LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِSeptember 13/2010

Bible Of The Day
Luke10/25-36: "Behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 10:26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? How do you read it?” 10:27 He answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” 10:28 He said to him, “You have answered correctly. Do this, and you will live.” 10:29 But he, desiring to justify himself, asked Jesus, “Who is my neighbor?” 10:30 Jesus answered, “A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 10:31 By chance a certain priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 10:32 In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. 10:33 But a certain Samaritan, as he traveled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, 10:34 came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 10:35 On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, and gave them to the host, and said to him, ‘Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.’ 10:36 Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbor to him who fell among the robbers?” 10:37 He said, “He who showed mercy on him.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”

Free Opinions, Releases, letters, Interviews & Special Reports
Why an Israeli Attack on Iran is Unlikely/Foreign Policy Journal/September 12/10
The Alarm Has Been Ringing: It's Past 9:11 and Time to Wake Up!/Family Security Matters/September 12/10
September 11, 2001: Nine Years On/By: Frank Salvato/September 12/10
Playing Russian Roulette in Tehran/By Amir Taheri/September 12/10
Young and employed, Lebanon’s child labor problem/By: Sarah Lynch/September 12/10
A Talk with Arab League Sec Gen Amr Musa/Asharq Al-Awsat/September 12/10

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for September 12/10

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu demands Palestinians recognize Israel as Jewish state/J. Post
Sfeir Meets Franjieh Monday, Says Koran Burning Puts Religions in Bloody Confrontation/Naharnet
Report: France Rejected Jumblat's Call to 'Abolish' Tribunal Indictment/Naharnet
Hizbullah Website to be Sued for Threatening Sami Gemayel with Crucifixion/Naharnet
Gemayel to sue Hezbollah website, report/Ya Libnan/Naharnet
New U.S. Ambassador in Beirut on Monday/Naharnet/Naharnet
Lebanon mufti protests internal violence between Lebanese/Ynetnews
Sayyed to Hariri: Assad Hugged You Rather Than Hanging You to Death/Naharnet
Fayes Karam Transferred to Roumieh Prison/Naharnet/Naharnet
Lebanon: 35-Year-Old Killed in Bab al-Tebbaneh Gunfight/Naharnet
Beirut: Bomb in Garbage Container in Borj Hammoud/Naharnet
Houri: Hariri's Recent Statement Untangles Tribunal, Issues Influencing it/Naharnet
MP, Alloush: Is FPM Trying to Cover up Direct Contacts Between it and Israel?/Naharnet
Saudi Diplomat Seeks Asylum in U.S. for Being Gay/Naharnet

Hizbullah Website to be Sued for Threatening Sami Gemayel with Crucifixion
Naharnet/The attorney of Kataeb official Sami Gemayel said he will take legal action against a Hizbullah website for threatening the young MP with crucifixion, the Phalange Party said on its website. "Gemayel has the right to his own political opinions under the Constitution," the website said, quoting Gemayel's lawyer Mark Habka as telling MTV. Habka said he will file a suit against the Hizbullah website, called the Islamic Resistance Forum, which described Gemayel as an Israeli spy and called for his "crucifixion on a pole in the Pride and Dignity Square." Beirut, 11 Sep 10, 11:06

Sfeir Meets Franjieh Monday, Says Koran Burning Puts Religions in Bloody Confrontation
Naharnet/Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir said that plans by the pastor of a U.S. church to burn the Koran put Islam and Christianity in a bloody confrontation. "The fatwa of pastor Terry Jones to burn the Koran puts the religions of Islam and Christianity in a bloody confrontation which no one wishes for," Sfeir said during his Sunday sermon at his summer seat in Diman. The firebrand pastor said Saturday his church will never burn the Koran, as he had previously threatened in a move that prompted global condemnation and fears of a backlash against U.S. troops. Meanwhile, An Nahar newspaper reported that Marada movement leader Suleiman Franjieh will have lunch with Sfeir in Diman on Monday. The important development comes after Sfeir sent the invitation to the MP through Bishop Samir Mazloum. Franjieh accepted the patriarch's invitation, An Nahar said. According to the daily, the meeting was arranged by the Maronite League. The two sides will exchange views and express their thoughts about ongoing developments such as inter-Christian reconciliation, An Nahar said. Franjieh and Sfeir will not hold each other responsible on their political stances because Lebanon's interest comes first, the daily added. On Saturday, Sfeir called for self-restraint and for the need to maintain peace in Lebanon. "I urge self-restraint and controlling all that could be harmful to the relations among the Lebanese families," Sfeir told reporters. He also called for "giving the younger generation a chance to live in peace and quiet under the umbrella of the state only." Beirut, 12 Sep 10, 08:39

