Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
MonsterMark said:All I know is my wife told me that if mine was smaller, she'd have sex with me more often. She says it takes her 3 days to recover as it is now.
She's got to tell you something...:bowrofl:
U.N. Mideast draft
- Thread starter Vitas
- Start date
She's got to tell you something...:bowrofl:
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
Arab nations want U.N. to help launch peace initiative
By Edith M. Lederer, Associated Press Writer
Friday, August 18, 2006 1:41 PM PDT
UNITED NATIONS - Arab nations want the 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.
Arab League foreign ministers have asked to send a delegation to a ministerial meeting of the Security Council in September to initiate a new effort to bring lasting peace between the Israelis and Palestinians after nearly 60 years of conflict.
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.
“Now, we are working ... on what outcome would be coming out of this meeting,” Mahmassani told The Associated Press.
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.
At that meeting, Arab ministers displayed frustration and declared the Mideast peace process “dead,” blaming Israel for its demise.
“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.
The Arab initiative to try to restart the peace process from scratch at this time is significant, because the unresolved Arab-Israeli conflict is at the heart of the current Palestinian-Israeli fighting in Gaza and the 34-day war between Israel and Hezbollah militants in south Lebanon.
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.
In the eyes of many Arabs, Hezbollah's tougher-than-expected resistance against Israel's relentless bombardment and heavy ground assaults shook the Israeli military's image of invulnerability. Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, has become an instant hero.
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.
“We consider the peace process, the Quartet, the road map, have not achieved their objective,” Mahmassani said. “So we want to bring up the whole issue of the Arab-Israeli conflict ... and especially the peace process in order to initiate a new peace process that will achieve ... a final, just and lasting settlement for the Arab-Israeli conflict in the region.”
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.”
“Therefore, one of the main goals of the world community should be the concentration of efforts on creating conditions for the resumption of the peace process in the region on all tracks,” the ministry said. “One of the urgent tasks in that context is the normalization of the situation on the Palestinian territories and the resumption of dialogue between the Palestinian National Authority and Israel.”
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.
In a July 16 communique, the group said all Palestinian parties should accept the road map's conditions including recognizing the existence of Israel and rejecting violence - which the Hamas-led Palestinian government has refused to do.
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.
http://www.theworldlink.com/articles/2006/08/18/news/news08081806.txt
By Edith M. Lederer, Associated Press Writer
Friday, August 18, 2006 1:41 PM PDT
UNITED NATIONS - Arab nations want the 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.
Arab League foreign ministers have asked to send a delegation to a ministerial meeting of the Security Council in September to initiate a new effort to bring lasting peace between the Israelis and Palestinians after nearly 60 years of conflict.
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.
“Now, we are working ... on what outcome would be coming out of this meeting,” Mahmassani told The Associated Press.
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.
At that meeting, Arab ministers displayed frustration and declared the Mideast peace process “dead,” blaming Israel for its demise.
“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.
The Arab initiative to try to restart the peace process from scratch at this time is significant, because the unresolved Arab-Israeli conflict is at the heart of the current Palestinian-Israeli fighting in Gaza and the 34-day war between Israel and Hezbollah militants in south Lebanon.
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.
In the eyes of many Arabs, Hezbollah's tougher-than-expected resistance against Israel's relentless bombardment and heavy ground assaults shook the Israeli military's image of invulnerability. Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, has become an instant hero.
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.
“We consider the peace process, the Quartet, the road map, have not achieved their objective,” Mahmassani said. “So we want to bring up the whole issue of the Arab-Israeli conflict ... and especially the peace process in order to initiate a new peace process that will achieve ... a final, just and lasting settlement for the Arab-Israeli conflict in the region.”
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.”
“Therefore, one of the main goals of the world community should be the concentration of efforts on creating conditions for the resumption of the peace process in the region on all tracks,” the ministry said. “One of the urgent tasks in that context is the normalization of the situation on the Palestinian territories and the resumption of dialogue between the Palestinian National Authority and Israel.”
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.
