"We should all work together to ensure that this time the fragile peace that we are solidifying in Lebanon is for good and that we are not going to see another escalation," Annan said after talks with Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz.

"My hopes are that with the French deployment moving forward and with the Italians beginning on Friday, that we should be able to double relatively quickly the 2,500 men we have on the ground and move up to 5,000 so that the Israelis can withdraw."

Peretz said Israel would pull out thousands of troops that remain in southern Lebanon once a "reasonable" number of U.N. soldiers had deployed but did not give a figure.

U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, which ushered in the truce, calls for deployment of 15,000 peacekeepers by November 4.

Annan, who met Olmert at his official residence, will also hold talks with Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni before traveling to the West Bank to meet Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Aides to Annan have said he will also travel to Syria and Iran, Hizbollah's main backers, later in the week.

BLOCKADE

Israel has refused to lift the blockade on Lebanon, saying U.N. troops must first deploy along the Lebanese frontier with Syria to prevent Hizbollah rearming. Hizbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid on July 12 sparked the war.

"The (resolution) is a fixed buffet and everything will be implemented, including the lifting of the blockade, as part of the entire implementation of the different articles," he said. Olmert was equally firm when it came to suggestions from Annan that Israel should withdraw all its troops from southern Lebanon within "days or weeks," once up to 5,000 U.N.-backed peacekeepers are on the ground. "Israel will pull out of Lebanon once the resolution is implemented," Olmert said, indicating a longer timeline. Annan, in Jerusalem after visiting Lebanon, is trying to strengthen a shaky, two-week-old truce that ended a 34-day war between Israel and Hizbollah. His top priority had been the lifting of the blockade, principally on economic grounds. "It is important not only because of the economic effect it is having on the country but it is also important to strengthen the democratic government of Lebanon with which Israel has repeatedly said it had no problems," Annan said. Annan said he hoped soon to double to 5,000 the number of U.N. troops in Lebanon and urged Israel and Hizbollah to end swiftly all disputes blocking a lasting ceasefire. On Tuesday, Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz said Israel would pull out thousands of troops that remain in southern Lebanon once a "reasonable" number of U.N. soldiers had deployed but did not give a figure. Resolution 1701 calls for a deployment of 15,000 U.N. peacekeepers by November 4, alongside Lebanese army troops.

Two Labor cabinet ministers, Culture and Sports Minister Ophir Pines-Paz and Minister in charge of the Israel Broadcasting Authority Eitan Cabel, said late Monday that they would vote against the Olmert's decision which still needs to be approved on Wednesday's cabinet meeting.

On Monday night, Olmert appointed two commissions in charge of investigating the political and military handling of the war respectively, rather than a widely called full state inquiry that has the authority to dismiss top officials.

According to his Monday night announcement, Olmert also assigned the State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss the task of investigating the wartime arrangement of Israel's home front that suffered heavy damage during the conflict.

But it seems that the state comptroller would not act according to Olmert's arrangement.

Lindenstrauss clarified on Tuesday that according to law, only the state comptroller's office is authorized to decide what it investigates, and it was critical the government uphold the comptroller's independence.

The job of assessing the war in the country's north was already in the state comptroller's jurisdiction, Lindenstrauss added.

Besides the criticism from political echelon, oppositions to Olmert's decision can also be heard from Israeli civilians.

Two days ago, a group of Israeli reserve soldiers who took part in the combat in Lebanon launched their post-war protest march from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, calling for Olmert's resignation.

One of the reserve soldiers taking part in the march, Yigal BenAmi from Tel Aviv, told local daily Yedioth Ahronoth that he feels the prime minister is "laughing in his face".

Such feeling grew stronger Monday after Olmert announced he will only be setting up two investigation panels to examine the war instead of calling for a full state inquiry, he added.

Elsewhere, other protesters headed by a member of the Movement for Quality Government have also initiated their own march heading for Jerusalem.

Olmert has been under heavy pressure to establish a state inquiry commission since the UN Security Council resolution 1701 took effect and brought the 34-day-long Israel-Hezbollah conflict to an end.

A poll published by Yedioth Ahronoth recently shows that over 60 percent of the Israelis are unsatisfied by Olmert's performance during the conflict.

They believe Israel's military operation didn't achieve the goal it was expected to, and the prime minister should resign.

