LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِMay 22/2010

Bible Of the Day
Psalm 146/1-10/Praise Yahweh! Praise Yahweh, my soul. While I live, I will praise Yahweh. I will sing praises to my God as long as I exist. Don’t put your trust in princes, each a son of man in whom there is no help. His spirit departs, and he returns to the earth. In that very day, his thoughts perish. Happy is he who has the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in Yahweh, his God: who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them; who keeps truth forever; who executes justice for the oppressed; who gives food to the hungry. Yahweh frees the prisoners. Yahweh opens the eyes of the blind. Yahweh raises up those who are bowed down. Yahweh loves the righteous. Yahweh preserves the foreigners. He upholds the fatherless and widow, but the way of the wicked he turns upside down. Yahweh will reign forever; your God, O Zion, to all generations.

Free Opinions, Releases, letters, Interviews & Special Reports
'Moderates' in Hezbollah? Think Again./John Hajjar/Family Security Matters/May 21/10
Prepare for a long, hot summer/Daily Star/May 22/10

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for May 21/10
Report: Peres Offered Syria The Golan/Yeshiva World News
Ten years on, Israel wrestles with Lebanon pullout/AFP
'We ran away, pure and simple'/Ha'aretz
Ghajar remembers IDF withdrawal from Lebanon/Ynetnews
What Happened to Hariri Neutralizing Hizbullah?/AHN | All Headline News
How to brace Lebanon against attack?/National
Syria, Iran 'meddling in Lebanese affairs' - Sfeir/
US says Syria must curb arm shipments to Hezbollah/The Associated Press
Miss USA: Muslim trailblazer or Hezbollah spy?/CNN (blog)
Supporting Hezbollah 'Moderates' (and the Other Terrorist Moderates)/The American (blog)
IDF preparing for mass evacuations in case of Hezbollah missile strike/Ha'aretz
US lawmakers back Israel missile defense aid/AFP
Come fly with me/Ha'aretz
Strike - or sit tight?/Ha'aretz
Cabinet again fails to endorse draft budget/Daily Star
Regional leaders trade views on peace process/Daily Star
Boat demand in Lebanon to 'double' in next 12 months/Daily Star
Peres: Syria says it wants peace but keeps aiming missiles at Israel/Ha'aretz
McGuinty to talk trade during trip to Israel, Lebanon/Toronto Star
Burqas and Bikinis/Newsweek
Top US diplomat urges Syria to stop Hezbollah arms/FOXNews
Troops stay prepared with series of drills in Golan/Ha'aretz
 

