Israeli raids in Syria highlight Arab conundrum

CAIRO (AP) — Five weeks ago, the head of the Arab League capped a summit in Qatar with an impassioned appeal to strengthen the rebel fighters trying to bring down Syrian President Bashar Assad. On Sunday, he denounced Israeli's airstrike into Assad's territory as a dangerous threat to regional stability.

The contrast reflects a fundamental conundrum for Arab leaders.

Nearly all Arab states have sided with the rebel forces seeking to topple Assad and inflict a blow to his main ally, Iran. And Sunday's attack by Israeli warplanes in Syria — the second in three days — was the type of punishing response many Arab leaders have urged from the West against Assad after more than two years of civil war.

The fact the fighter jets came from Israel, however, exposes the complications and regional crosscurrents that make Syria the Arab Spring's most intricate puzzle.

While Israel and much of the Arab world share suspicions about Iran, including worries over its nuclear ambitions and expanding military, the perception that they are allied against Assad — even indirectly — is strongly knocked down by many Arab leaders.

The airstrikes also highlight one of the critical side issues of the Syrian conflict: the Iranian-backed Shiite militant group Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The Israeli warplanes apparently targeted a shipment of highly accurate, Iranian-made Fateh-110 guided missiles believed to be bound for Hezbollah.

Toppling Assad would cut the arms pipeline that runs from Shiite giant Iran to Hezbollah. But Hezbollah remains deeply popular on the Arab street for its battles with Israel, including a war in 2006 in which Hezbollah fired thousands of rockets into Israel.

No Arab leader wants to be perceived as giving a green light for Israeli attacks.

Arab League chief Nabil Elaraby warned of serious repercussions from the Israeli attacks and called on the U.N. Security Council to "immediately move to stop the Israeli aggressions on Syria."

Elaraby described the Israeli airstrikes as a "grave violation of the sovereignty of an Arab state that will further complicate the issue in Syria and expose the region's security and stability to the most serious threats and consequences."

Also Sunday, Elaraby held talks with Mouaz al-Khatib, who recently resigned as chief of the Syrian National Coalition of opposition forces, to discuss the Israeli raids and other issues. At an Arab League summit in late March, Elaraby backed a declaration by host Qatar that gave member states "the right" to back the Syrian opposition.

Qatar and other wealthy Gulf Arab have become leading backers of Syria's opposition in a dual bid to expand their influence while crippling Iran. Official Gulf reaction to the Israeli attacks was limited to straightforward reports with little commentary.

Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi condemned Israel's airstrikes, calling them a violation of international law and warning they complicate the civil war in that country.

The statement from Morsi's office added that Egypt also "strongly objects" to the bloodshed and the use of Syria's military against its people, but rejected the violation of Syrian sovereignty and "exploiting its internal crisis under whatever pretext."

Egypt launched an Arab bid to bring a peaceful end Syria's civil war, but it gained little momentum.

Lebanon's Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour called on the Arab League to take a "firm stance regarding Israel's aggression against Syria." Mansour said that Israel is paving the way "for a wide aggression that would blow up the region."

In Iraq, the Syrian crisis has forced the Shiite-led government in Baghdad to try to balance its ties to Arab partners and its close bonds to Iran. In a statement, influential anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr said "Syria's dignity should be preserved" and urged Assad to "retaliate."

Egypt's Popular Current, a leftist opposition group headed by former presidential candidate Hamdeen Sabahi, said in a statement that it condemns the "licentious" Israeli attack.

"No single Arab person, regardless of how much they disagree with the regime of Bashar Assad, can accept this aggression," the group said, calling Israel the "first enemy" of the Arab world.

The airstrikes come as Washington considers how to respond to indications that the Syrian regime may have used chemical weapons. President Barack Obama has described the use of such weapons as a "red line," and the administration is weighing its options, including possible military action.

___

Murphy reported from Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

Israeli envoy says only peace can halt settlements

By Tim Witcher (AFP)

UNITED NATIONS — Israel will only stop its disputed settlement building when the Palestinians make a peace agreement, its UN ambassador said ahead of new Security Council talks Monday on the Middle East conflict.

But Israel would be concerned if Arab nations pressed ahead with a campaign to get United Nations recognition of a Palestinian state before any accord, the envoy, Meron Reuben, told AFP in an interview.