In a July 16 communique, the group said all Palestinian parties should accept the road map's conditions including recognizing the existence of Israel and rejecting violence - which the Hamas-led Palestinian government has refused to do.
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.
http://www.theworldlink.com/articles/2006/08/18/news/news08081806.txt
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
Calabrio said:
Israel Accepts U.N. Deal
Both Sides Warn Of More Fighting
By Molly Moore and Edward Cody
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, August 14, 2006; A01
JERUSALEM, Aug. 14 -- The Israeli cabinet voted Sunday to accept a U.N.-declared cease-fire, even as Israeli military forces and Hezbollah fighters in southern Lebanon launched some of their most intense barrages of the war in anticipation of the Monday morning deadline.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/13/AR2006081300218.html?nav=rss_world
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
Calabrio said:
"Fifteen casualties in one day proves what price we could pay if we do not try to make the most of the political move," Israel's Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres said, referring to Israeli military casualties on Wednesday.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060810/ts_nm/mideast_dc_97
I'll be damned if I can figure out what point you're trying to make, Vitas.
Just in case I was too cryptic-
The moves for peace by much of the Muslim world is disingenuous. For the past century, these countries have all clamored for cease fire once they ran out of ammunition or immediately before Israel was ready to take their capitol ciites. Then, they rebuild their military, prepare their troops, and launch another attack.
Time after time after time.
The Israel's succumbed to international pressure. It prevented them from launching an aggressive enough military campaign and it forced their hand to accept a cease fire. They're under the misimpression that this most recent attempt at peace will be remembered by the public when Hezbollah starts attacking them again and not react so negatively when they retaliate.
But if this cease fire is broken, Israel has already alluded to the fact they are going to flatten Lebanon and maybe Syria too.
The UN is ineffective. It has always been. It's been a failure since it was created following WW2, and it's lineage goes back to the League of Nations, which was also a tremendous failure. The League couldn't prevent WW2, and the UN was unable to deal with the cold war and World War 3, regarding Islamic aggresssion around the world.
Just in case I was too cryptic-
The moves for peace by much of the Muslim world is disingenuous. For the past century, these countries have all clamored for cease fire once they ran out of ammunition or immediately before Israel was ready to take their capitol ciites. Then, they rebuild their military, prepare their troops, and launch another attack.
Time after time after time.
The Israel's succumbed to international pressure. It prevented them from launching an aggressive enough military campaign and it forced their hand to accept a cease fire. They're under the misimpression that this most recent attempt at peace will be remembered by the public when Hezbollah starts attacking them again and not react so negatively when they retaliate.
But if this cease fire is broken, Israel has already alluded to the fact they are going to flatten Lebanon and maybe Syria too.
The UN is ineffective. It has always been. It's been a failure since it was created following WW2, and it's lineage goes back to the League of Nations, which was also a tremendous failure. The League couldn't prevent WW2, and the UN was unable to deal with the cold war and World War 3, regarding Islamic aggresssion around the world.
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
Calabrio said:
So your point is that ISRAEL
Calabrio said:
needed to call a cease fire in order to reload? Doesn't make much sense given the fact that your statement is in response to:
"Arab nations want U.N. to help launch peace initiative"
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?p=227272#post227272
but whatever, make your case.
Vitas said:
No. To the contrary. The Israelis don't need a cease fire to reload, the terrorist organizations/nations/ect. repeatedly use the cease fire, not as a strategy for peace, but as a tactical tool to strike Israel.
My point is that I view anything by the Arab league to be deceptive. There is no reason to believe that they are interested in a peaceful co-existance with Israel. If that were the case, for starters, perhaps a few of them could recognize Israel's existance and open diplomatic relations with them.
Egypt, eventually and reluctantly did, in order to save it's economy. As a result, the dictator was shot by another practicer of the religion of peace.
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
Calabrio said:
I agree that BOTH parties have been deceptive. There is only one way out of this, and that is not by blowing each other up into smithereens.
Vitas said:
And that would be what?
In order to have a peace treaty of value, you have to have two parties that
1. respect peace
2. negotiate in good faith.