Report: France Rejected Jumblat's Call to 'Abolish' Tribunal Indictment
Naharnet/Paris considers the call of Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblat to "abolish" the indictment of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon as "inconsistent with France's stances," Pan-Arab daily al-Hayat reported Sunday. Several sources in Paris told the newspaper that Jumblat has made his stance clear to French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner last Thursday.
The Druze leader expressed fears that the indictment would lead to Sunni-Shiite strife in Lebanon and told Kouchner that France would be "held responsible if civil war was ignited in the country," the sources said. However, the French foreign minister was also clear in his stance, saying Paris supports the international tribunal and does not interfere in the work of Prosecutor Daniel Bellemare. The sources wondered how several Lebanese officials who had pleaded with France to establish the court are now demanding to abolish the indictment.
"This is unacceptable because France does not change its stances," the sources told al-Hayat. Beirut, 12 Sep 10, 08:14

Sayyed to Hariri: Assad Hugged You Rather Than Hanging You to Death
Naharnet/Former head of the General Security Department Maj. Gen. Jamil Sayyed on Sunday launched a vehement attack on Prime Minister Saad Hariri for saying it was a mistake to accuse Syria of involvement in his father's assassination. "After all you have done to Syria, (Syrian President) Bashar Assad hugged you rather than hanging you to death," Sayyed said during a press conference addressing Hariri. "It's not enough for Hariri to admit that he erred, he has to pay the price of his mistakes," the former security chief told reporters about Hariri's latest statement to pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat. "At a certain stage we made mistakes and accused Syria of assassinating the martyred premier. This was a political accusation, and this political accusation has finished," Hariri told the newspaper earlier in the week. Accusations against Syria were not political, they were crimes of slander that require trial, according to the former general. While saying the tribunal knows that Hariri's political, security and judicial team were behind false witnesses in ex-Premier Rafik Hariri's assassination case, Sayyed said Special Tribunal for Lebanon Prosecutor Daniel Bellemare should have summoned them and questioned them. He also slammed the premier's supporters for denying there were false witnesses in Hariri's murder case, saying all those who have lied during an investigation are called false witnesses although "they are inexistent for the Hariri team."
Sayyed said the tribunal doesn't want to prosecute the false witnesses because "big heads would roll." "I swear to you Saad Hariri that I would take my rights with my own hands someday if you don't give them back to me," he vowed. Sayyed urged the Lebanese people to reject the status quo and work on change even if that requires the toppling of the government by force.
Beirut, 12 Sep 10, 12:43

Karam Transferred to Roumieh Prison
Naharnet/Senior Free Patriotic Movement official Fayez Karam was transferred to Roumieh prison, southeast of Beirut, ahead of an indictment that is expected to be issued against him on charges of collaborating with Israel. Karam, who was arrested on August 3 by the Internal Security Forces Intelligence Bureau, was transferred from the ISF's headquarters prison to an air-conditioned cell in Roumieh, An Nahar daily reported Sunday. The arrest of the retired army brig. Gen. has triggered an FPM campaign against the Intelligence Bureau. An Nahar said that the bureau handed over Karam to the military judiciary last Thursday after completing the investigation and questioning the alleged spy over his links with the Israeli Mossad. The military judiciary, in its turn, transferred the man to Roumieh prison. Beirut, 12 Sep 10, 07:49

35-Year-Old Killed in Bab al-Tebbaneh Gunfight
Naharnet/An overnight gunfight between two Sunni families in northern Lebanon killed a 35-year-old man, security officials said on Sunday. The fighting erupted between the Issa and Arour families in the working class Bab al-Tebbaneh district of the northern port city of Tripoli. The dead man belonged to the Issa family. Media reports said several people were also injured in the gunbattle.(AFP-Naharnet) Beirut, 12 Sep 10, 10:55

Houri: Hariri's Recent Statement Untangles Tribunal, Issues Influencing it
Naharnet/MP Ammar Houri said Premier Saad Hariri's statement that it was a mistake to blame Damascus for his father's assassination was aimed at "untangling the Special Tribunal for Lebanon and other issues that are influencing it."In remarks to al-Mustaqbal newspaper published Sunday, Houri said: "There is no need to justify what Prime Minister Saad Hariri said."
The Mustaqbal movement leader's recent stance "wasn't a step into the unknown and was not surprising … It was aimed at untangling the tribunal and other issues that are influencing it," Houri said. He rebuffed claims that Hariri's statement was a sudden reversal, saying the premier's decision to backtrack from his accusations against Syria came when he visited Damascus several times in the past few months. The statement was aimed at opening a new page in relations between the two countries, Houri told al-Mustaqbal. Beirut, 12 Sep 10, 09:37

