• Published 00:00 26.07.06
  • Latest update 00:00 26.07.06

Olmert convenes wartime mini-cabinet to discuss steps in Lebanon

Al-Hayat report: U.S. plan includes Israeli pullout from Shaba Farms; Israeli sources deny report.

By Jack Khoury, Shlomo Shamir, Amos Harel, Aluf Benn and Haaretz Correspondents

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was to convene Wednesday night his "Forum of Seven" - a sort of wartime mini-cabinet - to discuss Israel's next steps in Lebanon.

The forum includes Defense Minister Amir Peretz, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Vice Premier Shimon Peres, Public Security Minsiter Avi Dichter, Industry and Trade Minister Eli Yishai and Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz.

The American initiative to end the Lebanon conflict includes an Israeli withdrawal from the Shaba Farms, the pan-Arab newspaper Al-Hayat reported Wednesday.

According to the report, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice included Shaba Farms in the plan following pressure from high ranking Lebanese officials, headed by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.

The initiative put forward by Rice during her trip to the region Monday and Tuesday, the Shaba Farms area will be transferred to Lebanon, but the local border will not be set if Syria persists in its opposition to such a move. Following the transfer to Lebanese authority, the Shaba Farms area will be the responsibility of the United Nations.

Israeli sources said, however, that Rice had acknowledged the Shaba Farms region as one of the excuses given by the Lebanese government for its failure to act, but said she did not include an Israeli withdrawal in her demands.

Israel seized the mountainous region from Syria in the 1967 Six-Day War, along with the neighboring Golan Heights.

The area is now claimed by Beirut, with the consent of Damascus. The UN, however, has maintained that the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000 was complete, and that any negotiations conducted over the area should be between Israel and Syria.

International force will help Lebanese army deploy

The role of the international force that will be sent to Lebanon following a cease-fire will be to assist the Lebanese army to deploy in the south, ensure that Hezbollah does not rebuild its positions there and ensure that quiet is maintained along the Israeli-Lebanese border, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert agreed Tuesday.

However, government sources said, this force will not be responsible for disarming Hezbollah nor will it be stationed at the border crossings between Lebanon and Syria in order to halt the flow of weapons from Syria to Hezbollah.

Israel has thereby in effect conceded its initial demands that any cease-fire deal include stripping Hezbollah of its rockets and ensuring that it is not rearmed.

The Lebanese government wants any international force to be a United Nations force. Israel prefers that it operate under a UN mandate, but not under the UN's command. The U.S. government is currently drafting a new Security Council resolution that will define the force's goals and powers. That resolution would replace Resolution 1559, which called for disarming Hezbollah and deploying the Lebanese army in the south. The new resolution will also call for Hezbollah's disarmament, but it is not clear who will enforce this provision.

The international force will be deployed in two stages: an intervention force that will arrive within 60 days, followed later by the main force. CNN, citing Lebanese sources, said that the force will initially comprise 10,000 Turkish and Egyptian soldiers, and will later expand to 30,000 troops from several countries.

Due to the talk about a new international force, the Security Council is likely to extend the mandate of UNIFIL, the current UN force in Lebanon, by only another month, instead of the usual six months, UN sources said. UNIFIL's current mandate expires on July 31.

Rice will attend an international conference in Rome on Wednesday to discuss the Lebanon crisis. Government sources predicted that UN Secretary General Kofi Annan will tell the conference that any new arrangement in Lebanon must resolve the problem of Shaba Farms, a piece of Israeli-occupied territory that Beirut claims is Lebanese, but the UN says is Syrian. Rice raised this issue with Olmert on Tuesday, noting that the Lebanese government uses Israel's continued control over Shaba to excuse its weakness.

The IDF General Staff is currently considering expanding its Lebanon operation to include seizing control of territory, instead of just raiding villages.

That would require an additional call-up of the reserves. However, such an expansion has not yet been approved.

Defense Minister Amir Peretz said during a visit to the North on Tuesday that Israel intends to set up a "security zone" in southern Lebanon.

However, his office later said that what he meant was not a permanent Israeli presence, but a kilometer-wide strip north of the border that Hezbollah operatives would be forbidden to enter following the IDF's withdrawal. The ban would be enforced by firing from IDF positions within Israel.

Condoleezza Rice meeting with Ehud Olmert in Jerusalem on Tuesday. (BauBau)

  • Print Page
  • Send to a friend
  • Share
  • Text Size +|-
 
 
TalkBacks

Why Facebook Connect?

Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.

