LCCC
ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
August 12/09
Bible Reading of the day
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ
according to Saint Matthew 18:1-5.10.12-14. At that time the disciples
approached Jesus and said, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"He
called a child over, placed it in their midst, and said, "Amen, I say to you,
unless you turn and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of
heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom
of heaven. And whoever receives one child such as this in my name receives me.
See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that
their angels in heaven always look upon the face of my heavenly Father. What is
your opinion? If a man has a hundred sheep and one of them goes astray, will he
not leave the ninety-nine in the hills and go in search of the stray? And if he
finds it, amen, I say to you, he rejoices more over it than over the ninety-nine
that did not stray. In just the same way, it is not the will of your heavenly
Father that one of these little ones be lost.
Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special
Reports
International Christian Concern
(ICC)/Islamic Extremists Behead Four Christian Orphanage Workers in Somalia
11/08/09
International Christian Concern
(ICC)/Iran Continues the Illegal Detention of Christian Converts 11/08/09
A dangerous game/Now Lebanon
11/08/09
Brennan on Hizballah: They Can’t Be Terrorists! After All, Some of Them Are
Lawyers. By: Barry Rubin 11/08/09
Pull the plug on Hezbollah TV-The
Australian 11/08/09
Don't attack Iran! Not yet at least-Examiner.com
11/08/09
Damascus and the Road to Mideast Peace-By EDWARD P.
DJEREJIAN/Wall Street Journal
11/08/09
Latest
News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for August
11/09
Al-Mustaqbal Bloc: Hariri Determined to Form Government but without 'Hastiness'-Naharnet
Murr
after Wahhab Meeting: I Will Visit Syria When I See the Time is Right-Naharnet
Qabalan:
Israel 'Blatantly' Interfering in Lebanon's Affairs-Naharnet
Suleiman: Israeli Threats
Create Urgency for Speedy Government Shape-Up-Naharnet
Ban
Recommends Extension of UNIFIL Mandate without Amendments-Naharnet
US military delegation to
visit Syria on Wednesday-Now Lebanon
Sarkozy to honor Azour
with France's Knight of the Legion of Honor Medal-Now
Lebanon
Roundup: Oral fighting between Israel, Hezbollah
continues-Xinhua
Hariri-Jumblat Meeting Brings New
Tone to Government as Opposition Awaits Offers-Naharnet
Jumblat
for 15-10-5 Cabinet Deal-Naharnet
Hariri
Denies Remarks Attributed to Him-Naharnet
Qassem Says Hizbullah
Abides by 1701, Any Future War will be More Violent-Naharnet
Egypt: We Don't Interfere
in Lebanese Cabinet Formation-Naharnet
Sarkozy Telephones Hariri-Naharnet
Netanyahu Warns Against
Including Hizbullah in Lebanon Government-Naharnet
Phalange Party Committed
to Political Line-Naharnet
Israel says Lebanon accountable for Hezbollah-The
Associated Press
White House Opening to Hezbollah, Hamas?-The
Nation.
Israel deputy FM warns Hezbollah against attacks-AFP
Israel repeats threat to hit Lebanon if Hizbullah attacks-Daily
Star
Hariri returns to Beirut to re-evaluate cabinet lineup-Daily
Star
Russian FSB services helped Hizbullah bust spy ring – report-Daily
Star
Proposal to allow Lebanese mothers to open bank accounts for children-Daily
Star
Lebanon sees 28 percent rise in number of tourists in July-Daily
Star
Shatah warns cabinet formation delay will shake confidence-Daily
Star
VAT
Lebanon’s largest source of tax receipts – ministry-Daily
Star
Chamber urge hunt for missing head Ghandour-Daily
Star
Authorities halt rioting in Roumieh prison-Daily
Star
Join
the Movement teaches Lebanon the secrets to healthy living-Daily
Star
Interior Ministry highlights achievements during Baroud’s one-year term in
office-Daily Star
Filipinas ‘serve’ for friendship and unity-Daily
Star
Islamic
Extremists Behead Four Christian Orphanage Workers in Somalia
Washington, D.C. (August 11, 2009) - International Christian Concern (ICC) has
learned that Somali Islamic extremists beheaded four Christians after kidnapping
them on July 27 in the coastal town of Merca, 56 miles from Mogadishu.
Fatima Sultan, Ali Ma'ow, Sheik Mohammed Abdi, and Maaddey Diil were killed by
members of Al-Shabab, an Islamic extremist organization. The Islamists kidnapped
and eventually beheaded the Christians after they refused to renounce their
faith in Jesus Christ.
On August 4, a junior Al-Shabab militant notified all the families of the
victims that the four Christians had been beheaded for apostasy. He described
the Christians as promoters of "fitna," a Muslim term for religious discord. The
militant, who called himself "Seiful Islam" ("the Sword of Islam"), told the
families that the bodies will not be given to them "as Somalia does not have
cemeteries for infidels."
One eye witness account said, "All the four apostates were given an opportunity
to return to Islam to be released but they all declined the generous offer."
The four Christians had been working for a local NGO that helps orphans in
southern Somalia.
A Somali church leader who monitors the persecution against the Somali church
described the latest beheadings as a desperate attempt to "purify" Somalia by
eliminating all Christians from what the Al Qaeda linked terror group considers
an Islamic Republic. The church leader added that such murders will only serve
as a rich seedbed from where many more house-churches will form.
Al-Shabab is a radical Islamic organization fighting to establish an Islamic
state in Somalia and enforce Wahhabi/Salafi Islam, an ultra-conservative
interpretation of Islam practiced by the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The Islamist
group controls large parts of Somalia and seeks to overthrow the internationally
recognized transitional federal government of Somalia.
The Islamists have been carrying out ruthless attacks against the Christian
minority in Somalia. Last year alone, members of the group killed more than a
half dozen Somali Christians. In July 2009, Al-Shabab beheaded seven people in
the southwestern town of Baidoa after accusing them of converting to
Christianity and spying for the transitional federal government of Somalia.
Jonathan Racho, ICC's Regional Manager for Africa and the Middle East, said,
"Al-Shabab has once again demonstrated its utter disregard for the dignity of
human life. The majority of Muslims in Somalia, who are also the victims of Al-Shabab's
cruelty, do not support their ideology or practices. It is high time for the
international community to take robust measures to end the heinous crimes that
Al-Shabab and other extremist groups are committing against the people of
Somalia."
Please pray for God to protect and encourage the underground churches in
Somalia.
