Military

February 15, 2000

MIDDLE EAST: BETWEEN 'WAR AND PEACE'

In editorial comment from the Middle East and Europe, Asia and the Western Hemisphere, writers were generally pessimistic about prospects for Middle East peace on both the Syrian and Palestinian tracks--in light of the continuing violence in south Lebanon and the passing "nearly unnoticed" of the February 13 deadline for an Israeli-Palestinian permanent status framework agreement. Many joined Damascus's government-owned Syria Times in observing that "the American scenario of a quick revival of the peace talks on the Syrian and Lebanese track has receded." These were themes:

SOUTH LEBANON: Editorials throughout the Arab world strongly criticized the U.S. stance blaming the Hezbollah guerrillas for the cycle of violence on the Israeli-Lebanese border. But in Lebanon, journalists tried to analyze a perceived shift in the American position on South Lebanon. Noting Assistant Secretary Walker's remarks, Beirut's moderate An-Nahar determined that the U.S. had modified its "tone," particularly with respect to the "Israeli assault against the Lebanese infrastructure" in an effort to encourage the UN Israel Lebanon Monitoring Group to meet. Likewise, Beirut's mainstream Sunni Al-Liwa' also saw a "new American position" that will help "in cooling down the situation in the South and reducing the overall pressure in the region." Meanwhile, an Islamic-oriented paper in Indonesia argued that "Iran's active role in the peace process must be acknowledged" and called for Tehran's inclusion, "perhaps via Hezbollah," in future peace talks. In Israel, popular, pluralist Maariv observed that "the growing list of IDF casualties in Lebanon...only intensifies the demand for an immediate withdrawal" from the territory.

'SUSPEND NORMALIZATION': Arab media from the Levant to the Gulf were united in their condemnation of Arab governments who have undertaken normalization measures with Israel during the Israeli escalation in Lebanon, and urged Arabs to reconsider their policies regarding Israel. Syrian and Palestinian papers served notice that there should be "no normalization" with Israel "without full withdrawal and comprehensive peace." Abu Dhabi's semi-independent Al-Khaleej called on Arabs "to boycott" Israel and companies dealing with it.

U.S.-ISRAEL DEFENSE TIES: The proposed Israeli-American defense treaty was widely perceived by Israeli and Arab writers alike as an American "bribe" to Israel to push it to resume negotiations on the Syrian track. Tel Aviv's nationalist Hatzofe reported "fury in Israel over U.S. direct and indirect efforts to tilt Israeli public opinion toward an agreement with Syria." The independent Jerusalem Post opined, "A defense pact designed to help 'sell' a peace treaty will have the opposite effect" and argued that the best way for the U.S. to enhance Israel's security "is to invest more heavily in missile defense systems that can be deployed in defense of both nations." Expressing the Arab viewpoint, Riyadh-based, conservative Al-Riyadh charged that the proposed defense agreement merely illustrates that "American policy is characterized by a complete neglect of Arabs in any peace or war project."

EDITOR: Gail Hamer Burke

EDITOR'S NOTE: This survey is based on 32 reports from 18 countries, February 11-15. Editorial excerpts are grouped by region; editorials from each country are listed from the most recent date.

ISRAEL: "Unjustified Pact"

Analyst Oded Granot wrote in Maariv's second editorial (2/15): "Every once in a while the idea of bilateral Israeli-American defense pact pops up, first behind closed doors and then in the news media, then it fades out until the next time. It is not by accident that the idea has surfaced again now, when Israel is required to make painful concessions to the Syrians. The Americans are simply trying to sweeten a bitter pill. We have already heard all the arguments in favor and against the pact. The argument that more, than it will help Israel, the treaty will tie our hands, is as valid now as it was in the past.... Israel should trust only itself, and since we and the Americans have already a pretty close, though unwritten, military-strategic alliance anyway, a signed document is simply unneeded."

"Undesirable Intervention"

Nationalist Hatzofe opined (2/15): "The U.S. embassy has recently launched a campaign aimed at persuading the Israelis to support Prime Minister Barak's Golan withdrawal plan. American diplomats are saying that, in return, Washington will sign a 'defense pact' with Israel and guarantee our well being and safety. This is not the first time the United States is offering Israel a 'defense pact' in order to make it pull out of 'occupied territory.' Israel rejected those proposals in the past and is likely to reject them now and in the future.... Ambassador Martin Indyk, undoubtedly a 'persona grata' in our country, must realize that the intervention of foreign diplomats in our internal affairs could hurt bilateral relations.... Indyk should take care not to cross accepted diplomatic lines and not do anything that is incompatible with Israel's diplomatic and security interests."

