LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِJune 11/2010

Bible Of the Day
John's Third Letter 1/9-12: "1:9 I wrote to the assembly, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, doesn’t accept what we say. 1:10 Therefore if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words. Not content with this, neither does he himself receive the brothers, and those who would, he forbids and throws out of the assembly. 1:11 Beloved, don’t imitate that which is evil, but that which is good. He who does good is of God. He who does evil hasn’t seen God. 1:12 Demetrius has the testimony of all, and of the truth itself; yes, we also testify, and you know that our testimony is true."

Free Opinions, Releases, letters, Interviews & Special Reports
An International Blow to Ahmadinejad/By: Hassan Haidar/June 10/10
Arabs shouldn't weep for Helen Thomas/By: Michael Young/ June 10/10
Erdogan and the Israel Card/By: Steven J. Rosen/June 10/10
Washington should keep talking to Iran until the 11th hour/By: Charles A. Kupchan/June 10/10
Obama Meets Abbas: And Shows He Understands Neither Hamas Nor Israel, Neither the Middle East Nor Islamism/By: Barry Rubin/June 10/10

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for June 10/10
Cabinet Division over Iran Sanctions Reflects Deep Split on Lebanon's Foreign Ties/Naharnet
Hariri: Our Duty is to Protect Lebanon Against Israeli Arrogance/Naharnet
Hizbullah, Amal Criticize Cabinet Stance Amid Manar Campaign Against Majority Ministers/Naharnet
Suleiman, Jumblat Helped Achieve 50/50 Vote Balance on Iran Sanctions/Naharnet
Berri: How was Cabinet's 'No Decision' Interpreted as Abstention?/Naharnet
Erdogan says sanctions against Iran 'mistake'/Ynetnews
Turkey calls charges turning from West 'dirty propaganda'/AFP
Security Council approves new sanctions against Iran/Daily Star
China says it wants more dialogue on Iranian nuclear issue (AP)/Ha'aretz
The end of american hegemony in the Middle East/The Press Network (blog)
Syria still not cooperating with IAEA/Examiner.com
Lebanon speaker urges fast action on offshore gas reserves/AFP
Berri calls for exploring off-shore gas reserves to thwart Israeli grab/(AFP) and Daily Star
Minyeh-Dinnieh vote could see rival Future candidacies/Daily Star
Hizbullah to sue magazine for Hariri killing claims - reports/Daily Star
Hizbullah raps Feltman's claims that group poses 'threat'/Daily Star
MEA, Lebanese Pilots Syndicate ink deal for better staff pay/Daily Star
Rights activist won't attend Military Court hearing/Daily Star
Interior Ministry Moves to Crackdown on Traffic Violators/Naharnet
Fayyad says Lebanon’s abstention on Iran sanctions cannot be justified/Now Lebanon
Sayyed Hussein: Cabinet vote on Iran sanctions won’t affect government situation/Now Lebanon
Russia freezes Iran missile contract/Now Lebanon
Egyptian PM to visit Lebanon next week/Now Lebanon

Cabinet Division over Iran Sanctions Reflects Deep Split on Lebanon's Foreign Ties
Naharnet/A "no decision" by the Lebanese cabinet over the U.N. Security Council sanctions on Iran reflected the different interpretations that the president and the prime minister have about Lebanon's relations with other countries. An Nahar daily said Thursday the cabinet decision that President Michel Suleiman sought for aimed at "keeping the government away from a big jolt." Sources close to the ministerial team backed by Suleiman told the newspaper that the cabinet stance "was the best for the country because it helped it avoid being seen as the victor or vanquished." The sources stressed that the president and the premier were continuing to follow-up the issue. However, Premier Saad Hariri was "not satisfied," saying Lebanon's stance wouldn't have changed the course of the voting at the Security Council because there were 12 states in favor of new sanctions against Iran over its controversial nuclear program. "We are a country that has interests with the international community. We are facing the issue of the renewal of UNIFIL's mandate in the summer and have friendly countries that are supporting us and backing our causes," Hariri said. "We can't take a stance that goes against the general trend at the Security Council because that would weaken our stance in the outside" world, he stressed.
March 8 ministers and cabinet members backed by Suleiman called for voting against the sanctions while March 14 and Democratic Gathering ministers preferred abstention, leading to a 14-14 split. This led Hariri, Foreign Minister Ali al-Shami and the presidency's director-general, Ambassador Naji Abi Assi, to inform Lebanon's ambassador Nawaf Salam that there was "no decision" at the cabinet, meaning Lebanon should abstain from voting. Salam, in his turn, told the Council that he abstained because the government failed to "reach a final position."