Alloush: Is FPM Trying to Cover up Direct Contacts Between it and Israel?
Naharnet/Al-Mustaqbal movement official Mustafa Alloush wondered whether the Free Patriotic Movement had launched a campaign against the Intelligence Bureau to try to cover up direct contacts with Israel. In remarks to pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat published Sunday, Alloush said it was possible that the FPM was scared that retired army Brig. Gen. Fayez Karam would unveil information about possible contacts between the movement and Israel. "Is the FPM trying to cover up direct contacts between it and the enemy at a certain stage?" Alloush wondered. Karam, who is a senior FPM official, was arrested last month on charges of spying for Israel. Alloush also wondered why Aoun is at this stage questioning the legitimacy of the Internal Security Forces Intelligence Bureau after the branch made several achievements in the arrest of spies. "All this confirms there is something fishy behind the vehement attack on the Intelligence Bureau," the Mustaqbal movement official told Asharq al-Awsat. Beirut, 12 Sep 10, 09:12

Bomb in Garbage Container in Borj Hammoud
Naharnet/An explosion Saturday in a garbage container in Borj Hammoud district triggered a small fire, local media said. The Voice of Lebanon radio station said three people were wounded in the blast that took place at 2:00pm. It identified the wounded as George Aqiqi, a Lebanese and two Syrian workers – Ahmed Hammoud and Ismat al-Bahah.
Beirut, 11 Sep 10, 14:27

Dispute between Baroud, Rifi Apparently Not Over
Naharnet/A dispute between Interior Minister Ziad Baroud and police chief Maj. Gen. Ashraf Rifi was apparently not settled, al-Manar television said Saturday evening, contrary to what a morning report had claimed. OTV, meanwhile, said disciplinary measures taken by Baroud against Rifi were still in place. Pan-Arab al-Hayat newspaper reported Saturday that there were no political overtones to the dispute between Baroud and Rifi. The report, carried by pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat, said Baroud and Rifi got in touch on Thursday evening shortly after a statement issued by police triggered a dispute between the two men. A statement issued Thursday morning by police was in respond to criticism by Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun against Internal Security Forces (ISF). Aoun has slammed the ISF, saying Rifi had gone beyond the powers of the interior minister by issuing a statement praising the role of the police's Intelligence Bureau for revealing a network of Israeli spies. The ISF in a statement hit back at Aoun, without naming him, saying criticism of the Intelligence Bureau was aimed at diverting attention from the fact that senior FPM official Fayez Karam had been found guilty of spying for Israel. The police statement said the Intelligence Bureau "operates within the legal framework … under the supervision of judicial authorities." Baroud on Friday said he would take the necessary disciplinary action after the statement was issued without his prior consent in accordance with applicable laws. The sources said Baroud and Rifi maintained contact, stressing that differences between the two men over the powers of the police chief "does not constitute an obstacle to Karam's arrest." "The technical dispute in this regard will not turn into a dispute on the issue of hunting suspects on suspicion of spying for Israel," one source said.
Beirut, 11 Sep 10, 21:32

Hariri, Nasrallah Meet to 'Clear Hearts'
Naharnet/The Kuwaiti newspaper al-Anbaa on Saturday said Prime Minister Saad Hariri and Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah will meet to "clear the hearts" after Eid al-Fitr.
It said a shift in Hariri's policy will only be complete in a "comfortable" relationship with Hizbullah "which is the thread separating the relationship with Syria." The paper said the Hariri-Nasrallah meeting to "clear the hearts" would likely take place following Eid al-Fitr. Beirut, 11 Sep 10, 10:26

Saudi Diplomat Seeks Asylum in U.S. for Being Gay
Naharnet/A Saudi diplomat in Los Angeles reportedly has asked for political asylum in the United States, claiming his life is in danger if he is returned to Saudi Arabia.
The report Saturday by NBC News quoted the diplomat, Ali Ahmad Asseri, as saying that Saudi officials have ordered him back to his country because he is gay and had become a close friend to a Jewish woman. Asseri in a letter also reportedly criticized the role of militant imams in Saudi society. NBC said that Asseri, who is first secretary of the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles, was questioned by the Department of Homeland Security after he applied for asylum.(AP) Beirut, 12 Sep 10, 09:52

