NATO planning 'integral' role in enforcing Mideast peace deal
NATO chief tells Haaretz that alliance will enforce, but not forge, Mideast peace.
By Amir OrenLISBON - NATO will play an integral role in enforcing a Middle East peace deal, but will not play a direct role in reaching that agreement, the alliance's secretary general told Haaretz this weekend.
 |
Anders Fogh Rasmussen speaking at the NATO conference on Saturday. |
| Photo by: AP |
"If a Middle East peace agreement is reached, an international military force will be needed to monitor and implement it," Anders Fogh Rasmussen said.
At a press briefing in the Portuguese capital, the secretary general said that unlike its member states, NATO as an organization is not involved in the peace process, but expressed support for the efforts of the United States and the other members of the so-called Quartet of Mideast peace negotiators to reach a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Rasmussen will visit Israel in February of the coming year.
At center stage throughout the weekend summit was Afghanistan, and NATO member states agreed to continue the military campaign in the country until 2014 at least. Also on the agenda were NATO's increasingly friendly relations with Russia, the need to bolster Europe's defenses against surface-to-surface missiles and streamlining the alliance's military and administrative networks.
Meeting in the Portuguese capital yesterday and the day before, the heads of government of NATO's 28 members states signed on to a new strategic doctrine for the coming decade. The document's central tenets are a reaffirmation of collective defense, deterrence and resource allocation, crisis management, and advancing security and stability - even beyond the North Atlantic theater of North America and Europe.
The doctrine was formulated based on the recommendations of a committee of experts assembled by former U.S. secretary of state Madeleine Albright. Among other issues, the panel's report offered recommendations relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict, but prior to the document's authorization on Friday, representatives of member states decided not to touch on the issue.
When asked why the document contained no explicit reference to Iran, a country highlighted by Albright's panel as a multi-pronged threat and the primary reason to invest in the deployment of surface-to-surface missiles in Europe, Rasmussen reaffirmed NATO's official stance - which cites the over 30 countries that own or seek to own advanced weapons that could cause harm to the Euro-Atlantic region.
This ambiguous phrasing was adopted following pressure from Turkey, a country widely seen as forging ever-closer ties to Iran. Ankara also expressed its opposition to providing information gathered by the European missile-defense system - planned to be based partially on its soil - to "non-NATO countries," wording that could be perceived as code for Israel.
A high-ranking official in a Western government said that at the meeting of the heads of state, French President Nicolas Sarkozy raged against the "verbal contortions" surrounding the missile-defense system. "We all know we're talking about Iran," Sarkozy reportedly said.
Turkey's President Abdullah Gul (representing the country in the absence of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan ) did not respond to Sarkozy's remarks, but instead expressed opposition to what he called NATO's preferential treatment of Cyprus in circumventing Turkey's veto of the island country's participation in NATO negotiations with the European Union.
One result of the new NATO doctrine will likely be closer relations with non-member states. This weekend, NATO sources said high-level officials at the organization's Brussels headquarters are cognizant of Israel's disappointment with its apparently downgraded ties with NATO over the past few years, and are laying groundwork for strengthening those ties.
The North Atlantic Council - NATO's most senior governing body - also announced it would launch bilateral relations (in contrast to collective ties ) with Israel and the six Arab states that comprise the Mediterranean Dialogue. Egypt and several other of the Arab states have tried to prevent NATO from forging closer ties with Israel.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
That is nothing less than a travesty of justice. Those who permitted the Holocaust would become the protectors of Israel? This while NATO members never sell enough weapons to the sworn enemies of Israel? Only in a true cruel dream of fate! I say! Israel only has to take care of it's people: especially its children, the weakest in society,etc. And Hashem Himself will protect Israel.
I would trust them or their missile defense shield. If NATO had to choose between Israel using its nuclear deterrent or risking defeat and being chased into the sea. Which do you think NATO would choose. The enemy know this so once again NATO is destabilizing the region and threatening Israeli security. Good intentions of left wingers quite often results in a dangerous outcome.
It is quite interesting to note that most talkback on this issue reads like barrage fire coming from rightist Israelis who won't agree on anything that might make retreat from the territories feaseble and safe for Israel and thus find consensus with a large majority of Israelis. Just for the record, Abou Mazen has declared that he would be willing to agree on international forces being stationed in the Palestinian state to come to ensure safety both for Palestine and for Israel. He knows very well, that Israel will not be willing to quit and make room for "helpfull" troops that Iran might want to dispatch into Palestinian territory. As a matter of fact, it is in the interest of both Palestine and Israel that a reliable buffer be installed. Now, from an israeli perspective, UN-troops will not be first choice, just looking at their poor record with Lebanon and 1967, when they just left Sinai as soon as things were beginning to heat up. So, most probably, there isn't anyone else but Nato able and acceptable to both sides. Good try ? Well, not quite, guy, try again.
