LCCC
ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِMay
28/2010
Bible Of
the Day/Daily Star John14/1-14
14:1 “Don’t let your
heart be troubled. Believe in God. Believe also in me. 14:2 In my Father’s house
are many homes. If it weren’t so, I would have told you. I am going to prepare a
place for you. 14:3 If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and
will receive you to myself; that where I am, you may be there also. 14:4 Where I
go, you know, and you know the way.” 14:5 Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t
know where you are going. How can we know the way?” 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I
am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through
me. 14:7 If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on,
you know him, and have seen him.” 14:8 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the
Father, and that will be enough for us.” 14:9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been
with you such a long time, and do you not know me, Philip? He who has seen me
has seen the Father. How do you say, ‘Show us the Father?’ 14:10 Don’t you
believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I tell
you, I speak not from myself; but the Father who lives in me does his works.
14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; or else believe
me for the very works’ sake. 14:12 Most certainly I tell you, he who believes in
me, the works that I do, he will do also; and he will do greater works than
these, because I am going to my Father. 14:13 Whatever you will ask in my name,
that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14:14 If you will
ask anything in my name, I will do it. 14:15 If you love me, keep my
commandments. 14:16 I will pray to the Father, and he will give you another
Counselor, that he may be with you forever,— 14:17 the Spirit of truth, whom the
world can’t receive; for it doesn’t see him, neither knows him. You know him,
for he lives with you, and will be in you. 14:18 I will not leave you orphans. I
will come to you. 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world will see me no more;
but you will see me. Because I live, you will live also. 14:20 In that day you
will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. 14:21 One who has
my commandments, and keeps them, that person is one who loves me. One who loves
me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him, and will reveal myself to
him.”
Free Opinions, Releases, letters, Interviews & Special Reports
Analysts warn that nuclear Iran will be dangerous
without pushing any buttons/NewsTime/May
27/10
Brennan Seeks Non-Existent
Hezbollah Moderates/By:Steve Emerson/Family Security Matters/May
27/10
In defense of defense/By
SHMUEL SANDLER /Jerusalem Post/May
27/10
Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for May 27/10
Iran, Syria to set up joint bank/Arab
News
Lebanon deploys army in response to Israel's
security drill/Ynetnews
Sirens sound in countrywide drill in Israel/The
Associated Press
Geagea tells Sleiman to
refrain from taking sides on national defense strategy/Daily
Star
Veteran MP Mahmoud Ammar
passes away at age 90/Daily
Star
Batroun, Zghorta prepare
for tense electoral contests/Daily
Star
Global justice gap
condemns millions to abuse - report/Daily
Star
Nasrallah: We will hit
Israel's ships in any new war/AFP)
and The Daily Star
Hariri: Israeli occupation
hampering peace talks/Daily
Star
Tehran, Moscow clash in
worst row for years/Daily
Star
Collaborator with Israel gets lifetime of hard labor/Daily
Star
Amal
official's car comes under fire in Nabatiyeh/Daily
Star
Berri
wants Parliament to be more productive/Daily
Star
US
must change policy before Israel-Palestine peace deal can be reached - Chomsky/Daily
Star
Opportunities for Palestinian refugees needed badly, says Welfare Association/Daily
Star
Nature in full bloom at Beirut Garden Show/Daily
Star
In defense of defense
By SHMUEL SANDLER
05/26/2010 23:34
For the PM, political survival could be the right strategy.
One of the foremost criticisms of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s statecraft
is that he has refrained from advancing a dynamic foreign policy, or what is
often called a peace “initiative.” In general, the critique runs as follows:
Netanyahu’s main concern is political survival, which implies keeping his
coalition intact and nothing beyond. To accomplish this, he has avoided taking
any initiative in “peace diplomacy” that could end Israel’s isolation on the
international scene.
In this view, Netanyahu’s acceptance of the two-state solution in his June 2009
BESA Center/Bar-Ilan University speech and his declared desire for direct peace
talks with the Palestinians are to be considered half-hearted reactions to
demands from Washington. Netanyahu’s opponents aver that, while he may be
successful in surviving politically, he is compromising the national interest.