# # #
ICC is a Washington-DC based human rights organization that exists to help
persecuted Christians worldwide. ICC provides Awareness, Advocacy, and
Assistance to the worldwide persecuted Church. For additional information or for
an interview, contact ICC at 800-422-5441.
Ban Recommends Extension of UNIFIL Mandate without
Amendments
Naharnet/United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon recommended that the
mission of U.N. peacekeepers in southern Lebanon be extended for another year
without any amendment to their mandate. In a letter to the Security Council
president for this month, British Representative Sir John Sawers, Ban said the
mission of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) which ends
August 31 should be extended in response to a request made by Lebanese Caretaker
Premier Fouad Saniora. Ban said the situation in south Lebanon will remain
"fragile" until a permanent ceasefire is reached. The U.N. chief also described
the explosion of an alleged arms cache in Khirbet Selm a violation of Security
Council resolution 1701. He said until now there is no proof that the weapons
were smuggled to the area of UNIFIL's operations after the adoption of 1701 in
the summer of 2006. Ban added information suggests that the depot was under
Hizbullah's control. He urged Lebanese Armed Forces to intensify efforts with
UNIFIL's assistance to prevent arms smuggling across the Litani river. On
Israel, the U.N. chief said the Jewish state's army continues to occupy the
northern part of Ghajar and a nearby area north of the Blue Line in violation of
resolution 1701. He urged Israel to withdraw its forces from the area and stop
violations of Lebanese airspace. Thanking 31 countries that have contributed
troops to UNIFIL, Ban said challenges still remain. The Security Council will
hold a session on August 27 to vote on the renewal of UNIFIL's mandate. Beirut,
11 Aug 09, 08:31
Hariri-Jumblat Meeting Brings New Tone to Government as
Opposition Awaits Offers
Naharnet/Mustaqbal Movement leader Saad Hariri will kick off Tuesday a new round
of talks on Cabinet formation amid assurances that he would not back down on a
national unity government or quit his role as Prime Minister-designate. Outcome
of talks, however, would be linked to the results of the imminent meeting
between Hariri and Jumblat in the wake of the Druze leader's latest stance in
which he announced he was eliminating his alliance with the majority March 14
forces. March 14 sources told the daily An-Nahar that Hariri has returned with a
"set of ideas" which he plans to discuss with those he is would be meeting. The
sources pointed that the previous government deal reached before Aug. 2 was
still valid under Arab and global guarantees "based on everybody's fear of the
developments in the region which necessitate keeping the previous Cabinet lineup
that had been agreed upon."Pan-Arab Asharq al-Awsat, citing March 14 sources,
said the 15-10-5 makeup "was still applicable," noting that Jumblat's three
ministerial posts would be part of the majority share and would "act in Cabinet
on grounds they are with March 14, with some differentiation in picky
issues."The sources said the obstacle in appointing Free Patriotic Movement
leader Michel Aoun's son-in-law Jebran Bassil has come close to a settlement.
They said Bassil would get to keep his post as telecommunications minister
provided that the FPM would not be given a so-called sovereign, or key,
ministerial seat such as the interior portfolio, a previous Aoun demand. On the
Opposition side, a meeting, which lasted well into the night, was held between
Bassil as well as Hizbullah and AMAL officials Hajj Hussein Khalil and MP Ali
Hasan Khlail in Rabiyeh. As-Safir daily quoted FPM sources as saying the group
was awaiting Hariri's offer, adding that the "ball was now in his court."
Beirut, 11 Aug 09, 09:49
Jumblat for 15-10-5 Cabinet Deal
Naharnet/Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblat said a meeting with
Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri is likely to take place within 48 hours. In
remarks published by the daily As-Safir on Tuesday, Jumblat said he supports a
15-10-5 government formula "based on consensus and assurance that the President
will play the guarantor role." He believed it was only normal that his
ministerial share in Cabinet be among the 15 shares slated for the majority
March 13 coalition. Beirut, 11 Aug 09, 08:52
Hariri Denies Remarks Attributed to Him
Naharnet/Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri's office denied remarks attributed
to the Mustaqbal Movement leader by As-Safir newspaper on Tuesday. A statement
issued by his office described as "fabricated and incorrect" remarks attributed
to Hariri. Hariri has reportedly confirmed there was "no problem" with Druze
leader Walid Jumblat, stressing, however, that the only obstacle to the
formation of a national unity government was Free Patriotic Movement Michel
Aoun's ambitious and impossible-to-implement demand for the appointment of
election losers. As-Safir on Tuesday, citing Hariri visitors, quoted the
Premier-designate as saying there were "no new obstacles" facing the Cabinet
lineup "except for Michel Aoun's impossible-to-implement demands." Hariri was
said to have totally rejected the issue of bringing into Cabinet losers in the
2009 parliamentary elections, in a clear attempt to thwart the appointment of
Aoun's son-in-law Jebran Bassil in the new government. "There is no problem
between us and Walid bek," Hariri has purportedly told visitors, hinting at the
possibility of a meeting soon of the March 14 leadership. Hariri, according to
Ad-Diyar newspaper, had told Public Works Minister Ghazi Aridi prior to his trip
to southern France on family vacation that "Walid bek has the right to say what
he wants. But I also have the right to go away and see things from afar."The
Premier-designate made it a point to assure Aridi that he is aware that Jumblat
has for a while been trying to reactivate channels with Syria "via more than one
mediator and without letting me know.""I, however, used to brief him on all of
my details, especially those related to Syria," As-Safir quoted Hariri as
telling Aridi. Hariri stressed that "no matter what, I will not shift my stance
on Lebanon First.""I am with Palestine and Arabism, but I am with my country
first; and this needs requirements for the implementation of this slogan,"
Hariri added. Beirut, 11 Aug 09, 08:32
Qassem Says Hizbullah Abides by 1701, Any Future War will
be More Violent
Naharnet/Hizbullah deputy chief Sheikh Naim Qassem said his Shiite group is
abiding by Security Council resolution 1701 but warned Israel from launching war
on Lebanon.