"Fury In Israel"

Nationalist Hatzofe reported (2/14) "fury in Israel over U.S. direct and indirect efforts to tilt Israeli public opinion toward an agreement with Syria."

"The Collapse Of Barak's Policies"

Popular, pluralist Maariv editorialized (2/14): "The growing list of IDF casualties in Lebanon not only intensifies the demand for an immediate withdrawal but illustrates the depth of the impasse Israel is finding itself on this bleeding issue. In fact, it is difficult to discern any consistent policy in the contradictory statements issued by our Cabinet ministers, which only further confuses the public and diminish our trust in the ability of our leaders to get us out of the Lebanese morass.... Against the backdrop of the collapse of Prime Minister Barak's Lebanese-Syrian policy, it was only befitting that February 13, Barak's target date for the signing of the Israeli-Palestinian permanent status framework agreement, has gone by nearly unnoticed.... As many had suspected, Barak's pretentious agenda turned out to be wholly unrealistic. What is more, the Palestinians have determined that 'Barak is worse than Netanyahu,' an insult of a magnitude of 9 on the Richter-Arafat scale. The record shows that the PA is not going to stop at filing complaints and pointing accusing fingers. There are various indications that they are going to heat up the territories."

"The Self-Defense Imperative"

The independent Jerusalem Post held (2/14): "U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk is reportedly advocating a change in (Israel's) policy of self-reliance, in the form of a formal

U.S.-Israel defense treaty.... On its face, the prospect of a defense pact with the world's sole remaining superpower might seem to be an attractive one.... However, there is a world of difference between the U.S.' enhancing Israel's capability to defend itself and the U.S.' committing to step in militarily in Israel's defense. The former Israel should continue to pursue; the latter should be assiduously avoided, no matter how tempting it might seem from a political perspective.... The best way for the United States to enhance Israel's security is to invest more heavily in missile defense systems that can be deployed in defense of both nations. The United States could also help Israel defend itself by allowing a similar level of access to American military technology as provided to the United Kingdom and Canada. A defense pact designed to help 'sell' a peace treaty will have the opposite effect, serving neither the peace process nor the sturdiness of peace itself."

LEBANON: "The Israeli Peace"

An editorial by Muhammad Mashmushi in leftist, pro-Syria As-Safir said (2/15): "There are contradictions in Israel's position towards the American-Israeli defense treaty proposed by Ambassador Indyk. On one hand, Israel is totally dependent on the United States politically, militarily and economically. On the other hand, it is really cautious about approving the treaty. Israel believes that such a treaty will limit its freedom of 'military movement.'... Israel wants American protection through this treaty--but it also wants freedom of 'military movement' outside the treaty. Israel wants peace, at the same time it wants war. It wants to withdraw, at the same time it wants to redeploy. Washington sees and hears these contradictions in the Israeli position, but it does not want to understand."

"A Bribe To Israel"

An editorial by Nizar Abdel-Kader in Ad-Diyar said (2/15): "The Americans are proposing a defense treaty with the Israelis because they want to bribe Israel and push it towards the path of settlement, particularly on the Syrian track.... The United States believes that this treaty will also serve its interests in containing the wave of proliferation of weapons of total destruction in the region. This treaty will also help the United States control Israel's military adventures that might go against American comprehensive strategic and vital interests in the region."

"The Americans Reduce Their Tone"

An article by Khalil Flayhan in moderate An-Nahar held (2/15): "Diplomatic sources note the beginning of a shift in the American position vis-a-vis the Israeli assault against the Lebanese infrastructure.... The same sources believe that this change in the American position aims at pushing the Monitoring Group to meet. They also affirm that Clinton and Albright's position towards the Monitoring Group, as a mechanism for protecting civilians, did not change."

"Israel Breached The 'Understanding'"

An editorial by Maaruf Ad-Daouk in mainstream Sunni Al-Liwa maintained (2/15): "Political and diplomatic circles are awaiting the speech expected to be delivered by President Clinton tomorrow.... They believe that the American administration intentionally shifted its position vis-a-vis the latest events in the south through the statements of A/S Walker, because it wanted Clinton's speech to be unbiased and as objective as possible.... The new American position is an acceptable position to all parties in the region. It will help in cooling down the situation in the south and reducing the overall pressure in the region."