Is this an accurate evaluation? An alternative reading is that given the current
international scene, a protective or defensive diplomatic strategy is more
rational for reasons of statecraft, not (only) for domestic political reasons. A
careful reading of the past 20 years of peace diplomacy and its dismal results
supports the assertion that any purported Israeli diplomatic initiative holds
more pitfalls than promise. The reason is simple: It is now the norm that an
initiative is synonymous with territorial concessions, dangerous concessions.
THE ADVANTAGE of defense over offense under certain circumstances is well known
in sports as well as in military strategy. Usually, it is recommended to the
weaker side in a competition or battle. Additionally, often it makes sense to
the side for whom the status quo is working.
The main argument for undertaking an initiative is that time is not on Israel’s
side and hence it cannot afford to be passive. Whether the country is in this
situation is debatable.
A review of recent diplomatic history bears out the argument in support of a
protective, rather than an active, strategy.
The first diplomatic test case to be considered is the Oslo process, where
Israeli leaders initiated a major diplomatic move and yet ended up weaker than
at the outset of the process.
In many respects, Israel had been at the peak of its power in 1992. The first
intifada was winding down without any accomplishments for the Palestinians. The
eastern front (composed of Jordan, Syria and Iraq, and which had been a major
threat) collapsed following the defeat of Saddam Hussein’s army in the 1991
Desert Storm operation.
Even more important was the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, which
eliminated the main strategic superpower supporting the Arab cause. In its wake
came the largest and most productive wave of immigration. The more than one
million immigrants from the former Soviet Union not only favorably tilted the
demographic balance of the Jewish state, but also enhanced its economic and
military power. And then came the Oslo initiative. Israel is still recovering
from its damaging results.
The prime minister associated with the pre-Oslo years was the “passive” Yitzhak
Shamir, who prevented a response to the Iraqi Scuds. Prime minister Yitzhak
Rabin, known as an “active” leader (to use James Barber’s passive/active
typology), embraced the Oslo negotiations initiated by Yossi Beilin and
associates. Who would dare argue that Israel’s geostrategic position in the
post-Oslo era comes close to what we enjoyed prior to 1993?
ANOTHER RECENT example of political activism is the withdrawal from Lebanon in
the spring of 2000. Prime minister Ehud Barak (under pressure of what came to be
known as the Four Mothers movement) hastily pulled out from Lebanon, betraying
Israel’s Christian south Lebanese allies. By doing so, the country damaged its
credibility. By any comparison, its geostrategic situation in the 1990s was
superior to the current one in which 40,000 missiles threaten every site in the
country. The casualties suffered in the Second Lebanon War, combined with the
potential ones resulting from the next military confrontation, will likely
vastly exceed those we would have suffered had we stayed in Lebanon and
negotiated for a levelheaded withdrawal.
The third example of activism is the Gaza disengagement in 2005, in which Ariel
Sharon (under constant pressure to “do something”) initiated a unilateral
withdrawal. It resulted in the takeover of the Gaza Strip by Hamas and its
transformation into one large military base from which to bombard the Negev. The
end result was a military operation that cost Israel (and Gaza) dozens of
casualties, and brought it international opprobrium.
In addition to the above cases, one must add the two which did not translate
into actual territorial withdrawals but definitely belong to the category of
failed diplomatic activism. The first was the 2000 Camp David talks during which
Ehud Barak offered far-reaching concessions to the Palestinians. Yasser Arafat’s
refusal to accept these proposals was followed by the second intifada in which
Israel suffered more than 1,000 casualties. Former prime minister Ehud Olmert
says that during his administration, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud
Abbas rejected even deeper concessions. In short, the history of peace
initiatives is not very promising.
WHAT ARE the current options under Netanyahu? Let’s begin by considering the
situation in the North. The rationale for a peace settlement with Syria is its
detachment from alliance with the “axis of evil.” But an equally possible
outcome could be that a withdrawal from the Golan Heights will strengthen Syria
and with it the emerging Ankara-Damascus-Beirut-Teheran axis. The abandonment of
the Sudetenland by Czechoslovakia in 1938 resulted in the weakening of the
latter.
This axis has recently also received a boost from Moscow following Russian
President Dmitry Medvedev’s visits to Damascus and Ankara. The first casualty of
Syria’s ascendance as a result of its alliance with Iran will be Lebanon. The
withdrawal from “fortress Golan Heights” could be followed by an anschluss with
Lebanon. The Druse leader Walid Jumblatt has already seen the writing on the
wall and recently flew to Damascus to appease Bashar Assad.