"We will remain calm and abide by resolution 1701. But we will be resolute and
Israelis should make accurate calculations because the next war will be stronger
and the resistance will be more violent in its retaliation," Qassem told al-Manar
TV station in an interview on Monday. He said on Friday Hizbullah leader Sayyed
Hassan Nasrallah will reveal the party's readiness in case of an Israeli attack
on Lebanon. The Hizbullah official, however, ruled out any Israeli aggression on
Iran or Lebanon because the Americans and Israelis don't know how such a war
would end or not. Qassem was also reassured that UNIFIL's mandate would be
extended for another year on August 27 without any amendments despite Israeli
and U.S. efforts to change the peacekeepers' Rules of Engagement. Turning to the
cabinet issue, the Hizbullah official said problems facing formation of the next
government would be solved and added that any attempt to change the 15-10-5
formula would bring things back to where they started. He told al-Manar that a
technocrat government proposed by the Lebanese Forces is unacceptable because
the country is politicized. But Qassem stressed that MP Walid Jumblat's latest
statements will not influence the cabinet formation process. He said Jumblat has
the boldness to take stances and defend them. Beirut, 11 Aug 09, 10:15
Egypt: We Don't Interfere in Lebanese Cabinet Formation
Naharnet/The Egyptian foreign ministry has stressed that Cairo doesn't interfere
in the Lebanese cabinet formation process saying it is an internal matter. "The
formation of the Lebanese cabinet is the responsibility of Lebanese politicians
and the premier-designate," Egyptian foreign ministry spokesman Hussam Zaki said
Monday. Cairo "doesn't interfere in this matter … and when it asks other sides
not to meddle in Lebanon's internal affairs then it too doesn't interfere," he
added. Beirut, 11 Aug 09, 10:48
Sarkozy Telephones Hariri
Naharnet/Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri received late Monday a telephone
call from French President Nicolas Sarkozy who expressed his support to efforts
to form a new government. Following his return home Monday, Hariri discussed the
Lebanon political situation over the telephone with President Michel Suleiman
and Phalange Party leader Amin Gemayel. Hariri was on a family vacation in
southern France for the past week. The premier-designate met separately Monday
evening with outgoing PM Fouad Saniora, deputy Speaker Farid Mekari, Finance
Minister Mohammed Shatah, Public Works Minister Ghazi Aridi, March 14 General
Secretariat Coordinator Fares Soaid and former MP Samir Franjieh.
Beirut, 10 Aug 09, 22:46
Jumblat: I Alone Am 'Entitled' to Set a Date for Syria Visit
Naharnet/MP Walid Jumblat reiterated that he was the only person "entitled" to
set the date for his visit to Damascus, according to comments published Monday
in al-Anbaa newspaper.
"I am the only one entitled to set the date, nature, circumstances and timing of
my visit to Damascus. I will also study - at a later time - the possibility of
visiting any other capital," Jumblat said in his weekly interview with the
daily. He said pending issues between Lebanon and Syria "can be resolved between
the two states according to protocol."
On another note, he stressed the need to "intensify all chances and capacities
possible to form the government." "At the same time there is a need to press
ranks closely together in the face of any new Israeli assaults and for the state
and resistance to be prepared for any new development in this domain," he added.
Jumblat said that the "principle of national partnership alone eliminates the
political barricades." "All sides participated in the election of President
Michel Suleiman on the basis of consensus," Jumblat said. Suleiman is "capable
of acting as a guarantor of all the resolutions considering that he is aware of
all the concerns," the Druze leader added. Jumblat then announced that his
Progressive Socialist Party "will not enter into rivalries with any political
side and will focus on its internal political and organizational workshop."
Beirut, 10 Aug 09, 16:27
Berri Denies Making Statement
Naharnet/Speaker Nabih Berri on Monday denied making statements regarding the
stalemate over government formation. A statement issued by his office said
neither Berri nor those close to him has made any statements about the present
government crisis. It accused al-Markaziya news agency of carrying out
"falsified statements that did not even cross Berri's mind." Beirut, 10 Aug 09,
19:43
Netanyahu Warns Against Including Hizbullah in Lebanon Government
Naharnet/Israel warned on Monday that the Lebanese government as a whole would
be blamed for any attack from its territory if Hizbullah is part of the new
government.
"If Hizbullah joins the government it will be clear that the Lebanese government
will be held responsible for any attack coming from its territory against
Israel," Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said. "The moment they are part of
the government, the sovereign Lebanese government is responsible. I hope we will
not need such responses," he told journalists during a visit to southern Israel.
There has been an escalating war of words in recent days between Israel and
Hizbullah, which fought a 34-day war in 2006 that killed more than 1,200 people,
mostly civilians, in Lebanon and 160 Israelis, most of them soldiers. Lebanese
prime-minister designate Saad Hariri has yet to form a government two months
after a parliamentary election won by the Western-backed coalition that defeated
a Hizbullah-led alliance.(AFP) Beirut, 10 Aug 09, 11:59
Brennan on Hizballah: They Can’t Be Terrorists! After All, Some of Them Are
Lawyers!
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/08/brennan-on-hizballah-they-cant-be.html
Monday, August 10, 2009
By: Barry Rubin
It wasn’t enough that President Obama’s counterterrorism advisor, John Brennan
gave a speech which—possibly for the first time in U.S. history—gave a
government definition of a religious practice, endorsing Jihad as a noble
pursuit. No, he also gave a basic endorsement to a terrorist group which has
murdered several hundred Americans.
Please understand, Brennan is not engaging in appeasement. It's much worse. He
thinks he's a brilliant strategist who is going to manipulate Hizballah into
being pro-American without knowing very much about the Middle East, Lebanon,
Iran, Islamism, or even his supposed subject of expertise, terrorism.
Sound like an exaggeration? Keep reading.
Brennan made clear his views on Hizballah before being appointed by the
president, which means he shouldn’t have been appointed. The problem isn't just
that his view is politically unpalatable and strategically disastrous, it is
also enormously ignorant.
Here’s what Brennan wrote in an article for ANNALS, AAPSS, 618, July 2008. What
it says on Iran is equally bad. But let’s focus today on Hizballah:
“It would not be foolhardy, however, for the United States to tolerate, and even
to encourage, greater assimilation of Hezbollah into Lebanon's political system,
a process that is subject to Iranian influence. Hezbollah is already represented
in the Lebanese parliament and its members have previously served in the
Lebanese cabinet, reflections of Hezbollah's interest in shaping Lebanon's
political future from within government institutions. This political involvement
is a far cry from Hezbollah's genesis as solely a terrorist organization
dedicated to murder, kidnapping, and violence. Not coincidentally, the evolution
of Hezballah into a fully vested player in the Lebanese political system has
been accompanied by a marked reduction in terrorist attacks carried out by the
organization. The best hope for maintaining this trend and for reducing the
influence of violent extremists within the organization—as well as the influence
of extremist Iranian officials who view Hezbollah primarily as a pawn of
Tehran—is to increase Hezbollah’s stake in Lebanon’s struggling democratic
processes”
This kind of thinking would do far more than bury Lebanon. It would bury U.S.
interests and influence in the Middle East. And so it is only appropriate to
quote William Shakespeare’s lines for another funeral oration: “If you have
tears, prepare to shed them now!”
