U.S. Insists Cease-Fire Must Await Plan to Disarm Hezbollah

By JIM RUTENBERG and THOM SHANKER

08/02/06 "New York Times" -- -- WASHINGTON, Aug. 1 — The United States firmly reiterated its position on Tuesday that there can be no cease-fire in the Middle East until there is a solid plan in place to disarm Hezbollah.

“The United States is working for a cease-fire, for an end to the hostilities that will not allow a return to the status quo ante,” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Tuesday night on “The O’Reilly Factor,” on Fox News Channel. “If we don’t work for a cease-fire that will be lasting and enduring, then we’re going to be right back here in several months talking about another cease-fire.”

Ms. Rice had seemed to be ready to hasten the diplomatic effort to end the crisis as she prepared to leave Jerusalem for home on Monday, saying a solution was possible this week. But after she had dinner at the White House with Mr. Bush on Monday night, and France effectively postponed a United Nations session to work out the details of a international peacekeeping force, the administration strongly reiterated its message: a cease-fire will not be hastened without a plan to make it a lasting one.

On Tuesday, European officials, joined by some United States counterparts, said the diplomacy could easily extend into next week.

Also on Tuesday, thousands of Israeli troops streamed into southern and eastern Lebanon as part of a clearly widening offensive.

Despite some criticism that the Israeli Army had been less effective than expected, Israeli officials said that the offensive could help push Hezbollah farther back into Lebanese territory, clearing the way for an international peacekeeping force. American officials said that could accelerate the diplomacy by making conditions more conducive to a cease-fire.

Indicating that the United States did not have endless patience, Ms. Rice said in an interview on “News Hour with Jim Lehrer” on Tuesday that she was seeking a solution in “days, not weeks,” differing with the Israeli deputy prime minister, Shimon Peres, who said in an earlier interview on the program that the military campaign was a matter of “weeks, not of months.”

“This does not go so precisely toward the immediate cessation of hostilities we are seeking,” a European official said of the new Israeli incursion.

The official, who requested anonymity to avoid upstaging her nation’s leaders, complained that the United States position almost guaranteed that Hezbollah would continue to press the fight, and would undermine any efforts by the Lebanese government to persuade the group to disarm.

But United States officials have said anything short of a plan to ensure the disarming of Hezbollah before Israel halted fighting would leave the group in a position to lob missiles at Israel, and perhaps solidify the gains it has made in the Arab imagination for standing up to the regional superpower and surviving.

Israeli officials said they had received “no pressure” from the United States to hasten their campaign against Hezbollah.

But officials said they were in no sense delaying the talks at the United Nations, and while they acknowledged differences with Paris and other foreign capitals, they insisted that compromise talks were progressing.

Bush administration officials and Western diplomats described a day of busy talks in Washington, at the United Nations in New York and in European capitals that held at least a prospect of progress, or what both American and European officials called a “convergence” of views.

The officials requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the record on these issues.

The United Nations announced that a meeting of countries that could contribute troops to a force in southern Lebanon that had been postponed Monday had been rescheduled for Thursday.

But France said it would boycott the meeting. Asked why, a spokesman referred to a statement Monday by the French ambassador to the United Nations, Jean-Marc de la Sablière, criticizing the timing of the effort.

“France is in favor of setting up an international force to implement a political settlement,” Mr. de la Sablière said then. “It is important to have this political settlement before having the force deployed. So it is premature to have such a meeting.”

The comment pointed up crucial differences over Lebanon that have emerged between France and the United States.

France has circulated a Security Council resolution that calls for an immediate halt to the fighting, followed by a negotiated cease-fire and a political agreement, before any international force is deployed. Israel says an international military force should be put in place first. And the United States says there can be a cease-fire and political arrangements only after the formation of an international force to back them up.

Warren Hoge contributed reporting from the United Nations for this article.