Similarly, a withdrawal from the West Bank might result in a takeover by Hamas,
even via a democratic election. An Israel surrounded by a Hizbullah-controlled
Lebanon in the north, an Iranian-influenced Syria in the northwest, a
Hamas-controlled Palestinian state in the east and a Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip
in the south provides little room for a peace process; a peace that implies yet
more territorial withdrawals.
ANOTHER RECENT voice for change and strategic initiative is the pressure on
Israel to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Should the country be forced
to change it traditional ambiguous nuclear approach, the road is clear: An “exit
from the closet” would result in a nuclear arms race in the Middle East rather
than the emergence of a nuclear-free zone. Iran would have every justification
for developing its nuclear option. A nuclear Iran would force Arab states into
developing their own nuclear weapons. Again, in this sphere too, an initiative
would likely have opposite results to those anticipated.
So what should the Netanyahu administration do? A defensive strategy has thus
far allowed Netanyahu to enjoy domestic political stability. His opposition
dismisses this as mere survival. Yet he has learned some lessons from his term
as prime minister between 1996-1999; one of which is that stability is necessary
for good governance. Obviously, Netanyahu’s political stability is upsetting to
the Israeli Left, which expected a repetition of the tumbling from crisis to
crisis that characterized his first administration.
Hence Netanyahu should ignore critics who deride his stable coalition as a
do-nothing government. Those who criticize his strategy are not exactly his best
friends. A bunker or defensive diplomatic strategy has its rationale; it relies
on opponents making mistakes (which, in turn, would allow Israel to ease any
diplomatic siege). It would be up to Netanyahu to identify that moment and take
advantage of it.
To be sure, the historical analysis developed above is not all-inclusive; it
ignores the positive diplomatic initiative of the late 1970s – what might be
called the Begin-Sadat entrepreneurship partnership. However, it seems that
today Netanyahu has no partner equal to the task. The purpose of the current
proximity talks, then, is to evaluate whether PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad or
President Abbas is of Sadat’s size and caliber. A similar test could be applied
to Syrian President Bashar Assad.
Should these talks fail, conflict management may be the only rational strategy
for the long-term.
**The writer is a senior research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for
Strategic Studies and dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences at Bar-Ilan
University. This article was first published by the BESA Center Perspective
Papers.
Brennan Seeks Non-Existent Hezbollah Moderates
By:Steve Emerson
Family Security Matters
May 26/10
Alleged Times Square car bomber Faisal Shahzad made his first court appearance
Tuesday evening since his arrest on May 3rd. While federal prosecutors used the
opportunity to confirm some earlier reports regarding the investigation, new
details continue to emerge about the failed terrorist attack.
During the 10-minute hearing at the federal courthouse in Manhattan, prosecutors
confirmed what has already been widely reported. Shahzad waived his right to a
speedy court appearance and to an attorney, and explained that he has been
cooperating with law enforcement officials.
The judge also reviewed the charges that have been filed against Shahzad –
attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction, using a destructive device in
connection with an attempted crime of violence, transporting explosives, and
attempting to destroy property with fire and explosives. If convicted, as the
court explained, Shahzad could face up to life in prison.
While Shahzad's case is making its way through the judicial system, law
enforcement officials continue to investigate the plot. The ongoing
investigation has revealed new information regarding potential co-conspirators,
motives for the attack, and the possibility that other follow-up plots are being
hatched.
Since Shahzad's arrest two weeks ago, there has been a flurry of reporting about
the international scope of the investigation. Although it would be a few days
before Attorney General Eric Holder would confirm that the attack was
underwritten by the Pakistani Taliban, law enforcement officials in the United
States and Pakistan had announced the arrests of a dozen individuals in
connection with the plot within days of its failure.
The scope of the plot widened this week, however, with the announcement that a
former Pakistani Army Major, identified only by the name Adnan, had been
arrested due to possible connections with the failed attempt in New York. These
arrests suggest a potentially vast support structure in at least two countries.
Counterterror analysts say Shahzad's case shows the Pakistani Taliban was
successful getting an operative inside the United States, and likely has others
who may be plotting new attacks.