Young and employed, Lebanon’s child labor problem
By: Sarah Lynch
 September 12, 2010
Children as young as five years old sell products on the street. (Sarah Lynch)
Tawfiq Nasser kisses his money every time he makes a sale. He’s glad to bring in money that supports his three children, who are sleeping at home in Dahiyeh. But on a recent Friday night in the middle of Ramadan, sales were few and business slow as he hawked flowers inside the cabarets and pubs of the Hamra district, where booze and beauty usually spur gents to woo their dates with a red rose or two.
But even when business is good, Nasser says he would never wish that his children follow in his footsteps. “I could never put my head on a pillow to sleep if I knew my kids are out in the middle of the night,” he said.
But there are children who are out in the middle of the night, just like Nasser was at the age of nine, when he began his career as a flower salesman. The children are victims of child labor.
Five-year-old Faris is so small that his head reaches just slightly over the tops of bar stools. He scoots in through the door of Café de Prague every night almost unnoticed, then makes the rounds to tables of welcoming customers who can’t help but buy his roses.
When he meets up with his two brothers later in the evening to sell to customers stopping for a treat at BarBar, it’s Faris who sells the most flowers of the three, says his 15-year-old brother Abdel Aziz. Faris smiles wide, showing his newly-grown teeth, knowing even at five that it’s his charm and baby face that help with business. He says that every evening his brother Youssef, 13, helps gel his hair back and dress him. On a recent Sunday night he wore a pressed button-down shirt and clip-on tie.
Every evening around six, Faris, Youssef and Abdel Aziz walk from Karakas to Hamra, where they work their trade until three in the morning. After that it’s back home for an early-morning suhoor before they rest their heads around six. Their mother stays at home while her six children find work either on the streets or at nearby gas stations.
“At the first level, this child is a victim; a victim of his own family, society and of his environment,” said Bassima Rimani, a social worker at the Union for the Protection of Children in Lebanon. Like many street children in Lebanon, the boys come from Syria. Nazha Shallita, head of the Unit for Combat of Child Labor in Lebanon, says most of the country’s working children are Syrian, Palestinian or Bedouin. The boys in Hamra are just three of the estimated 100,000 working children in Lebanon, according to a 2004 study conducted by the International Labor Organization in conjunction with the Ministry of Labor. One quarter of those children work in agriculture, while others are dispersed among unregulated sectors including construction, domestic work and selling products on the streets. Children who sell roses make between 30,000 LL ($20) and 50,000 LL ($33) on a typical evening, according to Rimani. But that is not necessarily the net amount they take home. Street kids often work under an employer who oversees sales and takes a portion of their earnings, and sometimes works in conjunction with the children’s parents. Lebanon’s first child labor law was created in 1946. It prohibited any child under eight years old from working. In 1996, the legal age was raised to 13, and stipulated that children ages 13 to 18 can only be employed if they have a health certificate stating they are physically suited to work.
But even with a law in place, lack of enforcement allows child labor to persist. Shallita says efforts remain limited and scattered, but that actions are being taken to eradicate the phenomenon. The most extensive work is being done by UNICEF, the International Labor Organization and various non-governmental organizations. The NGO Home of Hope, for example, takes children off the streets and provides them with elementary education, therapy and a place to live. Five-year-old Faris’ continued work, however, suggests that there is still progress to be made. The Ministry of Labor submitted a new law to parliament that would raise the minimum working age to 15 and formalize sectors such as agriculture and domestic work. This would allow authorities to conduct inspections in the field. The law has been hanging in parliament since 2002. The problem runs deeper. Even if police were to spot Faris or other young ones like him, they likely would not know what to do. A unit to train police officers on how to handle working children was created in 2000 but closed in 2005 following the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, Shallita said. To date, there is no training program in place. Faris and his brothers don’t seem to mind. “Business is good, thanks be to God,” they say. But business is not quite as good for Nasser. With the lack of a baby face and innocent charm, there are slumps in sales on a typical evening. That’s when Nasser can be found sitting under a street lamp near Dany’s pub at hours when business should be prime. He sips a Heineken and waits an hour or so until jumping from bar to pub again, knowing his market is limited. But for 30 years, this is the only business he has known.