Yes, it would be foolhardy for the United States to encourage growing influence
and power for a radical Islamist terrorist group that is a client of Syria and
reasonably close to being an agent of Iran. Brennan seems to give no evidence of
any serious knowledge about the Middle East.
Hizballah isn't being "assimilated" into Lebanon's political system, it is
trying to take over Lebanon to the greatest extent possible. Just like when the
Bolsheviks and Nazis ran candidates that wasn't proof that they were being
"assimilated" into the Russian and German systems. (Imagine if a British
minister had proposed back then a policy of encouraging Communist or Nazi
participation in government on the grounds that this would moderate them.)
But why can’t a terrorist or Islamist revolutionary group engage in normal
politics? Yes, it might not kill people for a bit, mainly because it plans to do
so when that's necessary to advance its cause or--even better---when it takes
power.
Hizballah’s maximum goal is to seize state power in Lebanon and to drive out all
Western influence, while wiping Israel off the map and extending Islamist rule
over the entire region. But that doesn’t mean it can’t have interim goals. It’s
minimum goal (already accomplished) is to become the strongest single force in
the country, to build up a powerful, highly trained militia, to attack Israel
whenever it desires, and to gain full control of all Shi’a areas in the country
especially in south Lebanon.
How does involvement in electoral politics prove—and the same applies to
Hamas—that it doesn’t remain a revolutionary Islamist group promoting Iranian
and Syrian influence which will indulge in terrorism when it feels that tactic
to be useful?
And how could anyone be so dumb not to understand this?
By the way, he knows nothing about how Hizballah has behaved in politics. What
have been its efforts? To gain control of the government or at least veto power,
to prevent any attempt to disarm its militia or limit its arms’ smuggling
(Syrian arms paid for with Iranian money).
And why did Hizballah walk out of the government the first time? Over its demand
to kill the international investigation of the murder of former Prime Minister
Rafiq Hariri and a dozen other terrorist acts.
In other words, the “moderate parliamentary” Hizballah left the government in
order to protect previous terrorist attacks from being punished. Doesn’t this
show their continued involvement in…terrorism?
Yet even this nonsense is dimmed by what Brennan says next. It just so happens
that Hizballah stopped doing terrorism because it was entering politics? Has
Brennan forgotten the attacks on Israel which triggered a massive war, so
destructive for Lebanon, just two years earlier? Hizballah claimed victory but
suffered material defeat.
Note the inability of administration officials—this isn’t the first time—to
discount totally the fact that force sometimes has a deterrent effect.
Contemplate the meaning of that for America’s future foreign policy.
But that’s what he said before taking office. After his Jihad-endorsing speech,
Brennan answered questions. Only one newspaper in the world published the
transcript, as far as I can discover, the Seoul Times in South Korea. But
Brennan’s statement can be found online in a sound recording.
Let me point out that he was answering a question from Bob Dreyfuss of the
far-left The Nation magazine, who is not exactly a flaming American patriot.
Dreyfuss mentioned that he has had personal discussions with Brennan in which
the latter, “suggested that it might be possible to have a dialogue with Hamas
and Hezbollah.”
[Dreyfuss is determined to "out" Brennan as he tries to pull him further to the
left. On his blog, Dreyfuss writes: "In fact, as I alluded to in my question,
Brennan had told me (before taking a job in the Obama administration, but while
serving as Obama's top adviser on intelligence issues) that talking to Hamas and
Hezbollah is the right thing to do."]
Brennan didn’t deny it but did say he thought Hamas was still a terrorist group.
[This might just be for public consumption. Privately, if what he says about
Hizballah is true--once a movement runs candidates that must mean to him that it
is a candidate for being an American ally.]
But here’s what he said about Hizballah:
“Hezbollah started out as purely a terrorist organization back in the early
1980s and has evolved significantly over time. And now it has members of
parliament, in the cabinet; there are lawyers, doctors, others who are part of
the Hezbollah organization.
“However, within Hezbollah, there’s still a terrorist core. And hopefully those
elements within the Shia community in Lebanon and within Hezbollah at large –
they’re going to continue to look at that extremist terrorist core as being
something that is anathema to what, in fact, they’re trying to accomplish in
terms of their aspirations about being part of the political process in Lebanon.
And so, quite frankly, I’m pleased to see that a lot of Hezbollah individuals
are in fact renouncing that type of terrorism and violence and are trying to
participate in the political process in a very legitimate fashion.”
So in other words it cannot be terrorist because it has parliamentarians,
doctors, and even lawyers. Sticking with doctors for the moment, I can think of
terrorist doctors who led some of the most terrorist PLO and Palestinian groups,
the number-two leader of al-Qaida, and several of Hamas’s top leaders. And by
the way, doesn’t Hamas have parliamentarians and cabinet members?
You see, friends, that’s why I use the word “stupid” here even though, forgive
me, it isn’t a proper academic or analytical term. The following is my satire,
not an actual quote:
Brennan: Hizballah can’t be terrorist because they have cabinet members,
lawyers, and doctors but Hamas is terrorist.
Reporter: But doesn’t Hamas have cabinet members, lawyers, and doctors, too?
Brennan: Um, er, uh....
You don’t make a statement so easily reduced to rubble if you really understand
your topic.
As for “terrorist core,” what are we talking about, some small marginal group?
In Arabic, Hizballah leaders are constantly explaining there is no such thing as
a “military” and a “civilian” wing. They speak freely of their devotion to
Iran’s regime and the parliamentarians talk about their devout loyalty to the
same leaders who give orders to the militia and for terrorist operations.
And who are “a lot of Hezbollah individuals” renouncing terrorism and violence?
Don’t you get it, Brennan, that Hezbollah never ever had to renounce terrorism
and violence to enter politics? (Neither did Hamas for that matter.)
Here are just two examples among many regarding things the president's terrorism
advisor is unaware.
Nawaf Musawi, head of Hizballah's "political wing" says:
"Fundamentally, our role in the party is Jihad work. Without it, there's no
value or role for Lebanon. If I had the opportunity to go back, I would have
chosen the path of military jihad, because the position of a true warrior (muhajid)
is more important than that of a member of parliament."