I hope they do a better job than they're doing in Afghanistan!
And since there are 30 countries that Nato must defend from, I guess they will begin with Israel, the main enemy of world peace. The US agreed it's not Iran ....So they may build radars in Israel, to defend from Israel, right?
They need not worry about finding pretexts. There are more than enough Liberal Democrat Arab Lovers American Jews, would like nothing more than seeing Israel annihilated.
... there is little doubt that the flotilla was implemented due to BHO order; otherwise Erdogan wouldn't dare.
obama did nothing whatever to stop the flotialla.
Huge changes are taking place in the International arena. Sometimes under the noses of the countries that are involved, But because of a narrow-minded policy & internal bickering they cannot see what upheaval is on the way.. Israel wake up ! Forget yesterday's games. Today is a new world. A new world order, if you falter,or fail, you'll miss the bus ! Pay attention,and take heed of these warnings.
that is why israel must insist on its international treaty rights and occupy its own lands as the sovereign owner time for the arbs to join their lunatic brethren in the rest of the mid east 1
Israel know only one thing is to destroy everything arouund itself. Turkey will reject Israel's co-operation with Nato. Lonely Israel must find itself another bulldog like US.
Israeli cooperation with NATO is long standing and strong. Turkey's position in NATO is weakening with every stupid comment from it's increasingly rabidly Islamic leaders. NATO will soon be forced to expel Turkey. Israel is a perfect candidate to replace Turkey in NATO, which recognizes Israel's defensive position in the region.
Israel must be the most perfect ally for nato to jump into quarrel in islamic world .
it was formed to combat the ussr! not to be a police force !
more lunatics are entering the asylem
NATO will not protect Israel, they will only look after Islamic interests. They have long been a mercenary force that helps spread Islamic cultural and political domination. This should not be a surprise given the historical fact that NATO employed all the top people from the NSDAP. Scoff if you wish, but even the not always reliable Internet has enough information to prove that the ideologues and operations commanders of the defeated Germany of 1945 were hired by the Anglo-American alliance. Germany is no less a Fascist country today than it was in 1940.
First Mr. Rasmussen said that NATO will not get involved in peace negotiation, then immediately he displayed the NATO vision of the final agreement: "If a Middle East peace agreement is reached, an international military force will be needed to monitor and implement it," This is the Trojan horse again. Israel doesn't need anymore any international force around there. The international force will protect the terrorist against the Israel response. It will deny the Israel right to self defense.
now turkey is not only bullying israel, and the united states, but all member states of nato. all this just so turkey can slither ever closer to iran--the unofficial common threat. well done, obama, as always.
You may get your wish. But are you sure you want Turkey out of NATO? Turkey already has and understands all the NATO tech from Aegis to SM-3 to F-35. Israel attacked Turkish shipping in international waters. It was not the reverse. Israel killed the Turks. Turkey never fired a shot. No Israelis were shot.
the us/west should not transfer such important technologies to potential enemies. turkey has stopped being a reliable ally. this has nothing to do with israel, but rather, with turkey's islamic government and its strategic reassessment.
how many times Turkey crossed international border with Irak in order to kill Kurds?
Turkey is the second power in NATO... And no decision can be taken without Its approval... Dont envy, catcuh up with it...
Yes we corssed over thousands of times in what is known as hot persuit. Hot persuit is when you are attacked by a terrorist group and follow them across border.
They enforced a blockade and if the Turks had observed proper procedure they would be alive the all the people on all the other boats
3. Some Arab children are injured 4.Lots of photos and inciting headlines appear in the Islamic media and Human rights watch and lefty media cry outrage 5.Snipers,drive by shootoings,roadside bombs,suicide bombers. 6 Islamist/Leftist demonstrations in the street " Why do our men die for Israel" ? type placards. 7.Violence and deaths continue 8.More demonstrations,shoe throwing etdc 9.Emergency meeting of NATO 10. NATO leaves 11 UN anounces investigation into Israeli war crimes.
Go back to sleep psm---and continue your dreams of a greater Israel----there are people trying to forge a peace and obstructionists such as you are merely a nuisance. Go away.
1000000 soldiers to protect Israel but they all going to die and let the israeli face their destiny on their own now every body think he will last forever but those who hope for the longest reap the shortest life that is
Lest the alliance lose the benefit of objectivity in that purpose - and the respect and credibility that accompanies it - which is the attractiveness of its doing so in the first place. Even closer ties with Israel that are mentioned would detract from the appearance of objectivity, and would undermine Palestinian trust...which would be detrimental to the effectiveness of such a mission.
1 that there will be a peace agreement. 2 that the palestinians would agree to the stationing of nato forces. 3 that israel would agree to the stationing of nato forces without membership in nato.