"The Taliban doesn't need to come and say this is what we want to do. They've
already proved they have the capability," former Shin Bet official Offer Baruch
told told WTOP radio in Washington. "The guy [Shahzad] was here. It doesn't
matter how immature it [his plot] was. They already have a cell here on American
soil."
While his motives remain largely a mystery, CNN has begun reporting on e-mails
obtained by the news agency which purportedly detail Shahzad's grievances
against the United States and the West.
In one, Shahzad laments the occupation of Muslim lands by what he describes as
"foreign infidel sources." Shahzad directs much of his anger at the United
States. He paints the American democratic system as "human made laws" that ought
to defer to "given laws revealed from Allah."
Shahzad calls for moderate Muslims, both in the United States and across the
world, to replace their logic with "trust in Allah." This, he says, will enable
them to overcome overwhelming odds and topple the West.
Shahzad's wrote the second email in April 2009, by which time he had been
naturalized as an American citizen. He appears to have grown more extreme in his
views in the three years since the first message. Shahzad goes as far as to say
that "defending the [Muslim] lands" requires much more than dialogue. This
implicit reference to violent resistance would soon manifest itself in the form
of Shahzad's failed terrorist plot.
The New York Daily News reported that Shahzad was plotting follow-up terror
attacks on Grand Central Terminal and lower Manhattan's financial district. "If
Times Square was successful, he was coming back for more." Among the targets
reportedly considered were:
"Rockefeller Plaza, Grand Central Terminal, the World Financial Center, and the
Connecticut headquarters of defense contractor Sikorsky."
While the investigation into the failed Times Square bombing will continue,
Shahzad's case will work its way through the judicial system. After reminding
Shahzad of his rights under Miranda, the judge appointed Julia Gatta of the
federal public defender service, to represent the defendant. Shahzad is set to
make another appearance in court on June 1st.
**FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Steven Emerson, executive
director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, is the author of six books
on national security and Middle Eastern terrorism.
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.6318/pub_detail.asp
Geagea tells Sleiman to refrain from taking sides on national defense strategy
By The Daily Star
Thursday, May 27, 2010
BEIRUT: Lebanese Forces head Samir Geagea on Tuesday accused President Michel
Sleiman of supporting the view of one side against the other regarding Lebanon’s
defense strategy, and urged the president to stick to his inaugural address.
Geagea urged Sleiman to “adhere to the inaugural address that all Lebanese
agreed on and adopt positions based on which he was elected.” Speaking to
reporters at his residence in Maarab, Geagea reminded Sleiman that he was
elected as a consensus president which means he cannot adopt the stance of one
Lebanese side while disregarding the other.
In an interview with Al-Manar television to mark Liberation Day, Sleiman said
Lebanon’s defense strategy lies in the cooperation between the resistance, the
Lebanese Army and people. He attributed the success of the Lebanese experience
in facing Israel to combining the efforts of the three components.
Sleiman’s remarks came on the eve of the Resistance and Liberation Day on May
25, which marks the Israeli pull out from most of south Lebanon 10 years ago.
The president congratulated the Lebanese people, army and resistance, stressing
resistance as the choice against Israel.
Geagea said that Sleiman did not represent his opinion as “an ordinary citizen”
regarding the defense strategy.
Sleiman was elected by MPs from all parties as a consensus president in May
2008.
Various Lebanese political factions have been debating a defense strategy
against Israel, with the topic being a controversial item on a National Dialogue
table convened by Sleiman. Several rounds of talks have been held with no
agreement reached so far. Asked about US President Obama tying support to
Lebanon with the country’s commitment to Resolution 1701, Geagea said that the
resolution was not being implemented by Lebanon because it had to do with
relations with Syria and the situation of Hizbullah.
“It is because of this I blame the president and officials who should assume
their responsibilities to save the fate of the Lebanese citizen,” Geagea said.
UN Resolution 1701 ended the 34-day summer war that Israel launched against
Lebanon in 2006. It stipulated that the Lebanese Army and beefed-up peacekeeping
forces should be the only parties in control of the area south of the Litani
River, an area believed to be a Hizbullah’s stronghold.