And here is Hizballah second-in-command Naim Qassem:
"All political, social and jihad work is tied to the decisions of this
leadership. The same leadership that directs the parliamentary and government
work also leads jihad actions in the struggle against Israel."
Moreover, is Brennan unaware of the fact that:
--Hizballah's arms are paid for by Iran and supplied by Syria, Is the United
States going to compete with their influence when Hizballah leaders admit the
organization was formed and ran for parliament only with approval from Tehran?
--Does Brennan know the name of Hizballah's political party?
--Has he any clue that Hizballah buys influence with Iranian money?
--Is he aware that Hizballah has been repeatedly threatening to wage terror
attacks on UNIFIL if it tries to fulfill its UN mandate of keeping the group out
of the south?
--Does he recall that Hizballah launched an invasion of the Christian and Druze
areas, being stopped only because of ferocious fighting by the Druze militia?
--Has he ever read any of the antisemitic, anti-American speeches made by
Hizballah leaders?
--Is he aware at all of Hizballah involvement in terrorist acts against
Americans, including kidnappings, murders, and the assault on the Marine
barracks to name a few examples? (Leaving aside a long list of attacks on Israel
and the terrorist bombing of the Jewish center in Argentina with great loss of
life?)
--Incidentally, shouldn't someone in his position be talking about punishing,
not rewarding, terrorists with so much American blood on their hands? Shouldn't
he be setting some tough preconditions--turn over those responsible, apologize
and formally reject terrorism--before talking about U.S. support for Hizballah?
--Extra credit question: How do you think Lebanese opponents of Hizballah--which
include the majority of Christians, Sunni Muslims, and Druze, along with a Shia
minority--feel about having the world's leading democracy endorse those who want
to turn their country into a nightmare dictatorship? How do you think Hizballah
leaders and Iran's regime feels in reading stuff like Brennan's speech? Compare
and contrast.
I’ll stop here but there’s a lot more one can say. This man is dangerously
ignorant and holds very scary policy views. There is something seriously wrong
with an administration who would have such a man as its counterterrorist
advisor.
Frankly, Brennan should be pressed into resigning or at least subjected to some
serious and detailed questioning about his views, statements, and alleged
knowledge. "It seems," as one Syrian dissident put it, "that instead of peeling
Syria away from Iran, Obama administration's strategy is peeling America away
from the West."
ShareThis
Posted by Barry Rubin at 1:37 AM
Labels: Hizballah, Lebanon, U.S. policy
Iran Continues the Illegal Detention of Christian Converts
Washington, D.C. (August 10, 2009) – International Christian Concern (ICC) has
learned that Iranian authorities told Maryam Rustampoor and Marzieh Amirizadeh,
converts from Islam to Christianity, to recant their Christian faith during a
hearing before a revolutionary court in Tehran on August 9.
Maryam, 27, and Marzieh, 30, were first arrested on March 5, 2009, for leaving
Islam. Iranian authorities kept them in solitary confinement at the infamous
Evin prison, deprived them of medical attention, and blindfolded and
interrogated them for long periods of time.
At the time of hearing before the court, the deputy public prosecutor, Haddad,
asked Maryam and Marzieh about their faith and told them to recant their belief
in Christ. When he asked them if they were Christians, they replied, “We love
Jesus.” He then repeated his question, and they said, “Yes, we are Christians.”
When he said, “You were Muslims and now you have become Christians,” their reply
was, “We were born in Muslim families, but we were not Muslims.”
During the questioning, when they made reference to their belief that God had
convicted them through the Holy Spirit, the deputy public prosecutor said, “It
is impossible for God to speak with humans.” In return, Marzieh asked, “Are you
questioning whether God is Almighty?” The prosecutor replied, “You are not
worthy for God to speak to you.” Then Marzieh said, “It is God, and not you, who
determines if I am worthy.”
At the end of the hearing, the deputy prosecutor told them to take time to think
about the option of returning back to Islam, but Maryam and Marzieh replied, “We
have already done our thinking.”
After the questioning, they were taken back to the prison.
Five months of abuse and mistreatment by Iranian authorities has taken a toll on
their health. They have lost weight and are denied access to medical care.
Marzieh is suffering due to pain in her spin, a tooth infection, and intense
headaches.
Jonathan Racho, ICC’s Regional Manager for Africa and the Middle East, said, “We
ask Iranian officials to free Maryam and Marzieh. Iran must respect their right
to follow the religion of their choice. In this century, it’s unconscionable for
any country to force its citizens to adhere to any particular religion.”
Please pray for Maryam and Marzieh’s health. Also pray that God will continue to
give them strength and courage.
# # #
ICC is a Washington-DC based human rights organization that exists to help
persecuted Christians worldwide. ICC provides Awareness, Advocacy, and
Assistance to the worldwide persecuted Church. For additional information or for
an interview, contact ICC at 800-422-5441.
Russian FSB services helped Hizbullah bust spy ring – report
Lebanese Group has ‘amassed quantities of undisclosed data’
Daily Star staff
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
BEIRUT: Western intelligence sources in the Middle East have disclosed to
DEBKAfile that a special unit of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB),
commissioned by Hizbullah’s special security apparatus earlier this year, was
responsible for the massive discovery of alleged Israel spy rings in Lebanon in
recent months with the help of “super-efficient” detection systems.
DEBKAfile is an Israeli, Occupied Jerusalem-based English-language open source
military intelligence website with commentary and analyses on terrorism,
intelligence, security, and military and political affairs in the Middle East.
The sources told DEBKAfile last week that the FSB and Hizbullah have “amassed
quantities of undisclosed data” on Israel’s clandestine operations in Lebanon
and “are holding it in reserve in order to leak spectacular discoveries as and
when it suits their purpose.”
“This disclosure, if borne out, would indicate that the Russian agency, which
specializes in counterespionage, is engaged for the first time in anti-Israel
activity in the service of an Arab terrorist organization,” DEBKAfile said.
An Israeli security source described this turn of events extremely grave,
Debkafile reported. It also cast an ominous slant on Moscow’s deepening
strategic involvement in Syria.
It was generally assumed until now that new electronic devices supplied by
France to the Lebanese Army were instrumental in uncovering the suspected
Israeli spy rings,” the DEBKAfile report said. “It now transpires that the
Lebanese Army was not directly involved; it only detained the suspects handed
over by the Shiite Hizbullah,” it added.