He also said that the Iranian nuclear issue should be solved through more dialogue and not sanctions. "I was keen on not mentioning the division in my country," Salam told al-Liwaa daily in remarks published Thursday. An Nahar said that after the vote, members of the Iranian delegation shook hands with each member of the Lebanese delegation thanking Beirut's stance. Beirut, 10 Jun 10, 07:59

Hizbullah, Amal Criticize Cabinet Stance Amid Manar Campaign Against Majority Ministers
Naharnet/Hizbullah and Amal movement condemned the government's decision to abstain from voting at the U.N. Security Council against sanctions on Iran, hoping that the Lebanese showed more unity. Describing the resolution as "unjust," Hizbullah hailed the "fair stance of Turkey and Brazil." Both countries have voted against the resolution. The party hoped that Lebanon was able to reflect a stronger and unified image about its people. Amal movement also issued a statement reflecting Speaker Nabih Berri's stance. Amal said it was surprised by "the government's no decision." Meanwhile, Hizbullah's al-Manar TV launched a campaign against March 14 ministers, who in addition to Democratic Gathering leader Walid Jumblat's cabinet members, have backed Lebanon's abstention at the Security Council. The TV station said the majority ministers were appeasing the U.S. with their stance.
Beirut, 10 Jun 10, 09:11

Suleiman, Jumblat Helped Achieve 50/50 Vote Balance on Iran Sanctions
Naharnet/Cabinet clearly believed that 50/50 was the fair way to get with less fuss over the issue of voting against or abstain from voting for new U.N. Security Council sanctions on Iran. So a decision not to side with either political camp was taken after Cabinet ministers were equally divided between voting against the U.N. proposal and abstaining from the vote.
Local media on Thursday said President Michel Suleiman and Druze leader Walid Jumblat helped achieve a 50/50 vote balance. They said while Suleiman tipped the balance in favor of the Opposition, Jumblat rescued March 14 forces from the situation. "I was initially with abstaining from a (U.N.) vote on Iran sanctions," Jumblat said in remarks published Thursday by the daily As-Safir. "And before that, I was not enthusiastic about Lebanon being a member in the Security Council," Jumblat added. "But under this reality, the position expressed by Ambassador Nawaf Salam was the best for Lebanon because we are not a large country such as Turkey and Brazil. "What we did avoided Lebanon from submerging into the game of nations," Jumblat noted. After the dispute widened between the 14 ministers of each of the rival political camp in the National Unity Government just hours prior to the Security Council meeting, Cabinet conveyed to Lebanon's representative in the U.N. Nawaf Salam that it had not been able to reach a decision. Salam said the issue over Iran's nuclear program "could be resolved through peaceful means rather than sanctions and this is Lebanon's position." "We did not reach a final decision after evaluating the issue thus we abstained from voting," he said. Beirut, 10 Jun 10, 09:09

Security Council approves new sanctions against Iran
Lebanon abstains, Brazil and Turkey vote against resolution
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Edith M. Lederer
Associated Press
UNITED NATIONS: The UN Security Council on Wednesday approved new sanctions against Iran over its suspect nuclear program that target Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guards, ballistic missiles and nuclear-related investments.
The resolution imposing a fourth round of sanctions against Iran was approved by a vote of 12-2 with Lebanon abstaining and Brazil and Turkey voting “no.” Turkey and Brazil, both non-permanent council members, brokered a fuel-swap agreement with Iran which they hoped would address concerns Tehran may be enriching uranium for nuclear weapons and avoid new sanctions.
US President Barack Obama welcomed the sanctions, saying it sends an “unmistakable message” to Tehran.
Obama called them the toughest sanctions ever faced by the Iranian government, even though the final version was not as tough as what his administration initially proposed.
Speaking at the White House Wednesday shortly after the UN vote, Obama said that Iranian leaders continue to “hide behind outlandish rhetoric” while moving ahead with “deeply troubling” steps on a path toward nuclear weapons.
Brazil’s UN Ambassador Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti said sanctions would lead to “suffering” by the Iranian people, delay dialogue on the country’s nuclear program, and run contrary to Brazil and Turkey’s efforts to engage Tehran.
The Security Council imposed limited sanctions in December 2006 and has been ratcheting them up in hopes of pressuring Iran to suspend enrichment and start negotiations on its nuclear program. The first two resolutions were adopted unanimously and the third by a vote of 14-0 with Indonesia abstaining.
Iran has repeatedly defied the demand and has stepped up its activities, enriching uranium to 20 percent and announcing plans to build new nuclear facilities. Tehran insists its program is purely peaceful, aimed at producing nuclear energy.
The US and its allies believe Iran’s real aim is to produce nuclear weapons and want Iran to suspend uranium enrichment and start negotiations on it nuclear program.
The new resolution bans Iran from pursuing “any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons,” bars Iranian investment in activities such as uranium mining, and prohibits Iran from buying several categories of heavy weapons including attack helicopters and missiles.
It imposes new sanctions on 40 Iranian companies and organizations – 15 linked to Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guards, 22 involved in nuclear or ballistic missile activities and three linked to the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines. That more than doubles the 35 entities now subject to an asset freeze.