Why an Israeli Attack on Iran is Unlikely
by Amir Bagherpour
September 11, 2010
/Foreign Policy Journal/
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/09/11/why-an-israeli-attack-on-iran-is-unlikely/
Over the summer there has been a neo-conservative led effort to propagate the case for attacking Iran militarily. This trend is exemplified by the cover of September issue of the Atlantic monthly boldly reading: “Israel is Getting Ready to Bomb Iran.” In the issue is Jeffrey Goldberg’s article, “Point of No Return,” in which he illustrates the Israeli view that it has no choice but to commence a bombing interdiction on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The media commentary arguing the case for bombing Iran strengthen the credibility of Israel’s threat in such a way as to convince the American public and perhaps the Iranian regime that it is not bluffing. Although this is by no means diplomacy, Israel is engaging in a strategy of sending signals intended to discourage Iran from further developing their nuclear program. In order for the threat to be credible the signal Israel is sending must also have costs. By issuing threats of attacking Iran, Israel is incurring the cost of appearing irrationally belligerent and reckless toward the vital interests of its allies in the international community, namely the disruption of oil flow in the Middle East caused by armed conflict.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at a ceremony unveiling Iran's new long-range unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) in Tehran. (Reuters)
Such signals in effect may end-up tying the hands of Israel and the United States into actually carrying out an attack when in fact the intent may have only begun as an act of posturing. Continued media campaigns proposing the “no-other option” scenario increase the consequences of backing down or waffling, setting a path for war which may not have been the intent in the first place. Such campaigns disproportionately show the benefits of military action compared to the consequences and almost always depict the opposing country as the willful aggressor. But a campaign for war is only viewed negatively as propaganda depending on where one sits and the subsequent preferences followed by that view. In his timeless work, On War¸ military strategist Carl Von Clausewitz once said, “The aggressor is always peace-loving; he would prefer to take over a country unopposed.” This is the essential crux of the issue, those aligned with Iran’s vital interest view Israel as the aggressor and those aligned with Israel see it vice-versa.
More than just a dispute between two major powers in the Middle East, there is a conflict between rational calculations of cost and benefit and blind emotions that lead to war. The nuclear question is just symptomatic of a larger issue: Iran is a dissatisfied regional power in the Middle East that is challenging the status quo and the distribution of power led by the United States. The Bush administration and now the Obama administration have used the nebulous expression, “All options are on the table.” Let us explore some of those options along with their present and potential outcomes.
Diplomacy is the least costly option, but arguably the most difficult to achieve. It can be sub-categorized as either secret diplomacy or open diplomacy. Israel and Iran have a long history of secret diplomacy spanning all the way from the Shah’s time and well into the reign of Ayatollah Khomeini.[1] However, after years of training and equipping Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and more recently Hamas, Iran’s actions against Israel have been more than just bellicose statements propagated by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s denial of the holocaust.[2] Yet such actions circumventing diplomacy are not just one sided. Just as Israel identifies Hezbollah and Hamas as Iranian proxies, Iran perceives the state of Israel as a proxy for the United States. As a result, the regime in Tehran has engaged in a three-decade tit-for-tat strategy of retaliation aimed at the U.S. vis-à-vis Israel. Such retaliation exceeds political and economic grievances caused by sanctions or meddling in the political affairs of Iran for the past sixty years. It is a tit-for-tat retaliation for the U.S. support of dissident groups responsible for attacking Iran.
Up until the Bush administration, the United States was directly engaged in supporting groups such as the Mujahedin-E-Khalq (MeK), a terrorist organization claiming responsibility for the killing of several members of the Iranian Parliament and a failed attempt on current Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s life which left one of his arms maimed. Under the Bush administration, the United States was also supporting the internationally recognized Kurdish terrorist group PJAK and the Sunni Baluchiorganization Jundallah in conducting attacks on Iran. In a change of policy the Obama Administration made a commitment to cease support for groups such as the MeK, PJAK, and Jundallah. President Obama even went further by admitting and somewhat apologizing for U.S. involvement in the 1953 CIA sponsored coup which overthrew the once democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh.
