Livni on the UN Security Council Ceasefire Resolution

From remarks by Tzipi Livni at a press Conference with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier in Jerusalem yesterday  [Translated from Hebrew]:

We are engaged in a war against terror. This struggle is not a one-time shot; this is not about a conflict between two countries that is about to conclude with some kind of agreement. We embarked on a military operation in order to achieve military goals, to make it clear to Hamas that Israel will no longer accept the status quo, and to change the equation so they know that when Israel is fired at, Israel reacts and with a great deal of force. Now they know it.

The second part has to do not only with the international understanding that is currently being expressed everywhere, that action must be taken to prevent smuggling, but also with the subsequent implementation of this idea. . .

Anyone who understands what is happening in the political situation, in any military operation, knows that at one point or another a decision is made of the type the Security Council reached. Anyone who ever understood, or came close to understanding these things, knows that when Israel starts a military operation, with every justification in the world, and when it’s the right thing for Israel to do, the international instinct is to immediately cool down the flames.

From the onset, I did not agree to accept the process in the Security Council because this is a war on terror, and I do not intend to let it end with some kind of general statement of “stop it” to both sides. . .

Besides the demand for a ceasefire - which I don’t like, because I want to determine when I stop and not have the world determine it - but besides that, the rest of the points that appear in the Security Council resolution represent Israeli interests. Specifically: a war on the smuggling, which had not been addressed previously, having the crossings opened not by Hamas but by Palestinian Authority President Abbas; viewing the smuggling as a violation of the ceasefire; every future Palestinian agreement being contingent on accepting the three conditions, as stipulated in the previous resolution; and the IDF can, if it wants to, remain in the field until a true and sustainable ceasefire is achieved and not just a temporary one. . .

From the very beginning I thought it wrong to hold a discussion in the Security Council. I was not looking for a platform to reach agreements with Hamas, I wasn’t looking for a call for a ceasefire, so that did not seem to me to be the way to end the military operation.

What we have here is a war on terror. The entire international community is fighting terror. The members of the Security Council are partners in coalitions in various places in the world that are doing this on a daily and hourly basis, so this didn’t need to end at all with a Security Council resolution, as far as I’m concerned.