SYRIA: "Still Light At The End Of The Tunnel"

Fouad Mardoud, chief editor of the government-owned Syria Times, maintained (2/15): "The central question that grows more tauntingly intractable with time is how and when the peace

talks can be resumed. How do the Israelis end their intransigence and in what way will they respond to questions of substance? With the peace talks moving, prospects of peace flourish. Two months ago nudging along the peace talks did not seem difficult. But, after Israel's destructive attacks against Lebanon's infrastructure and the daily threats to set Lebanon on fire, the atmosphere has changed. The American efforts to revive the Shepherdstown peace talks are facing difficulties. The talks about a move by President Clinton to invite Syria and Lebanon to resume talks within few days seem unreal and groundless, unless Washington has received a positive reply to the questions about Israel's positions toward issues of substance, mainly the June 4th 1967 line demarcation. But according to the most optimistic reports, Israel has not yet delivered such a response to the United States.... The American scenario of a quick revival of the peace talks on the Syrian and Lebanese track has receded. The Israeli attacks against Lebanon have become attacks against the peace process itself. There are no big hopes, though the light is still looming somehow at the end of the tunnel. Yet, it may be a long time before that American scenario can be realized unless there is a sharp shift in Israel's policies."

"An Extortionist Mentality"

Mohamed Khair al-Wadi, editor-in-chief of government-owned Tishreen, commented (2/14): "One who observes Israel's political behavior reaches the conclusion that it is still governed by an extortionist mentality. Israel is greedy. It never feels satisfied. American circles claimed that providing Israel with advanced arms will pacify its security worries and make her calmer and more peaceful. The influx of arms from the United States and Germany commenced under the banner of 'encouraging Israel to proceed towards peace.' The multilateral talks were also convened in Moscow with the purpose of reviving the mood of peace in Israel and to appease her. The same pretext is used to justify normalization with Israel.... Barak, who came to power under the banner of peace, has surprised the world community with his brutal aggression against Lebanon. This criminal act has confused those Arabs who accelerated the normalization process with Israel in the hope that this will encourage Barak to be more committed to peace. They felt that their openness with Israel has produced the opposite, as it made the Israeli government more hostile to peace. We hope that those Arabs will reconsider their relations with Israel and will adhere to the Cairo summit resolution that links normalization steps with achieving progress in the peace process."

"An Emotional Stop With The Pan-Arab Identity"

Amid Khouli, editor-in-chief of government-owned Al-Thawra, commented (2/13): "What was more painful for the Lebanese people than the aggression, was the placidity and the shameful neutrality demonstrated by some Arabs who remained silent while observing Lebanon's crisis. Those Arabs accelerated their normalization with Israel at a time when Israeli warplanes were shelling the Lebanese civilians.... You Arabs, who cannot denounce the Israeli aggression, at least do not help Israel to kill Lebanon. Stop this disgrace."

WEST BANK: "Negotiate The Issues, Not The Procedures"

Independent, moderate Al-Quds editorialized (2/15): "As the February 13 deadline for concluding a framework agreement passes without reaching any agreement or without either side achieving any reasonable step forward--a situation caused by a lack of seriousness on the Israeli part--it is justifiable for the Palestinians to decide to focus on final status issues and ignore past dates, especially since only seven months are left to conclude the final status agreement. Seven months may not be enough to settle the many disputes over difficult and thorny issues related to final status. What needs to be asked here is: Which is more important, reaching an agreement regarding issues not agreed upon between the two sides--as the Palestinians want--or wasting time negotiating a procedural framework to resolve the same issues, as the Israelis want?"

"No Normalization Without Real Peace"

Hani Al-Masri opined in independent, pro-Palestinian Authority Al-Ayyam (2/15): "Until the basic issue of ending the occupation is resolved, we must not carry on with normalization, especially cultural normalization. If we normalize relations with Israel, we are forgiving Israel of its sins, which may worsen Israel's hostility and occupation and encourage it to devour more Palestinian and Arabic lands and rights. The best example of this is that all normalization made by Palestinians and Arabs on the various levels through the past nine years since the commencement of Madrid Summit neither realized peace nor strengthened the forces for peace in Israel. Rather, the Israeli government's obstinacy and determination to force the 'Israeli peace' has increased. If Israel is exchanging occupation with normalization by raising the motto of 'withdrawal depth will be determined by the depth of peace,' we must raise the motto: No normalization without full withdrawal and comprehensive peace."