If NATO troops are based in the West Bank, that's Palestine, not Israel, and Israel's 'permission' to deploy is neither needed nor relevant.
If NATO troops are based in the West Bank, that's Palestine, not Israel, and Israel's 'permission' to deploy is neither needed nor relevant.
The NATO mission would be in support of a peace agreement - if it comes - as stated in the article. And both the Palestinians and the Israel HAVE agreed to the same, last time I checked.
Screw what Israel thinks. Israel had it's chance to make peace and it chose Settlements instead.
Nato member states have a hard enough time trying to justify their support for the American crusade against Islam in Afghanistan. For any government to suggest that they provide a Nato contingent to protect illegal Israeli settlements in any future Palestinian state would be political suicide. The Americans are on their own with this one, they created the mess, and they can sort it out, and no doubt the American taxpayer will have to foot the bill for their incompetence and appeasement.
Because the actual expectation is that it will be less the Palestinians, and more the settlers and their wing sympathizers, who'll present the biggest threat to the stability of the agreement...and Israel has already proven that it'll not ruffle a hair on a Jewish head to protect a Palestinian. Hamas presents a different problem, of course, but your reference is clearly to the West Bank.
NATO couldn't even agree on language relating to Iran because they had to kowtow to Turkey, and they're going to effectively police a peace with the Arabs for Israel? Tell me another joke. Israel would be insane to trust this one.
Obama and the current leadership of Nato are changing Nato into a pro Islamic defense force. Obama is changing the entire posture of the alliance to kiss the a.. of Turkey and the "Palestinians." Obama is standing history on its head and trying to create Trojan horses that will allow Muslims to a. defeat and destroy Israel and b. overrun Europe and finish the conquest they started in Spain. The goal of world Islam is the conquest of Europe and the Middle East, and Obama is their man in the White House. Can no one see through this Quisling ?
We know who our friends are!
...as Turkey leaves the NATO, Russia will be happy and leave the NATO-desk. You really think there would be any point talking with NATO, when they have Turkey on their side for mid-east strategy and the Bosporus trespass? Dream on.
in fact, the collaborative support of NATO forces during the Kosvo war was commendable and saved Europe from being embroiled in a lengthier war. If Israel becomes a member of NATO, which could happen given its sophisticated military forces and indicates a decisive two states resolution to the conflict, then NATO can certainly play a role in a comprehensive plan of providing peace and security in the middle east.
Never gonna happen.
Turkey is in NATO and they are coming closer and closer to be one of the fascistic advocates of Islamic terror. During this time Turkey is just as bad to have around as Israel on counts of political bias.
Kurd's and Turkey. No doubt its neutrality would be no different than its neutrality with respect to the Pals and Israel.
Turkey has no problem with the Kurds I have plenty of Kurdish friend, inter-marriages so an and so forth. What we have problem with is a small minority which constitutes of 0.0000001% of the Kurdish population.
Contingency planning is prudent. Have to see if either government is serious or wants peace enough.
Can't see how anything could go wrong with them being involved in the Middle East.
Is when Israel becomes a member of NATO...
It is the West which is dependent on Israel for its security. The real bill on which Israel ought to be paid exceeds actual "welfare" or Aid.
The scope of US attempts to purchase peace are becoming clear."If a Middle East peace agreement is reached, an international military force will be needed to monitor and implement it," Anders Fogh Rasmussen Haaretz reports. This bloviation shows that if Israel opts for peace, it will be given the carrot of better relations with NATO. It is all just fancy talk with no chance of changing anything. Netanyahu is not the kind of man who will respond to temptation which appeals to anything aside from personal power. Israel is not the kind of nation to stand up to the Settlers and pull out of Judea and Samaria. While NATO might tempt, it cannot provide anything either party wants.
What has changed in Israel? When it was time to kick the settlers out of Sinai, Israel did just that. And she has indicated that if that is required by a peace deal, that will happen again, unless the Pals are prepared to let Jews live amongst them and, far less likely, Jews are in fact willing to live amongst them. Maybe over time, things will change.
Mark - do you not read the newspaper? The Palestinians are refusing to negotiate. Not only that, they couldn't sign a peace treaty tomorrow if it was on the table with all they wanted. They can't sign a peace treaty without Gaza. Hamas will not sign a peace treaty with Israel, and Hamas is not going to let go of Gaza. Why are you talking about Israel pulling out of Judea and Samaria when there's no chance of a peace treaty?
Just like UNIFIL enforces UN resolutions in Lebanon, right? Nah, I don't think so.
With NATO, if the settlers cross the line, they'll be engaged, if Palestinians cross the line, they'll be engaged. Do you follow that?
there is no difference
yes there is difference, one is white hat the other blue hat.
... enforcing the Green Line... and what will the Haredim & Co, do then?