Those same sources disclosed to the Israeli news website that FSB agents, “by
blanketing every corner of Lebanon with their sophisticated surveillance
systems, were able to detect the spy rings one by one and additionally hack into
Israeli intelligence data bases.”
The Russians dated Israel’s massive clandestine infiltration of Lebanon to
shortly after the summer 2006 war.
“Hizbullah sustained heavy casualties and, fearing an Israeli surprise attack at
that point, began conscripting thousands of young Shiites as fighters
[haphazardly], without checking their backgrounds,” the sources told DEBKAfile.
“In their haste, they also rounded up Syrian and Egyptian migrant laborers in
Lebanon,” they added.
The sources explained that Israel “used the opportunity to recruit large numbers
of agents in both these groups, especially among the conscripts sent to
Revolutionary Guards camps in Iran and Syrian military facilities for training.”
The Lebanese judiciary has so far charged at least 20 people, some of them
top-ranking military and police officers with espionage. Despite the ceasefire
between Lebanon and its southern neighbor, the two countries are technically
still at warl. Treason in Lebanon is punishable by death.
A growing list of double agents has been exposed over the last few years as part
of a continuing operation, code-named “Surprise at Dawn,” which began in June
2006 before the outbreak of the 34-day 2006 war with Israel.
In July, the UN Security Council warned that the existence of a large
Israeli-run espionage network in Lebanon could threaten a fragile peace
established between the two countries following the end of the 2006
Israel-Lebanon war.
Israel has refused to comment on the spy allegations. But it has been reported
in the Israeli media that without the intelligence provided by the Lebanese
network, the Israeli Air Force would not have been able to knock out Hizbullah’s
medium-range missile launchers with such a high degree of accuracy during the
2006 war.
Many of Hizbullah’s men were also assassinated on the basis of information
provided by the spies.
The campaign of assassinations culminated in the killing, supposedly by Mossad
agents, of top Hizbullah military commander Imad Mughniyeh who was killed in a
car bombing in Damascus last year. The operatives were allegedly given orders to
spy on a number of Palestinian resistance organizations as well as Hizbullah. –
The Daily Star
Damascus and the Road to Mideast Peace
There’s no reason to keep pushing Syria in the arms of Iran.
AUGUST 10, 2009
By EDWARD P. DJEREJIAN
Though in recent months some have derided the power of dialogue, the truth is
that strategic engagement with our enemies remains absolutely essential for our
national security. Talking to our adversaries with a clear purpose in mind is
not a sign of weakness.
At the same time, diplomacy should never be carried out in a way that indicates
a lack of United States resolve. While President Ronald Reagan stigmatized the
Soviet Union as the “evil empire,” his administration carried out tough-minded
negotiations with the Communist regime and achieved positive results.
The often adversarial relationship between the U.S. and Syria is a case in
point. The Syrian regime could undermine security in southern Lebanon, hinder
progress in Iraq, and continue to support Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad
and Hamas. It also has the potential to play a constructive role in the region—a
possibility that has yet to be fully explored. A high-level bilateral dialogue
could enhance our national security interests, as demonstrated by U.S. diplomacy
in the recent past.
When I was ambassador to Syria (1988-1991), my major task was to implement the
policy of strategic engagement established by President George H.W. Bush and
Secretary of State James A. Baker III. Our relationship with Syria in the late
1980s was troubled. But we understood that without Syria we could not help end
the civil war in Lebanon, make progress on Arab-Israeli peace talks, curtail
certain terrorist groups, control drug trafficking, promote regional security,
and advance our human-rights agenda. We sought common ground through serious
dialogue.
Despite many obstacles, tangible goals were reached. Our consultations in
Damascus facilitated the end of the tragic Lebanese civil war. Syrian President
Hafez Assad responded positively to President Bush and Secretary Baker’s direct
request for him to lend Syria’s political and military support to Operation
Desert Storm. In a major breakthrough, U.S.-Syrian cooperation on Desert Storm
helped to lead to Assad’s agreement to enter into face-to-face negotiations with
Israel, which in turn led to the Madrid Peace Conference in 1991.
On the human-rights front, we also made progress. Syrian Jews were granted the
same right to freely travel abroad as other Syrian citizens. And in close
coordination with the Syrian government in Damascus, American hostages in
Lebanon began to be released.
While the historic context is different today than in the early 1990s, the basic
rationale for promoting U.S. interests by engaging Syria remains valid.
Engagement with Syria would promote peace negotiations between Jerusalem and
Damascus. It would also distance Syria from its close relationship with Iran—and
thereby reduce Iran’s influence in the Levant.
U.S. dialogue with Syria could lead to diminished support for Hamas, Palestinian
Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah. It would consolidate Lebanon’s sovereignty. And it
could secure the Syria-Iraq border.
On a broader level, a stronger relationship with the U.S. could create the
conditions to promote economic and political reform within Syria. Our countries
could also resume intelligence cooperation against al Qaeda and other radical
Islamic groups that have threatened the Syrian regime in the past.
The Syrians are not interested in a piecemeal dialogue with the U.S., but they
seek a comprehensive dialogue where all the major issues can be discussed. This
so-called “realist” approach would do more to advance our human-rights agenda
than a policy of nonengagement and attempted isolation.
While there are many important issues to be discussed, the key agenda item is
the prospect for Israeli-Syrian peace. Syrian President Bashar Assad has
reiterated his father’s “strategic option for peace,” which is based on the
principle of land for peace. Though the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict is
the issue of Palestine, the geopolitical core of the conflict is the
Israeli-Syrian front.
Without an Israeli-Syrian agreement, there will be no comprehensive peace
between Israel and its Arab neighbors. An Israeli-Lebanese agreement would
quickly follow if there were progress on the Israeli-Syrian track. Therefore,
the initiation of peace talks between Israel and Syria should be a high priority
for President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Ever since
the Madrid Peace Conference, much progress has been made on the issues of land,
normalization of relations, security arrangements and access to water. Both
Syrian and Israeli negotiators have indicated that at least 80% of the issues
have either been resolved or areas of disagreement narrowed.
In the past, the U.S. has been the essential interlocutor for the two sides in
these negotiations. More recently, in the absence of the U.S., Turkey has
conducted indirect talks between the Israelis and Syrians with some success.
The Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group Report, published in 2006, called on Syria
to take specific action on key issues dealing with Iraq, Iran, Hamas and
Hezbollah. The report also said that the regime should take action on the matter
of Lebanon’s sovereignty, including by cooperating with the United Nations
Commission’s investigation of the assassination of Rafik Hariri. In exchange for
these actions, and in the context of a final peace agreement, the report called
on Israel to return the Golan Heights. The report also offered a security
guarantee for Israel that could include an international force on the border. If
requested by both parties, it would comprise U.S. troops.
The Arab-Israeli conflict and the struggle between the forces of moderation and
extremism within the Muslim world are the two major issues that are exploited by
the Islamic extremists for their own political ends. Thus, U.S. policy should
focus on promoting a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace settlement, and on
supporting the moderates in the region by the judicious use of soft and hard
power to marginalize the extremists. U.S. engagement with Syria could be a key
component of this strategy.
**Mr. Djerejian, U.S. ambassador to Syria from 1988-91 and to Israel from
1993-94, is the author of “Danger and Opportunity—An American Ambassador’s
Journey Through the Middle East” (Simon & Schuster, 2008). He is the founding
director of the Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University.
Pull the
plug on Hezbollah
By: Bren Carlill
August 11, 2009
The Australian
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25911012-7582,00.html
THREE events have brought the words Muslim and terrorist together recently.
First, the arrest of several Somali and Lebanese-born Muslims who are alleged to
have been plotting a suicide bombing attack on an Australian army base. Second,
an ongoing project dubbed the "Lexicon of Terrorism". Jointly run by the federal
and Victorian governments, Victoria Police and Monash University academics, it
is an effort to find the best way to refer to Muslim terrorists. At stake is the
balance between accurately describing the identity and motivations of terrorists
and the need to not alienate or cast suspicion on Australian Muslims.
Third is the recent finding by the Australian Communications and Media Authority
that the ongoing broadcast into Australia of al-Manar, the television station
run by Hezbollah, does not contravene ACMA's anti-terrorism regulations.
How to describe the people arrested on terrorism charges last week is at the
heart of the Lexicon of Terrorism project.
Polls have shown that since September 11, 2001, Muslims have felt increasingly
marginalised in society. Terms such as "jihad", "Islamist" and "Islamic
terrorism' are frequently felt as a slap in the face to Muslims, who feel
they're unfairly loaded.
Yet while a majority of Muslims aren't terrorists, the majority of terrorists
are Muslim, an uncomfortable fact that shouldn't be ignored for the sake of
political correctness. It is rare to find a Muslim terrorist who acts only for a
secular, nationalist cause. The vast majority act, in part or wholly, according
to their interpretation of Islam. We can decry this, but we shouldn't deny it.
Doing so removes the possibility of us understanding their motivations and thus,
a pathway to prevent future terrorism.
"Islamist", if understood properly, is a term that can be used without treading
on toes. Islamists, a minority of Muslims, are those who see no distinction
between Islam and politics. Violent Islamists, a minority of Islamists, are
those who espouse or justify violence to achieve their religious-political
goals.
Yet it's is ACMA's handling of al-Manar that says most about how equipped
Australia is to deal with the terrorism threat.
Al-Manar is owned and operated by Hezbollah. Most famous for being a militia
that fought the Israeli army for many years, Hezbollah refused to disarm after
Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon to the international border in May 2000.
That Israel no longer controlled any Lebanese territory -- Hezbollah's supposed
raison d'etre -- was confirmed by then UN secretary general Kofi Annan.
Hezbollah has also fired thousands of rockets at Israeli civilians; turned its
guns on Lebanese civilians; bombed foreign embassies in Lebanon and elsewhere;
kidnapped and held for ransom foreign civilians in Lebanon; and carried out
multiple terrorist attacks in South America, the European Union and the Middle
East. It is, unequivocally, a terrorist organisation.
Australia chooses to proscribe as a terrorist entity only Hezbollah's external
military wing. That means Hezbollah's internal social, political and military
wings are not considered terrorist entities by Australia.
This is a little bizarre, since Hezbollah's leaders have publicly insisted there
is no distinction between any wing. Australian law prohibits anyone donating to
or raising money for any part of Hezbollah, because of the likelihood that money
given, for whatever reason, will be used for terrorist purposes.
Thus, Australian law already de facto considers the entire Hezbollah
organisation a terrorist entity.
ACMA's regulations regarding terrorism are simple, though relatively weak. If a
media outlet directly appeals for recruits for a terrorist organisation, or
provides details as to how people can donate money for terrorist causes, it is
to be banned in Australia.
This means that if a TV station glorifies terrorism, extols the virtues of
suicide bombers, but falls short of directly appealing for recruits, ACMA
considers it OK. Likewise, if people who have donated to terrorists are lionised,
but funds are not directly solicited, ACMA doesn't see anything wrong with it.
This, according to ACMA, is the case with al-Manar.
ACMA watched the station for one week, looking in-depth at two of its shows. It
found that al-Manar neither attempted to directly recruit people for Hezbollah
nor solicit funds for the organisation. ACMA got it wrong.
It reported that al-Manar ran an advertisement soliciting funds for the al-Emdad
Charity organisation. A little research reveals al-Emdad is a Hezbollah
"charity" that gives money to the families of slain Hezbollah fighters. This is
in contravention of Australian law.
But there's a bigger issue at stake. Al-Manar has regularly broadcast material
that incites people to violence, recruits terrorists and raises money for
terrorist purposes. Such material is widely available on the internet. Just
google al-Manar and MEMRI and you'll find plenty of examples. (MEMRI is an
organisation that monitors Middle Eastern media.) You'll also find numerous
examples of gross anti-Semitism, which contravenes Australia's various racial
hatred laws. Why ACMA chose to ignore this evidence -- and why it chose to
sample only one week of broadcast (and only examine in depth two programs) -- is
hard to explain and harder to justify.
But what is most amazing is that whoever drafts ACMA's regulations believes it
acceptable that an organisation that glorifies terrorism be broadcast into
Australia at all.
In the same week it was revealed that Muslims living in Australia became
radicalised here and plotted to carry out a terrorist attack, ACMA found it
acceptable that other Australians be allowed to watch a TV station designed to
do the same thing.
Most people, including most Muslims, would not be sucked in by al-Manar's
racist, violent indoctrination. But some might. These individuals are already
vulnerable to radicalisation for any number of reasons. And that's even more
reason why a TV station such as al-Manar must be banned in Australia, as it is
in the EU and America. While the Lexicon of Terrorism study quibbles about
whether to use terms such as "Islamist", or include "Muslim" and "terrorism"
together, ACMA is allowing Australian Muslim youth the possibility of
radicalising, and becoming the next Australian Muslim terrorists.
