http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060804/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_fighting_un
UNITED NATIONS - The U.S. and France are close to agreement on a Security Council resolution aimed at ending fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, U.S. officials said Friday.
Ambassador John Bolton and others said disagreements that have prevented a deal for weeks still remain.
But in Washington, U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said: "We are very close to a final draft with the French on a text." Later, State Department spokesman Tom Casey added: "We hope to have a resolution early next week."
Bolton met three times with his French counterpart during the day, trying to reach agreement. After the first meeting, Bolton said the sides had moved "still closer to an agreement" but had to report to their capitals.
"There are still some issues we've not resolved," he said.
He refused to say what the differences were, but Security Council diplomats said one crucial problem was the timing of a cease-fire.
France, reflecting wide international opinion, wants an immediate halt to combat. The United States, all but isolated except for Israel, does not want a cease-fire without the immediate implementation of other steps, such as the deployment of international peacekeepers.
So which proposal do you think is most beneficial to all parties?
"This is the major difference between the parties in the region and the parties now having the talks," said China's deputy ambassador, Liu Zhenmin.
There were indications the United States might be inching closer to the French position.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressed support Thursday for an immediate cease-fire as the first step in ending the conflict. It was the most concrete signal yet that the U.S. might be willing to compromise.
In an interview with MSNBC's "Hardball" program on Friday, Rice said "we are moving, I think pretty effectively now, with the French and with others in the United Nations, toward a cessation of hostilities ... on the basis of a kind of political framework that would prevent this return to the status quo ante."
"We then have to move in a second phase to a security force, and we do have to get to a sustainable and permanent cease-fire. This is a process that we will be beginning with the resolution that we hope will be ready, and I believe will be ready, within days," she said.
Rice said the mandate for an international force has not yet been written, "but I don't think there's any expectation that the international force is somehow going to disarm Hezbollah."
Asked who will disarm Hezbollah, she replied, "the Lebanese."
It was difficult to say how much Rice's comments indicated a softening of the American position ? or was just a rephrasing of it.
Almost since the outbreak of fighting July 12, the Bush administration has insisted a cease-fire be accompanied by simultaneous steps aimed at creating a long-term peace.
Some diplomats expressed impatience with the Americans and the French.
"We need an urgent cease-fire ? this is what I can tell you," Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said. "Urgent cease-fire. We're working very hard for it."
Ghana's ambassador, Nana Effah-Apenteng said the council was trying its best to get a quick solution. "I wish that the council could have acted faster, but I also understand the difficulties and the realities on the ground," he said.
Other officials, including British Prime Minister Tony Blair, expressed hope for a deal within days. Blair echoed Rice when he said he hoped a resolution would outline a framework to prevent renewed conflict.
Any deal will have to gain agreement from both Israel and Hezbollah, which could prove difficult.
Israel has said it will not halt its campaign against Hezbollah unless an international military force is in place. Hezbollah's chief spokesman said the militia will not agree to a cease-fire until Israeli troops leave Lebanon.
The problem is that all this will have to happen all at the sametime.
There can be no legitimate and lasting peace take place between the cease fire and the Peacekeeping forces deployment.
The deployment will have to happen immediately almost on the same day.
Otherwise the missle firing will keep on happening.
yet I am of the opinion Peacekeeping force or not this will never end on the Hezbollah side.
Why? Because no matter how hard the
Israeli detractors try to say Israel doesn`t care about the civilains. We all know that for certain Hezbollah does not care.
Now if the Israeli`s were hiding behind children and women then we would have an issue.
But thats just not the case.
Shalom!!
UNITED NATIONS - The U.S. and France are close to agreement on a Security Council resolution aimed at ending fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, U.S. officials said Friday.
Ambassador John Bolton and others said disagreements that have prevented a deal for weeks still remain.
But in Washington, U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said: "We are very close to a final draft with the French on a text." Later, State Department spokesman Tom Casey added: "We hope to have a resolution early next week."
Bolton met three times with his French counterpart during the day, trying to reach agreement. After the first meeting, Bolton said the sides had moved "still closer to an agreement" but had to report to their capitals.
"There are still some issues we've not resolved," he said.
He refused to say what the differences were, but Security Council diplomats said one crucial problem was the timing of a cease-fire.
France, reflecting wide international opinion, wants an immediate halt to combat. The United States, all but isolated except for Israel, does not want a cease-fire without the immediate implementation of other steps, such as the deployment of international peacekeepers.
So which proposal do you think is most beneficial to all parties?
"This is the major difference between the parties in the region and the parties now having the talks," said China's deputy ambassador, Liu Zhenmin.
There were indications the United States might be inching closer to the French position.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressed support Thursday for an immediate cease-fire as the first step in ending the conflict. It was the most concrete signal yet that the U.S. might be willing to compromise.
In an interview with MSNBC's "Hardball" program on Friday, Rice said "we are moving, I think pretty effectively now, with the French and with others in the United Nations, toward a cessation of hostilities ... on the basis of a kind of political framework that would prevent this return to the status quo ante."
"We then have to move in a second phase to a security force, and we do have to get to a sustainable and permanent cease-fire. This is a process that we will be beginning with the resolution that we hope will be ready, and I believe will be ready, within days," she said.
Rice said the mandate for an international force has not yet been written, "but I don't think there's any expectation that the international force is somehow going to disarm Hezbollah."
Asked who will disarm Hezbollah, she replied, "the Lebanese."
It was difficult to say how much Rice's comments indicated a softening of the American position ? or was just a rephrasing of it.
Almost since the outbreak of fighting July 12, the Bush administration has insisted a cease-fire be accompanied by simultaneous steps aimed at creating a long-term peace.
Some diplomats expressed impatience with the Americans and the French.
"We need an urgent cease-fire ? this is what I can tell you," Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said. "Urgent cease-fire. We're working very hard for it."
Ghana's ambassador, Nana Effah-Apenteng said the council was trying its best to get a quick solution. "I wish that the council could have acted faster, but I also understand the difficulties and the realities on the ground," he said.
Other officials, including British Prime Minister Tony Blair, expressed hope for a deal within days. Blair echoed Rice when he said he hoped a resolution would outline a framework to prevent renewed conflict.
Any deal will have to gain agreement from both Israel and Hezbollah, which could prove difficult.
Israel has said it will not halt its campaign against Hezbollah unless an international military force is in place. Hezbollah's chief spokesman said the militia will not agree to a cease-fire until Israeli troops leave Lebanon.
The problem is that all this will have to happen all at the sametime.
There can be no legitimate and lasting peace take place between the cease fire and the Peacekeeping forces deployment.
The deployment will have to happen immediately almost on the same day.
Otherwise the missle firing will keep on happening.
yet I am of the opinion Peacekeeping force or not this will never end on the Hezbollah side.
Why? Because no matter how hard the
Israeli detractors try to say Israel doesn`t care about the civilains. We all know that for certain Hezbollah does not care.
Now if the Israeli`s were hiding behind children and women then we would have an issue.
But thats just not the case.
Shalom!!
Facebook
Twitter