During his Monday night speech, Olmert recognized the failure of the war with Hezbollah for the first time, saying "we did not always achieve the aims we hoped for. There were problems and failures."

However, Olmert reiterated his rejection to calls for a state probing commission, the most sweeping type of public inquiry, because "it would paralyze the leadership at a time when Israel needed to be prepare for a threat from Iran".

Israel and Lebanese Hezbollah broke out fighting on July 12 after two Israeli soldiers were captured and eight others killed by the Lebanese Shiite group in cross-border attacks.

The 34-day-long conflict caused over 1,000 Lebanese and 157 Israelis killed in addition to huge property damages and economic losses of both sides.

It came to a cease-fire on Aug. 14 thanks to the UN Resolution 1701.

Their original thesis, "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy" was presented in shortened form in the London Review of Books and prompted a lively controversy in both the mainstream press and academic journals as rarely has the subject of the power of the Israel Lobby been approached by two professors from such eminent universities. Mearsheimer is a professor of international politics and security issues at the University of Chicago and Walt is an international affairs scholar at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government.

Walt reviewed that thesis for the audience yesterday in his segment of the presentation, leaving Mearsheimer to discuss the role of the Lobby in the recent Israel-Hezbollah war. The destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure, the bombing of areas not associated with Hezbollah, and especially the killing of almost 1,600 civilians, many of them women and children - which constitutes an international war crime according to Amnesty International and other organizations - had no effect whatsoever on either the U.S. executive branch or Congress. On the contrary, working in lock-step with the Israel Lobby (especially AIPAC), Congress rushed through resolutions on both sides praising Israel for its war against Lebanon, disregarding the wanton death and destruction it was causing to civilian populations and to world opinion. The U.S. was the only country to support Israel in this war.

Mearsheimer reviewed the pressure brought on Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Sen. John Warner (R-VA) for offering softer language in the resolution, and on Chris van Hollen (D-MD) for daring to call for an immediate ceasefire in a letter to Condoleezza Rice. Van Hollen was in fact told what consequences he faced if he didn't withdraw his statement, and it came shortly thereafter in the form of an abject apology to the Jewish community. Nor, having received it, did local Jewish leaders seem satisfied, one saying that he needed to "continue to reach out to the Jewish community to reassure the Jewish community he was going to be there for Israel.".

Mearsheimer said that the evidence shows that the Israelis had briefed the American administration before launching the war on Hezbollah, and therefore the US was in a position to give it a "red light instead of a green light when it proposed its plan to attack Lebanon." It provided support for the war despite worldwide condemnation of the attack, and only when it appeared that the Israel army was unable to crush Hezbollah did the Bush administration and the Israel government accepted the need for negotiations. The US diplomacy at the UN earned President Bush a compliment when the Israeli prime minister thanked Bush on August 11 for "safeguarding Israel's interests in the Security Council."

He suggested that the United States had three major strategic concerns in the Middle East: terrorism ("mainly about neutralizing al-Qaeda"), dealing with rogue states ("Syria and Iran"), and the war in Iraq ("which the United States is in danger of losing.") He pointed out that support for Israel's war on Lebanon complicated Washington's ability to deal with all three concerns. The US position is so closely aligned with Israel these days that, as Mearsheimer quoted Aaron Miller, "there is no daylight whatsoever between the government of Israel and the government of the United States."

Did the US push Israel to attack Lebanon, as might a state order a client state to do? Mearsheimer thought not, but since the United States had been briefed about the attack, it should have said no for its own national interests and for those of Israel. He concluded, "Until the lobby begins to favor a different approach or until its influence is weakened, U.S. policy in the region will continue to be hamstrung to everyone's detriment."

Note: CNI filmed the press conference, and it will be available on the CNI website. In the meantime, it is available from C-Span.

"Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God." (Matthew 5:9)

Christian Zionism is a modern theological and political movement that embraces the most extreme ideological positions of Zionism, thereby becoming detrimental to a just peace within Palestine and Israel. The Christian Zionist programme provides a worldview where the Gospel is identified with the ideology of empire, colonialism and militarism. In its extreme form, it laces an emphasis on apocalyptic events leading to the end of history rather than living Christ's love and justice today.
We categorically reject Christian Zionist doctrines as false teaching that corrupts the biblical message of love, justice and reconciliation.

