| Tweet |
□Israel to 'control security zone'(英文記事)
http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/96110
Israel to 'control security zone' (battle map added)
By: Aljazeera + Slobodan Lekic on: 25.07.2006 [17:34 ] (927 reads)
Israel to 'control security zone'
Tuesday 25 July 2006, 20:06 Makka Time, 17:06 GMT
Israeli forces would a 3-4km 'buffer zone' inside Lebanon
Israel has said it plans to enforce a "security zone" in southern Lebanon until an international force can be sent to take it over.
"We have no other option ... We will have to build a new security strip, a security strip that will be a cover for our forces until international forces arrive," Amir Peretz, the Israeli defence minister said on Tuesday.
Peretz said Israel would maintain control of the security zone by firing at anyone who enters it.
Israeli government sources estimated a zone 3-4km in width. Western diplomats briefed by Israel said it could be as wide as 5-10km in some places.
Government officials said Israel would keep up its offensive until a proposed peacekeeping force begins deploying along the southern border and at crossing points between Lebanon and Syria to prevent Hezbollah from rearming.
"There cannot be an interim," said a senior Israeli government official. "It would be a free time for Hezbollah to return to the border."
Stabilisation force
Israel believes a military stabilisation force of up to 20,000 troops would be needed and that it could be deployed up to two weeks after its approved, senior Israeli government officials said.
Western diplomats and analysts say any international force would include infantry, armoured units and special forces trained in handling crisis situations.
Rice will attend the meeting in
Rome after her Middle East tour
Several European Union nations have already said they would be prepared to contribute to a "buffer zone" force.
Israel wants the proposed force to secure the Lebanese side of the Israeli border with the help the Lebanese army and push Hezbollah 20km from the border to prevent rockets being fired into northern Israel.
Troops patrolled such a security zone during Israel's 18-year military presence in Lebanon to prevent Hezbollah attacks.
Israel's unilateral pullout from Lebanon in 2000 was prompted, in large part, by growing public discontent over the steady Israeli casualty toll in south Lebanon.
Rome conference
The international peacekeeping force will be on the agenda when European and Arab officials meet in Rome on Wednesday to discuss the conflict in Lebanon.
European Union officials have said they will push for a ceasefire followed by the deployment of troops that would help disarm Hezbollah.
Officials said that Javier Solana, the EU foreign and security affairs chief, will propose the establishment of a rapid reaction force ideally built around French, German and Spanish troops, with forces from Turkey, the Netherlands, Canada and Arab states such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, said earlier on Tuesday there would be no stopping in the two-week-old offensive in Lebanon and that "severe measures" would be taken against Hezbollah.
US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice said during a visit to Israel that a ceasefire was needed, but not at any price.
Rice also told Lebanese leaders that Hezbollah must return two captured Israeli soldiers and withdraw from Israel's border before there could be a ceasefire, Lebanese politicians said.
At least 70 rockets hit Israel on Tuesday, killing one Arab-Israeli girl and wounding at least 23 others.
link
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel would prefer NATO-led coalition
By Slobodan Lekic, Associated Press Writer | July 25, 2006
BRUSSELS, Belgium --As world leaders scramble to secure a cease-fire in Lebanon, a crucial question arises: Who will ensure the peace? Israel has suggested it prefers a NATO-led coalition ― not the traditional U.N. peacekeeping force that has tried but failed to bring peace to Lebanon the last three decades.
But the alliance's member states are already stretched in missions elsewhere, including full-scale combat in Afghanistan. Precedents in Kosovo and Bosnia also raise questions about the ability of a NATO-led force to impose its will.
And cobbling together a coalition would be difficult, especially considering the traumatic history of peacekeeping in Lebanon: American and French troops stepped into a bloody quaqmire when they joined a multinational force there in 1982.
There are also competing initiatives, including a proposal Tuesday by European Union security and foreign affairs chief Javier Solana for a new kind of international force that would include troops from Europe, Turkey and Arab states.
NATO officials insist it's premature to discuss a NATO role ― an idea first aired by Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz on Saturday and which Washington has indicated it would support ― until the current round of diplomacy runs its course.
"No request has been made to NATO," alliance spokesman James Appathurai said Tuesday. "The international community is still discussing ... the possibility of a force, its mandate, and the duration of the mission. All these issues remain open."
Still, momentum is building to end the fighting, and there is broad sympathy for Israel's demand that Hezbollah not be allowed to return to its border. But few believe the weak Lebanese government can achieve this as Israel demands, and the U.N. force that has been in Lebanon since 1978 is discredited. That leaves many turning to NATO.
One NATO country that may have troops available for a mission in Lebanon is Turkey. As the only Muslim member of the alliance, Turkey might have considerable clout if it were persuaded to lead a multinational force ― helping to deflect the perception that troops are being sent in solely to defend Israel's interests against Hezbollah.
Turkey enjoys close ties with both Israel and Arab countries and has wide-ranging experience in international peacekeeping, bolstering its credentials. Its colonial rule during the Ottoman Empire, however, may make some Arabs bridle at the thought of a Turkish presence.
On Tuesday, a Turkish Foreign Ministry official said the country would consider playing a major role in peacekeeping ― but only if it had a strong U.N. mandate that would define its role and the rules of engagement.
