LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

Bible Of the Day
Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians 06/01-11
6:1 Dare any of you, having a matter against his neighbor, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? 6:2 Don’t you know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 6:3 Don’t you know that we will judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? 6:4 If then, you have to judge things pertaining to this life, do you set them to judge who are of no account in the assembly? 6:5 I say this to move you to shame. Isn’t there even one wise man among you who would be able to decide between his brothers? 6:6 But brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers! 6:7 Therefore it is already altogether a defect in you, that you have lawsuits one with another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? 6:8 No, but you yourselves do wrong, and defraud, and that against your brothers. 6:9 Or don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, 6:10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor extortioners, will inherit the Kingdom of God. 6:11 Such were some of you, but you were washed. But you were sanctified. But you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God. 6:12 “All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are expedient. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be brought under the power of anything. 6:13 “Foods for the belly, and the belly for foods,” but God will bring to nothing both it and them. But the body is not for sexual immorality, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. 6:14 Now God raised up the Lord, and will also raise us up by his power. 6:15 Don’t you know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! 6:16 Or don’t you know that he who is joined to a prostitute is one body? For, “The two,” says he, “will become one flesh.”* 6:17 But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit. 6:18 Flee sexual immorality! “Every sin that a man does is outside the body,” but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. 6:19 Or don’t you know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which you have from God? You are not your own, 6:20 for you were bought with a price. Therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.

Israel Vows to Hold Lebanon, Syria Responsible over 'Balance-Breaking Weapons'
Naharnet/Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has reiterated that Israel would hold the Lebanese and Syrian governments responsible for the transfer of any "balance-breaking weapons" to Hizbullah. Barak made his comment while addressing the American Jewish Committee in Washington on Thursday. The defense minister added that Israel was watching closely the situation with Hizbullah and Iran. Also Thursday, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said the alleged smuggling of Scud missiles from Syria to Hizbullah is "a very serious matter."
"I listened to the American defense secretary's remarks when he said that Hizbullah has more missiles than most of the countries in the world," Lieberman said at a press conference in Jerusalem with his Colombian counterpart. "This is certainly very disturbing. Israel does not plan to create any provocations," he said. "Israel is a country with a responsible government. However, hearing the defense minister's words, it certainly is disturbing, and is a threat to the entire region's stability."

Sfeir for Keeping Politics Away from Polls, Enrollment of Christians in Army
Naharnet/Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir on Friday called for keeping politics away from the municipal elections because he said "politics spoils anything it touches." During a meeting with members of the Jbeil list headed by Ziad Hawat, Sfeir stressed the importance of competition in the polls and hoped competent people would take the helm of municipal councils. In remarks to another delegation, Sfeir urged Christian youth to enroll in the army and public institutions to create a balance with Muslims. On Thursday, the prelate was quoted as saying that Lebanese unity was very important in confronting external threats

Suleiman: Hizbullah Arms Positive Not Negative Power
Naharnet/President Michel Suleiman said Friday Israel should understand that the Lebanese won't differ no matter what and described Hizbullah arms as a "positive capability." In an interview with the state-run National News Agency, Suleiman accused the Jewish state of seeking to create divisions among Lebanon. "Our stance in Lebanon is clear. We hold onto our diversity," the president said. He called accusations about the alleged transfer by Syria of Scud missiles to Hizbullah as attempts to divide the Lebanese. "I can reassure everyone that the Lebanese won't be divided." Asked about all-party talks at Baabda palace, the president said: "The national dialogue would achieve results." "The national defense strategy means unification of national capabilities in order to implement its policy to defend the nation," Suleiman told NNA. When asked about conflicting statements on the reasons behind the dialogue, the president said: "The resistance arms are a positive capability and not a negative capability. From this sense, they is being discussed at the dialogue table." In an interview with LBC television on Thursday, Suleiman stressed that "there will be no internationalization of the border between Lebanon and Syria, but on the contrary, we will cooperate to control the border.
" Beirut, 30 Apr 10, 12:35

Suleiman: No Internationalization of Lebanese-Syrian Border, But Rather Joint Control
Naharnet/President Michel Suleiman stressed that "there will be no internationalization of border between Lebanon and Syria, but on the contrary, we will cooperate to control the border."
In an interview with LBC television, Suleiman noted that "the Israeli allegations about Scud missiles in Hizbullah's possession have no evidence, and if it (Israel) really had proofs, it would've demonstrated them through the media." "We got used to Israeli threats, we never underestimate them and it (Israel) knows that, but at the same time, it can't frighten us," Suleiman added.
The president stressed that Israel is blowing the risks out of proportion in order to "avoid its commitments." On the other hand, Suleiman stressed that "forming the National Commission for the Abolition of Political Sectarianism is necessary but requires consensus," noting that "if the commission was formed, the goal would not be to terminate the participation of sects in the regime." "The challenge today, in all countries around the world, is the ability to facilitate the participation of all parties and components of society in running the politics of the country," he added. As to the issue of the forthcoming municipal elections, Suleiman stressed that he has "a duty to prevent any interference in polls and to make sure that everyone approaches the results properly, whoever the winners may be." "Lebanon has entered today a new stage, a stage of stability that should positively reflect on the emigrants," Suleiman said in the interview that was previously recorded in Brazil, which hosts millions of Lebanese expatriates."Seeking to enable emigrants to vote aims at strengthening the ability of Lebanon abroad and at connecting the emigrants with their country, Lebanon." Beirut, 29 Apr 10, 23:55

DNA Tests Prove Slaughtered Man is Killer of Ketermaya Family
Naharnet/DNA tests proved that Mohammed Msallem, the suspect in the killing of 4 members of a local family in the Mount Lebanon village of Ketermaya, is the murderer, the National News Agency said Friday. Angry Ketermaya residents on Thursday slaughtered Msallem on suspicion of killing two grandparents and their two young granddaughters and paraded his body through town in retaliation. NNA said Msallem shot to death Youssef Abu Merhi, 75, and his wife Kawthar, 70, along with their granddaughters Zeina, 7, and Amneh, 9.
It said Msallem, a 38-year-old Egyptian who worked as a butcher in Ketermaya, was rushed to hospital by police after he was badly wounded by the mob. Local media said dozens of residents intercepted a police jeep carrying Msallem to the reenactment site, dragged the killer out and attacked him with sticks and knives. His body hung from the pole for about 10 minutes before Lebanese army troops took him down and drove him away in a jeep, an AP photographer at the scene said. But the locals chased the killer to Siblin hospital, dragged him out and beat him with sticks to death. After the killing, the crowd stripped Msallem down to his underpants and drove through Ketermaya. There, the residents tied a metal wire around his neck and hung him from an electric pole. "Let the criminal be hanged, to be a lesson for all others who think of killing like this," cried the crowd. The bullet-riddled bodies were discovered Wednesday by the two slain girls' mother, Rana Youssef Abu Merhi, as she returned home from work. The bodies were lying on the floor of Youssef Abu Merhi's house in Ketermaya in the Iqlim al-Kharroub region of the Shouf mountains southeast of Beirut. Rana, a teacher at a nearby school, is divorced from the father, Mohammed Mustafa al-Rawwas, who is said to be living abroad

