press conference by minister for foreign affairs of israel

 

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said today that full implementation of Security Council resolution 1701 (2006) would lead to a change in Lebanon, as well as the region, and could lead to a better future for all.

She said during a Headquarters press conference that she was in New York to meet United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan a few days after the resolution’s adoption to ensure that “this time the Security Council resolution is going to be implemented in the manner in which it was intended”.

Describing the resolution’s full implementation as “a moment of truth for the international community”, she said there was a need to address the “true cause of violence” in Lebanon, namely Hizbollah, a terrorist organization that represented Iranian interests, as well as its hatred and ideology against not only Israel but also the West and Western values.

She pointed out that Security Council resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006) had clearly stated as a goal that the Government of Lebanon would exercise its sovereignty over the entire Lebanese territory, adding that had it implemented resolution 1559, “we could all have been spared the violence and destruction of the last month”.  Resolution 1701, “a blueprint for change”, represented the interests of the region, but the resolution alone would mean nothing without the international community’s determination to see its decisions properly implemented.  The ball was now in the court of Lebanon and the international community.

Underscoring the need to ensure the immediate and unconditional release of the Israeli hostages, she said the fact that they had not yet been freed was a clear violation of the resolution.  It was also necessary to ensure that:  the new international force was “robust and effective”; the embargo was fully enforced and monitored to prevent Syria and Iran from rearming Hizbollah; and that the end result of the process would be the militia’s full and complete disarmament.  “The world cannot allow itself to repeat the omissions of the past to allow Hizbollah to rise again and threaten the future of the region.”

Asked how far Israel would go in its operations if the truce broke down, Ms. Livni recalled that Hizbollah had attacked her country one month ago without provocation.  Israel had then decided to start a military operation to remove that threat to itself and the region.  While it could have attacked Lebanon as a State, it had decided against that course of action because the international community had asked Israel not to undermine the Lebanese Government.  It had, therefore, attacked only Hizbollah targets.

Now there was a need for the international community to take steps, she continued.  For the first time, Lebanon had decided to deploy its forces to the southern part of Lebanon and they would work together with the Lebanese army and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) to implement the “cessation of hostilities”.  Hizbollah had been weakened and would understand that, if it acted against the Council resolution, it would become a real burden to the Lebanese people.

Noting that the United Nations was often called the “United Nothing” in Israel, and that the country’s Permanent Representative had heavily criticized UNIFIL, a correspondent asked if Israel had accepted the United Nations under pressure from the United States owing to the battlefield situation.

The Foreign Minister replied that Israelis sometimes had reason to have such an image of the Organization, but now it was important to share the same goals.  It was not Israel on the one hand versus Lebanon on the other; this time it was Israel, the Lebanese Government and the international community versus Hizbollah, Iran, Syria and perhaps Hamas.  If the shared goals could be achieved in an understanding between the United Nations, Israel and Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, there was a chance to change the situation.  Because some previous resolutions had not been implemented, Israel had paid the price of the Siniora Government’s weakness.  Israel had taken a calculated risk to change the situation on the ground.

Asked if any countries were unacceptable in the international force, she said her country expected a mixed force of contributors from European States and others, including Arab States, as long as they were not enemies of Israel.  Troop contributors had been part of her discussions with the Secretary-General.

Responding to a question about the disputed Shebaa Farms, she said Israel saw that as a Lebanese-Syrian issue, as Council resolution 1680 (2006) had called on Syria to accept the delineation of Lebanon by the United Nations.

To a question about the necessary level of an international force on the ground that would allow her country to start withdrawing, she replied that Israel would not leave a vacuum that could be filled by Hizbollah.  The intention was to withdraw when there were both Lebanese and international forces on the ground and discussions in that regard were going on at the military level.

Asked about the abducted Israeli soldiers, she said they should be released immediately and unconditionally.  Legally, their non-release was a violation of resolution 1701 and Israel expected the international community to continue demanding their release.

In response to another question, she said the enforcement of the arms embargo was crucial for the region’s future.  There could be no disarming of Hizbollah while it was being rearmed at the same time.  The embargo must be effective.  Monitoring of the borders by the Lebanese Government alone was not enough; it required assistance from the new international force in order to prevent Iran and Syria from rearming Hizbollah.  Part of the discussion with the Secretary-General had been devoted to the crucial need to enforce the embargo.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record