We further reject the contemporary alliance of Christian Zionist leaders and organizations with elements in the governments of Israel and the United States that are presently imposing their unilateral pre-emptive borders and domination over Palestine. This inevitably leads to unending cycles of violence that undermine the security of all peoples of the Middle East and the rest of the world.

We reject the teachings of Christian Zionism that facilitate and support these policies as they advance racial exclusivity and perpetual war rather than the gospel of universal love, redemption and reconciliation taught by Jesus Christ. Rather than condemn the world to the doom of Armageddon we call upon everyone to liberate themselves from the ideologies of militarism and occupation. Instead, let them pursue the healing of the nations!

We call upon Christians in Churches on every continent to pray for the Palestinian and Israeli people, both of whom are suffering as victims of occupation and militarism. These discriminative actions are turning Palestine into impoverished ghettos surrounded by exclusive Israeli settlements. The establishment of the illegal settlements and the construction of the Separation Wall on confiscated Palestinian land undermines the viability of a Palestinian state as well as peace and security in the entire region.

We call upon all Churches that remain silent, to break their silence and speak for reconciliation with justice in the Holy Land.

Therefore, we commit ourselves to the following principles as an alternative way:

We affirm that all people are created in the image of God. In turn they are called to honor the dignity of every human being and to respect their inalienable rights.

We affirm that Israelis and Palestinians are capable of living together within peace, justice and security.

We affirm that Palestinians are one people, both Muslim and Christian. We reject all attempts to subvert and fragment their unity.

We call upon all people to reject the narrow world view of Christian Zionism and other ideologies that privilege one people at the expense of others.

We are committed to non-violent resistance as the most effective means to end the illegal occupation in order to attain a just and lasting peace.

With urgency we warn that Christian Zionism and its alliances are justifying colonization, apartheid and empire-building.

God demands that justice be done. No enduring peace, security or reconciliation is possible without the foundation of justice. The demands of justice will not disappear. The struggle for justice must be pursued diligently and persistently but non-violently.

"What does the Lord require of you, to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God." (Micah 6:8)

This is where we take our stand. We stand for justice. We can do no other. Justice alone guarantees a peace that will lead to reconciliation with a life of security and prosperity for all the peoples of our Land. By standing on the side of justice, we open ourselves to the work of peace - and working for peace makes us children of God.

"God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation." (2 Cor 5:19)

His Beattitude Patriarch Michel Sabbah
Latin Patriarchate, Jerusalem

Archbishop Swerios Malki Mourad,
Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate, Jerusalem

Bishop Riah Abu El-Assal,
Episcopal Church of Jerusalem and the Middle East

Bishop Munib Younan,
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Jordan and the Holy Land

Siniora said a month of Israeli air strikes destroyed or damaged about 130,000 housing units mostly in south Lebanon. The conflict involved Israeli air strikes in Beirut, and ground fighting between Israeli troops and Hezbollah guerrillas for key border towns and villages in the south.

Israeli shelling, particularly in areas considered to be Hezbollah strongholds, flattened homes and apartment buildings.

The European Commission, meanwhile, said it plans to announce at a donors' conference in Sweden on Thursday that it will give $54 million for the rebuilding of Lebanon. The European Union has already earmarked $64 million for Lebanese emergency relief.

Hezbollah has already launched rebuilding campaigns in its strongholds and began rebuilding areas shortly after the UN brokered a ceasefire deal between its organization and the Israeli government on Aug. 14.

Lebanon's prime minister said his government will provide prefabricated houses to residents who need places to live while their homes are being rebuilt.

At the conference in Sweden, Siniora said he would ask delegates to agree to sponsor the rebuilding of specific villages damaged by air strikes.

Organizers of the conference have said they hope to raise $500 million in aid for Lebanon.

Israel has long sought a peace deal with Lebanon, but Beirut has hesitated as long as Israel's conflicts with the Palestinians and Syria remained unresolved.

Saniora said Lebanon wants to go back to the 1949 armistice agreement that formally ended the Arab-Israeli war over Israel's creation.

Also on Wednesday, a Hezbollah cabinet minister said that the guerrilla group will not release two captured Israeli soldiers unconditionally, and that they would only be freed in a prisoner exchange.

"There will be no unconditional release. This is not possible,'' Minister of Energy and Hydraulic Resources Mohammed Fneish said in Beirut. He is one of two Hezbollah members in Lebanon's Cabinet.