In this case, you have one party that is interested in neither. At best you can have a temporary restraint on hostility, but this is only done in order for the Muslim powers to buy bigger or better weapons. Israel would negotiate a peace tomorrow if they could. And they have repeatedly attempted to do so, often times at the cost of their own security and ability to defend themself. They have never had any desire to aggressively expand their terriroty.
Now you just made a statement saying that both sides have been deceptive.
Really? How has Israel been notably deceptive regarding their desire to live peacefully in the region? I disagree with your claim.
You're setting up the discussion as though both sides are moral equivalents, and nothing could be farther from the truth.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
Vitas said:
Reverse the roles, if Israel was losing, Tel Aviv was about to be taken by Hezbollah and Israel was crying for a cease fire; do you think that the UN would be pressuring the terrorist to stop and would the terrorist stop? (hint: The answer is 'NO' on both counts)
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
Calabrio said:
During the course of this conflict over the last month there have been many “pundits” interviewed that have referred to Israel’s occupation of lands over the last decades. Since you have concluded that Israel has not been “notably” deceptive I would like to hear your analysis has to how Israel has not “notably” occupied anyone.
Regardless, Israel had a month unhampered by anyone to eliminate Hezbollah, and didn’t. Part of the dynamics of the difficulty of the task may be explained in this Stratfor report date July 21st:
http://www.freeman.org/serendipity/index.php?/archives/309-Red-Alert-The-Battle-Joined.html
It appears that it was in Israel’s interest for a cease fire to be declared. Diplomacy is the only other option to war, particularly the UN Resolutions calling for the disarmament of Hezbollah, supported by the world community.
The UN needs to seriously re-organize itself quickly and effectively to deal with Terrorism. But that is the avenue that needs to be diligently pursued while the cease fire is in place.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
Vitas said:
What needs to happen is terrorists need to be eliminated wherever they are and whenever we have a chance to do it. The Muslim community is infected with a disease that they refuse to deal with themselves. So once again, we will be forced to do the world's dirty work. But what else is new?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Vitas said:
I'll take this one. Your challenge ignores history. Israel took territory in 1967 and in 1980 in response to unprovoked attacks on her nation. That's what happens in war. You get attacked, you fight back harder than your enemy, and you take his territory. There's nothing deceptive about that, and there is nothing but clear, incontrovertible evidence showing that Israel typically is the defender, not the attacker in all cases.
I challenge you to cite an example where Israel attacked another country in an unprovoked manner and then took territory in a deceptive fashion.
Europeans Delay Decision on Role Inside Lebanon
By MARLISE SIMONS and JOHN KIFNER
PARIS, Aug. 20 — The shaky, United Nations-brokered cease-fire in Lebanon suffered another blow on Sunday when the European countries that had been called upon to provide the backbone of a peacekeeping force delayed a decision on committing troops until the mission is more clearly defined.
Their reservations postponed any action on the force at least until Wednesday, when the European Union will take up the issue.
Haunted by their experiences in Bosnia in the 1990’s, when their forces were unable to stop widespread ethnic killing, European governments are insisting upon clarifying the chain of command and rules of engagement before plunging into the even greater complexities of the Middle East.
“In the past, when peacekeeping missions were not properly defined, we’ve seen major failures,’’ a spokeswoman for the French Foreign Ministry, Agnès Romatet-Espagne, said Sunday. “There are the bad memories of Bosnia. This time we want the answers beforehand, so we don’t come to the problems when they have happened.’’
In addition, a senior French official said, “Italy, Spain and Finland have raised the same questions as France has.” Following the usual diplomatic practice, the official asked not to be identified. A spokesman for the Spanish Foreign Ministry said Spain was willing to send troops, “but the rules have to be clarified and agreed on.”
Some countries, like Australia, which has placed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, have refused to commit troops. “We have no intention of making any significant contribution,” said a senior Australian government official, who was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. “We don’t have any confidence in it. It is not going to have the mandate to disarm Hezbollah.”
