice now not to give up 99 percent of the West Bank and half of Jerusalem?
PERES: No, no, no, no. In spite of this disappointment and in spite of the past, we have to continue with the peace process. I didn't change my mind.
I can say, jokingly, with your permission, that peace is like love. You have to close, a little bit, your eyes.
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: Could you say how many Arab countries were allowed overflights?
PERES: I wouldn't like to go into it, not from our standpoint. I don't want to embarrass them.
QUESTION: But if Hezbollah has an Iranian division, why, then -- I mean, isn't the logical conclusion of this that the war has to be taken to Iran, eventually?
PERES: I think the Iranians used their division for diversion. What happened is that Mr. Solana, the foreign minister of Europe went to Tehran to get their hands on the nuclear story on July 11.
The campaign of Hezbollah started on July 12. So the Iranians thought that the best way for them to continue and escape the need to answer the call for the restriction on the development of the nuclear bomb was by developing another front.
And now, I think, they feel a little bit alone. I mean, they don't have two fronts. They have just one.
Now, the Iranians will have to answer, gentlemen. And they promised to give an answer by the 23rd, I believe, or 24th of August. So let them do it.
Anyway, we think Iran is a world problem. We are satisfied with the portion of (inaudible) we have. We are not looking for more. We think that the Iranian story and the Syrian story should be handled by the international community, not by us.
Clearly, whoever will attack us, we shall defend ourselves. It's not our purpose. And in spite of all the difficulty we mentioned, historically, and even today, our supreme consideration will be peace.
QUESTION: On the occasion of your 83rd birthday, sir, can you reflect on where Israel is at, trying to make peace with its neighbors?
PERES: It's a tough world. And it includes disappointments and disillusions. But I can say two things clearly, that in spite of us being inferior in manpower and arms, we won all the six wars, different in nature.
For me, the credit belongs to an outstanding young generation, here now, young, courageous people that are really ready to sacrifice their lives. And I'm saying it with deep conviction.
And the second is that, while we have had disappointments and setbacks, at least two things we achieved and which are of historic value.
PERES: One is peace with Egypt. Twenty years ago, nobody would believe that we shall have peace with Egypt. Abdul Nasser was as popular as Nasrallah; was the hero of the Arab world. Who remembers him today? What is his legacy? He brought (inaudible) to the Egyptians to 150,000 young Egyptians losing their lives.
And I listen with respect to President Mubarak who says: My army is for Egypt, not for anybody else. Historic conclusion.
The second is with Jordan. We have a peace, a meaningful peace, even a dynamic peace.
So these two achievements that I wasn't sure 60 years ago that we would achieve.
This started with the Palestinians. The Palestinians until now suffered from their own division, particularly the military one, and for the lack of a leader that could have united them.
I hope you will take it in the sense of proportion. They didn't have a (inaudible). All the time thinking, what would happen to the United States if (inaudible) and not go and says let's take a decision even at the cost of a civil war.
And I know that Lincoln was advised by (inaudible) France not to go for a civil war -- stood out alone. It's tough to do it.
But when you're occasionally tough to your children, you save their lives.
PERES: In our case, on a smaller scale, it's Ben Gurion. We were also divided. We were also different armed groups. Ben Gurion, again, following the example of Lincoln, did the same. He decided that our guns will fire at a ship that was carrying arms and Jews. I was on his side day and night. I can remember it vividly. It was a tough decision alone.
I wish the Palestinians would have it, too, for their own sake, not for us. We don't ask them to serve us. But they have to show a talent to build a state, a talent to unite their forces, a talent to take historic decisions.
So if you ask me for the lessons, they are varied and many. But one thing, you know, I am a mentor of Ben Gurion. I started to work with him. He's my mentor. He's my hero. And from him I learned one thing that I shall never forget, and that is, the highest level of wisdom is the moral choice. There is nothing wiser than to give preference to moral supremacy.
QUESTION: Thank you.
PERES: Thank you very much.
END
.ETX
Aug 16, 2006 14:34 ET .EOF
Source: CQ Transcriptions © 2006, Congressional Quarterly Inc.
STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS OF LEBANESE CEASE FIRE
The Strategic Implications of the Lebanese Cease-Fire
Following U.N. Resolution 1701, a cease-fire between belligerent forces in Lebanon began on August 14. During the first hours after the cease-fire took effect, both the Israeli Defense Forces (I.D.F.) and Hezbollah were abiding by it, notwithstanding isolated incidents. Security issues concerning the region's stability and the risks for the U.N. international force that will be sent to Lebanon within ten days are now the main concerns for global and regional powers. At the same time, the 2006 Israeli-Lebanese conflict and the subsequent U.N.-sponsored cease-fire are having important political and strategic implications for the Middle East's balance of power and, more generally, for the global geopolitical chessboard.
Speaking to Lebanese television network al-Manar on the evening of August 14, Hezbollah's leader Hassan Nasrallah delivered a significant speech. He called Hezbollah's performance in the conflict a historical and strategic triumph. Nevertheless, his statement was expected, as part of the battle of communiqués in which both sides claimed a clear victory.The political importance of Nasrallah's words lie instead in the political plans that emerge from some key phrases. He made clear that the Shi'a militia's heavy armament will constitute the basis for a strong Lebanese state, thus proposing himself and his organization as an all-national leadership and explicitly de-legitimizing the Lebanese army, saying that it is unable to protect the country in case of war. He then concluded by saying that Hezbollah will actively take part in humanitarian assistance for the hard-hit population and called it immoral to even talk about the militia's disarmament.
The problem for the United Nations is that Resolution 1701 explicitly calls for such a disarmament; in paragraph 8, it states that there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese State and, in paragraph 11e, it decides that the multinational force shall assist the Lebanese armed forces in taking steps towards the establishment of the area as referred to in paragraph 8.Moreover, because the United States and the European Union agree that Beirut's government must regain full control of its national sovereignty, Nasrallah's declarations directly challenge their views and signal Hezbollah's not-so-hidden political agenda: the progressive rise to Lebanon's dominant political and military force.Therefore, the ground has been prepared for a difficult political, diplomatic and strategic task. Political and military decision-makers must not underestimate the serious security issues that will concern troops sent to Lebanese territory and the political consequences of a possible deterioration of the post-cease-fire context.
The U.N. Resolution and its Security Implications
With Resolution 1701, the United Nations decided to strengthen its current mission in Lebanon that was established in 1978 by raising its numbers to 15,000 units in order to support Beirut's army, which is called upon to guarantee the full implementation of the Taif Accords (1989) and of U.N. resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006). France agreed to take the leadership of the force, while Italy will provide up to 3,500 personnel. Spain, Portugal, and Finland will also count among the likely participants, while Australia, Canada, Malaysia, and Indonesia are among the non-E.U. countries that are considering sending troops. Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told the press on August 14 that Israel's approximately 30,000 troops would withdraw from southern Lebanon only when the U.N. units arrived.
As with every U.N. resolution and international accord, it is important to pay attention to the details and the language of the text. Apart from the above mentioned paragraphs that will inevitably cause friction with Hezbollah, the crucial issue is that of the rules of engagement regarding the multinational force. It is up to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to define the rules of engagement on the basis of the resolution draft. The draft was relatively loose on the military side of the matter and it is likely that U.N. forces will do little more than self-defense.As a consequence, if Lebanon is to fulfill its duties and ensure the disarmament of Hezbollah, a serious problem will arise. Nasrallah's words confirmed what was already clear to any observer of recent Lebanese history: the Shi'a militia will not disarm because its long-term goals are the final strategic victory over Israel and the construction of a strong Lebanese state allied with Iran, rather than one allied with the U.S.-Israeli combine.
Since Iran will continue to back Hezbollah, and Syria will do so unless the United States engages Damascus in a broad diplomatic effort to start a new, regional peace process that will not be the same as pursuing Washington's proposed New Middle East, the cease-fire appears fragile and may fail in the coming weeks or months before the U.N. forces are able to effectively reshape the political and security contexts.The only real alternative to such instability is a comprehensive regional political and diplomatic agreement with Tehran and Damascus, which does not seem likely in light of the current political orientations of the current U.S. and Iranian governments.