Amnesty International Calls for Retrial of So-called Hizbullah Cell in Egypt
Naharnet/Amnesty International on Thursday called for a retrial of 26 defendants convicted in Cairo of working for Hizbullah to launch attacks in Egypt, criticizing the use of an emergency court. "These men should be retried by an ordinary court which gives them a chance of getting a fair trial," said the London-based rights watchdog. "Bypassing justice by referring sensitive cases to emergency courts undermines the criminal justice system and encourages human rights abuses," Amnesty said. In a trial which reflected Egypt's tense ties with Hizbullah, the men -- Lebanese, Palestinians, Egyptians and a Sudanese national -- received jail terms of between six months and life imprisonment. Four of the men were tried in absentia, three of whom were given the longest jail terms. The 26 were convicted of plotting attacks against ships in the Suez Canal and on tourist sites, among other charges. "Their conviction was based on 'confessions' which the defendants say were obtained under torture," Amnesty said in a statement. Egypt's emergency law, in place since the assassination of President Anwar Sadat in 1981, allows for indefinite detention and the courts set up under the law deny the right of appeal. The defendants "were denied an adequate defense and tried by a special court whose decisions cannot be appealed before a higher tribunal. Convictions after unfair trials can only entrench injustice," Amnesty said.(AFP)

Iran, Egypt Line Up Against US, Allies at UN Nuke Meeting
By: Hana Levi Julian/Arutz Sheva
Iran and Egypt are lining up to fight the United States and its allies over Israel at the upcoming United Nations meeting on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has requested a visa to enter the U.S. to attend the meeting, which begins Monday in New York, but it is not yet clear whether the State Department will approve his application. The Iranian leader is hoping to lead a fight to force Israel to sign the treaty and thereby admit to possessing nuclear weapons – something the Jewish State has never confirmed or denied, but which is widely assumed to be true.
Israel will not participate in the conference, nor will India or Pakistan, who also are not signatories to the treaty.
If Ahmadinejad is granted the visa, he will face U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who heads the American delegation on nuclear non-proliferation.
The treaty, first signed in 1970, calls on those who possess nuclear warheads to abandon them, and is intended to stop the further spread of atomic weapons. Every five years the 189 signatories to the pact gather to review current compliance with its mandate, as well as the progress made towards its worldwide goals.
In 2005, neither objective was reached due to ongoing debates between Iran, the U.S. and Egypt.
The treaty has thus far failed to stop Iran from proceeding with its rush towards nuclear capability, despite a current mandate from the U.N. Security Council ordering the Islamic Republic to suspend its uranium enrichment activities. Nor has it stopped North Korea from building a nuclear weapon, or blocked a Pakistani-led illicit nuclear supply network from providing materials to those who can meet the price.
The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, including the U.S., Russia, China, France and Britain plus Germany are already in New York working to draft a resolution on a new set of sanctions aimed at slowing down, if not stopping, Iran from continuing with its nuclear technology development. But the Council is far from united on the issue, as Russia and China continue to balk at the idea of imposing harsh economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic to stop its nuclear development, despite the growing threat to the nations of the world that is becoming clearer as time passes.
Russia has many investments in Iran, not the least of which is a nuclear plant of its own; China has numerous trade agreements, including several involving petroleum products.
By next week, the rotating presidency of the U.N. Security Council again changes hands, and for the next six months, Lebanon will be its new leader. The Lebanese government includes numerous representatives from the Hizbullah terrorist organization, which is patronized by Iran both through generous funding and shipments of arms.

Congress Outruns Obama for Israel and Sanctions against Iran
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu/Arutz Sheva
U.S. President Barack Obama’s Democratic majority is turning against him after barely a year in office and is racing ahead of the President to ensure Israel’s security and force harsh sanctions against Iran. Senate Majority Leader Harold Reid of Nevada, who did not join more than 80 colleagues who recently sent a pro-Israel letter to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, fired off his own missive several days ago. As the Obama administration increasingly accepts Palestinian Authority demands as non-negotiable, Senator Reid wrote, “I...believe that the United States should clearly and unequivocally state our continuing support for Israel and reiterate the unbreakable bond between the two nations…. I hope that the Obama Administration will do everything possible to reduce recent tensions with Israel while reaffirming the need to move forward with the peace process. I urge you to encourage both sides to participate in direct negotiations, which Prime Minister [Binyamin] Netanyahu has already agreed to do.
Other leading Democrats, most notably New York Senator Charles Schumer and Representative Anthony Weiner, also have come out swinging against Secretary Clinton’s and President Obama’s unprecedented public condemnation of Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israeli plans to build more residences for Jews in Jerusalem.
The United States does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over parts of the capital where 300,000 Jews now live following the reunification of the city in the 1967 Six-Day War.
Sen. Reid pointedly stated, “A secure Israel is in our national interest.” One of the principle foundations that President Obama has used to advance the PA position for a new Arab state within Israel’s borders is the claim that doing so is in the interests of the national security of the United States.
Sen. Reid also asserted he is "deeply concerned about the continuing threat from Iran’s nuclear weapons program.”
He is among dozens of Congress members who are pushing for legislation to place crippling gas and oil sanctions on Iran, and the Congressional pace appears to be far faster than that of President Obama.
“We cannot allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon which would threaten Israel, our allies in Europe, and our own national interests,” Sen. Reid wrote Secretary Clinton. “We must move forward with a peace process that protects the security of Israel. I strongly believe that our relationship with Israel makes the United States more secure. We cooperate on critical intelligence matters, work together on weapons systems, and rely on Israel as our ally in a volatile part of the world.”
His comments offset recent remarks and hints from U.S. Army generals and Obama advisors that the failure to establish a PA state is an obstacle towards reaching an understanding with Iran on its nuclear weapons program.
A joint Senate-House of Representatives conference is to meet Wednesday (today) to try to reach common language on the proposed Iran Sanctions Act, which would force President Obama’s hand. The executive branch’s initiatives for tough United Nations sanctions have been met by stiff opposition from Russia and China. President Obama’s main achievement at the recent nuclear summit was to gain a handshake and a noncommittal statement from Beijing.
Another obstacle in the president’s way will pop up on May 1, when Lebanon assumes the month-long rotating presidency of the United Nations Security Council. The chances of his fulfilling his vow to pass a resolution for sanctions “within weeks, not months” are near zero.
His apparent failure gives Congress, which has been criticized for deep divisions, a chance to show it is leading the country. The House of Representatives last December passed the sanctions bill by a whopping 411-12 vote. The bill would punish companies that export refined petroleum products to Iran, which has limited refining capacity despite its vast crude oil reserves. The Obama administration's arguments against the bill are weakening. Fears that it would make it more difficult for the United Nations to pass a resolution on sanctions are less meaningful as the obstacles grow to such a resolution and Iran appears past the point of no return for obtaining nuclear capability.