Reuben will face new international pressure when he appears before a UN Security Council meeting on Israeli-Palestinian hostilities. The United States and most world powers have backed Palestinian demands that Israel renew a freeze on settlement building in the occupied territories.

"People understand," Reuben declared. "I don't think they agree with the way we are going, but they definitely understand the fact that settlements are not a burden on the peace process and not something that will stop the peace process."

Palestinian negotiators withdrew from new US-brokered talks with Israel two weeks ago when Israel's 10-month moratorium on settlement construction ended. The Israeli government faced new protests on Friday when it approved 238 new homes in East Jerusalem.

"The other side is only looking for pretexts to put obstacles in the road, because they were never an obstacle in the road" in the past, Reuben said.

The ambassador said Israeli settlements in the Sinai desert did not prevent the 1979 peace treaty with Egypt -- "and they were dismantled" -- nor Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005.

"They were not an obstacle when we dealt with the Palestinians year-in and year-out since 1993" when the Oslo accords were made.

He highlighted that the moratorium launched at the end of 2009 was unilateral and that the Palestinians and Arab leaders did not accept it at the time.

"They thought it would not help one iota," said Reuben. "And here we are 10 months later and it is the only game in town. Wow! The settlements are the most important thing and they have become a pre-condition."

He added: "The only way may to stop settlements is to come to an agreement. That would be ... if the Palestinians set up a Palestinian state in a demarcated area, then I presume the settlements in that area would definitely stop."

According to Reuben, the settlements, like the borders of any new Palestinian state and refugees from the conflict, must be settled in talks. And the ambassador highlighted that it was barely six weeks into the one year that the United States has sought to relaunch peace efforts.

Some Arab nations have indicated they will ask the United Nations to recognise a Palestinian state if these negotiations remain deadlocked.

In an intervew with Palestinian newspaper, Al-Ayyam, published last week, French Foreign Minister Bernard also did not rule out possible UN Security Council discussion of a Palestinian state, if the deadlock is prolonged.

"It is still talk at the moment," said Reuben. "One would hope that we would not get to that."

"These are heresays at the moment. I am not so sure that it is not something that is being used to pressure different places, but if you look at the Palestinian Authority, it is already recognised by so many tens of nations around the world.

"Officially there would be a very great difference. It will be interesting to see how the world body deals with that because that would be totally different to anything we have seen before on the world stage."

When asked how Israel would react, he said: "I will be frank with you. At this moment I don't know."

Israel "would prefer a Palestinian state to be set up under mutual agreement and not under unilateral declaration. But if it is set up as a unilateral declaration we will have to deal with it.

"We would prefer to see agreement reached between the two sides and not imposed," he said.

NORDLAND WITH MALAYSIAKINI: Israel has fewer friends than ever

The last malaysiakini sharing of corpses and politics by Jafri explore the brutal side of politics exposing both winners and losers. Nordland on the other hand is looking at coiling up of Israel, a self imposed isolation.


After Gaza War
Israel has fewer friends than ever
even in America

Rod Nordland


Israel has never been more isolated. Its best friend, the United States, had vetoed 41 Security Council resolutions condemning Israel in the past three decades, but was about to vote for the Jan. 8 resolution denouncing the attack on Gaza when President Bush intervened, at the behest of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Still, in the face of unprecedented global criticism, the U.S. didn't dare veto, but merely abstained. Europe, never Israel's close ally, erupted in near unanimous outrage over Gaza, with fits of anti-Semitic violence in France, Sweden and Belgium.

Israel is accustomed to attacks from the left and the U.N. This time, though, Amnesty International has accused Israel of war crimes (using white phosphorus against civilians), and the secretary-general was unusually outspoken. After Israel bombed five U.N. compounds, Ban Ki-moon called the attack "heartbreaking … outrageous and unacceptable." His condemnation of Hamas rocket attacks came later, in milder terms.

Israel's last major military excursion, into Lebanon in 2006, aroused less anger. Its closest European ally is Britain, where Tony Blair initially refused to call for a ceasefire in Lebanon. By day two in Gaza, his Labour successors were pushing for a ceasefire; one M.P. called Israel's leaders "mass murderers." The global outcry in 2006 was tempered by disgust at Hizbullah's rocket campaign, which killed 43 in heavily populated northern Israel. This time, Hamas rockets hit a patch of sparsely populated southern Israel, killing three, while the Israeli response has been far more deadly. Some 1,300 Palestinians have been killed—compared with 500 Shiites in Lebanon.