The Significance of the Cease-Fire
As a result of the July-August conflict, Hezbollah is winning the information war within the Arab world even though it suffered losses in the 32 days of the war. Israel decided to advance cautiously and slowly on the ground after the air campaign because it was concerned with the high number of casualties caused by Hezbollah's fierce resistance. According to Israel, it destroyed much of Hezbollah's longer-range Zelzal missiles, killed approximately 500 guerrillas, disrupted the militia's supply routes and eliminated some top officers. Nevertheless, Israel failed to annihilate the organization's offensive capability (which was the war's declared objective).
[See:Intelligence Brief: Israel's Strategic Security].Therefore, the perception of the I.D.F.'s performance in Israel and in the world has been decisively affected by this result. Public opinion -- and decision-makers themselves -- always recall the stunning rapidity of the 1967 and 1973 Israeli victories against Arab states. As a consequence, Hezbollah's steadfast defense is being perceived as a political victory by many, and especially by those in the Middle East.
What is more important is that Israel's air campaign and the destruction it caused have strengthened Hezbollah's image at home and abroad. Whereas in the first hours of the conflict many Arab officials blamed the war on Hezbollah, this context changed after Israel's disastrous bombardment of Qana and after other Israeli actions that caused significant civilian casualties.Therefore, Israel -- and the United States as its main supporter and sponsor -- failed almost completely in their political objectives to de-legitimize Hezbollah. Instead, Hezbollah can claim a social and political victory.
Conclusion
It can be expected that Hezbollah will try to capitalize from its political success as it will try to progressively take control of the leadership in Lebanon. Beirut's current administration appears weak, and the only variable that could change the balance of power between Lebanon's Siniora government and Hezbollah would be a massive influx of U.S.-E.U. military aid to Lebanon's army, which could easily spark a very dangerous conflict between the latter and Hezbollah.On the other hand, if France and the other components of the U.N. forces refrain from decisively upgrading Beirut's military capabilities, the effective disarmament of Hezbollah seems impossible to attain, thus putting the resolution and U.N. credibility at risk.With Hezbollah and its leader rapidly emerging as a dominant force in Lebanon, expect Israel and the United States to consider all available options to destroy what they perceive as an unacceptable threat. Because of Tehran's deep involvement in Lebanon via Hezbollah, the stage is set for a new phase in the U.S.-Iranian conflict.
Report Drafted By:Dr. Federico Bordonaro, Jean-Philippe Miginiac
The Power and Interest News Report (PINR) is an independent organization that utilizes open source intelligence to provide conflict analysis services in the context of international relations. PINR approaches a subject based upon the powers and interests involved, leaving the moral judgments to the reader. content@pinr.com.
Following U.N. Resolution 1701, a cease-fire between belligerent forces in Lebanon began on August 14. During the first hours after the cease-fire took effect, both the Israeli Defense Forces (I.D.F.) and Hezbollah were abiding by it, notwithstanding isolated incidents. Security issues concerning the region's stability and the risks for the U.N. international force that will be sent to Lebanon within ten days are now the main concerns for global and regional powers. At the same time, the 2006 Israeli-Lebanese conflict and the subsequent U.N.-sponsored cease-fire are having important political and strategic implications for the Middle East's balance of power and, more generally, for the global geopolitical chessboard.
Speaking to Lebanese television network al-Manar on the evening of August 14, Hezbollah's leader Hassan Nasrallah delivered a significant speech. He called Hezbollah's performance in the conflict a historical and strategic triumph. Nevertheless, his statement was expected, as part of the battle of communiqués in which both sides claimed a clear victory.The political importance of Nasrallah's words lie instead in the political plans that emerge from some key phrases. He made clear that the Shi'a militia's heavy armament will constitute the basis for a strong Lebanese state, thus proposing himself and his organization as an all-national leadership and explicitly de-legitimizing the Lebanese army, saying that it is unable to protect the country in case of war. He then concluded by saying that Hezbollah will actively take part in humanitarian assistance for the hard-hit population and called it immoral to even talk about the militia's disarmament.