The confusion over the peacekeeping force, coming just a day after an Israeli commando raid, added to fears that the cease-fire could easily break down. “Unfortunately, there is a tilting edge where things very easily, within the next weeks or months, can slide out of control,” a top United Nations envoy, Terje Roed-Larsen, said at a news conference in Beirut on Sunday, after two days of meetings with Lebanese officials. Finland, which holds the rotating presidency of the European Union, scheduled the Wednesday meeting in Brussels, where diplomatic and military experts were expected to address questions that they believed have still not been properly answered.
“We need to know what are the material and legal means at our disposal,” the French defense minister, Michèle Alliot-Marie, said Friday. “You can’t send in men and tell them: Observe what is going on, but you don’t have the right to defend yourself or shoot.’’
In a further complication, Israel’s prime minister, Ehud Olmert, told his cabinet on Sunday that he did not want countries that did not have diplomatic relations with Israel to participate in the force, according to an official in the prime minister’s office. Malaysia, Indonesia and Bangladesh are among the countries that have offered frontline troops but have no diplomatic ties with Israel.
Mr. Olmert spoke by telephone with Prime Minister Romano Prodi of Italy and called on Italy to take a leading role in the international force, according to a statement released by Mr. Olmert’s office. Italy has offered to send up to 3,000 troops while France, which helped broker the cease-fire, has so far refused to commit more than 200.
While the troubled peacekeeping force dominated discussion in Europe, repercussions from a commando raid in Lebanon on Saturday night were still being felt in Israel.
Israeli officials defended the risky nighttime operation, which they said was aimed at stopping the smuggling of weapons to Hezbollah and was fully justified, since the United Nations truce calls for an end to the rearming of the militant group. Officials hinted that the Israeli military would act again if it suspected new weapons were flowing to Hezbollah.
“The resolution has very clear directives on limiting the transfer of weapons from Syria and Iran into Lebanon,” said Isaac Herzog, the tourism minister and a member of Israel’s security cabinet. “The directives speak of a full embargo. As long as it is not enforced, we have the full right to act against it.”
Israel gave few details about the raid, and speculation abounded in the Israeli news media that the commandos were trying to free the two Israeli soldiers whose capture started the conflict, or to kill a Hezbollah leader. One such official, Sheik Muhammad Yazbeck, lives in the area where the operation took place.
In Lebanon, Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, touring the ruins on the Shiite southern edge of the capital, where apartment buildings were flattened for blocks, called the Israel bombing raids “a crime against humanity.”
“What we see today is an image of the crimes Israel has committed,” he said. “There is no other description other than a criminal act that shows Israel’s hatred.”
The Lebanese defense minister, Elias Murr, who on Saturday threatened to halt the deployment of Lebanese troops to the south if Israel carried out any more raids, warned Sunday that anyone who fired rockets toward Israel from southern Lebanon would be treated as a “traitor” for giving the Israelis an excuse to resume hostilities. The warning appeared to be directed not toward Hezbollah, which he said had pledged to honor the cease-fire, but to fringe groups, particularly those in Palestinian refugee camps.
Speaking at a news conference at the Defense Ministry in the hills overlooking Beirut, Mr. Murr also had harsh words for the Israelis, saying the commando raid showed “the whole world” who was violating “international resolutions.”
While the Israeli military is normally quick to publicize its successes — sometimes even providing videos of the raids through eerie green night-vision lenses — scant details of the commando raid near the Hezbollah stronghold of Baalbek were disclosed.
An official statement released by the army said, “The goals of the operation were achieved in full.”
But in the Lebanese village of Boudai, residents gave graphic accounts yesterday of a commando force, wearing Lebanese Army uniforms and shouting in Arabic, that was chased down by local guerrillas and forced to evacuate by helicopter.
The commandos were from the Sayeret Matkal, the Israeli news media reported, the country’s most elite, legendary and secretive unit, one that carried out, among other operations, the famous Entebbe raid to free hostages held on an airliner.
Lt. Col. Emanuel Morano, who was apparently the leader of the force, put at about 100 men by the Israeli news media, was killed and another officer and a soldier were wounded.