The resolution also adds one individual to the previous list of 40 Iranians subject to an asset freeze – Javad Rahiqi who heads the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran’s Esfahan Nuclear Technology Center.
The resolution also calls on all countries to cooperate in cargo inspections – which must receive the consent of the ship’s flag state – if there are “reasonable grounds” to believe the cargo could contribute to Iranian nuclear program.
On the financial side, it calls on – but does not require – countries to block financial transactions, including insurance and reinsurance, and to ban the licensing of Iranian banks if they have information that provides “reasonable grounds” to believe these activities could contribute to Iranian nuclear activities.
China and Russia have strong economic ties with Iran and last week Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was quoted as saying in Beijing that the resolution would protect the economic interests of both countries.
China’s UN Ambassador Zhang Yesui said after the vote that the sanctions were aimed at curbing nonproliferation and would not affect “the normal life of the Iranian people” nor deter their normal trade activity.
The new resolution was hammered out during several months of difficult negotiations by the five veto-wielding permanent council members – the US, Russia, China, Britain and France – and nonmember Germany who have been trying for several years to get Iran into serious discussions on its nuclear ambitions.
The five permanent council members, in a statement after the vote, stressed that the resolution “keeps the door open for early engagement” with Iran. It welcomed and commended “all diplomatic efforts, especially those by Brazil and Turkey.” But in Vienna, three diplomats said the US, Russia and France dismissed Iran’s proposal to swap some of its enriched uranium for fuel for a research reactor in Tehran which was brokered by Brazil and Turkey.
The diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity because the replies were private, said they contain a series of questions that in effect stall any negotiations on the issue and present Tehran with indirect demands that it is not ready to meet.
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed receipt of the three-nation response and said it would be passed on to Tehran.
The US, Russia and France have said that – unlike the original plan drawn up eight months ago – the swap proposal would leave Iran with enough material to make a nuclear weapon.
A European Union statement also criticized Iran for stonewalling attempts to probe its nuclear activities and refusing to heed UN Security Council demands for a freeze on enrichment, which can make both nuclear fuel and fissile warhead material.
But his Iranian counterpart, Ali Asghar Soltanieh said that “illegal resolutions” by the council will not stop his country from exercising its “legitimate right to develop its nuclear program.”

Former US envoy favors talking to Lebanese resistance
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Susan Cornwell
Reuters
WASHINGTON: The United States should talk to the Lebanese Hizbullah movement, former US diplomat Ryan Crocker said on Tuesday. But current US officials rejected dealing with the group listed as a terrorist group by Washington.
Crocker, who was US ambassador in Baghdad from 2007 to 2009, suggested Washington should engage with Hizbullah in the same way that Americans had engaged with some former Sunni insurgents in Iraq. As a result, they turned against Al-Qaeda helped and reverse the tide of sectarian conflict.
“One thing I learned in Iraq is that engagement can be extremely valuable in ending an insurgency,” he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
“We cannot mess with our adversary’s mind if we are not talking to him,” Crocker said.
“Hizbullah is a part of the Lebanese political landscape, and we should deal with it directly,” he added.
Hizbullah, meaning “Party of God” in Arabic, shares the Shiite Islamist ideology of Iran. It was set up with the help of Iranian Revolutionary Guards to fight Israeli forces that invaded Lebanon in 1982.
It is now part of a national unity government in Lebanon, and also the most powerful military force there. It still has strong support from Tehran and is also backed by Damascus.
Crocker’s suggestion followed recent comments by White House official John Brennan that the Obama administration wanted to build up “moderate elements” in Hizbullah.
But State Department officials at Tuesday’s hearing denied US policy was in flux. “We do not … think that there is any room right now for engagement with Hizbullah,” said Daniel Benjamin. the department’s counter-terrorism coordinator.
“I don’t anticipate that policy changing,” said Jeffrey Feltman, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs. He said Washington could rethink its policy if Hizbullah would stop maintaining a militia, drop “terrorist” activities and evolve into a “normal” part of Lebanon’s political fabric.
Hizbullah fought a 34-day war with Israel in 2006. Recently Israel accused Syria of arming Hizbullah with long-range Scud missiles capable of hitting deep inside Israel.
Crocker, one of Washington’s most experienced Middle Eastern hands before he retired last year, also urged senators to confirm a new ambassador to Syria.
President Obama’s nominee, Robert Ford, has stalled in the Senate amid concerns that Syria may have transferred Scuds to Hizbullah.

Arabs shouldn't weep for Helen Thomas
By Michael Young
Commentary by
Thursday, June 10, 2010
By this time, you will have heard what happened to former White House correspondent Helen Thomas, who resigned this week as a columnist for Hearst newspapers after a comment she made to an American rabbi, David Nesenoff, was caught on videotape.