My Peace Plan: An Israeli Victory
by Daniel Pipes/National Post
April 29, 2010
http://www.meforum.org/pipes/8309/my-peace-plan-an-israeli-victory
Send Comment RSS Share:
This month, Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak declared that Israel must withdraw from Palestinian territories. "The world isn't willing to accept — and we won't change that in 2010 — the expectation that Israel will rule another people for decades more," he said. "It's something that doesn't exist anywhere else in the world."
Is he right? Is peace even possible? And if so, what form should a final agreement take? Those are the questions we asked National Post writers in our series "What's Your Peace Plan?"
Ehud Barak, Israel's defence minister.
My peace plan is simple: Israel defeats its enemies.
Victory uniquely creates circumstances conducive to peace. Wars end, the historical record confirms, when one side concedes defeat and the other wins. This makes intuitive sense, for so long as both sides aspire to achieve their ambitions, fighting continues or it potentially can resume.
The goal of victory is not exactly something novel. Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese strategist, advised that in war, "Let your great object be victory." Raimondo Montecuccoli, a seventeenth-century Austrian, said that "The objective in war is victory." Carl von Clausewitz, a nineteenth-century Prussian, added that "War is an act of violence to compel the enemy to fulfill our will." Winston Churchill told the British people: "You ask: what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory - victory - at all costs, victory, in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be." Dwight D. Eisenhower observed that "In war, there is no substitute for victory." These insights from prior eras still hold, for however much weaponry changes, human nature remains the same.
Victory means imposing one's will on the enemy, compelling him to abandon his war goals. Germans, forced to surrender in World War I, retained the goal of dominating Europe and a few years later looked to Hitler to achieve this goal. Signed pieces of paper matter only if one side has cried "Uncle": The Vietnam War ostensibly concluded through diplomacy in 1973 but both sides continued to seek their war aims until the North won ultimate victory in 1975.
Willpower is the key: shooting down planes, destroying tanks, exhausting munitions, making soldiers flee, and seizing land are not decisive in themselves but must be accompanied by a psychological collapse. North Korea's loss in 1953, Saddam Hussein's in 1991, and the Iraqi Sunni loss in 2003 did not translate into despair. Conversely, the French gave up in Algeria in 1962, despite out-manning and out-gunning their foes, as did the Americans in Vietnam in 1975 and the Soviets in Afghanistan in 1989. The Cold War ended without a fatality. In all these cases, the losers maintained large arsenals, armies, and functioning economies. But they ran out of will.
Likewise, the Arab-Israeli conflict will be resolved only when one side gives up.
Until now, through round after round of war, both sides have retained their goals. Israel fights to win acceptance by its enemies, while those enemies fight to eliminate Israel. Those goals are raw, unchanging, and mutually contradictory. Israel's acceptance or elimination are the only states of peace. Each observer must opt for one solution or the other. A civilized person will want Israel to win, for its goal is defensive, to protect an existing and flourishing country. Its enemies' goal of destruction amounts to pure barbarism.
For nearly 60 years, Arab rejectionists, now joined by Iranian and leftist counterparts, have tried to eliminate Israel through multiple strategies: they work to undermine its legitimacy intellectually, overwhelm it demographically, isolate it economically, restrain its defenses diplomatically, fight it conventionally, demoralize it with terror, and threaten to destroy it with WMDs. While the enemies of Israel have pursued their goals with energy and will, they have met few successes.
Ironically, Israelis over time responded to the incessant assault on their country by losing sight of the need to win. The right developed schemes to finesse victory, the center experimented with appeasement and unilateralism, and the left wallowed in guilt and self-recrimination. Exceedingly few Israelis understand the unfinished business of victory, of crushing the enemy's will and getting him to accept the permanence of the Jewish state.
Fortunately for Israel, it need only defeat the Palestinians, and not the entire Arab or Muslim population, which eventually will follow the Palestinian lead in accepting Israel. Fortunately too, although the Palestinians have built an awesome reputation for endurance, they can be beaten. If the Germans and Japanese could be forced to give up in 1945 and the Americans in 1975, how can Palestinians be exempt from defeat?
The United Nations Security Council, one factor extending the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Of course, Israel faces obstacles in achieving victory. The country is hemmed in generally by international expectations (from the United Nations Security Council, for example) and specifically by the policies of its main ally, the U.S. government. Therefore, if Jerusalem is to win, that starts with a change in policy in the United States and in other Western countries. Those governments should urge Israel to seek victory by convincing the Palestinians that they have lost.
This means undoing the perceptions of Israel's weakness that grew during the Oslo process (1993-2000) and then the twin withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza (2000-05). Jerusalem appeared back on track during Ariel Sharon's first three years as prime minister, 2001-03 and his tough stance then marked real progress in Israel's war effort. Only when it became clear in late 2004 that Sharon really did plan to withdraw unilaterally from Gaza did the Palestinian mood revive and Israel stopped winning. Ehud Olmert's debilitating prime ministry has been only partially remedied by Binyamin Netanyahu over the past year.
Ironically, an Israeli victory would bring yet greater benefits to the Palestinians than to Israel. Israelis would benefit by being rid of an atavistic war, to be sure, but their country is a functioning, modern society. For Palestinians, in contrast, abandoning the fetid irredentist dream of eliminating their neighbor would finally offer them a chance to tend their own misbegotten garden, to develop their deeply deficient polity, economy, society, and culture.
Thus does my peace plan both end the war and bring unique benefits to all directly involved.
**Mr. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.