The problem for the United Nations is that Resolution 1701 explicitly calls for such a disarmament; in paragraph 8, it states that there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese State and, in paragraph 11e, it decides that the multinational force shall assist the Lebanese armed forces in taking steps towards the establishment of the area as referred to in paragraph 8.Moreover, because the United States and the European Union agree that Beirut's government must regain full control of its national sovereignty, Nasrallah's declarations directly challenge their views and signal Hezbollah's not-so-hidden political agenda: the progressive rise to Lebanon's dominant political and military force.Therefore, the ground has been prepared for a difficult political, diplomatic and strategic task. Political and military decision-makers must not underestimate the serious security issues that will concern troops sent to Lebanese territory and the political consequences of a possible deterioration of the post-cease-fire context.
The U.N. Resolution and its Security Implications
With Resolution 1701, the United Nations decided to strengthen its current mission in Lebanon that was established in 1978 by raising its numbers to 15,000 units in order to support Beirut's army, which is called upon to guarantee the full implementation of the Taif Accords (1989) and of U.N. resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006). France agreed to take the leadership of the force, while Italy will provide up to 3,500 personnel. Spain, Portugal, and Finland will also count among the likely participants, while Australia, Canada, Malaysia, and Indonesia are among the non-E.U. countries that are considering sending troops. Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told the press on August 14 that Israel's approximately 30,000 troops would withdraw from southern Lebanon only when the U.N. units arrived.
As with every U.N. resolution and international accord, it is important to pay attention to the details and the language of the text. Apart from the above mentioned paragraphs that will inevitably cause friction with Hezbollah, the crucial issue is that of the rules of engagement regarding the multinational force. It is up to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to define the rules of engagement on the basis of the resolution draft. The draft was relatively loose on the military side of the matter and it is likely that U.N. forces will do little more than self-defense.As a consequence, if Lebanon is to fulfill its duties and ensure the disarmament of Hezbollah, a serious problem will arise. Nasrallah's words confirmed what was already clear to any observer of recent Lebanese history: the Shi'a militia will not disarm because its long-term goals are the final strategic victory over Israel and the construction of a strong Lebanese state allied with Iran, rather than one allied with the U.S.-Israeli combine.
Since Iran will continue to back Hezbollah, and Syria will do so unless the United States engages Damascus in a broad diplomatic effort to start a new, regional peace process that will not be the same as pursuing Washington's proposed New Middle East, the cease-fire appears fragile and may fail in the coming weeks or months before the U.N. forces are able to effectively reshape the political and security contexts.The only real alternative to such instability is a comprehensive regional political and diplomatic agreement with Tehran and Damascus, which does not seem likely in light of the current political orientations of the current U.S. and Iranian governments.
The Significance of the Cease-Fire
As a result of the July-August conflict, Hezbollah is winning the information war within the Arab world even though it suffered losses in the 32 days of the war. Israel decided to advance cautiously and slowly on the ground after the air campaign because it was concerned with the high number of casualties caused by Hezbollah's fierce resistance. According to Israel, it destroyed much of Hezbollah's longer-range Zelzal missiles, killed approximately 500 guerrillas, disrupted the militia's supply routes and eliminated some top officers. Nevertheless, Israel failed to annihilate the organization's offensive capability (which was the war's declared objective).
[See:Intelligence Brief: Israel's Strategic Security].Therefore, the perception of the I.D.F.'s performance in Israel and in the world has been decisively affected by this result. Public opinion -- and decision-makers themselves -- always recall the stunning rapidity of the 1967 and 1973 Israeli victories against Arab states. As a consequence, Hezbollah's steadfast defense is being perceived as a political victory by many, and especially by those in the Middle East.
What is more important is that Israel's air campaign and the destruction it caused have strengthened Hezbollah's image at home and abroad. Whereas in the first hours of the conflict many Arab officials blamed the war on Hezbollah, this context changed after Israel's disastrous bombardment of Qana and after other Israeli actions that caused significant civilian casualties.Therefore, Israel -- and the United States as its main supporter and sponsor -- failed almost completely in their political objectives to de-legitimize Hezbollah. Instead, Hezbollah can claim a social and political victory.