In Israel, it was widely assumed that the mission was considered highly important and involved something more than interdicting an effort to resupply Hezbollah with standard weaponry. Many of the reports in the Israeli news media centered on speculation that the raid was intended to gather intelligence or evidence about advanced, Russian-made weaponry sold to Syria and being sent into Lebanon for Hezbollah.
In an analysis in the newspaper Yediot Aharonot, Alex Fishman wrote that Hezbollah had been using advanced Soviet-made antitank weapons. More than 10 days ago, he wrote, a legal opinion was written by lawyers reviewing the United Nations-backed cease-fire agreement “stipulating unequivocally” that attacks on Hezbollah weaponry would be classified as “an act of defense.”
Whatever the purpose of the raid, most agreed it never would have been disclosed if the commandos had not run into serious difficulties.
“Nobody was supposed to hear about the secret operation two days ago deep inside Lebanon, one of the secret operations the public is not told about,” the newspaper Maarivsaid. But, the paper added, “the mission got in trouble on the way.”
The daily Haaretz quoted an unidentified military source as saying, “We were really lucky the operation did not end with 10 commandos killed.”
Some commentators described the raid as another black mark for the Israeli military, already under severe criticism for its conduct of the Lebanon war.
Writing in Yediot Aharonot, Amir Rappaport said, “The operation was intended to be absolutely secret and the mere fact that it was revealed and even claimed casualties is proof of its failure.
“The skirmish between the commando troops and the Hezbollah fighters, which was not planned, also displays Israel to the world as though it violated the U.N. resolution. Absurdly enough, the mission that ran into trouble was also intended to allow Israel to provide proof later on that Syria, Hezbollah and Iran were not honoring the agreement.”
European hesitation over committing troops to the peacekeeping force is to some extent rooted in bitter memories of the Continent’s experiences in Bosnia, where foreign troops were not only unable to prevent large-scale ethnic killing but were themselves held hostage at times by the warring parties. Some of the peacekeepers’ ineffectiveness was attributed to unclear rules of engagement and to conflicting chains of command between national defense ministries and the United Nations.
But some critics say the delay may indicate that military chiefs of staff are at odds with their diplomats who helped write the peacekeeping resolution and planning documents.
The United Nations has said it is looking for at least 3,500 troops to arrive by Sept. 2. So far France has promised 200 soldiers. Fifty military engineers landed in Lebanon this weekend and the rest are to arrive later this week. But France’s initial contribution has fallen far short of the 2,500 to 4,000 soldiers that it had been expected to offer. France had also been expected to assume leadership of the entire international force, which was intended to number about 15,000 troops and would join 15,000 Lebanese Army troops in patrolling southern Lebanon.
Meeting in Cairo on Sunday, Arab foreign ministers expressed their “readiness” to contribute to the reconstruction of Lebanon.
“The United Arab Emirates will rebuild the schools and hospitals in southern Lebanon and help remove landmines, Qatar will rebuild the town of Bint Jbail, and Kuwait will set aside $800 million,” said Hesham Youssef, adviser to the secretary general of the Arab League. “This is in addition to the $500 million already promised by Saudi Arabia for reconstruction efforts.”
Marlise Simons reported from Paris for this article, and John Kifner from Beirut. Reporting was contributed by Greg Myre from Jerusalem, Ian Fisher from Rome, Raymond Bonner from Jakarta, Indonesia, and Renwick McLean from Madrid.
By MARLISE SIMONS and JOHN KIFNER
PARIS, Aug. 20 — The shaky, United Nations-brokered cease-fire in Lebanon suffered another blow on Sunday when the European countries that had been called upon to provide the backbone of a peacekeeping force delayed a decision on committing troops until the mission is more clearly defined.
Their reservations postponed any action on the force at least until Wednesday, when the European Union will take up the issue.
Haunted by their experiences in Bosnia in the 1990’s, when their forces were unable to stop widespread ethnic killing, European governments are insisting upon clarifying the chain of command and rules of engagement before plunging into the even greater complexities of the Middle East.