Time for Arab-Israeli partnership on Iran
To promote peace, US should first focus on building Arab-Israeli anti-Iran alliance
Sara Reef Published: 04.29.10, 01:15 / Israel Opinion
During the November 2007 Annapolis Conference, Haaretz Correspondent Avi Issacharoff properly summed up the attendance of the Saudi participants. “They showed up not because they love us (the Israelis,) but because they hate the Iranians more.” There is an important strategic reason to bring Arabs and Israelis back to the negotiating table now. Because both parties fear a nuclear Iran, the time is ripe for a trilateral partnership between Israel, the Gulf Co-Operation Council (GCC) states, and the US.
In February, during US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s trip to the Persian Gulf, Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal expressed his concern that, “We need an immediate resolution rather than a gradual resolution.” Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has expressed similar sentiments. In response to these concerns, the US has made assurances to protect both its allies in Israel and the Persian Gulf from any Iranian aggression.
Iran asks US to issue visa to Iranian president, who plans to travel to New York Monday to participate in NPT conference
Next week, when US Special Envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell returns to the region to promote indirect peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, he should focus on promoting dialogue in an area of mutual interest to Americans, Arabs, and Israelis. A trilateral partnership should be formed between Israel; the GCC comprising Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates; and the US to counter the Iranian threat of instability in the Middle East. This partnership should then be used as leverage for the US Administration to push for Arab-Israeli peace negotiation.
Predominantly Shiite Iran has historically strained relations with several Sunni Arab states; Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly stated he wants to “wipe Israel off the map.” Both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Prince Saud al-Faisal have expressed concerns to the US administration that United Nations Security Council efforts to impose a fourth round of sanctions on Iran are not happening quickly enough. President Obama would be wise to respond to these concerns by initiating a trilateral partnership.
New backdoor channel
US President Barak Obama should utilize the reminder of this week to garner support for this partnership. He should approach this issue with his allies from the perspective of a mutual defense partnership. If Obama first guarantees the GCC countries and Israel defensive support in the event of any Iranian aggression, he will then be in the position to suggest a trilateral regional conference to discuss other issues of mutual concern. Although the conference will not focus on Arab-Israeli peace negotiations per se, a new backdoor channel will be opened for diplomacy.
This trilateral partnership will have several benefits. The primary one will be regional collaboration of countries working to prevent the establishment of a nuclear Iran. The US could work with its GCC partners to assure China and Russia, the two remaining members of the United Nations Security Council hesitant to approve a new round of sanctions against Iran, a continuous flow of oil, even if new sanctions are implemented.
A nuclear Iran threatens the stability of both Israel and its Arab neighbors alike. By working together, and with the support of the greater international community, Americans, Arabs, and Israelis could counter this threat. The mutual concern shared by Israel and the GCC countries must now be taken advantage of to propel the stalled Arab-Israeli peace negotiations forward.
**Sara Reef is a Project Manager at Intersections International specializing in intercultural communications

Clinton warns Iran, Syria on threats to Israel
US Secretary of state tells AJC Syrian transfers of weaponry to Hezbollah may lead to war, says Israel facing 'some of the toughest challenges in its history.' Barak: We'll hold Lebanese, Syrian governments responsible for introduction of 'balance-breaking' weapons to Hezbollah
Associated Press Published: 04.30.10, 07:59 / Israel News
The Obama administration Thursday warned Iran and Syria that America's commitment to Israel's security is unshakable, and they should understand the consequences of threats to the Jewish state.
In a speech, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Syrian transfers of increasingly sophisticated weaponry, including rockets, to militants in southern Lebanon and Gaza could spark new conflict in the Middle East. Additionally, she said a nuclear-armed Iran would profoundly destabilize the region.
Northern Front
After US defense secretary declares Hezbollah has more missiles than most countries, foreign minister expresses concern. 'This is very disturbing, but Israel does not plan to create provocations or initiate rash moves,' he says
"These threats to Israel's security are real, they are growing and they must be addressed," she said in the speech to the American Jewish Committee in Washington. The speech was the administration's latest effort to reassure Israel that its ties to the United States remain strong despite tensions that flared last month.
Clinton told the group that Israel is "confronting some of the toughest challenges in her history," particularly from Iran, Syria and groups they support like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and reaffirmed US determination to get them to change course.
"Transferring weapons to these terrorists, especially longer-range missiles, would pose a serious threat to the security of Israel," she said.
Israel has accused Syria of providing Hezbollah with Scud missiles, which would dramatically increase the group's ability to strike targets in Israel. Syria has denied the charges.
US officials have not confirmed Hezbollah's possession of Scuds but say they are concerned about its growing arsenal of rockets and missiles.
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, addressing the same group later, made the same points as Clinton and said Israel was watching closely the situation with Hezbollah and Iran. He said Israel would hold the Lebanese and Syrian governments responsible for the introduction of any "balance-breaking weapons" to Hezbollah.
Barak said Israel is not interested in escalation, but is following the effort to change the balance of power in the region. Getting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to stop supplying these weapons, Clinton said, is one of the administration's prime goals in returning an ambassador to Damascus. The United States has been without an ambassador in Syria for five years. The nominee, career diplomat Robert Ford, is awaiting Senate confirmation.
'US open to engaging with Tehran'
Some lawmakers have questioned the wisdom of sending an envoy to Syria now, saying it would reward the country for bad behavior.
Clinton argued it would not be "a reward or concession," but rather "a tool that can give us added leverage and insight and a greater ability to convey strong and unmistakably clear messages aimed at changing Syria's behavior."
"President Assad is making decisions that could mean war or peace for the region," she said. "We know he's hearing from Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas. It is crucial that he also hear directly from us, so that the potential consequences of his actions are clear."
On Iran, Clinton said the administration remains open to engaging with Tehran, but it must meet international demands to prove its suspect nuclear program is peaceful and not a cover for developing atomic weapons. Short of that, the United States will continue to press for tough new UN Security Council sanctions on Iran.
Iran is trying to forestall fresh sanctions and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may try to use a nuclear conference at the United Nations next week to lobby against them.
Ahmadinejad is now a confirmed speaker at the conference, which will review the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty at UN headquarters in New York, the UN confirmed Thursday night.
Ahead of her speech, Clinton said any attempt by Ahmadinejad to undermine the purpose of the conference would fail.
"If he believes that by coming he can somehow divert attention from this very important global effort or cause confusion that might possibly throw into doubt what Iran has been up to, ... then I don't believe he will have a particularly receptive audience," she said.
In her speech, Clinton also said the United States will continue to pursue an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal and is hoping to restart indirect talks between the two sides soon.
The administration's special Mideast envoy George Mitchell is due back in the region next week. His visit will follow a weekend meeting of Arab League diplomats at which US officials hope for an endorsement of the indirect talks, which Mitchell would mediate.
An attempt to get those talks started last month fizzled when Israel announced a new Jewish housing project in east Jerusalem, which the Palestinians claim as a future capital.
That drew fierce criticism from the United States and led to the worst rift between Washington and its top Mideast ally in decades.
Since then, the administration has sought to repair the damage with a series of recent meetings and speeches from senior officials, including Clinton and national security adviser James Jones.
*Yitzhak Benhorin contributed to the report