Why I opposed Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon
Today Hezbollah's strength is several times greater than it was in the summer of 2006, certainly far greater than it was in May 2000.
By Ephraim Sneh /Haaretz
Published 21.05.10
The Israel Defense Forces' unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000 deserves a thorough analysis even 10 years later, because both the situation in Lebanon and the reasons for the withdrawal will continue to occupy us in the future.
A neighborhood in southern Beirut demolished in the Second Lebanon War, as seen in October 2006.
By way of full disclosure, I admit that I do not approach this analysis from an objective standpoint. As deputy defense minister, I was firmly opposed to the unilateral withdrawal. On the political scene, almost no one else agreed with me, apart from Uzi Landau on the right and Yossi Sarid on the left. In the defense establishment, both Chief of Staff Shaul Mofaz and GOC Northern Command Gabi Ashkenazi opposed the move.
After the expulsion of the PLO from Lebanon in the summer of 1982, it was Iran that waged war against Israel, with increasing intensity from one year to the next, through the organization it set up there - Hezbollah. For the 18 ensuing years, the fighting in Israel's security zone in South Lebanon took on the nature of guerrilla and counter-guerrilla warfare, with the IDF ultimately gaining the upper hand. The communities along the confrontation line in the north enjoyed full security, worked their lands right up to the border, and no rockets were fired into our territory.
This situation was not achieved without our paying a price in blood, however. Each year, an average of 25 Israeli soldiers were killed. This was the price of maintaining the security zone, which provided a protective layer on which the Iranian guerrilla effort was shattered.
What was eroded during those years, and particularly in the four years that preceded the withdrawal, was Israeli society's ability to tolerate the constant price of casualties. Since the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, the political leadership never sent a message of steadfastness to the public and the troops, no declaration that the war against Iran's proxy was a just war that must be tirelessly pursued, even if there was no blitzkrieg-type victory to be achieved.
Public opinion, with its weakening sense of mutual commitment, was shaped by the Four Mothers movement that placed concern for the lives of their sons, the most fundamental of human sentiments, above all considerations of national security, which had almost become a despised concept. Political leaders on the left and the right, with isolated exceptions - I among them - never presented any moral or substantive reply to this.
The leadership did not realize that the war was not being fought for control of the Beaufort ridge, or only for the well-being of the residents of the Galilee. It was the first attempt by Iran to defeat Israel in guerrilla warfare, to enable it to deploy right on our northern border. The national mood, which had nothing to guide it apart from the populist wailing of the Four Mothers, made withdrawal an election trump card.
The proponents of withdrawal argued that it would deny Hezbollah the pretext of "fighting the Israeli occupation," and would bring about an end to the organization's military operations and turn it into a purely political body. The opponents countered that there could be no vacuum in Lebanon, and in the absence of an agreement, Hezbollah would take the place of the IDF and the South Lebanon Army, deploy along the northern border fence and gain a convenient take-off point for renewed aggression. Iran would continue to pull Hezbollah's strings against us, from the line that we withdrew to.
The Second Lebanon War, which broke out on July 12, 2006, decided the argument six years later. The cost of the temporary calm was Hezbollah's propitious opening conditions. Our dead in that war numbered six times more than the annual average in the final years we were present in Lebanon.
The unilateral withdrawal had two other repercussions. One was the abandonment of the SLA, whose soldiers had linked their fate to ours and many of whom had fallen in combat, but were left to live in poverty in Israel or in humiliation and suffering in Lebanon. Their cynical abandonment is a moral stain on the State of Israel, a warning signal to anyone considering an alliance with us in the future.
The second repercussion was the dissemination of a message of weakness to our surroundings: We run away from places where we bleed. On June 30, 2000, one month after the withdrawal and three months before the outbreak of the second intifada, Yasser Abed Rabbo told me: "With you Israelis, one should only speak in 'Lebanese.' It's the only language you understand." There are those who say that it's a good thing that the second intifada found us already out of Lebanon. But it is certainly possible to assume, although it cannot be proved, that the message of weakness transmitted by the retreat from Lebanon encouraged the Palestinians to return to using violent methods.
Today Hezbollah's strength is several times greater than it was in the summer of 2006, certainly far greater than it was in May 2000. Iran will continue to want to use that strength against the Israeli home front. A genuine understanding of the nature of the confrontation, and telling it the way it is to the public, will be necessary in the future as well.
**The writer has served as a cabinet minister and a deputy minister. Today he is chair of the Center for Strategic Dialogue at Netanya Academic College.