The one region where Israel is arguably not more isolated is the Middle East. Israel's push for Arab recognition suffered a setback when Mauritania and Qatar severed relations, but four Arab summits have reached no consensus on how to respond to Gaza. Major states, led by Jordan and Egypt, want to lend no comfort to their Persian rival, Iran, the backer of Hamas. Moreover, Hamas has not emerged as a plucky hero to the Arab world, the way Hizbullah did in 2006. When the fighting quieted last week, Hamas held a "victory" parade in Gaza City, and it fizzled.

Israel has just one key friend. Could Obama, who promised the Muslim world "a new way forward" in his Inaugural Address, loosen the bond? A recent Pew poll shows 55 percent of U.S. Republicans, but only 45 percent of Democrats, approve of Israel's actions in Gaza. Given that Democrats now rule, Israel may need to worry more about the mood on Main Street than on the Arab Street.

[ full here: Israel ]

POWER WITH MALAYSIAKINI: Gaza War and Israeli Election

War is not always about settling score, or for territorial enlargement. The prime purpose for a bloody war may just lay hidden in shreds of history and misery. Lets share with Malaysiakini, the bloody war of Gaza as the Israeli Election is looming near.


Corridors of Power
Israeli Election

Roland Flamini
16 Jan 2009

ISRAEL MIGHT FIGHT FIRST, VOTE LATER
-- Even with the faint prospect of a ceasefire in the offing, there is talk of postponing Israel's Feb. 10 national elections. For one thing, none of the parties has been campaigning; the public has been distracted (though not unduly dismayed: a recent poll showed only 10 percent of Israelis are against the Gaza incursion, and 82 percent believe Israel has not "gone too far"); and then there is the rather pious argument that a postponement would prevent resolution of the conflict from becoming a political issue.

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni is flying to Washington this weekend to sign a hastily arranged deal for new surveillance equipment for the Israeli-Gaza border. The Israelis insist on this as a component of any ceasefire agreement. But even if the fighting ended next week, it would still leave precious little time to gear up for an election. Even Labor leader and defense minister Ehud Barak, whose popularity has blossomed as a result of the Israeli offensive, may not want to rush to the polls.

A survey by the newspaper Haaretz forecasts 16 Knesset seats for Labor in the election, up from an estimated six seats before the fighting started in November. But the overall picture is not that good for the comeback kid of Israeli politics, and he may want campaign time to consolidate his lead. As things now stand, it's Likud opposition leader Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu who would be able to cobble up a conservative alliance of 62 Knesset seats, leaving the center-left Livni-Barak partnership able to muster only 56. The snag for Netanyahu: his government would be one of those typical Israeli crazy-quilt pastiches that will be difficult to manage -- and probably short-lived.

NO WAY TO TREAT A FRIEND?
-- Meanwhile, many Israelis have been taken aback by the vehemence of Turkish leaders in attacking the Gaza operation. To be sure, censuring Israel for the Gaza fighting has not been restricted to its enemies. But to Israelis, the declarations of Turkey's moderate Islamist prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, have gone beyond censure. Having already said that God will punish Israelis by hastening their self destruction for violating "the rights of the innocent" in Gaza, Erdogan on Thursday called for Israel to be barred from the United Nations because it had ignored a resolution calling for a halt in the Gaza fighting.

It was not always thus: In the 1990s Israel and Turkey -- a NATO member with aspirations to join the European Union -- built a strong bilateral relationship, initially based on weapons deals, but branching out to trade and cultural exchanges. For example, Israel has an ongoing 20-year deal to receive 1.75 billion cubic feet of water from Turkey, paid for partly by Israeli weapons. Well into the 2000s, Israel was still a significant source of hi-tech weapons for Turkey, which enhanced bilateral military ties.

More recently, however, Erdogan has edged away from friendship with Israel, improving relations with Syria and Iran. That's understandable. After all, they are Turkey's neighbors. But Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal isn't, and in 2006, Erdogan gave him the full VIP treatment in Ankara. What is perceived as Turkey's new ambivalence about Israel is doubtless part of that country's internal struggle between its secular identity and Islamic pressure. But many see it as an early sign of Turkey's drift away from its earlier European aspirations.