Hezbollah leader won't confirm or deny Scud claims
Nasrallah says claims his organization has Scud missiles is Israeli intimidation attempt in bid to achieve 'political, psychological, security advantages' without going to war
Reuters Published: 04.29.10, 23:18 / Israel News
Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has refused to confirm or deny Israeli allegations his group has obtained long-range Scud missiles from Syria.
Nasrallah, in an interview with Kuwait's al-Rai television broadcast on Thursday, said the claims were an attempt to "intimidate" the armed Lebanese political organization, but he did not see a repeat of the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah war on the horizon.
"I cannot say that it is close. Myself and brothers in Hezbollah see that all this intimidation does not hide behind it a war. On the contrary, if there was silence and quietness, then everyone must be vigilant," he said.
"But when you see all this American and Israeli noise, this means they want to use this noise to achieve political, psychological and certain security advantages without resorting to the step of war. "Today it's Scuds, yesterday other kinds of rockets ... the aim is one, and that is to intimidate Lebanon, to intimidate Syria and to put pressure on Lebanon, Syria, the resistance movement and the Lebanese and Syrian people," Nasrallah said.
"Regardless of whether Syria gave Hezbollah this type of rockets ... of course Syria denied, and Hezbollah as usual does not comment."
US and Israeli defense ministers have accused Syria of arming Hezbollah with increasingly powerful missiles. Israel has said it does not intend to provoke a conflict over the buildup.
US intelligence and defense officials have cast doubt on Israeli allegations that Scuds have reached Lebanon.

Why are they afraid?
By: Ron Ben
Y.net
30/04/10
The level of tension on the northern border remains high. The tensions grew sharply when Western intelligence agencies spotted the Syrian effort (encouraged and funded by Iran) to equip Hezbollah with Scud missiles to be deployed in northern Lebanon; The tension in the northern theater declined slightly, yet skyrocketed again when a Kuwaiti newspaper exposed the Syrian-Iranian-Hezbollah scheme.
Ever since the publication, the atmosphere in the north has increasingly resembled fuel vapors at risk of being ignited, especially as Lebanon and Syria fear that Israel would not accept the presence of heavy ballistic missiles in Hezbollah’s hands and will take offensive military action in order to lift the additional threat these missiles constitute against the Jewish State’s civilian and military home front.
By the way, this is the first time in global history where a sovereign state hands over heavy ballistic missiles to an armed militia and even trains its members on using them. The US secretary of defense just warned that Hezbollah possesses more rockets and missiles than most world governments.
We can say with much certainty that at this time Israel has no intention of striking in Lebanon or in Syria. It is quite clear that the limited number of Scud missiles that were apparently handed over from Syria to Hezbollah do not fundamentally boost the threat faced by the Israeli home front as result of the rocket and missile arsenal already possessed by Hezbollah.
In recent years, the Shiite group accumulated and prepared for action roughly 45,000 rockets and missiles of all types in fortified and camouflaged shelters. According to Hezbollah, this arsenal includes a few hundred heavy rockets and missiles with a range that enables them to hit every populated area in Israel – even south of Dimona – and a warhead weighing hundreds of kilograms that can cause as much damage as a Scud.
American messages
Some of these heavy rockets are even more dangerous than Scud missiles because they’re more accurate. The main difference between them and the Scuds is that because of the latter’s long range (especially Scud D missiles) they can be deployed in northern Lebanon, which is far away from the Israeli border, thereby make it harder for the Israeli Air Force to target them.
On the other hand, about 30 minutes and possibly more are required in order to prepare the Scud for launch using liquid fuel. During this time the missile is at risk of being spotted by Israel’s intelligence means and it can then be accurately targeted. This is unlike the heavy rockets, which use solid fuel possessed by Hezbollah and can be launched within minutes, with almost no preparation.
The bottom line is that as long as Hezbollah does not possess a large quantity of Scuds, they do not constitute what Israeli defense officials refer to as “balance-breaking weapons.”
In order to prevent the number of Scuds from growing into a major threat, Israel enlisted the help of the US Administration, which has conveyed and is conveying warning messages to Syria and Hezbollah; at the same time, Israel is making sure to convey reassuring messages to Syria and Lebanon in order to prevent a flare-up as result of “miscalculation” – that is, a situation whereby Syria and Hezbollah spot movements in Israeli territory and interpret them as preparations for an imminent Israeli strike – thereby being tempted to strike first.
For that reason, Army Chief Ashkenazi, Defense Minister Barak and Prime Minister Netanyahu recently made sure to publically declare that Israel has no intention of striking Syria or Lebanon, should Syria prevent the transfer of balance-breaking weapons to Hezbollah. This mostly refers to advanced anti-aircraft missiles as well as to a large quantity of advanced models of rockets and Scuds.
This issue is high on the defense minister’s agenda in his talks in Washington. Barak warned that Syria is supporting Hezbollah with weapon systems that may change the sensitive balance.
However, both the Syrians and the Lebanese governments are not relaxing. Syria - because the affair threatens to undermine its rapprochement with the US and may thwart the arrival of a new US ambassador to Damascus; Lebanon - because it fears Israeli reprisal over the deployment of Scuds in its territory. Yet the main reason for Syrian and Lebanese concerns is the assessments they receive from Iran.
What does Iran tell Syria and Lebanon? Read part 2 of analysis Thursday evening
Senior officials in the Revolutionary Guards and in Iran’s political-religious leader have been telling Syria’s Assad, Hezbolla’s Nasrallah, and top Lebanese officials for some months now that Israel is planning a surprise attack against them in the near future.
The Iranians openly say that Israel is interested in lifting the rocket and missile threat posed by Hezbollah and possibly by Syria too via a preventative strike; yet mostly of all, according to the Iranians, an Israeli assault would aim to erase the “disgrace of defeat” in the Second Lebanon War (as the Iranians see it).
In order to reinforce their assessment, the Iranians refer to the large and frequent exercises held by the IDF on the northern border. The Iranians are also saying (and Nasrallah declares it publically) that the Israeli offensive is expected to take place in the spring or summer of 2010.
The “warnings” issued by Iran to its allies which border on Israel have a strategic aim: The Iranians wasn’t the global attention as well as that of Security Council members to be diverted away from Tehran’s refusal on the nuclear issue and the preoccupation with anti-Iran sanctions; instead, it will focus on the tension and threat of war that may erupt at any moment between Israel and its northern neighbors. And so, the Iranians can buy more time while erode the severity of the sanctions against them.
On top of it, the global public opinion’s focus on restraining “Israel’s offensive intentions vis-à-vis its neighbors” creates an international atmosphere that makes it harder for Israel to strike Iran’s nuclear site – if it indeed plans to do so in the near future. This is why Iran encourages Syria to boost its arms shipments to Hezbollah. The protests and threats issued by Israel and the US in response to these arms transfers serve Iran’s strategic objectives well.
However, at this time Iran has no interest whatsoever in igniting an actual war between Israel and Hezbollah, Lebanon, and Syria. Tensions – yes; War – no.
This is the case because in an actual war, Israel’s Air Force and the IDF’s ground forces may destroy Hezbollah’s missile and rocket arm; the very same arsenal which Iran funded and assisted to build in order to use it as a means of reprisal against Israel should it strike Tehran’s nuke sites. The same is true for Syria. Iran also does not wish to see Hezbollah lose the dominant status it acquired within Lebanon’s political establishment, should the Lebanese blame the organization for ruining their country.
Iran’s “assessments,” which are meant to serve Tehran’s aims, enjoy an attentive ear in Damscus and in Beirut. They are commensurate with the Mideastern mode of thinking which sees conspiracies (and especially Israeli ones) at every corner; when Iran warns its allies of an Israeli intention to avenge its “defeat” it certainly appears logical, not only to the leaderships in Damascus and Beirut but also to the people there.
For that reason, Lebanon’s Prime Ministry Hariri has enslited himself to the cause of a campaign of loybbing and pleas in Europe and Arab states aimed at averting “the Israeli attack” becuas eof the Scud transfer. He denies to anyone wiling to listen that the transfer of missiles into his country actually took place.
Yet his hysterical activity is reminiscent of a guilty party; he apparently knows more than He’s willing to say. Yet this did not prevent him from calling German Chancellor Merkel this week in a bid to convince her that the reports about the Scud transfers were unfounded. He is also enlisting support for his arguments in the Arab world and to this aim just attended an urgent meeting with Egyptian Presidnet Mubarak at Sharm el-Sheikh.
Mubarak made sure to allay Hariri’s fears regarding Israel’s intentions; the Germans did the same. However, Hariri is not relaxed, and the fuel vapors continue to hover in Beirut and Damscus. Jerusalem, for its part, is doing everything in order to prevent a situation whereby one of the sides rolls down the slippery slope created by the Iranians because of a flawed understanding of reality.

