Who is Anthony Zinni? Was the Powell speech good or bad for Israel? Arutz-7\'s Haggai Segal spoke with former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Zalman Shoval today about these issues. Shoval said, \"I don\'t know Zinni, but I would advise us to wait and see, and not pre-judge him. What\'s important is the mandate he receives from Powell: His purpose is to reach a ceasefire, and Powell said that he will \"remain\" here to get that cease-fire in place.\"
Asked why he, as well as official Israel, was so satisfied with Powell\'s speech, Shoval said,
\"Our satisfaction is based first of all on the fact that our evaluations of the speech were correct - as opposed to some who tried to scare us that he was coming with a very detailed plan that had dropped the demand for seven days of quiet... True, he called for a stop to settlements, but this was in the framework of the Mitchell plan - which according to our interpretation, which I believe is the correct one, means [that an end to terrorism must come first]...
\"Regarding his call for a Palestinian state: The Americans in the past did not use this exact term, but were close to it. Carter and Clinton talked about a homeland for the Palestinians... Furthermore, this call is based on UN Resolution 242 that calls for secure borders for Israel - which obviously cannot describe a border that is 2.5 kilometers from Ben-Gurion International Airport and very close to Tel Aviv... The American Ambassador himself who was involved in writing this formulation said that a full Israel withdrawal from Yesha is \'incompatible\' with 242.\"
Asked why he, as well as official Israel, was so satisfied with Powell\'s speech, Shoval said,
\"Our satisfaction is based first of all on the fact that our evaluations of the speech were correct - as opposed to some who tried to scare us that he was coming with a very detailed plan that had dropped the demand for seven days of quiet... True, he called for a stop to settlements, but this was in the framework of the Mitchell plan - which according to our interpretation, which I believe is the correct one, means [that an end to terrorism must come first]...
\"Regarding his call for a Palestinian state: The Americans in the past did not use this exact term, but were close to it. Carter and Clinton talked about a homeland for the Palestinians... Furthermore, this call is based on UN Resolution 242 that calls for secure borders for Israel - which obviously cannot describe a border that is 2.5 kilometers from Ben-Gurion International Airport and very close to Tel Aviv... The American Ambassador himself who was involved in writing this formulation said that a full Israel withdrawal from Yesha is \'incompatible\' with 242.\"