[Corridors of Power: Israeli Elections,
World Politics Review ]


beritadarigunung

Iran's President Has Much at Stake in Gaza Outcome

As Israel gambles on a potentially messy ground invasion of Hamas-controlled Gaza, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also has a lot at stake in the outcome of the fighting.

Mr. Ahmadinejad's history of criticizing Israel, and his recent strong condemnation of the Gaza assault, has helped garner a new measure of popular respect across the region. That comes as more moderate Arab states, especially Egypt, draw sharp rebuke for failing to act forcefully enough to stop the violence.

Condemnation of the Israeli offensive has also become a rallying cry for thousands of Iranians. If the ground invasion drags on, popular, anti-Israel outpourings in Tehran -- on display during a large demonstration Friday -- could serve Mr. Ahmadinejad as a convenient distraction. He faces mounting criticism of his economic policies ahead of presidential elections later this year.

Last week, Mr. Ahmadinejad introduced a series of economic reforms aimed at reducing expensive fuel and other subsidies. Economists say the move is necessary to relieve mounting fiscal pressure on Tehran amid sharply falling oil prices. But the measures, if they're enacted, are expected to be deeply unpopular among everyday Iranians.

Large demonstrations in Tehran, like the anti-Israel protests staged recently, are tightly controlled by the Iranian leadership. Some analysts also suggested recent demonstrations -- including the brief storming of the British diplomatic compound in Tehran Tuesday -- could be a subtle way for hard-line supporters of Mr. Ahmadinejad to send a message to more moderate politicians considering a presidential challenge to Mr. Ahmadinejad.

In Tehran on Friday, a crowd of about 6,000 marched from prayers at Tehran University to Palestine Square, chanting "Death to Israel" and "Death to America."

Hardliners "want to warn competitors" that they still command strong popular support, said Saeed Laylaz, a prominent Iranian economist in Tehran.

Region-wide, the fighting represents the latest chapter in a competition for influence in the Middle East between moderate, Western-aligned Arab leaders on one side, and Iran and Syria on the other. Key to Tehran's recent, regional ambitions is its backing of Hamas and the Lebanese political and militant group Hezbollah.

Earlier this year, Hezbollah took to the streets of Beirut in a show of force that ultimately won the group a bigger say in a new power-sharing government with Western-leaning politicians. The move boosted Tehran's standing considerably as a regional power broker, at the expense of the U.S., which designates Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorist organizations.

Western governments accuse Tehran of funneling cash and weapons to Hamas, which won Palestinian-wide elections in 2006 and took control of Gaza in a bloody sweep in 2007. Iran has denied arming Hamas.

With Gazan borders sealed by Egypt and Israel, Tehran can offer little real assistance to militants battling Israeli tanks and troops. But if Hamas manages to bog down Israeli troops during the invasion -- as Hezbollah fighters did in southern Lebanon in 2006 -- Tehran stands to gain once again.

Similarly, if Israel delivers a crushing blow to Hamas, Iranian officials could see one of their most effective irritants against Washington and Israel significantly degraded. Nine days of pounding aerial bombardments have already destroyed much of Hamas's governing infrastructure, including police stations and security posts.

"I don't think the Iranian government is happy with the situation," said one Tehran-based political analyst. "To them Hamas is one of their deterrents. This is one of the things they threaten the West with."

As Western officials conferred with Israeli officials in recent days about the terms of a possible ceasefire arrangement, Iranian officials met with Syrian counterparts and Hamas representatives. Saeed Jalili, secretary of Iran's powerful Supreme National Security Council, met Syrian president Bashar Assad Saturday, according to Syria's state news agency. He met the day before with Hamas's leader-in-exile, Khaled Meshal, who resides in Damascus

source:
Iran's President Has Much at Stake in Gaza Outcome
Wall Street Journal

Israel has history of failure in ground attacks

Israel has a long and largely unsuccessful history of sending ground forces into Palestinian and Lebanese cities. Its forces have either gotten bogged down or sustained heavy casualties, without quelling violent groups or halting attacks for good.

The most recent example is the 2006 war against Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas, who fought mighty Israel to a draw. But that conflict also spawned a concept that could be applied in Gaza — an international force.

Israel launched a massive land invasion of the Gaza Strip on Saturday, but its reluctance to send infantry and armored units into Gaza this time was palpable. Ex-generals and analysts warned that an operation big enough to stop the daily rocket barrages from Gaza would require large masses of forces and result in high casualties on both sides.