The Gulf States and Iran
30/04/2010
By Mshari Al-Zaydi
The saying “if you feel no shame then do as you wish” applies to the recent comments made by Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast in reference to the United Arab Emirates.
The Iranian spokesman warned UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah Bin Zayed against likening Iran’s occupation of the three UAE islands to Israel’s occupation of Arab territories. The Iranian spokesman said, “If these statements were really made, I believe it would be difficult to control the sentiments of the Iranian people towards such thoughtless statements.”
I wish I could believe that the spokesman is truly aware of the feelings of the Iranian people, unless of course he was referring to the Basij militia or the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). My suggestion is that he listens to Mir Hossein Mousavi, one of the most prominent leaders of the green revolution, who said recently that the Iranian government had been persecuting oppositionists in the name of Islam. An Iranian website quoted Mousavi as saying, “The only way for Iran to get out of the crisis would be for you (the rulers) to change your approach.”
What are the feelings of the Iranian nation that we should fear or beware of? Is it the feelings of those who are angry and have been filling the streets of Tehran continuously, protesting ever since the so-called “victory” of Ahmadinejad that was secured with the persistence of the Supreme Leader and the IRGC? I recall Damascus’ insistence upon extending the tenure of former Lebanese pro-Syrian president Emile Lahoud that went against the wishes of the people. This incident triggered a series of organized angry reactions across Lebanon.
Despite all the transformations and defeats that have affected the March 14 Alliance, because of its persistence in keeping Lahoud even though there were other pro-Syrian candidates, Damascus remained the biggest loser amid this overflow of rage and resistance over the fact that the will of the people had been ignored in favour of one single party.
Nearly the same thing happened in Iran due to the persistence of the Supreme Leader and the IRGC in granting full support to Ahmadinejad without even considering the demands of those who oppose this man who is immersed in mythical legends and delusions. This fact doubled the level of popular resentment and unleashed fresh anger in the Iranian people; anger that proved to be advantageous to the old internal enemies of the Khomeinist republic as well as its new ones.
Despite the relentless clamour with which the propaganda machine of Iran is deafening the entire region and its banging on the drums of war, it is this machine that is subject to the biggest threat. By Iran, I mean the ruling regime of course and not its vibrant and cultured nation. Look at what happened to the ruling regime; it is fighting on more than one front: externally, internally, internationally, regionally as well as eastward and westward.
The Iranian regime is engaged in a diplomatic war to market its nuclear project on the basis that it is a peaceful one. It dispatched its Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki to Vienna to conduct negotiations with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The latter described the negotiations as being “held in a business-like atmosphere.” Meanwhile, Iran held its missile manoeuvres in the face of Gulf States and European countries at the Strait of Hormuz where it carried out the Great Prophet 5 military drills using speed boats and missiles and to stop European vessels for inspections to check how environmentally-friendly they are, said the IRGC generals, who are so keen on preserving the environment, marine life and the magnificent coral reefs.
The Great Prophet 5 military manoeuvres were primarily directed at the countries opposite Iran on the other side of the Arabian Gulf. The closest of all Gulf States to the Strait of Hormuz is the Sultanate of Oman and then the United Arab Emirates. This would explain the war of words that has been going on for so long between the UAE and Iran. Back in the old days, people used to say that war begins with words. This is not to say that war will break out, God forbid, but I believe that there is a bluffing war going on. Sometimes the gains you make out of threatening to do something are far more substantial than those you would achieve by actually doing what you threatened to do.
Iran’s history with the Gulf region has always been strained regardless of the nature of the ruling regime or its ideology. This situation has persisted from the days of the Safavids, the Qajars and the Pahlavis all the way through to the Khomeinist era. There has always been this permanent desire to expand Iran’s control of that vital area either out of the natural desire for more power, the existence of a large political vacuum at the head of the ruling power or the urgency of taking advanced positions in line with pre-emptive security policy, especially as Khomeinist Iran is carefully watching as the “great Satan,” or the US, draws closer to its borders. Iran wants to distract the US by occupying advanced positions. I would like to say here that the current Iranian hostility towards the US might be a reflection of admiration in the past. You do not hate someone so much unless they disappointed you or stood in the way of you realizing your dreams. This idea was developed by anthropologists and methodologists; that the sacred and desecrated are merely two sides of the same coin. This is what history tells us, but that does not mean that history will inevitably repeat itself. At the end of the day, history is a compilation of the actions and relations of our ancestors. Those actions, relations, conflicts and alliances are carried out by humans governed by their interests, beliefs or ever-changing circumstances.
The people of the Gulf today are very different to the people of the Gulf in the past. They are no longer poor and ignorant people, who ride camels, live in tents and have palm trees on every corner, as some racists in Iran like to think. This is what makes people, such as the Supreme Leader’s media advisor Shariatmadari, speak lightly of the Gulf communities and states all the time.
The UAE’s position towards Iran is legitimate, justifiable and very clear. Sheikh Abdullah Bin Zayed’s statements bear the tone that ought to be directed towards Iran in one collective voice; a voice that explicitly says “enough.” The Gulf States could also respond effectively to the harm caused by Iran’s aggressive policies. In reference to preachy words about the Islamic nation rallying around the Palestinian Cause, such comments will not restore the occupied UAE islands or stave off the damage inflicted by harmful Iranian revolutionary policies. A strong reminder of that is the statement issued by Iranian officials about Bahrain and Iran’s so-called sovereignty over it. As far as Iran is concerned, the entire Gulf region should act in the interest of the East.
At the same time, Iranian society is undergoing major and profound transformations that will have a deep impact not only on the Iranians or the policies of the region, but also on Islam itself as a faith, culture and ideology. Observers of the critical, intellectual and philosophical movement introduced by key intellectual and philosophical figures in Iran’s reformist current like Abdolkarim Saroush will realize the farthest extent to which the Iranian balloon is likely to reach.
One amazing fact remains with respect to the political ideas of some Arabs towards Iran. Many of them do not attach importance to the fears of the people of the Gulf and do not appreciate their statehood or the sanctity of their territories. It is as if the Gulf States do not have any sanctity or the right to defend their territories. From their point of view, only the countries of the north and North Africa are considered fully-fledged recognizable entities. As for the Gulf States, they should stop disturbing Arab fighters by revealing their fears of Iran’s ambitions in the region. Such fears are mere delusions in the view of those fighters. Just as their grand theorist (the master) said; he sees nothing between Iran and Egypt except a vacuum. By this he means the countries situated between Egypt and Iran, and of course the Gulf States are at the top of the list. The master believes that this vacuum contributes to nothing but the surplus of Iran’s power, which the master loves. Of course his disciples applaud him for that. Strange enough, even some Gulf satellite television channels take part in applauding the master.
These people are not aware of the fact that the Gulf region has grown into an economic and educational giant and that the potential of its population has started to materialize. More importantly, Gulf States have begun to secure a good position after decades of operating solely in the field of oil. New Gulf economies that are not entirely dependent on oil have risen in recent years