Conclusion
It can be expected that Hezbollah will try to capitalize from its political success as it will try to progressively take control of the leadership in Lebanon. Beirut's current administration appears weak, and the only variable that could change the balance of power between Lebanon's Siniora government and Hezbollah would be a massive influx of U.S.-E.U. military aid to Lebanon's army, which could easily spark a very dangerous conflict between the latter and Hezbollah.On the other hand, if France and the other components of the U.N. forces refrain from decisively upgrading Beirut's military capabilities, the effective disarmament of Hezbollah seems impossible to attain, thus putting the resolution and U.N. credibility at risk.With Hezbollah and its leader rapidly emerging as a dominant force in Lebanon, expect Israel and the United States to consider all available options to destroy what they perceive as an unacceptable threat. Because of Tehran's deep involvement in Lebanon via Hezbollah, the stage is set for a new phase in the U.S.-Iranian conflict.
Report Drafted By:Dr. Federico Bordonaro, Jean-Philippe Miginiac
The Power and Interest News Report (PINR) is an independent organization that utilizes open source intelligence to provide conflict analysis services in the context of international relations. PINR approaches a subject based upon the powers and interests involved, leaving the moral judgments to the reader. content@pinr.com.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
SYRIA WARNS ISRAEL OVER GOLAN
Syria warns Israel over occupation of Golan Wed Aug 16, 7:55 AM ET
DAMASCUS (AFP) - Syria has warned Israel that the occupation of the Golan Heights cannot last forever and said Syrians would emulate Hezbollah to recover their land. We say to the forces occupying our land that our people warn you that they will not allow our land to be occupied forever, the government's daily Ath-Thawra said Wednesday.You must understand that our people will fight the way the Lebanese resistance (Hezbollah) fought you,it added.Our people will fight you ... on every inch of the Golan, it said.
However, the newspaper urged decision-makers in Israel to open up to new perspectives, noting that some in the Jewish state were in favour of making peace with Syria.The leaders of this expansionist entity have a choice: either they heed the voice of reason that prohibits them from violating other people's rights or they will face action similar to that carried out by the Lebanese resistance.Syria has repeatedly demanded the return of the Golan Heights which Israel conquered in the June 1967 Arab-Israeli war and annexed in 1981.
Peace negotiations between the two neighbours broke off in January 2000 amid disagreement over the strategic heights, which overlooks Israel's northern Galilee region and command approaches to the Syrian capital, Damascus.Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gave a hard-hitting speech to the Syrian parliament on Tuesday describing Israel as the enemy and stressing that he did not expect peace any time soon with his arch-rival.Peace would involve Israel returning occupied lands to their owners and restoring their rights, Assad said. Israel is an enemy founded on the basis of aggression and hegemony.
DAMASCUS (AFP) - Syria has warned Israel that the occupation of the Golan Heights cannot last forever and said Syrians would emulate Hezbollah to recover their land. We say to the forces occupying our land that our people warn you that they will not allow our land to be occupied forever, the government's daily Ath-Thawra said Wednesday.You must understand that our people will fight the way the Lebanese resistance (Hezbollah) fought you,it added.Our people will fight you ... on every inch of the Golan, it said.
However, the newspaper urged decision-makers in Israel to open up to new perspectives, noting that some in the Jewish state were in favour of making peace with Syria.The leaders of this expansionist entity have a choice: either they heed the voice of reason that prohibits them from violating other people's rights or they will face action similar to that carried out by the Lebanese resistance.Syria has repeatedly demanded the return of the Golan Heights which Israel conquered in the June 1967 Arab-Israeli war and annexed in 1981.
Peace negotiations between the two neighbours broke off in January 2000 amid disagreement over the strategic heights, which overlooks Israel's northern Galilee region and command approaches to the Syrian capital, Damascus.Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gave a hard-hitting speech to the Syrian parliament on Tuesday describing Israel as the enemy and stressing that he did not expect peace any time soon with his arch-rival.Peace would involve Israel returning occupied lands to their owners and restoring their rights, Assad said. Israel is an enemy founded on the basis of aggression and hegemony.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)