Meanwhile, Speaker Nabih Berri defended the president on Wednesday, saying that
Sleiman’s remarks were the same as those he made in his inaugural address, and
thanked Sleiman for his position. Berri made his comments after meeting Sleiman
at Baabda presidential palace, where he extended his congratulations on the
occasion of Resistance and Liberation Day.
Berri criticized those who say Sleiman should be neutral on national issues
since he chaired dialogue sessions. “I invented the dialogue table and I am
among the founders of the resistance as well, for the two issues are not
contradictory,” he said. Separately, former Premier Omar Karami’s press office
issued a statement in response to Gegea’s comments. It said Sleiman’s stance on
the defense strategy “represented the official position of the Lebanese
government, as stated in the ministerial platform, based on which the Cabinet
received a vote of confidence.” – The Daily Star
Analysts warn that nuclear Iran will be dangerous without pushing any buttons”
News Time
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
http://www.newstime.co.za/WorldNews/Analysts_warn_that_nuclear_Iran_will_be_dangerous_without_pushing_any_buttons/5706/
According to analysts the increased threat of having a safe haven for
terrorists, under the umbrella which will be created by a nuclear Iran, far
outweighs any consideration being given to the question of whether President
Ahmadinejad or any of his administration would be willing to press the button
once this capability is acquired.
Terrorism
Iran has consistently been described by the United States as the world's
foremost state sponsor of terrorism. It actively supports terrorist groups, most
prominently the Lebanese group Hezbollah and the Palestinian group Hamas.
Interestingly, despite the Shiite-Sunni divide, Iran does not distinguish
between the different forms of Islam content to sponsor whoever is committing
acts of terror on their enemies, real or perceived. Ahmadinejad has even been
happy to not only sponsor terrorists but allow their training on Iranian soil.
Aim
Tehran is intent on gaining hegemony in the Middle East starting in the Persian
Gulf and later spreading throughout the entire region.
As the leading Shiite state it is seeking to unite all the Muslims who follow
their form of Islam under one umbrella headed by themselves. In this regard
their continued involvement in Iraq and Yemen has not been coincidental but
rather part of their efforts to unite with the Shiite majorities in those
states.
In addition Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei are acutely
aware that the current regime is no longer as popular as it once was, which
resulted in the military having to use live rounds against protesters in order
to quell widespread demonstrations against the government. Accusations of vote
rigging and election fraud are becoming more and more frequent.
The manner in which Iran has dealt with internal opposition has been attracting
worldwide condemnation and causing the regime no-little unease.
Nuclear Program
Iran claims to be intent on acquiring a civil nuclear program aimed at peaceful
applications domestically. It’s conduct including, but not limited to,
concealing its facility at Qom, delaying compliance with International Atomic
Energy Agency inspectors and patently playing for time in its dealings with the
world powers clearly indicates otherwise.
At present it stands on the brink of increased strategic sanctions by the world
powers despite a last ditch attempt to avoid the same through a nuclear swap
deal via Turkey and Brazil.
On Wednesday Ahmadinejad castigated Russia for caving in to US demands while
offering US President Barack Obama a historic opportunity for ties with Tehran
if he sanctions the deal with Turkey and Brazil.
In truth there can be no doubting that Iran wants nuclear weapons capability for
at least two compelling reasons :
Firstly to obtain hegemony in the region by providing an unassailable fortress
for their Shiite allies as well as terrorist groups. Their influence would
become enormous. Just as India could not hit back against Pakistan after Mumbai
because of her nuclear capability so too would Iran offer terrorists the same
umbrella.
Secondly the threat from within could be eliminated once and for all. No foreign
intervention would be possible, pursuant to which the regime could crack down
hard on any dissension in the country.
Prognosis
It is clear that military intervention will not be entertained by the world
powers at this stage. The Western countries have more than enough on their plate
with Afghanistan and Iraq and Russia and China would not consider it in any
event.
This leaves sanctions on the table.
While there is no doubt that they will squeeze Tehran there is even less doubt
that Ahmadinejad will not be swayed from the path of acquiring nuclear weapons
for the reasons stated above as well as his conduct throughout the nuclear
weapons debate. Accordingly something will have to give, either in the form of
Iran acquiring the weapons and using them to threaten the global community to
back down or a change of heart regarding intervention spurred on by an internal
uprising.
Either way it’s going to get very ugly very quickly.