Our biggest concern
April 29, 2010
Now Lebanon
Egyptian security men stand in front of the dock where 22 of the 26 Hezbollah members accused of plotting attacks in the Suez Canal stood during their trial at a Cairo court on April 28, 2010. (AFP photo/Khaled Desouki)
Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah has had a torrid time of it lately. Hot on the heels of the recent Scud missile scandal, and on the same day that US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in a press conference with his Israeli counterpart Ehud Barak that Hezbollah “has far more rockets and missiles than most governments in the world,” came news that an Egyptian court handed down sentences of between six months and 15 years to 26 members of a so-called Hezbollah cell arrested in late 2008 and January 2009. According to the court, the members had been plotting attacks on shipping in the Suez Canal as well as planning to create mayhem on the local tourist industry.
The defendants claimed they had intended to support Hamas in its struggle with Israel in Gaza. That this can be put forward as a defense says much about the perceived legitimacy of Hezbollah and the Iranian-Syrian axis that has used the Israeli struggle to forward its own regional ambitions and create a potentially apocalyptic confrontation with the West.
It is a legitimacy that now appears to transcend borders and national laws. Nasrallah has vowed to free what he called the “honorable fighters”, whose only crime was to take the fight to Israel in support of their Palestinian brothers. Whatever way you spin it, the judicial rulings are yet another example of how Hezbollah’s activities have now developed a genuinely regional scope and threaten to destabilize a part of the world that lives on a permanent hair trigger at the best of times.
Hezbollah wears many hats. On a national level it wears the beret of Resistance, protecting Lebanon’s southern border and restoring dignity in an area where Israel, not to mention the Lebanese state, ran roughshod over their co-religionists for decades. On a regional level, it is no secret that this same military muscle is at the disposal of an Iranian government that is currently involved in a dangerous standoff with the West and Israel. The party is also a useful tool for a Syrian regime that appears to think it can both run with the fox and hunt with the hounds in its negotiations with the West.
And last but not least, on the Arab street, Hezbollah’s reputation for bravery, honesty and purity of arms in its fight against Zionism has won it almost mythical status. Indeed the sentences cannot have been an easy decision for an Egyptian government that is mindful of the party’s popularity among the country’s population of 78 million.
Amid all this stands Lebanon, the epicenter of the Hezbollah phenomenon and, ominously, the country that stands to lose the most from the party’s increasingly worrying activity. And yet the Lebanese government has not made any serious statement on the matter. Surely, Prime Minister Saad Hariri must recognize that at least half the Lebanese population not only opposes the concept of a political party controlling what is arguably the most potent guerilla force in the Middle East, but also doesn’t want to be dragged into another war on its behalf.
Lebanon went to the polls on June 7, 2009 in what was essentially a referendum on Hezbollah’s weapons. The Lebanese said “no” and yet, nearly one year on, the party has grown into a regional menace. It is time the government told the Lebanese how it will protect Lebanese interests – human, economic and sovereign – in what is rapidly developing into a dangerous regional game. Hezbollah’s agenda should be our biggest concern. Let’s not kid ourselves that it will just go away over time.