Such gestures have fallen on deaf ears by the hardliners led by the powerful Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and President Ahmadinejad. Prior to the emergence of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the U.S. and Iran were making headway in Track II negotiations led by reformist President Ali Khatami consisting of cultural exchanges and non-official talks. Yet even those instances came to a halt after President Bush labeled Iran as part of an “axis of evil.” Under the new Obama administration, relations worsened after candidates Mir Hossein Moussavi and Mehdi Karroubi lost to incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the controversial 2009 election for Iran’s President. The continuation of hardliner policies in Tehran represented by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad assured negotiations would continue to be problematic under the status quo ante.
After a failed attempt at diplomacy, the United States approached the nuclear question with the second least costly option: a U.N.-approved resolution implementing the most stringent sanctions imposed on Iran since Mossadegh’s nationalization of Iran’s oil resources. The purpose of such sanctions has been to force the Iranian regime into ceasing their nuclear program. Although such an action has imposed continued pain upon the general population and increased transaction costs for the regime, up until now it has proven to be equally as unfruitful as the diplomatic efforts of the Obama Administration. Although the consequences are minimal compared to armed conflict, there are certainly costs incurred by American allies. Turkey, for example, which happens to be a major strategic ally for the United States, will certainly be negatively affected as a major trading partner with Iran, and it displayed its discontent by voting against the U.N. Resolution for sanctions.
Let us explore what the costs would be if the Israel were to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities and what retaliation would look like. First and foremost, Iran has a population of nearly 70 million in a land-mass the size of Texas. Israel has just one-seventh of the population in a land mass approximately the size of Rhode Island. They are around 1500 kilometers distant. Even with their inferior technology, Iran’s retaliation on Israel would be devastating because of its size. But more important than Iran’s population, land-mass, and military strength is their strategic location in the Middle East. Forty percent of the world’s seaborne oil shipments go through the Strait of Hormuz, amounting to nearly twenty percent of the total shipments in the world.[3] This narrow passage happens to go through the coast of Iran. In 2008 the Commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, Mohammad Jafari, announced that if Iran were to be attacked, their first act would be to close passage by mining the Strait of Hormuz.[4] The next action stated by representatives of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps would be a bombing of Saudi oil refineries. Some analysts believe that Iran could further cause havoc by attacking Israel using proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas. The disruption of oil flow at such a scale would have devastating effects on the world. So although Iran does not yet possess a nuclear weapon, its strategic location and ability to stop the flow of oil allow it to have a deterrent equally or arguably more powerful because the impact would be global and the costs of catastrophically high oil prices would be imposed on almost all countries.
The question remains: Is Israel willing to take the risk of initiating a bombing campaign which could potentially threaten the world’s oil supply and arguably the economies of the world? Such an act at the present moment appears to be a risky proposition by Israel in the short-term, and appears irrational because the cost it will impose on itself will be higher than the benefit of setting back Iran’s nuclear program through any bombing interdiction. Just as important, such actions will impose tremendous costs for Israel’s allies. So in conclusion, all options remain on the table, even the use of nuclear weapons, but as a rational player in the international game Israel is not likely to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities because of Iran’s strategic location coupled with its capability to retaliate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Trita Parsi. Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States. New Haven: Yale University Press, © 2007.
[2] Robert Baer. The Devil We Know: Dealing With the New Iranian Super Power. New York: Crown Publishers. ©2008
[3] http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/World_Oil_Transit_Chokepoints/Full.html
[4] http://www.arabianbusiness.com/523163-iran-to-lock-down-strait-of-hormuz-if-attacked?ln=en
militaryadministrationemail servicerhode islandcampaigns
Amir Bagherpour is a Ph.D. candidate at the Claremont School of Politics and Economics. He is a West Point graduate and former officer in the U.S. Army. He also holds an MBA from UC Irvine. Mr. Bagherpour spent a portion of his summer in Afghanistan conducting research on political capacity and governance. He is also an associate at the Trans Research Consortium, a research group committed to studying the causes of war and transitions in power. Read more articles by Amir Bagherpour.
Tags: Amir Bagherpour, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, CIA, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Israel, Jeffrey Goldberg, Jundallah, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mir Hossein Moussavi, Mohammad Mossadegh, Mudahedin-e-Khalq, oil, PJAK, U.S. Foreign Policy, United Nations