On May 27, Thomas attended Jewish Heritage Celebration Day at the White House. There, Nesenoff asked her if she had anything to say about Israel. “Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine,” Thomas replied. “Remember, these people are occupied, and it’s their land; it’s not German, it’s not Poland’s.” When asked where the Jews should go, she answered “they should go home” to “Poland, Germany, America and everywhere else.”
Nesenoff posted her remarks online and all went dark for the 89-year-old journalist of Lebanese origin.
It’s never pleasant to see someone self-destruct, particularly someone as prominent as Helen Thomas, the dean of White House reporters who had been asking difficult questions of American presidents for almost half a century. However, it would be an insult to Thomas to dismiss the whole affair as the foolish ramblings of a senile woman. If she continued to write for Hearst, then presumably she was of sound enough mind to be taken seriously by the likes of Nesenoff.
Nor would it be quite fair to suggest that Thomas was being anti-Semitic. If anything, her impossible vision offered up an extreme form of integration – or rather reintegration. Let the Jews come back to their countries of origin, including the United States, was her proposal. For anti-Semites, at least those living in the West, it’s usually a contrary trajectory they seek to impose: the departure of Jews to wherever they are accepted, above all Israel.
The fact is that Thomas’ statements were, simply, stupid, as well as ahistorical and thoroughly out of touch with the mainstream in the Palestinian national movement. Two decades ago the Palestinian Liberation Organization accepted the idea of a two-state solution to the Palestinian problem. Before that, even the uncompromising Palestinian National Charter of 1968 accepted that Jews who had resided in Palestine “until the beginning of the Zionist invasion” would be considered Palestinians. The date of that invasion was left unspecified, but as French analyst Xavier Baron has written, the Palestinian National Council established it as 1917, which meant that at least some Jews would be allowed to remain in Palestine.
More important, even in their most obdurate mood Palestinian nationalists recognized that there were Jews in Palestine long before the creation of Israel, something Thomas failed to admit. For her the Jews are entirely alien to the land, and she could not possibly have been limiting her suggestion to the occupied Palestinian territories, since she never indicated that Jews should return to Israel proper.
Thomas was speaking from her gut, and no doubt quite a few Arabs and individuals sympathetic to the Palestinian cause applauded from their gut too. The daily Al-Hayat even published an article this week on Thomas’ resignation, under a headline stating that she was pushed out of her job because of criticism from the “Jewish lobby.” That was nonsense. The condemnation was universal, and rightly so. Thomas’ words were indefensible, as was her inability to grasp what it means to tell Jews that they should return to Germany and Poland, countries where Jewish communities were annihilated during the World War II.
The worst thing that could happen is for Thomas’ fate to feed into a new Arab tale of victimhood. Siding with crackpot conclusions like hers only discredits Arabs, especially at a time when the onus is on Israel to explain precisely what it intends to do with the Palestinians it has dispossessed, occupied, and mistreated for several generations, and who within a not-too-distant future will form a demographic majority between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River.
Israel has provided no convincing answers and, as a consequence, has seen the narrative of Jewish victimization diluted by growing international sympathy for the Palestinian narrative of victimization. One narrative must not be allowed to displace the other, but for Arabs to endorse Thomas means they seek exclusivity for their own.
A Palestinian-Israeli peace settlement is probably a long way away, perhaps generations away at this stage. However, the Arabs have as little right to be ambiguous about what should become of the Jews of Israel after that settlement as Israeli Jews have the right to evade questions about their plans for the Palestinians. This is not a marginal matter. There is a real risk that the Palestinian national movement may eventually fall under the sway of Hamas, whose charter is disturbingly silent about what should happen to Jews in a liberated Palestine. Presumably, a majority would be expelled or choose to leave, while those staying behind would find themselves part of a “protected” second-class community under an Islamic government.
When Thomas was publicly challenging George W. Bush about his war in Iraq, much of the American literati applauded. The crusty old cow has spunk, they muttered admiringly. Now she’s a pariah, and faint echoes of admiration are accompanied by embarrassed coughs and the clearing of throats. And yet for me, the real worth of Thomas was her complete blindness as to the genocidal nature of Saddam Hussein’s regime, her abridgment of the Iraqi issue so that it mainly encompassed her dislike of Bush and her verbal jousting with the president – a parochial endeavor implying that Iraq was only really important as part of a Washington conversation.
Helen Thomas was a good reporter, and for that she merits kudos. But reporters don’t necessarily always think things through, and many of them are no better than stenographers with an attitude. That someone of Thomas’ experience should have been so easily betrayed by impulse suggests that lately she had veered into the latter category. It’s a shame, but there you have it. We really don’t need to disgrace ourselves by trying to discern reason in her unreason.
**Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR. His “The Ghosts of Martyrs Square: An Eyewitness Account of Lebanon’s Life Struggle” (Simon & Schuster) has just been published.