Ten years on, Israel wrestles with Lebanon pullout
By Hazel Ward (AFP)
JERUSALEM — Ten years after withdrawing all its troops from south Lebanon, Israel is still wrestling with the results of the unilateral move which cost the Jewish state dearly in terms of deterrence. In the decade since Israeli troops ended their 22-year occupation of south Lebanon on May 24, 2000, Israel and Hezbollah have fought a bloody war, and the Shiite militia has transformed itself into a well-equipped military force.
Tensions remain high, with Israel accusing Hezbollah of stockpiling sophisticated weapons -- including Scud missiles -- in preparation for a new conflict.
Leaving Lebanon was supposed to bring an end to what many considered to be Israel's Vietnam, an unwinnable guerrilla war with an escalating number of casualties.
Pulling out was supposed to strip further Hezbollah attacks of legitimacy and encourage the group to turn its energies to internal political affairs.
The consensus in Israel was -- and still is -- that it was the right move, despite the devastating war of 2006.
But the way in which the withdrawal was carried out severely weakened the perception of Israel's military superiority.
"The image the withdrawal created, of Israel being forced to retreat under pressure, unable to hold out for an extended period of time, had almost immediate consequences," wrote former defence minister Moshe Arens in an editorial in the Haaretz daily this week.
"Whatever deterrent capability Israel possessed was lost to the winds and had to be restored at considerable cost."
The image of Hezbollah "forcing out" Israel's military machine is widely regarded as the inspiration for the second Palestinian intifada, or uprising, which erupted months later.
Worse still was Israel's failure to respond decisively to further Hezbollah provocations in the wake of the withdrawal.
"The pullout and the action following the pullout led to quite a significant deterioration in Israel's deterrent status and contributed to the events since -- the intifada and the 2006 war," said Jonathan Spyer, senior researcher at the centre for Global Research in International Affairs in Herzliya.
"Israel has paid quite a heavy price."
For six years, there was an illusion of quiet along the northern border -- until July 2006, when Hezbollah militants captured two Israeli soldiers, prompting a massive Israeli retaliation.
In the ensuing 34-day conflict more than 1,200 Lebanese were killed, mostly civilians, and 160 Israelis were killed, mostly soldiers.
"The 2006 war was an inevitable by-product of the failure to re-establish deterrence," said Spyer. "(Sheikh Hassan) Nasrallah has admitted that had he known the extent of the Israeli response, he would not have got involved, meaning we didn't have deterrence," he said, referring to Hezbollah's leader.
The process largely repeated itself in the Gaza Strip, where Israel unilaterally withdrew its soldiers and settlers in 2005 before coming under a near-daily barrage of rockets fired by Palestinian militants.
In December 2008 Israel launched a devastating 22-day war on the territory, now ruled by the Islamist Hamas movement, aimed largely at restoring deterrence.
"There was a very large-scale rocket problem coming out of Gaza. There is not any more," Spyer said.
"If you're going to have a unilateral withdrawal, it is imperative to have deterrence because you cannot decide what happens on the other side after you leave," he added.
Since 2006, Hezbollah has regrouped and built up an impressive arsenal of 40,000 rockets -- three times the number it had in July 2006, Israeli intelligence officials say.
And yet those upgraded capabilities could actually make war less likely in the near future, analysts believe.
"It's not only that Hezbollah is deterred by Israel, but Israel is deterred by Hezbollah," said Shlomo Brom, senior research associate at the Institute for National Security Studies.
"Everyone understands that the next round of violence will be much worse," he said. "No one has an appetite for that."
Osama Safa, head of the Lebanese Centre for Policy Studies, agrees. He said the 2006 war between Hezbollah and Israel established a new "balance of terror" in the region.
"The new equation today is: we can all start a new war but it would be very difficult to stop it," he said.Copyright © 2010 AFP. All rights

