Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has signaled that Israel might cede the disputed Chebaa Farms area to Lebanon if the Lebanese carry out all provisions of their cease-fire with Israel, including the disarming of Hezbollah guerrillas, Israeli media reported on Friday.
In a meeting with Russian Minister Sergey Lavrov on Wednesday, Olmert said if the U.N. decides the area is Lebanese, and if Lebanon implements U.N. resolutions ending the war, "we'll agree to discuss it," the Haaretz newspaper
said.... .
Is this just noise? Or is it a signal that things are moving in a direction that we all want them to move? Past experience has taught me to believe the former.
Besides, it's nothing new. The Lebanese Prime Minister has repeatedly suggested a similar exchange - except, in reverse sequence. Can Kofi resolve this sequencing problem, as he apparently did a few days ago?
11 comments:
I think it's mostly noise at this point though it's possible it could take on a more meaningful form sometime later.
I note that the Israeli foreign ministry press release about the meeting characterized Olmert's remarks in a much more cagey, tentative & shilly-shallying way:
"Regarding the Shaba Farms, Prime Minister Olmert said that if it is determined that the area is Lebanese and not Syrian, as UN Secy.-Gen. Annan has previously determined, and if Lebanon fulfills in full its obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions #1701 and #1559, including the disarming of Hizbullah, we would agree to discuss the issue. The Prime Minister said that he had no problem regarding meeting his Lebanese counterpart in order to discuss all issues."
"We would agree to discuss the issue" isn't the same as saying "we might cede the area to Lebanon."
BTW, that AP link above doesn't work for me.
Raja, I think there isn't an Israeli who, when being treated fairly as well, would want to hold on to the Shebaa Farms. Media on tv are also addressing this small piece of land with the appropriate amount of sarcasm - since it is not a real big deal at all.
At least, that's the impression from observation.
Tse.
If the Israeli's are so stupid as to give up the farms FIRST, then Honestly, I will cease to be pro-Israel. They would have demonstrated themselves to be so damn stupid, near sighted and gullable that they wouldn't deserve to exist as a country or a culture.
To hand that over first would be giving HB a HUGE victory, and the problems would continue. They already walked out of Gaza, and they walked out of Lebanon years ago, and peace was not the result, just continued war. For the Lebanese PM to ask for it first is to ask the Israeli's if they are stupid and weak, and ready to surrender. Sadly, there will be many jewish voices saying "Yes"
As I state in my latest entry here, Israel has been abiding by 1701, and showing some goodwill (which is not something Lebanon has received much in the past). The ball is now firmly in the Lebanese court and in the hands of Siniora and co. This is an opportunity to make something happen (all rhetoric aside) and stop the useless posturing and empty sloganeering.
I have long maintained that Israel and Lebanon have no fundemental disputes (territorial or existential). These latest comments by Olmert confirm that Israel feels likewise. Now it's really time for Siniora and Lebanon to step up to the plate and start acting in the interests of Lebanon, and a lasting peace, rather than succumbing to the antiquated notions of arab fraternity or the interests of Syria, Iran or whoever else.
There is no pushing from the US that will settle things, except arms. Syria will not negotiate unless they are bribed so heavily that they would go against Iran and their own shiite nutcases.
Unless you mean the US should push Israel into unconditional surrender, which is what Clinton tried to do.
i think some people are confusing excuses with reality.. hiding behind the iranian so-treated superpower is the joke.. iran doesnt pull anything.. they can try to influence here and there.. but seriously.. the iranians only have the power that they are permitted by the west to appear to have..
this is smoke screening to the nth degree..
wishing peace to us all.. all this agenda rubbish is getting so boring.. it underestimates the relevant countries and overestimated the sophistication of the "baddies"
www.emspeace.blogspot.com
"What is needed is a genuine desire on the behalf of Israel to resolve these conflicts..."
Really? Why do you fail to mention a genuine desire on the part of Israel's enemies to resolve these conflicts? Why is the onus on Israel, they are the only ones who have tried. Every proposal from the Arab world involves the destuction of Israel. Every agreement made is violated by the Arabs. You have a very biased view.
Israel tried to give the Palestinians a state, hear of Oslo? The response was the intifada.
There has never been a nation of Palestine, but rather than settle for one, the Arabs want a "right of return", which means the millions of Palestinians who have bred like rats in the hate filled UN camps should be able to become Israeli citizens, so that they can promptly vote to kill all Jews.
Tell me I'm wrong.
The international community can only help by cutting off Arab/Palestinian aid until the people get tired of suffering for their own stupidity, or else have to spend all their meager resources on butter, with none left for guns.
Sherry,
I do have a sense of humanity. That doesn't mean I suckle the wolf at my breast (so to speak).
Palestinians breed like rats because it is convenient to the Islamic dictators in the area to have them do that. They are being used, and they are miserable because of it. I think it is a disgrace. I don't fault the children born there, I fault the adults who act like fools and animals. I pity the rabid coyote, but that doesn't mean that shooting it isn't the best thing for all concerned. In many ways, there are far too many Muslims who are like the rabid coyote, raised in misery and tought to hate and kill and completely unable to see the humanity of others. Palestinians are taught that killing infidel children is a blessed act, and one that guarantees paradise. How do you reason with such people? Many have tried, and failed.
You also were dishonest in your comments about my blog. I said if you have large groups of people gathered together shouting death to america, napalm them. That is not wiping everyone out.
Regarding my choice of where to be born, I would rather be born in a post-islamic radical society (after we clean them up) than into a current islamic society. Wouldn't you? Would you rather have lived through the 90's in Iran or Iraq, or be born today in Iraq? Or pick a non-radical islamic country. Is it not better for future generations of Palistinians to kill off the troublemakers now, and have a peace through their total defeat, rather than just keep the blood flowing at an acceptable trickle for decades more?
I am far more humanitarian than you give me credit for. I think getting it over now is far more humane than letting it drag on and on.
Napalm is not a city-sized weapon, it is more limited to perhaps a few football fields at a time, perfect scope to take out chanting, gun waving terrorists and terrorist sympathisers.
They have the free speach right to say they support killing christians and overthrowing the govt, but we have the right of self defence, the ultimate right.
And yes, I advocate intensifying the war. Intensified, it will end when the fuel is depleted. As a low intensity conflict, it will burn forever, and cost many more lives and more generations of misery.
Don't lump them together.
People who advocate the overthrow of the US constitution, such as the Hezbos, they are declaring war on us. Reacting to this threat is prudent.
I know liberals think free speech rights mean liberals and their allies (communists, terrorists etc) should be able to say what they want without consequence, but everything has consequences.
Post a Comment