Friday, September 2, 2005
Lynn B has an analysis of Condi Rice's recent remarks -- and attitude -- that were mangled recently by the New York Times. Lynn isn't quite so ready to let Condi off the hook for what looks like her pushing Israel to a repeat of the Oslo disaster. While the Times undoubtedly used Rice's remarks as a tool to project their own editorial slant (what else is new?), that doesn't mean that Rice's other comments are really anything to be excited about.
I try not to hang on every word of the diplomatic give and take, so I have something of a "we'll see" attitude, but Lynn does assemble some evidence that gives cause for concern.
It is strange that nobody comments on this World Tribune report about Rice's surprise visit to Beirut:
U.S. asks Israel to withdraw from land claimed by Lebanon
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/front2453583.954861111.html
The UN was satisfied with Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon. They satisfied themselves as to the border.
Israel remains in control of Shebaa Farms that Hezbollah covets, but is actually Syrian land.
Why does Rice reward Hezbollah's hegemony?
"Washington sees the Shebaa Plateau as containing the potential of another Middle East crisis and the main excuse for Hizbullah's continued presence," a Lebanese official said. "We have been given the impression that results could be expected over the next year."
Members of Ms. Rice's delegation told Siniora that the administration would demand a timetable for an Israeli withdrawal from Shebaa after the unilateral pullout from the Gaza Strip and northern West Bank in August.
Lebanese officials said Sharon has agreed to consider the U.S. request. Officials said the United States envisions a staged approach that would ensure the restoration of Lebanese rule over southern Lebanon. The first step would be an Israeli pledge to withdraw from Shebaa, the focus of Hizbullah's insurgency campaign against the Jewish state.