What Happened to Hariri Neutralizing Hizbullah?
May 20, 2010
Beirut, Lebanon (TML) - When the famed son of assassinated Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Al-Hariri took over the reins of government late last year, Western leaders held high hopes for his leadership of the fractured Middle Eastern state.
"Hariri will keep the Syrians out," they said. "Hariri will weaken Hizbullah and strengthen the Sunni bloc; Hariri will unite."
Leader of the March 14 Alliance, a coalition of political groups born out of the Cedar Revolution, the young Sa'ad A-Din Al-Hariri had already proven himself to be resistant to heavy-handed Syrian interference in Lebanese affairs with his movement leading to the withdrawal of all Syrian troops from Lebanon in 2005 after a 29-year presence.
But Lebanon analysts say that since he took over the country as prime minister, for better or worse, Hariri has engaged in uniting of a different kind: with Hizbullah.
Hardly distancing himself from the Shi'a paramilitary organization, which controls much of southern Lebanon, Hariri has formed a governing coalition with Hizbullah's political wing and engaged in a public rapprochement with Syrian President Bashar Assad, widely believed to have played a role in his father's assassination.
Most recently, ahead of a trip to Washington next week, Hariri again met with Assad in Damascus on Tuesday, agreeing to present a coordinated policy of support for Hizbullah's right to bear arms and opposition to Israel.
"I don't think that Hariri can disarm Hizbullah," Ghazi Yousuf, a Lebanese MP and Shi'a ally of the prime minister, told The Media Line. "He has done whatever he can within the round table of all political factions in Lebanon trying to find the proper strategic policy towards bringing Hizbullah into the Lebanese army."
Fadi Abi-Allam, president of the Beirut-based Permanent Peace Movement, said Hariri's principal interest seemed to be security, not ideology.
"The interests of Lebanon are to have peace and security," he told The Lebanon. "Peace can only come through negotiations, not violence, but violence in Lebanon is not just local, it is also regional and international, so the responsibility does not fall only on Lebanon."
"So I think he is doing his job," Abi-Allam said of Hariri's reconciliation with Assad. "I'm not trying to defend everything Hariri is doing, but I think he is trying to be open to varying interests. Syria, for example, has a role in Lebanon as our neighbor. This is the right approach to avoid any kind of insecurity or war."
Yazan Badran, a Syria analyst with GlobalVoices, a citizen journalism network, argued that Hariri has very little room to move.
"Hariri moved from being the leader of a movement into being a statesman, and you can't be both the leader of a civil opposition movement and the prime minister of a country," he told The Media Line.
"There is a political reality in the Middle East and Syria is a major player in that. Certain players have also pressured Hariri to warm to Assad, like Saudi Arabia, whose relations with Syria have also improved."
"The West does not understand the position that Hariri is in now," Badran said. "You can't be a prime minister of half the country, you need to be the leader of the whole country and he needs to reflect that in his position towards Hizbullah. Half the country doesn't agree with the disarmament of Hizbullah, so he has no political space to maneuver."
"It's an impasse and it has nothing to do with Lebanon, it has to do with the geopolitical reality around the Middle East," he added. "Hizbullah will never be disarmed until there is a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. There is very little Hariri can do about that," concluded Badran.
Copyright © 2003 - 2010 AHN - All rights reserv

Cabinet Accepts USAID Grant over Objections of Hizbullah, FPM Ministers
Naharnet/The Cabinet on Thursday accepted a grant from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) over the objections of Hizbullah and FPM ministers.
The grant is part of the U.S. pledge at the Paris III donor conference to assist Lebanon financially.
Briefing the media after the Cabinet session that was held at the Baabda Palace under President Michel Suleiman, Information Minister Tareq Mitri said that the Cabinet witnessed a "sufficient debate on this grant."
"Some ministers expressed their reservations as to the terms mentioned in the grant agreement and as to some legal measures that, in their opinion, should have occurred, or they want to see occurring in the future, stressing at the same time that their reservations did not aim at preventing Lebanon from benefiting from this grant," Mitri added.
"A general and serious debate took place in the session on the relation between the economic policy and the state budget, and an extensive demonstration happened as some ministers received written explanations," Mitri added, expressing his belief that "all ministers participated in discussions, and some participated more than others, which is normal in (Cabinet) sessions."
As to the 2010 state budget, Mitri said that Prime Minister Saad Hariri announced during the session that "the Cabinet will hold daily successive sessions starting May 31 – after the wrapping up of the municipal elections -- so that the state budget can be promptly discussed and adopted."
"A committee -- headed by Hariri and comprising Labor Minister Boutros Harb, Justice Minister Ibrahim Najjar, Health Minister Mohammed Jawad Khalife and Finance Minister Raya al-Hasan – was formed to find a proper formula related to the state budgets of the years 2006, 2007 and 2008 and the past expenditure of the previous years," Mitri added.
Beirut, 20 May 10, 23:09

