Ehud Barak: "... We cannot accept these artificial differentiations between the terrorists of Hezbollah &amp; the state of Lebanon &amp; their sponsors ..."

Saturday 27 February 2010

Ehud Barak: "... We cannot accept these artificial differentiations between the terrorists of Hezbollah & the state of Lebanon & their sponsors ..."

Via Friday-Lunch-Club

Ehud Barak at WINEP/ here

"... Israel is the strongest nation thousand miles around Jerusalem, but we are realistic and open-eyed. There will be no peace in the Middle East before the other side, all our neighbors and rivals, will realize that Israel cannot be defeated by the mere use of force, cannot be entreated through terror and cannot be dragged through political naivety (a jab at President Obama?) into diplomatic honey traps.......
We cannot afford making any compromises regarding the security of Israel, but we have to notice the changes on the other side. One cannot ignore the gradual transformation of the Arab dialogue vis-à-vis Israel. From the four (sic: three) no’s of Khartoum, some 40-odd years ago, no negotiations, no recognition, no peace – what had been taken by force will be taken back by force – into the present day’s almost contest among the Arab players who will provide the peace plan that will be adopted by the international community and become the cornerstone of the final agreement between us and the Arab world.

A successful peace process – especially with the Palestinians – is not just in the interest of Israel. It is a compelling imperative for the state of Israel. And that’s why I say it’s the uppermost responsibility of any Israeli government. Not as a favor to the Palestinians, but out of our own interests – out of strength and without compromising our security......

And I can tell you that having – talking about the opportunities, I cannot ignore the issue of Syria. It’s not a secret that in Israel, both myself as defense minister in the past and now, as well as the Israel defense establishment on all its levels, believe that we have – in the Middle East – have strategic interest in putting an end to our conflict with Syria. We have been in negotiations in this city and in the other places regarding to this issue under Rabin and during Peres’ government, Netanyahu previous government, my government and Olmert’s government. .....

Having said that, I can tell you that we are strong enough to face a deterioration if it happens on our northern front, but we are not interested in it; we will not initiate it; and I don’t believe that anyone in the region – in the immediate neighborhood of Israel – really needs it.

We follow carefully what happens in Lebanon and I think that the time has come to deal with it in a much more straight and real manner. The essence of 1701 – the U.N. Security Council resolution following the last war in the north in 2006 – was to put an end to this anomality (ph) of the existence of Hezbollah in Lebanon. And instead of solving the problem, it just allowed it to become more complicated. There is a bizarre anomaly there. Lebanon is a member state of the United Nations. It happens to have a militia. The militia happen to have members in parliament, even ministers in the cabinet with a veto power over the decision of the Lebanese government.

Now, it is supported and equipped by two other member states of the United Nations, Syria and Iran, technologically and with equipment. And many civil servants in uniform and without uniform of both member states of the United Nations are serving in Lebanon within the chain of command of Hezbollah and giving orders stemming out of the interests not of the Lebanese people but of other players.

And it happens to be that this militia doesn’t just develop a new long bow or more effective arrows, but it happened to have 45,000 rockets and missiles that happen to cover all Israel ...... a weapons system that some – many sovereigns do not have.
We cannot accept it. We cannot accept these artificial differentiations between the terrorists of Hezbollah and the state of Lebanon and their sponsors. And we keep saying, we do not need any conflict there; we will not lead it towards one. But if attacked, we will not run or chase any individual Hezbollah terrorist –.......

So we make it clear: We don’t need this conflict but if it is imposed upon us, we will not run after every individual terrorist but we will take both the Lebanese government and other sources of sponsorship, but mainly the Lebanese government and the Lebanese infrastructure as part of the equation facing us....
And last word about Iran. Iran is not just a challenge to Israel. I believe it is a challenge for the whole world...... And I think that we can like it or not. I believe that most of us do not like it, but we cannot close our eyes to what’s really happened in a such a delicate corner of the world. If Iran will not be stopped from moving there, it will reach at certain point nuclear military capability and one can close his eyes and see what it means. A nuclear Iran means the end of any nonproliferation regime because Saudi Arabia and probably another two or three members of the Middle Eastern community will feel compelled to reach nuclear capability as well. And it will open the door for any third-grade dictator who has a nuclear ambition to understand that if he is strong enough mentally to defy any kind of threats from the world, he will reach nuclear military capability.

I don’t think the Iranians have North Korea as their example – probably some certain example of how easy it could be to defy and deceive the whole world, but basically they probably think of themselves as another Pakistan and probably they started it totally independent from the issue of Israel (reminding us of the Shah?).

But they gradually adopted us as a major cause for their hegemonic intentions ....

And you will realize how intensive, concrete and conclusive we should be in regard to this threat before it materializes. And it’s not just about hegemonic, nuclear capabilities. I don’t think that the Iranians, even if they got the bomb, they are going to drop it immediately on some neighbor. They fully understand what might follow. They are radicals but not total meshuganas. (Laughter.)

....... they have quite sophisticated decision-making process and they understand realities. But it’s not just in the nuclear arena. It’s also in the hegemonic intentions: They might intimidate neighbors all around the Gulf....

.....I feel that the administration is doing an utmost effort to deliver an effective set of sanctions; we appreciate it and we hope it will be successful.

But we also should carry certain skepticism and always think thoroughly and in a consequential manner about what should happen if, against our hopes, wishes and dreams, it won’t work. We are all aware of the certain tensions simmering underneath the surface in Iran and especially following the elections and what happened recently. We see that the grip of the regime on its own people and even the cohesion of the leading group of ayatollahs are both being cracked and probably the countdown, historic countdown toward the collapse has already started (Israel?), but I don’t know of any serious observer who can tell us whether it will take 2 years, 4 years, 6 years or 10. And it’s clear to me that the clock toward the collapse of this regime works much slower than the clock which ticks toward Iran becoming nuclear military power....."