Israel rejects Annan demand on blockade

[KoKo]

(Not much more info on this except a link to video of Annan's statement.)

AP - 2 hours, 10 minutes ago

JERUSALEM - Israel rejected demands Wednesday from visiting U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan that it immediately lift its sea and air blockade of Lebanon and withdraw its forces once 5,000 international troops are deployed.

http://news.yahoo.com/

On Edit: More from Reuters up on Yahoo earlier:
Israel rejects U.N. blockade appeal

By Luke Baker
24 minutes ago

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel rejected a call by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan on Wednesday to lift its air and sea blockade of Lebanon, saying it would only end the 7-week-old siege once all aspects of a ceasefire were in place.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert also told Annan he would not withdraw Israeli troops from southern Lebanon until the full implementation of the ceasefire, which took effect on August 14 and put an end to 34 days of conflict with Hizbollah.

Olmert's statements effectively amounted to a rejection of the two main requests Annan had come to Jerusalem to discuss, but Annan later played down the differences of opinion, saying his and Olmert's thinking were not so far apart.

"There isn't that much of a difference between Prime Minister Olmert and myself," Annan told a news conference in the West Bank city of Ramallah when asked about the apparent failure of his bid to strengthen the 2-week-old ceasefire.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/200...

[KoKo]

1. What bothers me about this is WHAT does Olmert think he's achieving

with such a HARDLINE POLICY? What.........WHAT????? :shrug:

And, I'm trying to understand here what this is about.....:-(

[lumpy]

2. Easy, Israel wants Lebanon compelely

subjugated, ghettoed and impotent so as to not be a threat to Israel who has to live with constant paranoia. Will there ever become a day when Israel and their bordering nations will be free of bombs and bunkers? Doubtful.

[KoKo]

3. His strategy would seem to be with the Bushies, then.

Yet, one would think that Olmert having "stepped into a mess thinking he could win it" would be humbled and not looking at the "stonewalling strategey" that BushCo. is doing where they deny everything they can't paint a "rosy scenario" on with their brushes.

Why would Olmert given his background and his kids who want peace...try to follow the failing Bush/Blair disaster policy in the ME?

His "bio" that I posted here in "I/P" would seem to show he's a much smarter politician that either Blair or Bush. :shrug:

[Taoschick]

8. Since Lebanon

Has refused to comply with the two UN resolutions requiring them to disarm Hezbollah, Olmert is probably trying to put pressure on Lebanon and make it much more difficult for Hezbollah to rearm.

[breakaleg]

4. I think he's just posturing at this point. Israel has already lost this

war of their's. He's just trying to dig in where he can.

[hack89]

5. Did they lose the war or just the first battle?

It's hard to argue that the Israeli army suffered significant material or personnel damage- certainly their war fighting potential still dwarfs Hezbollah. It is also clear the the Israel public is willing to accept more casualties - they understand clearly that if Hezbollah is not disarmed then they will be fighting a harder war sometime in the future. Israel is not a pacifistic nation.

I think he is taking a hard line because the Israeli demand to disarm Hezbollah is non-negotiable and they are prepared to restart the war again if it is apparent that the UN will not disarm them. Only this time they will use the massive ground force they didn't use the first time.

Many countries have lost the first battle of a war only to eventually emerge victorious (remember Pearl Harbor, the Philippines and Wake Island in WWII?)- who wins the last battle is all that matters.

[KoKo]

6. But the Cease Fire Agreement Negotiated between parties at UN Did Not

demand a "disarmament" by Hezbollah as a requirement before Israel was required to withdraw from Lebanese territory. :shrug: It was too contentious to put into the original "ceasfire" agreement. So it would seem that Israel is abiding by what UN Resolution delclared that if they put peace keepers in then Israel would be required to withdraw. It seems like Israel is trying to change the Cease Fire Agreement that was negotiated into what it wants rather than what the agreement required. Just my read of what the UN Resolution and these articles are saying and listening to a discussion on C-Span about this from parties on both sides.

[bemildred]

7. Annan again urges Israel to lift blockade

DEAD SEA, Jordan (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Thursday renewed his calls on Israel to lift a blockade on Lebanon swiftly and to withdraw fully from the country as soon as 5,000 U.N. peacekeepers are in the south.

Annan, who travelled to Syria after talks in Jordan, is trying to bolster a truce ushered in by a U.N. resolution to halt a 34-day war between Israel and Hizbollah guerrillas.

He has had little to show for his mission so far, but a senior Israeli political source said Israel would discuss freeing Lebanese prisoners for two soldiers held by Hizbollah if the two are handed over to the Lebanese government. Israel has previously insisted on their unconditional release.

"I expect -- and I did make this clear to the Israeli authorities -- that when the international forces have reached 5,000 and are deployed to the south with the Lebanese (army), it is time for them to withdraw and withdraw completely," Annan told a news conference after talks with Jordan's King Abdullah.

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-08-31T123411Z_01_L27789807_RTRUKOC_0_UK-MIDEAST.xml