Add a comment

Add your reply

  • 27. 0 0
    the lebanon war
    • Guy Willems
    • 08.08.06
    • 16:49

    I ask myself if you people truly believe you are living in a democracy. Because when the people do not get rid of leaders of a nation committing one warcrime after another and securing the existence of state by cumulating all these crimes, than you live in something different from democracy. A democratic people and state are searching for peace in the first place. I hope that the cries and whispers of the innocent victims Israel had made the last few weeks will haunt all of you for the next three thousand years. Guy Willmes

  • 26. 0 0
    to N.18, Joe
    • Joseph
    • 27.07.06
    • 23:03

    Of course you can ask anything: that does not make you antisemitic. All I can say is, Africa gets relatively aid from almost all countries, including countries where the influence of Jews is none or negligible - like Poland, China, or Norway. My response is, that, America probably should help the African countries a lot more; but the help for Israel is of a different kind - it's basically military support of an ally. I do not think that Israel is very happy to receive this aid. All my relatives in Israel would certainly prefer it if it stopped, because it makes the society overly dependent on one donor. But realistically, Blacks also have enormous influence in the US (despite problems of inner cities) - there are many Blacks in Congress, in the Government, in the Supreme Court. Still, that doesn't lead to more African aid - so I think the answer is that noone gives aid from the good heart.

  • 25. 0 0
    #22 Mark Lincoln: peace with Syria
    • Bor de Wolf
    • 27.07.06
    • 04:46

    "Were I in Israel`s position I would take up negotiations with Syria first. [...] Syria is clearly the easier situation." - Mark. What do you think easy about it? Syria wants the Golan back, and Israel has virtually annexed it. Some Israelis assess it of prime strategic importance.

  • 24. 0 0
    I AM SICK OF THE WARLORDS IN ISRAEL& THEIR DEATH & DESTRUCTION
    • Dutch
    • 27.07.06
    • 04:46

    I AM SICK OF THE WARLORDS IN ISRAEL AND I INVITE OTHERS TO JOIN ME IN CONDEMNING THEM ON EVERY STREET CORNER, BOARDROOM, PUBLIC HALL, GOVERNMENT OFFICES AND IN THE MEDIA. PLEASE DON'T SPARE THEM YOUR WORDS OR YOUR PEN. EVERYDAY DAY THEY SHAME THE PRINCIPLES OF A FREE AND JUST SOCIETY WITH THEIR USE OF FORCE AND VIOLENCE TO IMPOSE THEIR WILL ON THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE AND THOSE IN LEBANON NOW. THEY ARE A SHAME LOT AND THEIR GOAL IS DOMINANCE. MORALLY OUTRAGED , DUTCH

  • 23. 0 0
    #22 Mark Lincoln: peace with Syria
    • Bor de Wolf
    • 27.07.06
    • 03:51

    "Were I in Israel`s position I would take up negotiations with Syria first. Peace with Syria would simplify the other negotiations, and Syria is clearly the easier situation." - Mark I'm curious about the simplify part. I can see that for Lebanon, but not directly for the Palestinians. About the easier part: Syria seems adamant about getting the Golan Heights back, on the other hand Israel virtually annexed it, unlike the other occupied territories. Some Israelis assess Golan as strategically important, others don't. What's easy about that?

  • 22. 0 0
    Bor de Wolf - I can't dictate terms
    • Mark Lincoln
    • 27.07.06
    • 02:42

    "On what terms do you expect a peace treaty to be acceptable for all populations and governments involved - Israeli, Syrian, Lebanese and Palestinian?" - Bor de Wolf I can't speak for any of them. I can't dictate terms. It might be that they can arrive at no common terms. Were I in Israel's position I would take up negotiations with Syria first. Peace with Syria would simplify the other negotiations, and Syria is clearly the easier situation. "And what kind of Israeli government would carry that off?" - Bor de Wolf One unafraid of assassination by a Likudnik.

  • 21. 0 0
    #15 Mark Lincoln: peace treaty
    • Bor de Wolf
    • 27.07.06
    • 02:22

    "It`s high time to have a peace treaty with Syria, Lebanon and Palestinians." - Roi "You will never have that without regime change in Israel. Time for a vote of no confidence." - Mark On what terms do you expect a peace treaty to be acceptable for all populations and governments involved - Israeli, Syrian, Lebanese and Palestinian? And what kind of Israeli government would carry that off?

  • 20. 0 0
    To #16
    • Joe
    • 27.07.06
    • 02:06

    To: joseph In your comments to Isaac you include a long list of Anti-Jewish hatred in the world. The one that I take issue with is the one that deals with the amount of influence that Jews have in America. I am curious as to how much influence you yourself believe Jews do or do not have in America. Since America is a democratic republic, one should expect a reasonable reflection of its various peoples to be represented in its government. If that were really true, then please explain to me why it is that Africa gets so little aid, while so much aid goes to Israel? Honestly now, is what I am asking really anti-semitic?