“In the past, when peacekeeping missions were not properly defined, we’ve seen major failures,’’ a spokeswoman for the French Foreign Ministry, Agnès Romatet-Espagne, said Sunday. “There are the bad memories of Bosnia. This time we want the answers beforehand, so we don’t come to the problems when they have happened.’’
In addition, a senior French official said, “Italy, Spain and Finland have raised the same questions as France has.” Following the usual diplomatic practice, the official asked not to be identified. A spokesman for the Spanish Foreign Ministry said Spain was willing to send troops, “but the rules have to be clarified and agreed on.”
Some countries, like Australia, which has placed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, have refused to commit troops. “We have no intention of making any significant contribution,” said a senior Australian government official, who was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. “We don’t have any confidence in it. It is not going to have the mandate to disarm Hezbollah.”
The confusion over the peacekeeping force, coming just a day after an Israeli commando raid, added to fears that the cease-fire could easily break down. “Unfortunately, there is a tilting edge where things very easily, within the next weeks or months, can slide out of control,” a top United Nations envoy, Terje Roed-Larsen, said at a news conference in Beirut on Sunday, after two days of meetings with Lebanese officials. Finland, which holds the rotating presidency of the European Union, scheduled the Wednesday meeting in Brussels, where diplomatic and military experts were expected to address questions that they believed have still not been properly answered.
“We need to know what are the material and legal means at our disposal,” the French defense minister, Michèle Alliot-Marie, said Friday. “You can’t send in men and tell them: Observe what is going on, but you don’t have the right to defend yourself or shoot.’’
In a further complication, Israel’s prime minister, Ehud Olmert, told his cabinet on Sunday that he did not want countries that did not have diplomatic relations with Israel to participate in the force, according to an official in the prime minister’s office. Malaysia, Indonesia and Bangladesh are among the countries that have offered frontline troops but have no diplomatic ties with Israel.
Mr. Olmert spoke by telephone with Prime Minister Romano Prodi of Italy and called on Italy to take a leading role in the international force, according to a statement released by Mr. Olmert’s office. Italy has offered to send up to 3,000 troops while France, which helped broker the cease-fire, has so far refused to commit more than 200.
While the troubled peacekeeping force dominated discussion in Europe, repercussions from a commando raid in Lebanon on Saturday night were still being felt in Israel.
Israeli officials defended the risky nighttime operation, which they said was aimed at stopping the smuggling of weapons to Hezbollah and was fully justified, since the United Nations truce calls for an end to the rearming of the militant group. Officials hinted that the Israeli military would act again if it suspected new weapons were flowing to Hezbollah.
“The resolution has very clear directives on limiting the transfer of weapons from Syria and Iran into Lebanon,” said Isaac Herzog, the tourism minister and a member of Israel’s security cabinet. “The directives speak of a full embargo. As long as it is not enforced, we have the full right to act against it.”
Israel gave few details about the raid, and speculation abounded in the Israeli news media that the commandos were trying to free the two Israeli soldiers whose capture started the conflict, or to kill a Hezbollah leader. One such official, Sheik Muhammad Yazbeck, lives in the area where the operation took place.
In Lebanon, Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, touring the ruins on the Shiite southern edge of the capital, where apartment buildings were flattened for blocks, called the Israel bombing raids “a crime against humanity.”
“What we see today is an image of the crimes Israel has committed,” he said. “There is no other description other than a criminal act that shows Israel’s hatred.”
The Lebanese defense minister, Elias Murr, who on Saturday threatened to halt the deployment of Lebanese troops to the south if Israel carried out any more raids, warned Sunday that anyone who fired rockets toward Israel from southern Lebanon would be treated as a “traitor” for giving the Israelis an excuse to resume hostilities. The warning appeared to be directed not toward Hezbollah, which he said had pledged to honor the cease-fire, but to fringe groups, particularly those in Palestinian refugee camps.
Speaking at a news conference at the Defense Ministry in the hills overlooking Beirut, Mr. Murr also had harsh words for the Israelis, saying the commando raid showed “the whole world” who was violating “international resolutions.”