The Alarm Has Been Ringing: It’s Past 9:11 and Time to Wake Up
September 11, 2010
Gadi Adelman
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.7321/pub_detail.asp
When I returned to the U.S. in 1981 all I wanted to do was enter law enforcement. The problem was I was way ahead of the times.
My resume, like all others in the early 1980’s, had a short and long term objective across the top:
“Short term objective: to secure a position with a law enforcement agency. Long term objective: to specialize in anti-terrorism.”
During an interview with the F.B.I. the interviewer read my objectives aloud and laughed as he said “this is America, we don’t have terrorism”.
I shot back with “wait ten years and remember the word Jihad”. Needless to say, the interview ended shortly thereafter and I did not get the job. Also, needless to say I was off by two years. Interestingly, years later I was a guest on the Jerry Agar Radio talk show along with the former F.B.I. Director (I believe it was Director Louis J. Freeh) discussing 9/11. The former Director formally apologized to me on the air explaining “they only wish they had hired you or people with your knowledge when they had the chance”.
It wasn’t like America hadn’t experienced terror prior to 1993.It just wasn’t here so it didn’t seem too important.
1979- Nov. 4, Tehran, Iran: U.S. embassy seized taking 66 hostages. 14 were later released. The remaining 52 were freed after 444 days.
1982–1991- Lebanon: Thirty U.S. and other Westerners were kidnapped in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Some were killed, some died in captivity and some were released. Terry Anderson was held for 2,454 days.
1983- April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Hezbollah suicide bombers exploded a truck at the U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.
Dec. 12, Kuwait City, Kuwait: Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.
1984- Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb explodes outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.
Dec. 3, Beirut, Lebanon: Kuwait Airways Flight 221, from Kuwait to Pakistan, hijacked and diverted to Tehran. 2 Americans killed.
1985- April 12, Madrid, Spain: Bombing at a restaurant frequented by U.S. soldiers, killed 18 Spaniards and injured 82.
June 14, Beirut, Lebanon: TWA Flight 847 hijacked to Beirut by Hezbollah terrorists and held for 17 days. A U.S. Navy diver was executed.
Oct. 7, Mediterranean Sea: gunmen attack Italian cruise ship, AchilleLauro. One U.S. tourist killed. Hijacking linked to Libya.
Dec. 18, Rome, Italy, and Vienna, Austria: airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed, killing 20 people, 5 of whom were Americans. Bombing linked to Libya.
1986- April 2, Athens, Greece:A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight 840, killing 4 Americans and injuring 9.
April 5, West Berlin, Germany: Libyans bomb a disco frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing 2 and injuring hundreds.
1988- Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight and crashes into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Libya formally admitted responsibility 15 years later (Aug. 2003).
After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (February 26) I really thought that America had finally gotten its wake up call and had opened its eyes to the threat of Islamic terrorism. Although the U.S. did start to concentrate more on the threat of terror, it was nowhere what was needed.
The terror just continued with more incidents involving targeted Americans leading up to 9/11.
1995- Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.
1996- June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese all members of Hezbollah were indicted in June 2001.
1998- Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs explode almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. 4 men connected with al-Qaeda were convicted and sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.
2000- Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat blew up alongside it. 17 sailors killed. Again, this was al-Qaeda.
So, after 9/11 I thought to myself “now America has to wake up, there is no way they will ignore the threat of Islamic terror any longer, even if our politicians do the American people won’t”. Boy was I wrong. Dead wrong! 9 years later and we are still sleeping.
Instead of learning from the past, America believed the rhetoric and blamed itself. This did not start on 9/11 due to “our foreign policies”; one look at the past proves this. So where did all this “guilt” come from? Why are Americans more concerned with blaming themselves than with securing the borders or their own safety? What in the hell has to happen for this country to wake up, a chemical/biological or nuclear attack on one of our cities?
Look at the above list; better yet, look at what has happened since 9/11. How many more have to die before you admit the obvious? We are at war, terrorism is real and it will happen again and again. I for one do not want to be writing about the next 9/11 or worse grieving for my own friends or family.
Do not let over 3000 American civilians or over 6700 military deaths be in vain. Wake up to the truth; stop believing that “we” are to blame. This November vote in some people that give a damn about our country and its people’s security or the next time an attack occurs you might not be here to read that it was once again Islamic terror.
The alarm will ring again; will we finally turn it off this time?
***FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Gadi Adelman is a freelance writer and lecturer on the history of terrorism and counterterrorism. He grew up in Israel, studying terrorism and Islam for 35 years after surviving a terrorist bomb in Jerusalem in which 7 children were killed. Since returning to the U. S., Gadi teaches and lectures to law enforcement agencies as well as high schools and colleges. He can be heard every Thursday night at 9PM est. on his own radio show “America Akbar” on Windows to Liberty Radio Network. He can be reached through his website http://gadiadelman.com.