The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)
 

Obama Meets Abbas: And Shows He Understands Neither Hamas Nor Israel, Neither the Middle East Nor Islamism
By Barry Rubin*
June 10, 2010
http://www.gloria-center.org/blog/2010/06/obama-doesnt-understand-israel-or-islamism
We depend on your contributions. To make a tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card, click the Donate button in the upper-right hand corner of this page. To donate via check, make it out to "American Friends of IDC," with "for GLORIA Center" in the memo line. Mail to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10003.
President Barack Obama has announced an additional $400 million in aid for housing, school construction and business development in Gaza and West Bank in his meeting with Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas. Calling the status quo in Gaza unsustainable, Obama said he was talking with Europeans, Egypt, Israel, and the PA on how to have a better approach that takes into account the security concerns of Israel and the needs of people in Gaza.
He also urged the need to rush ahead on a peace process which has no chance of success, calling this situation, too, unsustainable. It is in fact Obama's policy which is unsustainable.
Obama said, "As part of the United Nations Security Council, we were very clear in condemning the acts that led to this crisis and have called for a full investigation." What does this mean? Which acts? The acts of provocation and attacks on Israeli soldiers or is he blaming Israel? Who knows? The president of the United States is not supposed to be inscrutable.
Moreover, the president of the United States shouldn't hide behind the UN. What is his policy? Where is the leadership?
And then he repeated something he has done before--claimed that Israelis backed his policy-- which is blatantly untrue as polls show. ""What we also know is that the situation in Gaza is unsustainable. I think increasingly you're seeing debates within Israel, recognizing the problems with the status quo." The truth is that Obama understands nothing about Israel. He should leave the choice of Israel's government to its people and the setting of policies to its government.
Aside from all this, Obama displays no strategic sense. He should make clear that the United States does not want an Iranian client, a revolutionary jihadists Taliban-like regime on the Mediterranean Sea. It should be the goal of U.S. policy to avoid this. Instead he deals with this as a "humanitarian" issue and makes no effort to get across what should be the main point.
And so Obama said:
"We agree that Israelis have the right to prevent arms from entering into Gaza that can be used to launch attacks into Israeli territory. But we also think that it is important for us to explore new mechanisms so that we can have goods and services, and economic development, and the ability of people to start their own businesses, and to grow the economy and provide opportunity within Gaza."
He and his advisors have no comprehension of what makes Hamas and its leaders tick. So he wants a prosperous Gaza Strip under Hamas leadership? Money will be pouring in, jobs will be created. Of course, only until Hamas decides to start the next war. What does he envision is going to happen under his strategy? That the lean and hungry leaders of Hamas will sell out to the infidels and open a chain of fast-food restaurants?
Nor does he have the slightest clue about Palestinian politics. Just as he misstates Israeli thinking, Obama has no conception that Fatah is full of radicals and is in competition with Hamas to prove itself more militant. He keeps repeating the idea that the Palestinians are suffering so much that they are eager for a deal, the same error made--with more justification to be sure--by the Clinton Administration in 2000.
Remember the policy up until now has been to help the Palestinian Authority to become more stable and prosperous so that Gazans would contrast their situation with it and say, "Moderation is certainly better than extremism!" Now they and many others will say, "Extremism is certainly better than moderation! You still get Western support, they protect you from being overthrown, and you don't have to moderte or sell out at all!"
Who's really making the Middle East unsustainable? Barack Obama is with a policy of weaken your friends and help your enemies get stronger.
Note that Obama did not mention the conditions for easing the blockade--that Hamas abandon terrorism and accept Israel's existence--nor did he say that anything the Palestinian Authority or Hamas is doing is "unsustainable." Only Western and Israeli policy are said to be unsustainable. In effect, Obama is saying that the policies of Hamas, Iran, Hizballah, and Syria, among others, are infinitely sustainable, especially because of his reluctance to do things to make them unsustainable.
And thus in Middle East terms, he's saying: Your intransigence has won. We couldn't move you so our policy has failed. We must give in.
Let's be clear here. The assessment in this article is a harsh one but the policy of this administration is a disastrous one. To condemn it has nothing to do with party or ideology. Unfortuntely, though, this administration has taken leave of any sense of national interests' policy, has substituted Feelgoodpolitik for Realpolitik.
Obama may honestly believe that pumping money into specific projects in Gaza like houses, schools, and businesses is not a subsidy for Hamas. But of course that is what it will be. Anyone should be able to understand this:
--Schools. That means classrooms were Hamas can indoctrinate children into thinking that they should grow up to be terrorists, Israel must be wiped off the map, peace with Israel is unacceptable, the Jews must be murdered, America is evil and its influence should be driven out of the region, and all existing Arab states except for Syria should be overthrown.
If I was a cartoonist I'd draw a picture of a classroom. On the wall is a plaque saying: Paid for by the American people. The teacher is telling the kiddies: "And so you must all grow up to be holy warriors and wipe out the Zionist pigs and imperialist dogs." That is no exaggeration.