**Bren Carlill is an analyst at the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council.
Don't attack Iran! Not yet at least
August 10,
Van Jackson
Examinar.com
http://www.examiner.com/x-16317-DC-Asia-Policy-Examiner~y2009m8d10-Dont-attack-Iran--Not-yet-at-least
Discussions of Iran’s nuclear program are starting to “go nuclear”. For years,
the consensus among the United States, Western Europe, and international
organizations has been that it is unacceptable for Iran to develop a nuclear
weapons capability. Increasingly, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and many of Iran’s
neighbors have expressed similar concerned views at the prospect of a nuclear
Iran.
Until recently, however, there has been little serious talk of allowing,
facilitating, or engaging in a military strike against Iran. Select pockets of
mainstream media coverage of Iran has started to take on a hawkish tone.
In a current events column written for Forbes magazine, for instance, British
historian Paul Johnson provided a loose rationale justifying an Israeli surgical
military strike against Iran’s known nuclear facilities. While the thrust of his
article is likely well intentioned, he is completely wrong-headed in concluding
that an attack on Iran might be feasible.
Well versed in the history of the region, Mr. Johnson is quick to cite previous
Israeli surgical strikes that were so successful that they did not even elicit a
military response. The first strike was against Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor
site in 1981; the second, against a Syrian facility in 2007. Citing such
successses illustrates the danger of constructing policy advice based on
historical analogy rather than empirical observation.
Iran is clearly not Iraq, nor is it Syria. When Israel attacked Iraq's facility,
Iraq was one year into an eight year war with Iran. Iraq had neither the
resources nor the will to fight a two-front war at the time, making it highly
impractical for Iraq to react to Israel's surgical strike militarily. When
Israel attacked Syria's nuclear facility in 2007, it did so without public
comment or confirmation. Syria's nuclear facility was being developed in secret,
which made it difficult for Syria to react to Israel's attack without
acknowledging that they were developing a secret nuclear capability. When Syria
did publicly respond to Israel's bombing of its nuclear site, it claimed only
that Israel had violated its airspace, hardly an action worthy of a military
response against Israel.
The contextual circumstances of 1981 Iraq and 2007 Syria made limited Israeli
attacks a feasible option; neither had the political wherewithal to react by
starting a broader conflagration. Such is not the case with Iran. The
connections between Hezbollah, the Lebanon-based terrorist group, and Iran are
well documented. Any attack on Iran has the potential to catalyze another
conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, putting longtime U.S. ally Lebanon in
danger of becoming the victim of war yet again.
If the potential for war with a terrorist group were not enough of a
disincentive to attack Iran, the probability that the Iranian military would
take action against Israel should suffice. The current civil unrest and
corresponding legitimacy crisis facing the Iranian government make an Iranian
reaction to an Israeli attack more likely, not less. Portraying Iran as the
victim of an Israeli attack, the Iranian government would be able to shore up
its own legitimacy. Iran could justify confronting Israel in a way that Iraq and
Syria never could.
The Obama administration should seek to quell hawkish ideas of an attack on Iran
in the near term, however limited or "surgical". But more than simply
restraining itself from attacking Iran, the United States should do everything
within its (soft) power to deter Israel from attacking Iran as well. Two wars
are more than enough. The United States does not need a regional war in the
Middle East on top of Afghanistan and Iraq.
A dangerous game
August 11, 2009
Now Lebanon
A construction site in southern Beirut. Cranes and scores of workers continue to
rebuild structures destroyed during the 2006 war with Israel. The country is
still recovering from the 34-day conflict. AFP /Ramzi Haidar
Israel is engaged in a dangerous war of words. Either Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu is uninformed on Lebanon, or he and his government are spoiling for a
fight. Either way, we should be concerned, even if analysts are downplaying
recent tensions. Wars have started for less.
Netanyahu’s warning that the Lebanese not include Hezbollah in the next
government is a well worn, not to mention naïve, refrain. The Israeli prime
minister should know that such saber-rattling, even in light of unsettled scores
from the summer of 2006, is not only a breach of international law, it also
reinforces the idea among the Lebanese that Israel is hell-bent on annihilating
Lebanon. This serves to strengthen Hezbollah’s claim that the party’s armed
presence provides a necessary deterrent.
Israel wants UNIFIL’s terms of engagement strengthened. If it is trying to
engineer another scenario to have a crack at Hezbollah, then it is playing into
the hands of the country that Israel today deems its greatest threat, Iran,
which would love nothing more than to see the Israelis mired in another conflict
with Hezbollah, far from Iranian borders.
Such a war would see no real winners. Lebanon would, once again, suffer
devastation, taking the country back several years, while Hezbollah’s military
capability, even if it is checked, would not be destroyed. Its relentless
demonization of Israel would have been vindicated and the Lebanese, as they
stumble through the rubble, would find it even more difficult than before to
tell Hezbollah that its behavior tends to invite that kind of thing. There would
be neither a peace settlement nor a return to the Armistice Agreement. Lebanon
would once again be thrown into chaos and Israel would have burnished its
reputation as the bad boy on the Middle East block, enraging Arabs from Cairo to
Baghdad.
It is a scenario that may still be far off, but Israel’s posturing is not
helpful. Here we have another example of the tunnel vision that Hezbollah can
inspire among Israeli leaders. Netanyahu may be uncomfortable at the thought of
an Iranian-financed, -trained and -equipped militia at his doorstep, especially
with the region rife with rumors of an imminent Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear
facility, but threatening Lebanon’s fragile democratic institutions won’t
enhance Israel’s security any.
Lebanon is striving to advance key sovereignty items on its to-do list,
including the rehabilitation of the armed forces and the demarcation of its
border with both Syria and Israel. If Israel is genuinely interested in regional
stability, it should allow the future Lebanese government to address these
issues in an atmosphere not charged with threats. Unfortunately, the Israelis
have never seemed keen about allowing a sovereign Lebanon to emerge. We have
deep suspicions that they would much prefer Syria to be in charge here. And if
not, then what would a destructive war against Lebanon lead to except a
discredited, weakened Lebanese government, a strengthened Hezbollah in
consequence, and a Syria reminding the international community that Lebanon was
only ever stable under Syrian hegemony?
In any case, Israel made its bed a long time ago. It should be used to lying on
it.
Canada Free Press
American Chronicle