There is now a potential break-through, or so it seems, more or less along the lines I explained in the above post, but I am not sure everyone has understood the ramifications. Even UN experts do not see it as an easy plan. Could it be that a cease-fire is now more of an option because IDF is starting actually to lose credibility? Look at my interspersed ((bracketed remarks)) inside this Times Online report.
.
Britain and the US swing behind Middle East ceasefire
From James Bone in New York, Stephen Farrell in Jerusalem, and agencies
"Britain and the United States, in a dramatic about-face, are ready to back a UN resolution calling for an immediate end to the fighting in Lebanon as the first step in a political settlement, diplomats said today. The transatlantic allies, who had resisted pressure to support an immediate cessation of hostilities, are "very close" to an agreement with France on a UN resolution that could be adopted as early as this weekend.
The diplomatic progress came after fierce fighting in at least five districts of southern Lebanon today, where as many as 6,000 Israeli soldiers struggled to take control of Hezbollah bases. The group hit back with nearly 200 rockets, the largest volley of missile attacks against Israel in the 22-day conflict.
In Jerusalem today, Ehud Olmert set out his conditions to bring an end to the fighting, in an interview with The Times. See:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2296832,00.html
He called for a robust force of 15,000 foreign combat troops, including British soldiers, to be deployed in the south of the country. The Israeli leader said that the conflict could be over as soon as the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution authorising an international force and once the troops were in place.
((You have to read the interview to see the ambiguous nature of conditions precedent.))
.
In New York, British and American officials moved closer to agreeing a resolution would call for an immediate halt to the fighting and spell out the conditions for a political agreement involving the deployment of an international force.
No international troops are expected to arrive in the region until after that political agreement has been reached, leaving the immediate task of monitoring a truce to the existing UN peacekeeping contingent and the Lebanese Army.
A second UN vote would be required to authorise the deployment of a multinational force.
Britain and the US, which refuse to provide ground troops to Lebanon, have essentially agreed to support the original peace plan outlined by France, which is ready to put boots on the ground.
((Not true, France does not want its soldiers there unless Lebanon asks for this.))
The reversal follows Mr Blair’s call on Tuesday for a rethink of the "War on Terror" and an EU foreign ministers' communiqué, which yesterday called for an "immediate cessation of hostilities."
A confidential US proposal endorses an "immediate end to violence" followed by a "political agreement that provides the conditions for a lasting peace", and "a security framework to provide the confidence to implement the provisions of that agreement and oversee a sustainable ceasefire".
A senior diplomat said that the three powers were "90 per cent" agreed on the text of a UN resolution and could circulate a draft to the full UN Security Council tomorrow. It is possible that foreign ministers will travel to New York for the vote.
The resolution will lay out the principles of an eventual political settlement, including the creation of a militia-free buffer zone; implementation of UN Resolution 1559 by disarming Hezbollah; the creation of an international force; and extending Lebanese government authority across the entire country.
The United States also wants to impose an arms embargo on Hezbollah and international monitoring of the Syrian-Lebanese border to prevent Damascus re-supplying Hezbollah fighters."
There is much more at Times Online on follow up page here:
- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2296527_2,00.html
.
((You would have to study my last two posts in this thread -- "NASRALLAH EFFECT" & "WE ARE WINNING THIS WAR" -- to see the subtleties and seeming contradictions involved in this report of Times Online, which gave Olmert an opportunity to voice his rehearsed "line" of talk. As I explained - in the Middle East things are in constant fluctuation.
And always remember the Sufi poet Rumi - about the field outside ideas of right- and wrong-doings, where he will meet us...))