"There should be an exchange through indirect negotiations. This is the principle to which Hezbollah and the resistance are adhering,'' he said.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said earlier Wednesday that the Israel-Hezbollah cease-fire could be "a cornerstone to build a new reality between Israel and Lebanon.''

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan also said they hoped the cease-fire deal could evolve into a full-fledged peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon.

Implementation of the cease-fire "gives us a foundation to move forward and settle the differences between Israel and Lebanon once and for all, to establish a durable peace,'' Annan said.

Also Wednesday, Saniora said that his government would pay $33,000 per house to compensate residents whose homes were destroyed by Israeli attacks. The government has been criticized for being slow to respond with financial support for people who lost homes in the fighting.

Saniora said 130,000 housing units had been destroyed or damaged in more than a month of Israeli airstrikes and ground fighting with Hezbollah guerrillas, mostly in south Lebanon. He did not give a breakdown of the completely destroyed houses.

Hezbollah launched rebuilding campaigns in its strongholds within days of the Aug. 14 cease-fire, burnishing its support among residents.

Saniora said he would ask delegates to an international donors' conference in Sweden on Thursday to take responsibility for rebuilding specific villages hit by Israeli attacks. Organizers of the conference are aiming to raise $500 million in aid for Lebanon, Sweden's aid minister said Tuesday.

The European Commission said Wednesday it will pledge $54 million at the conference on top of the $64 million that the European Union's head office has already earmarked for emergency relief to Lebanon.

"We will deploy whatever number is necessary. If that is 15,000 men, we will deploy them. If we realise that we need more, we will ask for more. If it takes fewer, we will deploy fewer," he said.

"We will adjust to the situation on the ground," Guehenno said.

The enlarged UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) is intended to enforce a fragile ceasefire that ended a month of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah militants, supporting the Lebanese army as it deploys in southern Lebanon.

Guehenno said the force would include "major Muslim countries to show clearly that it a force that represents the whole world", adding that Lebanon was keen to see states such as Indonesia and Malaysia play a leading role.

He also repeated that UNIFIL would not take part in the disarmament of Hezbollah militias, saying that was a "political process" and "the responsibility of the Lebanese government".

"We have been very clear on this point. Disarmament does not need to be carried out by force. And UNIFIL does not have the mandate to do so."

However, he said it had both the "mandate" and "means" to "prevent any hostile activities" or any "military position being set up" near a UN position.

"We will have the means to avoid being pushed around, and we will not be pushed around," he said, when asked whether UNIFIL would consider using armed force against Hezbollah militias.

"Unfortunately, since the cessation of hostilities, there have been more Israeli violations than violations by armed elements in Lebanon," he added, warning the country remained in a "dangerous situation".

"It is very important that this stops because UNIFIL must not be challenged, from any side," he said.

The term "Bantustan" refers to an apartheid regime policy which set about the creation of "independent" homelands for black South Africans. These homelands possessed no genuine sovereignty and consisted of fragmented pieces of land in which the white authorities attempted to force people to live. Boundaries of the Bantustans were typically drawn to exclude valuable resources and arable land. The Bantustan policy was policy designed to facilitate the control of natural resources, exploitation of black South Africans and the delineation of excusive "white" space.

Expression of the term "apartheid" has been used to describe Israel's policies by a variety of prominent individuals including anti-apartheid campaigner Desmond Tutu, Israeli academics, left wing members of Israel's parliament and Palestinian human rights campaigners. Comparing the Bantustan policy to Israel's creation of Palestinian ghettos in the OPT shows the similarity of Zionist agenda to the racist ambitions of the South African apartheid regime. Enclaves in the West Bank are defined by the segregation wall, Jewish colonies, by pass roads, Israeli military orders and land restrictions. The Palestinian ghettos like the Bantustans are designed specifically to separate the native population for their land and resources and to enable the growth of Israeli settlements. In addition to this, the creation of enclaves surrounded by Israeli territory enables enhanced monitoring while acting as captive markets for Israeli goods and services.