US Joins Pro-Muslim 'Alliance of Civilizations'
by Hana Levi Julian/Arutz Sheva
The Obama administration has announced the United States will join the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations, another openly anti-Israel organization.
The group was created in 2006 to find ways to bridge the growing divide between Muslim and Western societies – a goal wholeheartedly embraced by President Barack Obama, who has redirected American foreign policy in pursuit of the same goal.
The White House announcement stated that the move is intended to realize Obama's “vision of active U.S. engagement with other nations and international organizations,” a goal sometimes pursued, noted National Review Online columnist Brett D. Schaefer last Thursday, “even when there is little or no chance that doing so will advance U.S. interests.”
The U.S. decision is also meant to support the Alliance goal of “improved understanding and cooperative relations among nations and peoples,” the statement said.
However, the Alliance has been anything but cooperative when it comes to improving understanding of issues relating to the security of Israel's and United States' civilians.
The group claimed in its first report in 2006 that global tensions were driven primarily by the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The same report referred to “a perception among Muslim societies of unjust aggression stemming from the West” in a discussion relating to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States by the international Al Qaeda terrorist group. US Feared it Would be Anti-Israel - in 2006
At the time, the U.S. boycotted the group, expressing concerns that it would become a forum for bashing both Israel and the United States, in a manner similar to that of the U.N. Human Rights Council. However, Obama administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said those concerns have since been addressed.
Since Obama took office a year ago, he has worked hard to reach out to the Islamic community of nations in a series of gestures that make it clear he is bending over backwards to strengthen ties with the Muslim world. Since his speech from Cairo last June, Obama has reached out to Iran and Syria, restoring full diplomatic relations with Damascus and returning an ambassador to the Syrian capital. The U.S. has also joined the anti-Israel U.N. Human Rights Commission. Both these moves are reversals of prior Bush administration decisions.

Jewish Congressmen to Obama: Show More Support for Israel
by Hillel Fendel/Arutz Sheva
Over three dozen Jewish members of Congress met with U.S. President Barack Obama on Tuesday afternoon-evening and asked him to display more public support for Israel – and even to take a trip to the Jewish State. Among the participants were nine Senators - Joseph Lieberman, Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, Benjamin Cardin, Al Franken, Dianne Feinstein, Herb Kohl, Frank Lautenberg, and Charles Schumer – and 28 U.S. Representatives. Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) said that the meeting was called after some Congressmen had “raised concerns” about Obama’s attitudes and positions regarding Israel.
Berkley said afterwards she wants "to see the president step up and vocalize his support for Israel far more than he has."
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said, “We reiterated to the President the urgency for him to strengthen the longstanding friendship between United States and Israel. We stressed that the U.S. must not in any way seek to impose a settlement on Israel, and the President agreed, stating that he would not do so, and that any agreement had to be negotiated between the parties. We also urged him to make clear to the Palestinians that the U.S. will not do their work for them.”
Rothman: "Best President Ever for Israel"
Rep. Steve Rothman (D-NJ) noted Republican Party efforts “to distort President Obama's positions on Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” He said that Obama is the “best president on U.S.-Israel military and intelligence cooperation in American history."
A White House statement said that Obama had met with “Jewish members of the Democratic caucuses for approximately an hour and a half [Tuesday] afternoon to discuss a range of issues important to U.S. foreign policy. The conversation included an update on proximity talks and administration efforts to strengthen Israel's security, including the Administration’s recent decision to provide Israel with an additional $205 million in funding for the Iron Dome missile defense system.” It was reported that the lawmakers expressed their appreciation for these steps.Obama "Genuinely lnterested" Nadler noted that Obama expressed “his absolute determination that Iran would not achieve a nuclear bomb,” and added that the President was “genuinely interested in our advice.”