----Construction. Yes it would be nice if Gazans had jobs and nicer places to live. But no body in a Palestinian refugee camp (except perhaps if they bribe someone) will get a new apartment since they must continue to suffer until they can presumably return in triumph to take over housing recently vacated by murdered Israelis. Apartments will be given first by the Hamas government to its supporters and thus used to recruit people and bind them to the movement. Some of the concrete and other equipment will be siphoned off for building bunkers or rockets to fire at Israel.
If I were a cartoonist I'd draw a picture of an apartment building with a sign saying, "Gift of the American people" in front of it and with a Hamas official saying to a man: "And if you become a suicide bomber you not only get to go to heaven but your family will receive a two-bedroom apartment with a nice view of the beach." That, too, is no exaggeration.
Remember the United States has no one on the ground in the Gaza Strip to supervise these projects and prevent Hamas from stealing money, materials, and products. I'd prefer all the money be given for aid to the West Bank than have any funds go to the Gaza Strip.
And what happens when Hamas attacks Israel again? I can see the media coverage now, complaining that Israel is damaging all those beautiful U.S.-financed buildings, which are being used as rocket-launching sites and bunkers by Hamas.
Can't the U.S. government figure this stuff out for itself? The president is not the head of a foundation providing grants to community organizers. So the money will be taken by Hamas and other Islamists as "blood money" to pay compensation for the blockade or as tribute from a frightened America. It will win no friends and do no good strategically or politically.
Here's the bottom line:
The president of the United States has just announced that his country must give in to the defiance of a dictatorship with about 1.2 million people. He is going to subsidize a genocidal-intentioned, antisemitic, terrorist regime allied to Iran and he is eager to stabilize its rule.

Erdogan and the Israel Card
by Steven J. Rosen
Wall Street Journal
June 10, 2010
http://www.meforum.org/2668/erdogan-and-the-israel-card
The deaths of nine Turkish citizens in the Gaza flotilla incident would have brought a severe reaction under any circumstances. What is nonetheless striking in this incident is the unbridled anger and fiercely hostile reaction of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the Turkish public. Mr. Erdogan said Israel was guilty of "state terrorism" and a "bloody massacre." His foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, said "This attack is like 9/11 for Turkey," comparing it to a premeditated act of aggression that took 2,900 lives.
Mr. Erdogan does not always display such reactions to allegations of human rights violations. Last year, he defended Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, indicted by the International Criminal Court for killing half a million Sudanese Christians and non-Arab Muslims. In March 2010, he denied that Turks ever killed Armenian civilians. He labeled a U.S. congressional resolution on the Armenian deaths "a comedy, a parody." He said that the Turkish military garrison stationed in Cyprus since 1974 is "not an occupier" but "[ensures] the peace." On tens of thousands of Kurds killed by Turkish security forces from 1984 to 1999, he says nothing.
Could it be that there is something more to Mr. Erdogan's rage against Israel than just a spontaneous reaction to the loss of life here?
Turkish elections, 13 months away, hold the answer. Backing for Mr. Erdogan's party has fallen to 29%, the lowest level since it won power in 2002 and far below the 47% it scored in July 2007. So Mr. Erdogan decided to play the Israel Card.
He tested this tactic in January 2009, in a confrontation with Israeli President Shimon Peres at Davos. Mr. Peres asked him in front of the cameras: "What would you do if you were to have in Istanbul every night a hundred rockets?" Mr. Erdogan shot back, "When it comes to killing you know very well how to kill." Thousands of Turks applauded Mr. Erdogan's performance, greeting him with a hero's welcome and a sea of Turkish and Palestinian flags upon his return home to Ataturk Airport.
Mr. Erdogan's anger at the Israeli blockade is even more popular among his countrymen. In fact, 61% of Turks surveyed in one poll did not find his rage sufficient. "The public is in such a state that they almost want war against Israel," the pollster commented. "I think this is widespread in almost all levels of society." Mr. Erdogan has become a hero in the Muslim world, where he is seen as the "new Nasser," in the words of one Saudi writer.
The truth is that friendship toward Israel was always limited to the Turkish secular elites, including the military chiefs. Turkey is fertile ground for Mr. Erdogan's demagoguery because many ordinary people are raised to dislike Israel and—dare it be said—Jews. In April 2010, the BBC World Service Poll found negative views of Israel among 77% of Turks.
Jews as a people fare no better than the Jewish state. In the 2009 Pew Global Attitudes survey, 73% of Turks rated their opinions of Jews as "negative." Meanwhile, 68% of Turks rated their opinions of Christians as "negative."
Turks don't like the United States much more than they do Israel. The same BBC poll found negative views of the U.S. among 70% of Turks, one of only two countries where perceptions of the United States actually worsened after the election of Barack Obama (positives fell to 13% from 21%, and negatives increased to 70% from 63%).