EGYPT: "Condemnation Is Not Enough To Stop Israel's Aggression"

Gamal Ali Zahran judged in pro-government Al Ahram (2/15): "The Israeli escalation in Lebanon is a message to both Syria and Lebanon to go rapidly to the negotiating table.... This escalation comes in light of Dennis Ross's failure to mediate between Palestinians and Israelis. At the same time, the United States supported Israel's aggression under the pretext of breaking the last obstacle to peace. However, is there a limit to this aggression? Can this be repeated until Israel reaches its aims of imposing its peace and hegemony? Repetition is most likely.... Egypt is expected to play its pivotal role in activating the Arab position and arranging for an emergency Arab summit to stop the deterioration and to support the Syrian and the Palestinian positions.... Condemnation is not enough to stop Israel's aggression."

JORDAN: "U.S.-Israeli Pact: Emphasizing Status Quo Or Beginning A New Era?"

Mohammad Kharoub wrote on the op-ed page of semi-official, influential Al-Ray (2/15): "It is not a coincidence that the U.S. embassy spokesman in Tel Aviv declared that his country is considering the possibility of reaching a formal military pact with Israel just at a time when the peace process is marking time and is running the risk of failing on the three negotiating tracks. The timing of this U.S. strategy is important and has a priority. Reports about Barak handing a bill to the U.S. president following the second round of the Syrian-Israeli negotiations are turning out to be true."

"When Will Israel's Monopoly In Lebanon End?"

Center-left, influential Al-Dustur (2/12) declared: "The recent violent escalation in Lebanon shows that the U.S. administration is taking the side of the aggressors and is holding the victims the responsibility for this escalation.... The Israeli war in Lebanon has become part and parcel of Israel's domestic political calculations and a way to gain the support of the Israeli public opinion.... Condemnations and denunciations are no longer sufficient to respond to the Israel's arrogance and to America's support of the ugly aggression. There has to be an Arab summit that would put an end to Israel's monopoly in brotherly Lebanon."

BAHRAIN: "Arabs Should Suspend All Types Of Normalization"

Semi-independent Akhbar Al-Khalij published this comment (2/15) by Abdulmalik Salman: "The terrorist war waged by Israel against Lebanon should be a fatal blow to attempts at normalization. This war showed the destructive and barbaric desires of the Zionist entity and its hatred of the Arabs. How can an Arab accept the idea of normalizing relations at the same time David Levy announces his readiness to burn all of Lebanon, and America continues asking the Arabs to take steps toward normalizing relations. But the question is: Isn't it the Arabs' right to ask Israel to adopt civilized policies and show good intentions?"

"No Normalization With Israel While It Threatens To Burn Lebanon"

Semi-independent Akhbar Al-Khalij published this comment (2/14) by Sayed Zahrah: "Several days before the (Israeli) aggression, David Levy visited an Arab country. When he embarked from the airplane there was such a very strange scene! He was met by the minister of foreign affairs of that country and many other officials from the government. The (Arab) minister of foreign affairs walked to welcome Levy, and instead of shaking hands with him he embraced him and kissed his right and left cheeks! The rest of the officials did the same!! This scene, which was repeated in other Arab capitals, is what encouraged Levy to threaten to burn Lebanon. Israel kills, destroys, occupies and hinders the peace process, and we reciprocate by receiving its officials, opening our doors for them and welcoming them!"

KUWAIT: "Contemptuous"

Independent Al-Siyassah published this view by Dr. Ahmad Baghdadi (2/12): "Israel is a criminal nation and America is a strong one. When a strong nation supports a Nazi and criminal nation, then the best description for America is to be called a despicable nation. How could the U.S. secretary of state accuse Hezbollah and blame them for what is going on there? This is contemptuous, not simply crooked logic. Arab dignity has deteriorated to the point where there is no feeling of self-respect, so why don't the Arabs take a serious move to confront that entity? The answer is simple. It is the fear of the American cowboy who is holding the keys to peace."

"Strange U.S. Position"

Independent Al-Qabas carried this piece (2/12) by Abdel-Mohsen Jamal: "The position of the American administration is strange. As soon as Israel started its aggression on Lebanon, their officials immediately declared their support for that aggression. I do not know why the American president did not ask Israel to leave Lebanon as an implementation of UNSCR 425. U.S. Secretary of State Albright, immediately justified the Jewish actions and accused the Lebanese, holding them to be mistaken just because they want to get the Israelis out."