That appears to be the crux of the problem: Any international force without the power to react to renewed outbursts of violence or to strike back if it found itself under threat would be as impotent as the current U.N. peacekeepers and unlikely to succeed at keeping Hezbollah away from the Israeli border.
Page 2 of 2 --NATO officials said it would be difficult for the alliance to enlist the estimated 10,000 troops needed initially to secure a cease-fire. They pointed to the alliance's existing commitments, such as Afghanistan and Kosovo, which will soon draw more than 40,000 troops from member countries.
Although the alliance has a substantial command structure, which would lead any expeditionary force in the region, it depends almost entirely on voluntary contributions of troops and equipment from member states.
Major contributors to past NATO deployments have been noncommittal on whether they would participate in any mission in Lebanon, perhaps as a reaction to the escalating guerrilla war in Afghanistan.
"At the moment, I can't see it," said German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung said Tuesday after meeting with his French and Polish counterparts that a cease-fire must first be in place. "With or without German troops, the question of whether there is a peace mission will only come once there is a cease-fire," Jung said.
Washington already has ruled out participating in a multinational force, since a U.S. presence would likely serve as a lightning rod for attacks by militants of all stripes.
Dutch and Austrian officials have also balked at sending troops.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair's official spokesman expressed hope that the Middle East conference opening Wednesday in Rome will produce an agreement in principle on setting up a stabilization force.
But he said questions such as the force's composition and mandate could be worked out later.
If NATO governments agree to a role for the alliance in Lebanon, military planners would have to take into account that it is ill-equipped to engage irregular forces such as the Hezbollah militants.
In Afghanistan, for example, the Taliban-led insurgency is now said to be as active as at any time since the 2002 invasion of that country, despite the deployment of upward of 12,000 NATO troops in the country.
In Bosnia and Kosovo, where the alliance deployed over 100,000 soldiers in the 1990s, strict adherence by the warring sides to the peace accords ensured the success of those missions. Still, NATO failed to act when violence did erupt, such as the mass riots by ethnic Albanians in 2004 in which 19 minority Serbs died.
link
------------------------------------------------------------------------
An “International Force” ― With No Americans?
Monday, July 24th, 2006 in News by Justin Raimondo|
Kevin Drum wants to know where all those troops are going to come from if the U.S. isn’t providing any for the “robust” international force the administration is proposing to police Hezbollah-land. Citing this report in the Forward,ﾐ which informs us the internationals will be charged with policing Lebanon’s border with Syria, as well as keeping order in southern Lebanon ﾐ Drum writes:
“This is fascinating. At a guess, something this ambitious would take a minimum of seven or eight combat brigades plus associated support and logistics. Call it 40,000 troops in round numbers. “The United States has previously said that it won’t be able to participate in this because our troops are tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan. The UN can’t help since it deals only in peacekeeping missions, not combat missions. None of the troops can come from Middle Eastern countries, of course. NATO troops are largely committed to Afghanistan, and Europe has in any case been notably reluctant to commit combat troops to either the Middle East or Africa.“What’s needed here are (a) large numbers of (b) quickly deployable (c) combat troops. Offhand, I can’t think of anyplace this could come from. Am I missing something?”
Drum is missing at least two things, the first being that government officials don’t always tell us the truth ﾐ shocking! ﾐ and I’d bet the ranch American soldiers will be assigned to this international force for the reasons Drum states above. What’s the alternative? Besides which, there’s something a bit fishy about Condoleezza Rice’s official denial of American participation:
“We are looking at what kind of international assistance force makes sense, but I do not think that it is anticipated that U.S. ground forces are expected for that force.”
American forces may not be expected, but they may show up anyway. That, it seems to me, is the clear meaning of Condi’s convolutions, a classic non-denying denial if ever there was one. Translated into plain English, this means they’re going to have to get Israel to okay the plan, before they spring the idea of sending U.S. troops to defend Israel on Congress and the American people. If they hope to get it through without much congressional opposition, the administration must first run it by the Israelis and get them on board. The Israel lobby will do the rest.
Secondly, Drum dismisses the possible participation of troops from our Arab allies ― Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia ― on the grounds that … well, just because. Yet there is no reason why the Jordanians, for example, could not provide security ― or the Egyptians. I can’t see the Israelis agreeing to the presence of Saudi troops, but the others would be preferable to Hezbollah. Let Arabs take bullets meant for the IDF! And don’t forget the religious overtones: Arab Sunnis would be fighting Arab Shi’ites, Iraq’s civil war would go regional, and the Sunni card would be played.
In the meantime, as I pointed out in today’s column, by the time the Western allies agree on the nature and tasks of a multinational army of occupation in southern Lebanon ﾐ I give it three to four months, and that’s going at warp drive 10 ― the Israelis will continue to pound away at the whole of Lebanon. And you can kiss Beirut goodbye….
link
投稿コメント全ログ コメント即時配信 スレ建て依頼 削除コメント確認方法
題名には必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。
掲示板,ＭＬを含むこのサイトすべての
一切の引用、転載、リンクを許可いたします。確認メールは不要です。
引用元リンクを表示してください。