Nor is it the case that anti-Americanism in Turkey is primarily a response to U.S. support for Israel. Many Turkish citizens view the U.S. as anti-Muslim and see the war on terror as an anti-Muslim crusade across the Middle East. Turks resent the rich "imperialist" superpower and believe that the U.S. invaded Iraq for oil.
Islamists and the Turkish left suspect that the U.S. and NATO propped up a succession of Turkish governments backed by the military. Others believe that the U.S. supports the Iraqi Kurds and may plan to create a Kurdish state in Iraq. And most remain convinced that members of the U.S. Congress who vote for Turkish genocide resolutions do so under the influence of Armenian-Americans, who are more numerous than Americans of Turkish origin.
Anti-American feelings in Turkey exist independently of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, but these three phenomena are mutually reinforcing and convergent. More disturbingly, parallels to these trends pervade much of the Muslim world. What the flotilla incident demonstrates is that igniting this tinderbox of hostility toward Israel, Jews and America does not take much of a spark.
*Mr. Rosen is the director of the Washington Project of the Middle East Forum.

Lebanese Threaten Mass March on Israeli Border
by Hillel Fendel//Arutz Sheva 
The anti-Israel flotilla has turned the tide of world opinion against Israel, Fatah leaders in Lebanon say, and the time is ripe for a mass civilian charge against Israel’s border.
Mounir Al-Makdah, a leading Fatah leader in Lebanon, says plans are being made for a mass charge against Israel’s northern border. “What can Israel do,” he asks, “kill the entire Palestinian nation [sic]?” “And even if they kill all those who take part in the march, the number of remaining Palestinians will still be more than all the Jews in the world.”
Al-Makdah told the Lebanese newspaper Al-Sapir that the plans for the march are being made via letters to thousands of “Palestinians” living around the world inviting them to take part. “It could be that they will just break through the border, with their children and their elderly. What will Israel be able to do?”
“A wind of change has begun to blow,” he said, “and Israel has begun to be a yoke not only for the Palestinian nation, but for the whole world.”
“The freedom flotilla brings a message of the beginning of the end of Israel,” Al-Makdah said.
He made similar remarks to a French news agency earlier this week, saying that such marches should take place from all areas that border on Israel – Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and Judea/Samaria. He said he hopes the Lebanese government, of which Hizbullah is a part, will soon grant a permit for the mass march.

PM Netanyahu: Inquiry Must Investigate Flotilla Organizers
by Hillel Fendel/Arutz Sheva
Speaking at the Marker Financial Conference on Wednesday, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu began with a few notable remarks on the world community's demand for an inquiry into Israel's response to the provocative flotilla of last week. Netanyahu said the inquiry must investigate those who organized the flotilla, and their motives, as well.
"We are consulting with several figures within the international community," Netanyahu said, "regarding the appropriate procedure of inquiry that will corroborate all the facts relating to the Gaza flotilla. We know the truth and the people of Israel know the truth.""The Minister of Defense, Ministers, the Chief of Staff and I are prepared to testify and provide all the unembellished facts. But I remain firm in my position that, as always, the IDF will be the only organization to question our soldiers. This is the custom in our allies' armies and we shall behave in a similar fashion.
"But I ask that the whole truth come to light, and therefore the inquiry must also include answers to certain questions that many in the international community prefer to ignore:
"Who is behind the radical group on the deck of the ship? Who funded its members? How did axes, clubs, knives and other types of cold weapons find their way on to the ship? Why were extremely large sums of money found in the pockets of those people on the deck of the ship? Who was this money intended for? The world needs to know the whole picture, and we will ensure that the whole picture is made public."
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said Wednesday night that a final decision on who will investigate the flotilla events will be made by this Sunday. It currently appears that an Israeli team of lawyers, accompanied by two foreign observers, will perform the inquiry. The mini-cabinet of seven top Israeli cabinet ministers convened on Wednesday to discuss the matter.
Obama: US to Pour $400 Million into PA
by Hillel Fendel
“The situation in Gaza is unsustainable – [as is] the status quo in the entire Middle East.” So said U.S. President Barack Obama after meeting with Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas in Washington on Wednesday. See video below.
Obama repeated several times that a new solution other than a maritime blockade on Gaza must be found to address “Israel’s legitimate security needs.”
The President also mentioned, once, the need for “more progress on both security as well as incitement issues” – to which Abbas responded, “I say in front of you, Mr. President, that we have nothing to do with incitement against Israel, and we’re not doing that.”
In actuality, however, the most recent report by Palestinian Media Watch shows that “the Palestinian Authority, the Fatah leaders and the Abbas-controlled official PA media continue to deny Israel’s existence, deny Israel’s right to exist, define the conflict with Israel as an uncompromising religious war for Allah, promote hatred through demonization, slander and libel, and glorify terror and violence.”