SAUDI ARABIA: "Walker...Albright: Who Contradicts The Other?"

Riyadh-based, conservative Al-Riyadh ran this editorial (2/15): "We were not surprised by the remarks of Edward Walker...but it amazes us that his remarks contradict those of his boss, especially concerning violation of the April understanding and viewing Israel specifically as violating the agreement.... Walker may have been tasked by the White House to announce the failure of dual containment, to flirt with Iran by (opening) a gentle dialogue.... We might understand Walker's remarks as the introduction to a new strategy.... Martin Indyk made a further dangerous remark about (Israel) and the U.S. concluding a defense agreement.... This is not abnormal. American policy is characterized by a complete neglect of Arabs in any peace or war project."

"U.S. Foolish Statements"

London-based, pan-Arab Al-Hayat opined (2/13): "The remarks made by senior U.S. officials indicate that they have not heard what has happened in Lebanon--the destruction of vital civic facilities. Their focus continues to be on the peace process as the sole concern in the Middle East without admitting their awful historical mistakes in the peace process..... In recent days Israel's agents in the U.S. administration have made the most foolish remarks in an effort to make Beirut, Damascus and all Arabs understand that they (the U.S. administration) supports Israel and its (military) operations against electricity plants. They do this, however, in the name of the peace process and have nothing to offer to the Lebanese except false regrets. According to the American demand, Syria has to control Hezbollah if it wants to return to the negotiating

(table)--and certainly Syria wants that. The U.S. and Israel have to find an appropriate concept to meet the Syrian condition for returning to negotiations.... Thus, Barak gains a claim in Southern Lebanon, Syria saves face, and Lebanon and the Lebanese continue to lose their identity."

"No Access To Arab Markets"

Jeddah-based, conservative Al-Madina maintained (2/14): "Israel...must understand that peace has a price which it must pay. The (Israeli) illusions of keeping Arab territories and (to gaining) access to Arab markets...has no place (in reality) except in the sick mind of Israel. We applaud the Lebanese resistance which, though few in number and poorly equipped, has been able to restore the nation's sense of identity."

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: "Restore The Arab Boycott"

Sharjah-based Arab nationalist Al-Khaleej opined ( 2/12) with reference to demonstrations at the American University in Cairo and the call of a Jordanian businessman to collect donations for the reconstruction of Lebanese electricity plants: "This example confirms that the Arab citizen is well, that the national pulse is strong, and that Israel will not be accepted either today or tomorrow in the Arab conscience. This also confirms that there is one need: to establish an official Arab strategy that confronts this group feeling of enmity towards Zionism, to modify seriously the balance of powers that would help restore Arab rights.... Among these steps are the restoration of the Arab boycott of Israel, which proved to be effective at one time, and prevention of any commercial relations with Israel."

EUROPE

RUSSIA: "Death Dialectic"

Sergei Guly said in reformist Noviye Izvestiya (2/12): "Acting through his satellite, Assad has dealt a telling blow to Barak, thereby making it clear that he is in earnest about talks. The massive destruction the Israeli Falcons have caused in Lebanon is quite impressive. It has helped Barak save face, while not affecting Hezbollah's fighting potential. The brothers in faith are offering aid in a rush of ephemeral pan-Arab solidarity, indirectly strengthening the hand of Lebanon's big brother Syria in the negotiations. A more confident Syria is good news to the Israelis. The weak position of the Arab partners, be it Arafat or Assad, and hence, their being fickle and capricious has given Jerusalem a lot of trouble. The circle is complete. Blood has been shed and a ritual dance has been performed, meaning that we can again look to the future with optimism, medieval barbarity hidden beneath a modern attire. Things don't seem to work otherwise in that part of the world, uninitiated in political correctness."

BELGIUM: "Will Clinton Add Middle East Peace To His Achievement Record?"

Middle East affairs writer Manu Tassier in judged in independent Catholic De Standaard (2/12), "The discussion about territory is exceptionally difficult, but there is even much less agreement on key issues like Jerusalem, the Palestinian refugees, Israeli colonists in Gaza and on the West Bank, and the status of the Palestinian state. Yet, both parties have engaged themselves to such an extent that they are doomed to reach an accord. It is far from certain that they will succeed this year. U.S. President Bill Clinton will not like that because he wanted to earn his place in the history books before the end of his term in January 2001 by achieving a peace accord in the Middle East. He also wants to add an Israeli-Syrian accord to his achievement record. The negotiators will have to hurry."