Campaign Against Canada-Israel Friendship Stamp
by Hana Levi Julian/Arutz Sheva
Canadian postal workers were found hiding stamps issued by their own government last month that celebrated 60 years of friendship with the State of Israel.
Columnist Sheila Trestan related her experience to readers of The Montreal Gazette when she tried to purchase the stamp at a local postal branch on the fourth floor of Ogilvy's department store. “The woman behind the counter scowled and said she had no idea what I was talking about,” Trestan wrote. The clerk then went and found a co-worker, who admitted that the stamp did indeed exist. She also added that there had been very little publicity about the stamp, and that very few people knew about their existence. “We didn't want to display it in our cabinet; after all, we were concerned how people would feel about that,” the woman told the writer.
One week later, an article written by Arabic translator Adib Kawar appeared in the Arabic Al Jazeera news service, reporting that “Canadian postal workers are protesting against the 'common values stamp' that celebrates the relationship of Canada with the Zionist entity.'
Kawar alleged that a letter was sent on April 9 by postal workers union chairman Dennis Imlin to Canada's Postal Chairman of the Board, Moya Green, stating, “We are worried because the board will issue this stamp with 'Israel' on the basis of our common values while there are in 'Israel' more than 20 racist laws against the Palestinian minority citizens regarding matters of education, work, confiscation of land and accessing public resources.”
The letter allegedly went on to complain that Canada's postal system is celebrating the strong common values and interests with a state whose government has “continuously failed to do works that are characterized with civility and human feelings towards Palestinians.”
Kawar's source for the article was an April 27 Internet post on the website of the Lebanon-based As-Safir newspaper.
Anti-Semitism in Canada: Up Sharply
Anti-Semitic incidents in Canada reached record highs in 2009, according to an annual report released by the B'nai Brith Canada organization earlier this year. The survey showed an 11.4 percent rise in the number of incidents over 2008, a figure that constituted the highest level ever reported in the 28-year history of the audit.
B'nai Brith Canada noted there has been a five-fold increase in anti-Semitic incidents in Canada over the past decade. The most recent census figures indicate that more than 750,000 Muslims now live in Canada, with some 22 percent of those residing in Quebec province, where Montreal is located. At least 61 percent live in Ontario, where the majority of the anti-Semitic incidents occurred in 2009.