While the Israeli military is normally quick to publicize its successes — sometimes even providing videos of the raids through eerie green night-vision lenses — scant details of the commando raid near the Hezbollah stronghold of Baalbek were disclosed.
An official statement released by the army said, “The goals of the operation were achieved in full.”
But in the Lebanese village of Boudai, residents gave graphic accounts yesterday of a commando force, wearing Lebanese Army uniforms and shouting in Arabic, that was chased down by local guerrillas and forced to evacuate by helicopter.
The commandos were from the Sayeret Matkal, the Israeli news media reported, the country’s most elite, legendary and secretive unit, one that carried out, among other operations, the famous Entebbe raid to free hostages held on an airliner.
Lt. Col. Emanuel Morano, who was apparently the leader of the force, put at about 100 men by the Israeli news media, was killed and another officer and a soldier were wounded.
In Israel, it was widely assumed that the mission was considered highly important and involved something more than interdicting an effort to resupply Hezbollah with standard weaponry. Many of the reports in the Israeli news media centered on speculation that the raid was intended to gather intelligence or evidence about advanced, Russian-made weaponry sold to Syria and being sent into Lebanon for Hezbollah.
In an analysis in the newspaper Yediot Aharonot, Alex Fishman wrote that Hezbollah had been using advanced Soviet-made antitank weapons. More than 10 days ago, he wrote, a legal opinion was written by lawyers reviewing the United Nations-backed cease-fire agreement “stipulating unequivocally” that attacks on Hezbollah weaponry would be classified as “an act of defense.”
Whatever the purpose of the raid, most agreed it never would have been disclosed if the commandos had not run into serious difficulties.
“Nobody was supposed to hear about the secret operation two days ago deep inside Lebanon, one of the secret operations the public is not told about,” the newspaper Maarivsaid. But, the paper added, “the mission got in trouble on the way.”
The daily Haaretz quoted an unidentified military source as saying, “We were really lucky the operation did not end with 10 commandos killed.”
Some commentators described the raid as another black mark for the Israeli military, already under severe criticism for its conduct of the Lebanon war.
Writing in Yediot Aharonot, Amir Rappaport said, “The operation was intended to be absolutely secret and the mere fact that it was revealed and even claimed casualties is proof of its failure.
“The skirmish between the commando troops and the Hezbollah fighters, which was not planned, also displays Israel to the world as though it violated the U.N. resolution. Absurdly enough, the mission that ran into trouble was also intended to allow Israel to provide proof later on that Syria, Hezbollah and Iran were not honoring the agreement.”
European hesitation over committing troops to the peacekeeping force is to some extent rooted in bitter memories of the Continent’s experiences in Bosnia, where foreign troops were not only unable to prevent large-scale ethnic killing but were themselves held hostage at times by the warring parties. Some of the peacekeepers’ ineffectiveness was attributed to unclear rules of engagement and to conflicting chains of command between national defense ministries and the United Nations.
But some critics say the delay may indicate that military chiefs of staff are at odds with their diplomats who helped write the peacekeeping resolution and planning documents.
The United Nations has said it is looking for at least 3,500 troops to arrive by Sept. 2. So far France has promised 200 soldiers. Fifty military engineers landed in Lebanon this weekend and the rest are to arrive later this week. But France’s initial contribution has fallen far short of the 2,500 to 4,000 soldiers that it had been expected to offer. France had also been expected to assume leadership of the entire international force, which was intended to number about 15,000 troops and would join 15,000 Lebanese Army troops in patrolling southern Lebanon.
Meeting in Cairo on Sunday, Arab foreign ministers expressed their “readiness” to contribute to the reconstruction of Lebanon.
“The United Arab Emirates will rebuild the schools and hospitals in southern Lebanon and help remove landmines, Qatar will rebuild the town of Bint Jbail, and Kuwait will set aside $800 million,” said Hesham Youssef, adviser to the secretary general of the Arab League. “This is in addition to the $500 million already promised by Saudi Arabia for reconstruction efforts.”