Israel insists it has no intention of recapturing the Gaza Strip after pulling its army and settlements out of the territory in 2005. Such an operation would require sweeps through cities and refugee camps, house-to-house combat and mass destruction, while leaving Israel's soldiers as easy targets for grenades, mortars, booby traps and even suicide bombers.

Israel does not have the stomach for such military casualties and past experience has shown that world opinion would not allow Israel to kill and injure thousands of Palestinians in an effort to clean out Gaza down to the last militant and rocket.

That leaves the formula that has been tried in the past and failed — a limited offensive, taking control of northern Gaza, the area where militants generally fire rockets at Israel. That has halted the rocket barrages as long as the Israeli forces are there but the militants simply resume their volleys on the heels of the withdrawing soldiers.

Israel frequently does not dictate how long it will stay.

In the past, Israeli ground offensives have been cut short when an errant shell or missile hit a civilian center, killing and wounding women and children, leading to an international outcry that forced Israel to stand down.

In 1996, an invasion of southern Lebanon to quell militant rocket fire at northern Israel was aborted after an artillery shell hit a camp of villagers next to a U.N. post, killing about 100 people.

In November 2006, Israeli forces withdrew from northern Gaza after a shell hit a house, killing 18 members of a family, including eight children, setting off a world outcry. Rocket fire at Israel resumed immediately.

Even when Israel keeps its forces in the field for a longer time, the outcome is not necessarily as desired.

Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, ostensibly to push Palestinian militants away from the border. The real plan, as revealed later, was to install a pro-Israel government in Beirut. That failed, but Israeli forces remained in large parts of Lebanon until 1985 and in south Lebanon until 2000.

The result of that long occupation was the creation of the Hezbollah. In periodic flareups, Hezbollah fired rockets at Israel and the Israelis fired back with artillery and airstrikes.

In July 2006, after Hezbollah guerrillas crossed the border, killed three soldiers and captured two others, Israel ordered a full-scale military operation, starting with airstrikes all over Lebanon and ending with a ground operation — a similar formula to the current Gaza campaign.

The well-entrenched Lebanese guerrillas inflicted painful casualties on the Israelis and rained almost 4,000 rockets on Israel in a war that an Israeli commission of inquiry castigated as hastily approved, faultily planned and badly fought. Israelis consider the 2006 Lebanon war a blot on their military record.

But in a key move with implications for today, the U.N. Security Council stepped in with a resolution that sent a beefed-up peace force to south Lebanon, with a mandate of keeping the area clear of arms and explosives.

While Israel charges that Hezbollah has rearmed and retaken its old positions, the precedent could be applied in Gaza — and one of Israel's stated goals in its current operation is to change the reality on the ground.

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni flew to Paris on Thursday to offer input on international efforts for a cease-fire. Next week a parade of diplomats is to come through Jerusalem, trying to end the Gaza conflict. Israel has let it be known that it wants international monitoring.

Part of any new truce arrangement would require Israel to keep its border crossings open to resupply Gaza with vital products like food, fuel and medicine, a major achievement for Gaza's Hamas regime.

At this point, Israel is not pushing for an armed peacekeeping force. But if it ends up with any international contingent, including one carrying a mandate to stop Gaza militants from firing rockets — Israel could chalk up a significant gain from its offensive.

source: Israel has history of failure in ground attacks International Herald Tribune

Israel facing problem of finding exit strategy for Gaza operation

JERUSALEM, Jan. 1 (Xinhua) -- As the Israel Defense Forces (IDF)operation in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip continued on Thursday, Israel is now facing the primary problem of finding an exit strategy for the operation, an expert said.

The operation, dubbed Cast Lead, entered its sixth day on Thursday. According to Palestinian sources, the offensive beginning Saturday has so far killed over 400 people and injured over 2,000 others.

Hamas, the Gaza ruler, has sustained significant damage, and its operatives have hidden out in hospitals and mosques, said Israel's Shin Bet security agency on Wednesday, noting that "Hamas has been attacked like it has never been attacked before."

"As is common in these situations, Israel's primary problem is finding an exit strategy," said Shlomo Brom, a senior research fellow of the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University.