PMW states that the PA and Fatah leaders make moderate statements to Western powers in English, in contrast to what they tell their own people in Arabic. The full PMW report may be seen here. [article continues below]
Obama: Two-State Solution
Obama reiterated that “a lot of work… remains to be done so that we can create a two-state solution in the Middle East in which we have an Israel that is secure and fully accepted by its neighbors, and a Palestinian people that have their own state, self-determination, and the ability to chart their own destiny.”
Regarding the flotilla and the blockade on Gaza, Obama said that he and Abbas discussed how they could promote “a better approach to Gaza.” Obama acknowledged that Israel “should not have missiles flying out of Gaza into its territories,” and even noted that “I think President Abbas agrees with this.” However, he said, “we also think that it is important for us to explore new mechanisms so that we can have goods and services, and economic development…” in Gaza. “And so we are going to be working hand in hand to make sure that we come up with a better approach.”
Questions on Obama's Proposal
“It seems to us,” Obama later explained, “that there should be ways of focusing narrowly on arms shipments, rather than focusing in a blanket way on stopping everything and then in a piecemeal way allowing things into Gaza.” He did not elaborate on how “focusing narrowly on arms shipments” would stop arms arriving as hidden contraband smuggled in among food and medicine supplies.
In the meantime, Obama said, the United States “is going to be announcing an additional $400 million in assistance for housing, school construction, business development -- not only in Gaza, but also in the West Bank, because we think it’s important for us to reaffirm once again our commitment to improving the day-to-day lives of ordinary Palestinians.”
Asked how the distribution of the money will be overseen, given the “problems” – others have accused PA leaders of downright corruption – in this area in the past, Obama said only, “”I’ll let my team give you the details in terms of how that will be administered and how the money will begin to flow.”

An International Blow to Ahmadinejad
http://www.daralhayat.com/portalarticlendah/151075
Thu, 10 June 2010
By:: Hassan Haidar
It may not take Iran a long time to circumvent – even if partially - the effects of the newly-ratified international sanctions resolution and absorb some of its economic and financial repercussions, whether through the same methods it adopted to maneuver around the previous sanctions or via new means devised by the Iranian political planners. However, although Washington assured that the new package will carry a real wide-scale impact on Tehran and will tighten the noose around its economic and military institutions, the strength of the new resolution mainly resides in the symbolism of the consensus among the superpowers over it, after some of them – and especially Russia and China – showed reluctance or abstained from voting during the previous times.
Therefore, this constituted an international blow to the Iranian regime and particularly to President Ahmadinejad who succeeded – within one year after the decision of Supreme Guide Khamenei to “extend” his term – to alienate the entire world almost in full, including the sides which do not agree with the policies of the United States and sometimes even perceive them as being a source of threat and maybe projects of confrontation, as it is the case with the deployment of American missile defense systems in Eastern Europe or the armament of Taiwan.
The policy of defiance with which Ahmadinejad faced the world and his loud and improvised statements that failed to reflect the usual reservation and astuteness of the Iranian religious institution, contributed to the weaving of consensus over the sanctioning of his country. Consequently, apart from the states seeking a regional role such as Turkey, those trying to “harass” the Americans such as Brazil or the ones forced to neither say “yes” nor “no” such as Lebanon, the remaining members of the Security Council and what they represent in terms of regional groups all supported the sanctions.
The last clash in which the Iranian president “succeeded” and which will carry harmful consequences whose signs have already started surfacing, was firstly seen when he warned Russia against turning into Iran’s enemy, to which the latter responded by calling on him to stop his “political demagogy.” Ahmadinejad also announced he will not partake in the conference of the “Shanghai Cooperation Organization” which includes China, Russia and four Central Asian states and which is being held in Tashkent today, although Iran expressed its wish to join this regional group. It is likely that Moscow preferred not to see him attend, at a time when agreements between the two countries will undoubtedly be affected by both this clash and the sanctions, whether at the level of the S-300 missiles deal or the operation of the Bouchehr reactor.
True, besieging Iran will be a difficult and complicated task which will require coordinated and long-term efforts due to the country’s strength, wealth, its open border with six states and three seas and its influence in geographically-distant areas such as Lebanon and Gaza. However, the international isolation surrounding it is growing and is prone to enter more difficult stages if the Iranian leaders continue to believe that the policy of confrontation at the level of the nuclear file will be more lucrative and that stringency both domestically and abroad is the only way to protect their regime from change. This is especially true as the one-year anniversary of the presidential elections will be commemorated on Saturday - in light of the turmoil which accompanied them and led to a bloody oppression campaign that targeted the opposition which was protesting against falsification - and as these practices are ongoing until this day and will escalate if the oppositionists were to decide to take to the streets once again.
The sanctions resolution stands as a reminder to Tehran that it must change and willingly relinquish the use of violence, money and nuclear ambitions to impose its regional role, or else, these means will gradually erode and will wash away the desired role.