Marlise Simons reported from Paris for this article, and John Kifner from Beirut. Reporting was contributed by Greg Myre from Jerusalem, Ian Fisher from Rome, Raymond Bonner from Jakarta, Indonesia, and Renwick McLean from Madrid.
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten said:
-LOL-
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
Calabrio said:
I do hope that you will provide us with facts and links to substantiate your position. So far, your comment is an affront to anyone’s intelligence.
Wonderful bait and switch, you state that Israel has been deceptive. When confronted, you ask me to prove the negative.
Clever. And dishonest.
Prove otherwise.
And despite crushing the 5 dominant militaries of the region during these defensive wars, NOT ONLY did Israel cease it's advancement, but it also returned almost ALL of the land that it had occupied. It retained only the area it felt was a bare minimum necessary to maintain it's security.
If this wasn't the case, Egypt would be a Jewish state.
And the Suez Canal would be run by Israel.
Interesting side note- it was Jordan and Syria who stole territory from the Palestinians.
And as we are seeing, the world community lacks the will and conviction to disarm Hezbollah. The Israeli's were screwed by the UN, again. France may now only commit 400 troops.
Again, the UN has issued a resolution that they will not enforce, further undermining the credibility of that failed institution.
The UN will not reorganize, period. And it certainly has no interest in ambitiously addressing the issue of Islamic terrorism.
And the cease fire is nothing more than a fraud. Iran is rearming Hezbollah as we speak and the international peacekeepers led by the French, who were going to patrol the border and disarm Hezbollah will never arrive in numbers worth noting, and those that do will accomplish nothing positive.
Clever. And dishonest.
Fosten addressed this. To do so is redundant. Israel has not launched an aggressive war for territory at anypoint in it's history.Vitas said:
Prove otherwise.
And despite crushing the 5 dominant militaries of the region during these defensive wars, NOT ONLY did Israel cease it's advancement, but it also returned almost ALL of the land that it had occupied. It retained only the area it felt was a bare minimum necessary to maintain it's security.
If this wasn't the case, Egypt would be a Jewish state.
And the Suez Canal would be run by Israel.
Interesting side note- it was Jordan and Syria who stole territory from the Palestinians.
It was in Israel's interest to launch a more aggressive war. They caved to international pressure, primarily applied by those who think appeasing terrorist will result in some kind of peace.
And as we are seeing, the world community lacks the will and conviction to disarm Hezbollah. The Israeli's were screwed by the UN, again. France may now only commit 400 troops.
Again, the UN has issued a resolution that they will not enforce, further undermining the credibility of that failed institution.
Neither of which are going to happen.
The UN will not reorganize, period. And it certainly has no interest in ambitiously addressing the issue of Islamic terrorism.
And the cease fire is nothing more than a fraud. Iran is rearming Hezbollah as we speak and the international peacekeepers led by the French, who were going to patrol the border and disarm Hezbollah will never arrive in numbers worth noting, and those that do will accomplish nothing positive.
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
Calabrio said:
:q:q:q:q you.
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
Calabrio said:
FLASH / DISTRACT
Address the issue.
Or be known for cutting and running.
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
Calabrio said:
Still waiting for Mr C to provide his explanation.
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
Vitas said:
To this point, zippy noodles.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Vitas said:
Can you not read? Not only did Calabrio explain his position, he obliterated yours. I gave you the nutshell Cliff notes version because I know you don't listen anyway.
Sometimes I wonder if you are really a human. You write like a robot who can't understand what other people write.
It's your turn to show how Israel was deceptive or else be discredited.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
I still have no idea what Vitas' point is or if there even is a point.
Looks like Calabrio has more than adequately defended his position.
Point to Calabrio.
Looks like Calabrio has more than adequately defended his position.
Point to Calabrio.
Vitas said:
How long did it take for you to come up with that witty response? Most of us are able to keep the level of discussion above that pitiful level, perhaps that's asking too much of you?
Apparently, in your effort to be clever, you failed to read the rest of the reply. So rather than posting another provocation that only serves to make you look more foolish, try to post something that'll actually advance the discussion.