"That is, how are the achievements of the military campaign translated into the desired results. Such a strategy impacts on the length of the campaign and the additional steps that may be taken," said Brom.

According to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the goals of the operation are "to fundamentally improve the security situationin the southern part of the country."

In Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak's terms, the objectives are "to change the situation from the foundation and ensure that there will be no more fire or other hostile activity coming from Gaza."

Wider objectives -- such as toppling the Hamas regime or conquering Gaza -- were not presented, noted Brom.

This suggests that the method of operation has been chosen to exact a toll of Hamas and weaken it in order to create a new balance of deterrence between Israel and Hamas, assuming that Hamas will exercise more restraint in initiating attacks against Israel once it grasps the steep price it will have to pay and its limited ability to cope with the Israeli response, he said.

"In other words, Israel is striving for a new, stable and long lasting ceasefire with a weakened Hamas under terms that reflect the change in the balance of power. Among the new conditions would be a ban on Hamas activity near the border with Israel and limiting, to the extent possible, the smuggling of arms into Gaza," explained the expert.

An Israeli military helicopter flies over the northern Gaza Strip on Jan. 1, 2009. Israeli warplanes continued airstrikes Thursday on the Gaza Strip for the sixth day, leaving 410 Palestinians dead and nearly 2,000 others wounded. (Xinhua/Yin Bogu) Photo Gallery>>>

"For Hamas, it will do what it can to prevent this outcome. It would seem that its basic objective is also a new ceasefire, but on its own terms, i.e., with no limits on its ability to operate in the Gaza Strip area and along the Egyptian border, and with crossings to Egypt and Israel that are open regularly," he said.

According to the expert, Hamas' primary available tool is continued harassment of Israel, and the main component of Hamas' response is its continued ability to launch rockets and mortars of a long enough range to disrupt the daily routine of many Israelis.

On Thursday, Gaza militants continued its retaliatory barrage, firing rockets and mortar shells at southern Israel with a range of up to 40 kilometers. Since Saturday, the fire has caused four deaths and over a dozen injuries on the Israeli side.

However, the main problem of Hamas is that the IDF has successfully struck a significant part of Hamas' capabilities and to a considerable extent suppressed its ability to deploy the forces left at its disposal, said Brom.

"Therefore, Hamas is likely to try to rehabilitate its ability to deploy its forces, ideally with reduced exposure to IDF deterrent capabilities, and at the same time resort to other means of attack," he said.

Though Israel is mulling an exit strategy for its Gaza operation, and Hamas appears to be willing to accept a new ceasefire based on its own terms, it is by no means an easy job for the two sides to reach a new truce in the near future.

There are two possible mechanisms for Israel to attain its goals, said Brom.

The first is striving for an agreement or understandings with Hamas about a ceasefire under new terms through mediators from the Arab world and beyond who would be able to negotiate with both sides, he said, adding that the advantage of an agreement or understandings is the ability to create a more stable ceasefire than before.

The second mechanism is a unilateral ceasefire on the part of both sides, under terms in which the price of transgressing the ceasefire terms would be made very clear to Hamas.

This would require no agreement or formal understandings, but such a ceasefire is less stable because the two sides may offer different interpretations of what is allowed and what is not, without there being any sort of mechanism to handle problems that arise, Brom warned.

Above all, it is necessary to find mediators who can examine the different options and help end the fighting so that Israel's strategic objectives of the operation will be realized based on the military moves that serve these objectives, noted the expert.

In Brom's opinion, as soon as the goals are attained, Israeli leaders would prefer to end the fighting.

On Thursday, Olmert said during a tour to the rocket-battered southern city of Beersheba that Israel has no interest in extending the ongoing offensive in Gaza.

"We have no interest in waging a prolonged war ... We are also not eager to wage a war on a wide front," he said.

The premier reiterated that Israel does not mean to harm Gaza civilians but to strike Hamas with "an iron fist," saying that he was hopeful that the goals of the operation would be attained quickly.

Commenting on a possible ceasefire with Hamas, Olmert said that he is interested in establishing an international supervision and enforcement mechanism for any Gaza truce, which he has reportedly made a precondition of any such deal.

"If the conditions mature and we think they offer a solution that ensures a better security situation for southern Israel, then we will consider the matter. But we aren't there yet," said Olmert on Wednesday.

Israel facing problem of finding exit strategy for Gaza operation
Xinhua