'We ran away, pure and simple'
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/we-ran-away-pure-and-simple-1.291353
Published 01:35 21.05.10/Haaretz
By Amos Harel Col. Noam Ben-Tzvi (res. ), the last commander of the Israel Defense Forces western sector in south Lebanon, has little question about how to define the Israeli exit from the security zone 10 years ago. "It wasn't a withdrawal and it wasn't a retreat," he says. "We ran away, pure and simple."
Ben-Tzvi commanded the brigade for nearly four years, right through the completion of the withdrawal on May 24, 2000. The Israeli forces in south Lebanon operated under the complex, sometimes contradictory command of two separate headquarters: The Lebanon Liaison Unit and Division 91 (the Galilee Division ). The Liaison Unit operated two brigades, east and west, responsible for relatively narrow sections of the Lebanese theater, and charged mainly with training and accompanying the corresponding units of the South Lebanon Army.
Ben-Tzvi, 59, who commanded the western sector brigade headquartered in Bint Jbail, was considered an odd bird among the Israeli commanders in Lebanon. A paratroop officer who rose through the ranks while in the reserves, before finally returning to full-time army service at the age of 38. His tour of duty in Lebanon was unusually long, extended by his own request; he used that time to build a strong and lasting connection with local SLA commanders, particularly Col. Akel Hashem, who was assassinated by Hezbollah in January 2000.
Most of the IDF top brass opposed Ehud Barak's decision to withdraw, especially when it turned out the retreat would be unilateral, after talks with Syria had failed. Ben-Tzvi, however, was one of the few senior officers in Lebanon who supported the prime minister's move. Ten years later, he is still ill at ease about the other officers' conduct in the run-up to the withdrawal. He says most of the brigade commanders were in favor of leaving, but hesitated to say so when the General Staff officers said otherwise.
"I think Chico Tamir, Shmuel Zakai, Aviv Kochavi and others all understood we needed to withdraw," Ben-Tzvi says. "They all experienced the frustration, the inability to live up to the mission in Lebanon. But the problem is the more senior you are, the more difficult it is to stand up to the establishment."
But Ben-Tzvi also draws a clear line between his support for the decision to withdraw and his thoughts on how the decision was carried out.
"The execution of the withdrawal was an operational failure," he states. "The IDF never properly investigated the retreat, because it would have revealed that many senior officers allowed the operation to disintegrate."
Nor is Ben-Tzvi too impressed that not one IDF soldier was hurt during the three days it took to complete the withdrawal. He believes it was far more important to carry out a phased, well-planned retreat - as the army had intended to do - as opposed to a move that would be perceived throughout the Middle East as a dash for the border.
"We left vehicles and equipment behind," he explains. "In some instances are soldiers looted military equipment. There was the disgraceful scene of SLA crowding at the Fatima gate. This was running away, it was unplanned, with Hezbollah hardly even shooting at us. The soldiers on the ground understood it and even said as much. We forsook the values we had been trained with as soldiers there." 'They should have shot'
Ben-Tzvi missed the actual retreat. On the very day the SLA began disintegrating, he was sent on a pre-planned work trip - in preparation for his next position as military attache to the Netherlands. The security zone imploded when Lebanese civilians began marching to the villages of Taibe and Kantara. One of the military posts in the area had been transferred earlier from IDF to SLA responsibility; when the procession arrived, the SLA commanders abandoned the base. Within three days the entire security zone collapsed, pushing the IDF to speed up the withdrawal.
"I would have laid myself down at the fence to stop it from happening," Ben-Tzvi says. "They should have shot at the procession, even if it would have killed five civilians. The fact is that these days, similar processions are aimed at the Gaza fence and the IDF knows how to disperse them - sometimes with limited use of live ammunition. If the appropriate means had been used in Taibe, the procession would have been repelled and the orderly withdrawal could have continued.
"I supported the withdrawal," he continues, "but I thought we made a strategic error not to have responded more forcefully to Hezbollah activities, especially the abduction of the three soldiers in October 2000. Barak had political considerations, but from the point of view of the average soldier, we promised to respond strongly and we didn't. We don't back what we say, the other side learns this and eventually [takes advantage of] it.
"Still, compared to the decade before the withdrawal, I think we've earned some quiet over the last 10 years, even when the casualties of the Second Lebanon War are taken into account," Ben-Tzvi says. "In the security zone, we lost about 25 fighters a year, not to mention other disasters that resulted from us being there - like the helicopter collision in 1997, in which 73 died. Staying there was an ongoing failure, we had to get out."
In the coming days, former officers of the Lebanon Liaison Unit will attend a meeting with former SLA commanders, to be held in a private Tel Aviv home. Ben-Tzvi believes that, taking everything into account, the process of SLA absorption into Israel went reasonably well. 'We didn't invent the Lebanese chaos'
"In the months leading up to the withdrawal, I told them very truthfully: We're going to leave, and we're going to leave without an agreement. Don't tell me that you'll last without us,'" he recalls. "Some of them offered to hold their ground, with the IDF only providing them with ammunition. I told them, Israel won't even give you a bullet after we withdraw. I didn't feel any moral qualms about it, they got caught in the situation. "Before the IDF arrived, the people of south Lebanon were impoverished," he continues. "The IDF stayed there and helped them start to make a decent living - officers as well as families... We didn't invent the Lebanese chaos. We didn't forcefully