HUNGARY: "Arafat's Dream"

Foreign affairs writer Ferenc Kepecs opined in independent daily Nepszava (2/12), "The Middle East peace talks have come to a deadlock again and parties are ages away from an accord. The controversy is so deep that even the top leaders of the two countries failed to overwhelm it at their recent talks. Arafat, to crown his decades long rule, himself would like to complete the 'big work', the overall settlement and the creation of the Palestinian state. It appears as the situation had not been developed ready for peace neither in the relations of Israel and Palestine nor in the triangle of Israel, Lebanon and Syria yet."

EAST ASIA

CHINA: "Reopening Israel-Syrian Talks: A Key To Lebanon-Israeli Disputes"

Yu Yi wrote in the intellectually-oriented Guangming Daily (Guangming Ribao, 2/15): "The escalation of the Lebanon-Israeli disputes has hampered the already frustrated Middle East peace process. If their disputes further intensify, it will make it even harder to resume the Syria-Israeli peace talks, and might even affect the entire Middle East peace process and the relationship between Israel and the Arab countries."

INDONESIA: "Israeli Aggression In Lebanon"

Islamic-oriented Pelita (2/12): "The Hezbollah factor in South Lebanon poses a fairly complex hurdle. Even an Israeli withdrawal from its South Lebanon security zone is no guarantee that Hezbollah will cease hostilities toward Israel. Hezbollah, like Iran, will never recognize Israel. Thus will linger the seeds of conflict, and the heart of the matter, in Lebanon. The close relations between Syria and Iran, which seemingly affect President Assad's stance in the peace process, cannot be ignored. Iran's active role in the peace process must be acknowledged. Including Iran, perhaps via Hezbollah, in future peace talks must be considered. Is that possible?"

SOUTH ASIA

BANGLADESH: "The Barbaric Israeli Attack On Lebanon"

Anti-West Bangla-language Inqilab commented in an editorial (2/11): "Israel has carried out similar and sometimes more dangerous attacks on its neighbors in the past just as it has now launched attacks on Lebanon. Western powers, including the U.S. never protested against these attacks. Not only that, they did not allow any steps to be taken in the UN against Israeli aggression on Palestine and the Arab countries. For this reason, the responsibility for breaking the peace and stability in the region does not rest on Israel alone, but also on its patrons. If the U.S. and its Western allies really want to mediate peace, keeping in mind their past heinous roles, they must condemn Israel's behavior and put pressure on Israel. Otherwise, no peace negotiation will succeed."

SRI LANKA: "International Laws Vs. Israeli Retaliations"

An op-ed article by Ameen Izzadeen in the independent popular tabloid Daily Mirror held (2/11), "Barak has said the Middle East peace process, would be complete before the end of President Clinton's term in White House. But it now appears that the Israeli-Syrian peace process has been pushed back with confidence-building measures between the two countries being affected.... To rescue the Middle East peace process from the sea of violence, what is necessary is Israeli tolerance and respect for international law. If Hezbollah is to be punished, let the UN coax the Lebanese and Syrian governments to take action on it. If they don't comply, the UN could impose sanctions."

WESTERN HEMISPHERE

ARGENTINA: "War And Peace"

An editorial in pro-government La Prensa reads(2/14 ), "Chances of reaching a final agreement which will lead to peace between Arabs and Israelis are rather uncertain after Hezbollah's Islamic, pro-Iranian guerrillas launched successive attacks against Israel's troops in south Lebanon. Israeli officials admitted that Hizbollah has recently increased its efficacy with the use of U.S. rockets, provided by Iran.... There are the two languages spoken by Israelis and Arabs: one, is peace conversations and the other one, is constant war. And (there is) a game: accusations. While Israel said that Syria, the most influential power in Lebanon, had to stop the guerrillas if it wished to negotiate peace seriously, the secretary general of the Arab League expressed to the U.S. ambassador in Egypt the indignation and disapproval there is in the Arab and Muslim world vis-a-vis Israel's dangerous aggression.... Egyptian president Mubarak urged the resumption of conversations as a means of calming down the situation and asked Israel to avoid putting obstacles in the road towards peace in the region. Clearly, the reality faced by the two opposed sectors is very different from the words used by Washington during conversations which, as such, have not yielded any positive results in stopping the war."

##

For more information, please contact:

U.S. Department of State

Office of Research

Telephone: (202) 619-6511

10/29/99

# # #