Michel Sleiman
April 30, 2010
On April 29, the Lebanese National News Agency carried the transcript of President Michel Sleiman’s interview on the LBC television channel:
Mr. President, criticisms - although they were not numerous - were addressed to you. Can the president not serve the Diaspora from the domestic arena and does he have to conduct all these trips?
These trips do not solely aim at serving the Diaspora despite its importance for Lebanon. They also have a diplomatic goal to explain Lebanon’s status, consecrate its presence on the international map and protect its interests...
It was said you were setting up some sort of institution or secretariat council for senior figures of Lebanese origins for economic consultations or to support Lebanon in the international forums. Is this information true or do you not want to reveal it too soon?
The idea is not actually mine. There are immigrants thinking about the establishment of a committee to support Lebanon on the economic level... I will not address the details of this issue and will offer any required help to ensure their success.
The wisdom which characterized these two years in the term of President Michel Sleiman was understood as being reluctance. Does this is not go against the wish of the people to see a strong president?
I believe that when talking about key choices and principles in the country, there is no reluctance. Quite the contrary, there is stringency and a clear and announced position which has existed in the past and which are still being upheld. However, democracy requires us to listen to the opinions of others over certain details.
This can sometimes lead to the changing or amendment of a certain position. However, the principles are unchanged...
The majority of the lists in the municipal elections are heading toward consensus. Do you encourage that or do you prefer to see elections, electoral battles and lists competing with one another?
This question is misplaced. Everyone encourages consensus.
Lebanon’s entire system is built on consensus. However, this does not mean that we should not stage elections. We must become accustomed to the fact that democracy is a practice and that whenever there are parliamentary, presidential, municipal, unionist or university elections, more momentum is given to democratic life and the process of the rotation of power is improved.
Will you be neutral in these municipal elections, especially in light of the talk saying that the president of the republic has certain inclinations and will interfere to retaliate for what happened during the parliamentary elections?
This is not true. Based on his responsibilities, the president does not retaliate and he was not affected by anything so that he retaliates. The elections must be subjected to democratic standards and it is my duty to prevent any interference by any institution or governmental official. It is also my duty to ensure that these institutions respect the results of the elections regardless of the winners. Therefore, this question should not be asked of the president of the republic...
The experience of the government formation revealed great flaws at the level of the constitution and the system. In the event of a governmental amendment, formation or reshuffle, do you not think we will also head toward a crisis which will require a Doha agreement or a foreign French-Syrian-Saudi intervention?
Democracy in Lebanon is specific and is based on the national pact. We are thus able to form national unity governments in which the different categories are represented the right way. What happened however was that we were late in forming the government and this was a good test which showed that democracy is doing well.
But [this formation] only happened after a long period of debates and foreign intervention, namely the contacts that occurred along the Syrian and Saudi tracks. What can guarantee we will not face a similar crisis again?
We must seek the resolution of our problems without any interference. It is in this context that I said that after the Doha accord, we have reached a normal situation in which we should form our governments and elect our parliamentary and municipal councils without anyone meddling in our affairs. As for the Syrian-Saudi accord, it was reflected in a positive climate on Lebanon. However, no one interfered at the level of the choices, the names, the shares or any other issue...
In regard to the annulment of political sectarianism, do you think we can launch this project today...?
The annulment of political sectarianism is also constitutional and is based on the consensus which is stipulated by the constitution in regard to all topics, even the appointment of a general director.
The constitution clearly states that the decisions should be adopted consensually or with the two-thirds majority. The formation of a committee for the annulment of political sectarianism is necessary but it requires consensus. If formed, its goal will not be the annulment of the participation of the sects. Quite the contrary. The challenge that is seen today all around the world is related to the ability to ensure the participation of all the sides and components of the community in the political administration. This is a characteristic which we in Lebanon must not relinquish. However, we must distance it from political sectarianism or what was known in the past as being “Maronite politics,” “Shia politics” or “Sunni politics...”
The last few hours saw the surfacing of the issue of the Scud missiles and their possible delivery to Lebanon via Syria. How did you read into that development?
I previously addressed this issue. Israel should respect and implement the United Nations resolutions, starting with resolution 1701... The international community and the Security Council should force Israel to implement this resolution.
You have visited the United States and met with two American presidents, i.e. George Bush and Barack Obama. Did you not ask the current US president with whom you met a few months ago to force Israel to implement resolution 1701, at least at the level of the Ghajar issue and the daily Israeli violations targeting the Lebanese territories? And what did the Americans have to offer at this level?
Of course I asked him to do that and at a certain point, the Americans issued a position in regard to naturalization. After my last visit to Washington and my meeting with President Obama during which I addressed the Palestinian refugee issue and the necessity not to naturalize them and give them their rights, a clear American position was issued conveying the rejection of any solution imposing naturalization Lebanon...

Resistance declares right to defend itself
By Dalila Mahdawi
Daily Star staff
Thursday, April 29, 2010

Listen to the Article - Powered by

BEIRUT: Hizbullah Wednesday reacted to US claims it was stockpiling Scud missiles by saying it had a right to defend itself, as a senior UN official said tensions were expected to “dissipate” soon.

“The resistance has the right to use all legitimate means to build its capacity to defend Lebanon,” Hizbullah MP Hassan Fadlallah told AFP. He added that US arms were “annihilating” civilians in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon, and were the chief “cause of all suffering in the region.”

Last week, Israeli President Shimon Peres accused Syria of furnishing Hizbullah with Scud missiles. The charges were repeated late on Tuesday by US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who said the military capabilities of the Shiite group undermined stability in the region. “Syria and Iran are providing Hizbullah with rockets and missiles of ever-increasing capability,” Gates said at a press conference with his Israeli counterpart Ehud Barak. “We’re at a point now where Hizbullah has far more rockets and missiles than most governments in the world,” Gates said, adding that Washington was monitoring the situation “very carefully.”

Gates did not, however, explicitly accuse Syria of supplying Hizbullah with Scud missiles. Barak also voiced concern over Syrian support for Hizbullah but did not repeat the claim that Damascus was supplying the group with Scuds. “We do not intend to provoke any kind of a major collision in Lebanon or vis-a-vis Syria,” he said.

The Scud charges have been denied by Syria, which says Tel Aviv fabricated the story to justify a possible military strike in the future. Lebanese Armed Forces chief General Jean Kahwaji has also dismissed the claims, noting the outdated 30-meter Scuds would be too hard for Hizbullah to conceal and too cumbersome to launch.

The charges showed the US was “waging a diplomatic and political battle” to help its ally Israel maintain superior military capabilities, Fadlallah said. “The US is asking us to accept Israel’s alleged superiority to ensure Israel remains capable of launching attacks at its will, while we are stripped of the ability to face these aggressions,” he told AFP. “We have no interest in acceding to these attempts to concretize Israeli superiority.” The US, rather than Hizbullah, was “the principle factor destabilizing the region, undermining its security and preventing development,” Fadlallah added.

At a meeting with Lebanese Premier Saad Hariri Wednesday, UN Special Coordinator for Lebanon Michal Williams said he expected regional tensions over the Scud controversy to subside.

“The last thing this region wants and needs is further conflict. It has had enough of that over the years,” he said. Williams added he didn’t believe another war was likely, saying there was “too much at stake to lose for all the parties.” “I expect all parties will do their part to maintain the stability in the south and across the Blue Line and that tensions will dissipate,” he added.

In comments published Wednesday by the Qatari Al-Watan daily, Hariri reiterated comments that by claiming Hizbullah had Scud missiles. Israel was trying to justify new war against Lebanon that it could launch whenever it wants.”

He asked whether there was any proof that Hizbullah possessed Scuds, adding that Israel possessed nuclear weapons.

He said he would refuse to ask the Shiite group to deny possessing the missiles. “Why put ourselves in the position of being accused, and why give Israel the right to make such accusations?”

Heightened tensions over the Scud missiles have prompted EU officials to urge Israel, Lebanon and Syria to avoid provocative acts. “The European Union is concerned by the public statements that have been exchanged recently between various parties to the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East,” EU Foreign Affairs chief Catherine Ashton said in a statement Tuesday.

In July 2006, Israel launched a devastating 34-day war on Lebanon. Over 1,200 Lebanese, mostly civilians, and 160 Israelis, mostly soldiers, were killed during the conflict.

UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the conflict, called for Israel to fully withdraw from Lebanese territory and for the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon outside the control of the government.

Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=114343#ixzz0mREaHOD4
(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)