Hezbollah on Alert ahead of Israel Drill; Warns 'Israelis Have No Place to Hide'
Manar/21/05/2010 Thousands of Hezbollah resistance fighters have been ordered to maintain a heightened state of alert ahead of a large-scale Israeli occupation army exercise which begins Sunday, the group's representatives in southern Lebanon, Sheikh Nabil Qaouk, told the AFP news agency on Friday. Sheikh Qaouk said, "The Hezbollah fighters have (been instructed) to be completely ready to confront Israeli maneuvers on Sunday. A few thousands of our fighters will not go to the polls (to participate in municipal elections in southern Lebanon) and are ready (for anything) today."
Israeli officials have stressed that the week-long drill was planned in advance, however Sheikh Qaouk clarified that "in the event of a new aggression against Lebanon, the Israelis will not find a place to hide in Palestine." Sheikh Qaouk made the remarks during a meeting at his home in Tyre with Jewish American intellectual Noam Chomsky, who was denied entry to the Zionist entity and the occupied West Bank earlier this week. Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai held a press briefing this week on the "Turning Point 4" exercise, which is aimed at preparing the home front for a possible military conflict. "The scenario we are referring to includes the firing of hundreds of missiles at Israel from different places and targets," Vilnai said, stressing that the drill was preplanned and would include an air raid siren across the country on Wednesday. Israel believes that Hezbollah has built its cache to more than 40,000 rockets since the Second Lebanon War, and that the resistance group has developed the capability to reach the center of the occupied country with its weapons.
Last month, Israeli President Shimon Peres accused Syria of providing Scud missiles to Hezbollah, charges that Damascus has denied.
Syria and Hezbollah both went on alert anticipating an Israeli attack on Lebanon in January, Arab-language media reported then. Hezbollah's deputy secretary general, Sheikh Naeem Qassem, said the group was preparing to retaliate if Israel decided to attack.

U.S. Congress Gives Obama Okay to Fund Israel's Iron Dome Defense System
Manar/21/05/2010 The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday voted in favor of President Barack Obama's plans to help Israel fund the deployment of the Iron Dome anti-missile defense system. Lawmakers, by a 410-4 margin, backed Obama's plan to give Israel 205 million dollars for its production of a short-range rocket defense system.
The Iron Dome missile defense system aced a test run in January, and event that convinced senior defense officials that the defense system was on its way to becoming operational and that it will be able to effectively protect against short-range missiles, such as Katyushas and Qassams, which often hit Israeli towns.
The project's first phase, which included development, test runs and the manufacture of two batteries, required a budget of NIS 800 million. The Israel Air Force has also trained a special new unit to operate the defense system.
However, the plan was not allotted an adequate budget. The Israeli occupation army ducked away from funding the project with its budget, explaining that offensive readiness was a higher priority, and the Israeli Defense Ministry has been looking for other budgetary avenues.
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman said following the vote that "with nearly every square inch of Israel at risk from rocket and missile attacks, we must ensure that our most important ally in the region has the tools to defend itself."
"The looming threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, and the persistent threat posed by Iran's allies Hamas and Hezbollah, only serve to reinforce our longstanding commitment to Israel's security," Berman added.
Israel completed tests in January on its Iron Dome system, designed to intercept short-range rockets and artillery shells fired at the occupied territories by Hamas and Hezbollah.
Florida congressman Ted Deutch commended the "Obama Administration for supporting the critical Iron Dome system, which could help save the lives of innocent Israelis who every day live in fear of rocket attacks on their homes, schools, and marketplaces."
"Partnering with Israel on short-range missile defense technology demonstrates America's unyielding commitment to Israel's security," Deutch added, saying that "Israel must be able to keep its citizens safe, and we must demand Palestinians end incitement and Hamas reject the use of terror."
The Obama Administration must always work to address the threats posed to Israel not only by short-range missiles, but by the looming possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran.”
The pro-Israel lobby AIPAC released a statement following the Congress vote, saying that the decision, that "will reduce the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah rocket attacks, is a tribute to America's commitment to Israel's defense and underscores our fundamental security cooperation with Israel, an island of democracy surrounded by a sea of hostile terrorist and totalitarian threats." "America stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the people of Israel in their quest for peace and the right to live lives free of terrorism," the statement read.
 

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/23396

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/157495

http://al-ghorba6.blogspot.com/2010/05/10-years-after-israels-withdrawal-from.html

http://eliasyoussefbejjani.blogspot.com/2010/05/10-years-after-israels-withdrawal-from.html

http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=3459

http://blogs.albawaba.com/bejjani

http://www.10452lccc.com/elias%20english09/elias%20barakat20.05.10.htm

http://topics.philly.com/article/0efS3fT2l371D?q=Iran