Origins of Israeli apartheid date back to the occupation of West Bank and Gaza. Colonization of these areas immediately raised the question of what to do with the native inhabitants who would be act as an obstacle to colonial expansion while presenting a demographic threat to Israel's Jewish character. Up until the fist Intifada, the Zionist elite did not attempt to comprehensively address the Arab question. For instance, mass forced transfer of Palestinians was discussed but ultimately not adopted. Instead Israel preferred to ignore the presence of Arabs and continue building settlements and appropriating resources; attempting to create "positive" conditions in the OPT for the continued out migration of Palestinians particularly in East Jerusalem and along Israel's border regions. In this sense apartheid has not been an official policy of the state of Israel. Instead it has gradually manifested in the OPT as the logical conclusion to Zionist colonial ambitions which wants the land without the people.

Israel's unilateral disengagement is the final phase of the systemization of Israeli apartheid and adaptation to the social and political realities of occupation. The first Intifada sent a message to the Zionist elite that Palestinians would no longer tolerate occupation and the denial of their rights. More importantly it highlighted that in Palestinian areas would be difficult to control thus necessitating some form of disengagement.

Prior to the fist Intifada Israel was opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state considering all of Palestine to be rightful property of the Jewish people. However, with the emergence of resistance the two-state solution has been assimilated within Zionist colonial ambitions as a means of finally addressing the "Arab question". The creation of Palestinian "Bantustans" has enabled Israel to appear to be appeasing Palestinians by ending the occupation and giving them an independent "homeland". However, its ultimate purpose is to facilitate the preservation of Jewish space while increasing Israel's territory and control over resources for the benefit of its Jewish citizens.

Despite the apparent "closure" of unilateral disengagement, by observing population and social trends, this policy will ultimately fail in addressing Israel's security and demographic concerns. Palestinian populations in both Israel and the OPT are rapidity increasing and will continue to challenge the validity of a Jewish state where a sizable proportion of the population will be non-Jewish. Furthermore, as Israel continues colonization there is no guarantee that Palestinians will stop fighting for their rights and accept the "state" that Israel hands them. In twenty years time we might be seeing the Palestinian struggle less in terms of a national liberation movement but something similar to the black South African struggle against apartheid within a single state.

Owen Powell lives in Bethlehem, Palestine and is an assistant researcher at the Applied Research Institute Jerusalem (ARIJ).

Bibliography

Falah GW. (2004) War, Peace and Land Seizure in Palestine's Border Area Third World Quarterly 25 955-975

Falah GW. (2005) The Geopolitics of 'Enclavisation' and the Demise of a Two State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Third World Quarterly 26 1341-1372

Issac J., Qumsieh V., Owewi M., Hrimat N., Sabbah W., Sha'lan B., Hosh L., Bassous R., Al Hodali D., Al Dajani N., Abu Amrieh M., Al Junaidi F., Neiroukh F., Sleibi O., Al Halaykah A., Quttosh N., Al A'raj I., Zboun I. (1997) The Status of Environment in the West Bank Bethlehem: ARIJ, 1997

Isaac J., Rishmawi K., Safar A. (2004), The Impact of Israel's Unilateral Actions on the Palestinian Environment, Palestinian and Israeli Environmental Narratives, 5-8 December 2004, York University, Toronto

Jarbawi A. (2005) Remaining Palestinian Options Middle Eastern Studies 8 118-121

Lappin S. (2004) "Israel/Palestine: Is there a Case for Bi-Nationalism?" Dissent Magazine Winter, 2004

Morag N. (2001) Water, Geopolitics and State Building: A Case for Israel Middle Eastern Studies 8 179-198

Reuveny, R. (2005) The Binational State and the Colonial Imperative The Arab World Geographer 8 109-117

Moughrabi F. (2005) Waiting for the Barbarians: When Palestine Becomes Finland The Arab World Geographer 8 130-132

RAND (2005) Building a Successful Palestinian State RAND Corperation URL: http//www.rand.org

Sayigh Y. (2005) Closing Window of Opportunity for the Two-State Solution The Arab World Geographer 8 122-124

Schnell I. (2005) A Route Leading to Separation and Peace The Arab World Geographer 8 147-152

Tillely V. (2005) From "Jewish State and Arab State" to "Israel and Palestine"? International Norms, Ethnocracy, and the Two-State Solution The Arab World Geographer 8 140-146

Yiftachel O. (2005) Neither Two States or One: The Disengagement and "Creeping Apartheid" in Israel/Palestine The Arab World Geographer 8 125-129