  • 19. 0 0
    "withdrawal will ensure peace& security"
    • Joe
    • 27.07.06
    • 01:47

    To David: You sound very sincere (and I mean it)when you write "I wish it will be as you say, but I can not imagine that no-one will get another excuse to shoot some rockets to Tel Aviv. That is the root of the problem, with no trust there is no peace; first we have to build the trust and the peace will come later..." While you seem to hope that Israelis and Arabs should build trust, all Israel has really been building is settlements and stealing land. And let's not forget that Israel needed to get the Arabs off of the land so they themselves could colonize it. In my opinion, most people are essentially reasonable. Israel could get a lot of mileage out of admitting what it has done. However, I can't see that ever happening anytime soon.

  • 18. 0 0
    "Israel need to understand"
    • Joe
    • 27.07.06
    • 01:37

    To: Isaac Hassen Of course you are right when you say that "Israel needs to understand that if it hands back the territory...the entire world will praise Israel and Arab countries will rush to establish meaningful relations. And the rest of the Muslim world would follow suit." The problem is that you are using logic to argue against religion (you know, the "god is on our side" variety). Unfortunately, Israel kicks the "Arab Dog" and then complains when it bites them.

  • 17. 0 0
    I respect all the above comments
    • Anonymous
    • 27.07.06
    • 00:33

    I truly respect all the voices that call for a peaceful settlement in the region and I also understand those who express concern and worries of terror. I just would like to say that, as many said before me, giving back occupied land will give the Syrian and Lebanese governments solid grounds for a comprehensive peace deal and shut up their peoples. They openly expressed a desperate readiness for that. Israel only has to be brave enough to seize this opportunity, and enough wasting of time and human life on both sides. Please, enough!!

  • 16. 0 0
    isaak hassan
    • joseph
    • 27.07.06
    • 00:15

    Dear Issak, the only thing you have to say, now, is why Israelis should believe you. I am a Jew, and I see on TV the kind of hatred you are obsessed with - we rule the world, we use blood for Mazza bread, we eat christian children, we control America. Why, in the world, should we believe you, and not instead believe, that once Israel returns every square inch of territory, the next project will be "return of refugees", "the plight of Israeli Arabs", etc. etc.

  • 15. 0 0
    Roi - backwards
    • Mark Lincoln
    • 26.07.06
    • 23:24

    "Withdrawing from occupied land was not the failure. The mistake was not to follow up with negotiations." - Roi The mistake was not negotiating before. Israel gave up something for nothing, and Palestine got nothing of what it needed. "It`s high time to have a peace treaty with Syria, Lebanon and Palestinians." - Roi You will never have that without regime change in Israel. Time for a vote of no confidence.

  • 14. 0 0
    H.H.M - interesting ruminations
    • Mark Lincoln
    • 26.07.06
    • 23:18

    An interesting analysis H.H.M. One interesting point you did not raise is what nation would be nuts enough to put it's kids in a meat grinder with a Hizbollah handle on one side and an Israeli handle on the other. In the last week there has been at least one instance of Hizbollah shooting at the UN, and two of Israel shooting at the UN. Suggest blue Uniforms and Helmets with white targets front and back.

  • 13. 0 0
    To TIME TO THINK: Think about this:
    • Roi
    • 26.07.06
    • 22:03

    Draw border based on Peace Treaty = No Terror (see Jordan, Egypt) As you can see, your equation doesn't hold. Withdrawing from occupied land was not the failure. The mistake was not to follow up with negotiations. It's high time to have a peace treaty with Syria, Lebanon and Palestinians. Periods of calm as a result of unilateral steps are short lived - negotiated peace treaties last longer and provide the level of security that military power alone can never provide.

  • 12. 0 0
    Mini-Cabinet?
    • Mark Lincoln
    • 26.07.06
    • 22:00

    "Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was to convene Wednesday night his "Forum of Seven" - a sort of wartime mini-cabinet - to discuss Israel's next steps in Lebanon." - Haaretz I've seen this behavior before. It means he is running out of people willing to tell him what he wants to hear. "The forum includes Defense Minister Amir Peretz, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Vice Premier Shimon Peres, Public Security Minsiter Avi Dichter, Industry and Trade Minister Eli Yishai and Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz." - Haaretz If there are too many names to remember, you can recognize them by their brown noses and black tongues.

  • 11. 0 0
    GIVE LAND = GET TERROR
    • TIME TO THINK
    • 26.07.06
    • 20:35

    ISREAL did not learn the mistakes of gaza

  • 10. 0 0
    Shaba Farms and Golan are for Security
    • Efox
    • 26.07.06
    • 17:50

    Until Syria gives up its dreams of “Greater Syria”, its dreams of re-conquering Lebanon, its dreams of conquering Israel and Jordan, until Syria gives this up and makes an honest peace, a peace that does not include missiles volleys, terrorist acts and support and a nonstop rhetoric of destruction and war, until then, Golan, including that tiny, unimportant and at the moment, un-farmable shaba farms, must remain under Israeli Control. We shall not grant the terrorists a high ground to fire from and frankly, UN "Peacekeepers" are little more than Human Shields.

  • 9. 0 0
    To Corndog - stop the half-measures and end it now
    • Mohammad
    • 26.07.06
    • 16:18

    "We`ve returned territories twice, in Lebanon and Gaza. Look what it got us." This is dishonest. You either end all occupation or you don't. you can't dump territory that causes you a headache and hold on to territory that you think you can keep. this shows you have not changed. you end ALL occupation, free ALL priosners, let ALL refugees return. You should have done that decades ago, but you have not.

  • 8. 0 0
    To #6: withdrawal will ensure peace
    • David
    • 26.07.06
    • 14:57

    I wish it will be as you say, but I can not imagine that no-one will get another excuse to shoot some rockets to Tel Aviv. That is the root of the problem, with no trust there is no peace; first we have to build the trust and the peace will come later. At the moment both sides are busy increasing the hate, so a good solution will only come in some years (hopefully)

  • 7. 0 0
    Been There Done That
    • Corndog On A Stick
    • 26.07.06
    • 14:57

    Isaac, that's very big of you to guarantee that the Arab countries won't attack. You and what army will defend us? We've returned territories twice, in Lebanon and Gaza. Look what it got us.

  • 6. 0 0
    TO THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL - WITHDRAWAL WILL ENSURE PEACE & SECURITY
    • Isaac Hassen
    • 26.07.06
    • 14:35

    Israel needs to understand that if it hands back the territory it so boldly and majestically won in the '67 war, then that will set the foundations for permanent peace and security for the state of Israel, for Palestine, for Lebanon, and for Syria. Believe me, the entire world will praise Israel and Arab countries will rush to establish meaningful relations. And the rest of the Muslim world would follow suit. Isn't that a price worth paying?

  • 5. 0 0
    Phantom Army for a Political Spin. Part III
    • H.H.M
    • 26.07.06
    • 13:28

    Suddenly the disarmament of Hezbollah ?disappeared by the magician?s baton,? so they maintain their arsenal and are expected to withdraw into Lebanese territory and be removed from the border. This phantom army UN + Lebanon is take over its duties / actions within 60 days from armistice state! What will happen in the meantime until entry of this UN forces will take over? - Who will supervise the to be signed armistice agreement and by what means. ? ?A small general question,? who will pay and for how long for that ?Grand Phantom Army??

  • 4. 0 0
    Phantom Army for a Political Spin. Part II
    • H.H.M
    • 26.07.06
    • 13:27

    What are the functions and actions proposed for these 100,000 soldiers under UN command and sovereignty. Will they be able to become active to prevent hostile acts, like further training of Hezbollah like groups, import of weapons, etc and the alike by military or political acts / means. - As per present information this international force should function to assist the Lebanese army independently and if necessary by force? This National Lebanese Army which was unable to mount military position along the Israel border, because these were already manned taken up by Hezbollah forces. What will be factual action / power in this set up?

  • 3. 0 0
    Phantom Army for a Political Spin. Part I.
    • H.H.M
    • 26.07.06
    • 13:26

    The composition of the to be born International Force in Lebanon seems to have its first stumbling stone. It must be neutral and independent as Lebanon is a country of mixed religious and tribal populations which tried since its establishment to maintain a balance between this various / opposing components. The suggestion of about 40,000 Muslim soldiers (Egypt and Turkey) which is ?to be filled up? to about 100,000 altogether, already neglects this Lebanese facts. - The Israel / Lebanese situation with a Lebanese government without any authority over Hezbollah forces etc makes it more than extremely delicate. Consequently non of the neighboring countries, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Iraq should be included in this international force. ?

  • 2. 0 0
    A Country got demolished by Israel
    • John DOWN THE WALL
    • 26.07.06
    • 11:07

    What cease fire we are talking about? Is Hezbollah going to accept Israels cease fire? Lebanon is already demolished and Hezbollah got nothing else to lose, why would they accept a cease fire?. Cease fire would work only for the Israeli interest at this point. What happened to the two soldiers? Didn't this war started to free the two soldiers? We are not going back to negotiations, are we?. We could've done that from the begining without distroying the country and we even could've got much more than just the two soldiers without even firing a single shot. I think we need some wise people at the steering wheel.

  • 1. 0 0
    GET THEM ALL
    • indrajaya
    • 26.07.06
    • 09:57

    No cease fire arrangement that will able to serves everybody interest perfectly as they wanted. The problem with US and Israel is that both of them wanted to impose rigidly the "GET THEM ALL OR LEAVE THEM ALL" principle. After that bombardment incident on UNIFIL yesterday, even UN has more reluctant than ever to work closely with Israel and US.