September 11, 2001: Nine Years On
By: Frank Salvato
10 Sep 2010
http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=3575
The subject of the attacks of September 11, 2001, seems to validate the notion that the American public has an attention span issue. How else can we explain the “tolerance” argument being foisted upon the citizenry by proponents of the Islamic Center and mosque slated for construction just 500 feet from the epicenter of Ground Zero? How else can we explain the abundance of Wahabbist literature in Saudi funded mosques all over the United States? And how else can we explain the fact that a grotesquely overwhelming number of violent acts are committed, daily, in the name of Islam?
Can anyone possibly believe these issues would have been embraced with apathy and conciliation on September 12, 2001; just one day after Americans watched their countrymen leaping from jet-fuel infused infernos only to partially disintegrate as they impacted with the ground below?
Can anyone imagine any family member of anyone killed by the bloodthirsty and barbaric Islamist ideologues on that fateful day rationalizing the construction of an Islamic center and mosque on what is literally the graveyard for 2,977 souls; souls dispatched in the name of Allah and Muhammad?
And what of the encroachment of Sharia into the Western culture, into the American culture? Would anyone who still remembered how they felt when they saw the first tower of the World Trade Center collapse be inclined to debate whether Muslim communities should be permitted to establish Sharia councils to mitigate issues within their communities here in America; councils that operate outside the constitutionally constrained legal system? Does anyone in their right mind believe that the barbaric Islamic traditions of honor killing and genital mutilation have a place in the 21st Century?
In the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001, Americans from all political corners joined hands, minds and hearts in a firm determination to finally say that the scourge of radical Islamist violence needed to be confronted; needed to be vanquished; needed to be erased from the face of the Earth. On September 12, 2001, each and every American knew that to walk away from this battle – a battle foisted upon us not by our own choosing but by fundamentalist and violent Islamists – was to invite an even more catastrophic event to our shores, one that, perhaps and God forbid, could test the strength of the American will in the face of a massive bio-chemical or even nuclear attack.
Yet today, nine years later, we have elected as our leaders sympathizers and appeasers who are using the Iraqi and Afghan battle theaters as pawns in an ideological political game; who call the war against aggressive, radical and violent Islam an “overseas contingency plan”; and who do practically everything in their power to undercut the West’s most valuable ally in the Middle East – Israel – short of attacking her themselves.
Today, nine years after Muslim radicals, in an aggressive and offensive act of terrorism, dispatched 2, 977 human beings from the Earth, cries from beyond the grave beg for us to protect those still living from a similar fate; cries that ride on every wind that navigates the urban canyons of Manhattan, every ring of the Pentagon and through the fields of Shanksville.
But, increasingly, the American public cannot hear the cries. We are listening to agenda-driven news outlets that spotlight our elected leaders telling us we are to blame, that America is bad. We are commanded by the Progressive-Liberals to listen to CAIR and the “bridge-builder” Feisal Abdul Rauf explain to us that we are at fault, that our government made Osama bin Laden and the murderous cretins of September 11, 2001, who flew planes into buildings screaming, “Allahu Akbar!” We are too busy arguing politics to hear the pleas from beyond that warn us all – each and every one of us – to take this confrontation seriously. We are too busy.
A cursory examination of the Islamic culture (of which, admittedly, I am not a fan) reveals that the warriors and war designers of the Islamic world view confrontation and conquest in the measurement of centuries not decades or years. By contrast, the United States of America (only 234 years old, give or take the formative years prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence) and more importantly, the American culture, has been trained by the ideologically opportunistic to employ a sitcom attention span to all of the issues it faces; everything must be reconciled in thirty minutes, minus commercial breaks, titles and credits. Where Muslims of conquest are planning for a global Islamic Caliphate ruled by Sharia law, Americans are planning for the weekend.
And still the lost souls of September 11, 2001, continue to scream, to implore, to plead to anyone who will listen.
While we should be asking why the Islamic culture facilitates an overwhelming number of terrorist acts around the world, doing so in the name of Allah, Muhammad and Islam, many in the West – mostly Progressives, Liberals and one-worlders – insist that Islam is a “religion of peace.” Why? The facts do not lead to that conclusion. Truth be told, the facts lead to the exact opposite.
Since September 11, 2001, there have been approximately 16,000 acts of Islamist terrorism. That breaks down to approximately 4.8 acts of violence, 4.8 acts of Islamist terrorism, each and every day. Does this qualify Islam to claim the moniker “religion of peace?”
As with every other religious text, there are contradictions in the Quran. But, unlike other religions, the Quran mandates reconciliation for these contradictions. It is explained in the Quran that if two passages contradict each other the passage written later supersedes the one written earlier. Given that the “peaceful” and “tolerant” passages of the Quran were written in the early years and the violent conquest and supremacist oriented passages in the later years, the violent tenets of Islam – per the Quran – abrogate the peaceful tenets. Why haven’t we taken the time to understand this absolute fact about this ideology? Why haven’t the so-called “moderate Muslims” shared this fact with other cultures? Why do we allow appeasers and sympathizers to Islam mislead us on what the Quran actually mandates?
And what of the Wahabbist tenet of al taqiyya? Al taqiyya is defined, literally as,
“Concealing or disguising one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of eminent danger – whether now or later in time – to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury.”
In essence, al taqiyya can be generally defined as the legitimization of deception. Yet Progressives, liberals and one-worlders insist on the peaceful purity of Islam, as they seek to negotiate, to extend an “unclenched fist,” to Islamists like Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Syria’s Bashar al-Assad; to enter into peace talks with the Taliban and Mullah Omar. Would we be so quick to accept the “sincerity” of fundamentalist and radical Islamists were we not ignorant of the deception employed through al taqiyya?
What else don’t we understand about Islam? About jihadists? About the Quran? Why are Progressives, Liberals and one-worlders entered into such a dysfunctional relationship with Islam? Why are they playing the roles of “useful idiots” to Islam’s thirst for conquest?
If we do anything to honor the 2,977 souls lost on September 11, 2001, we should weigh heavily on the facts surrounding Islam, its history, its philosophy, its ideology and the intentions of those who follow the Quranic edicts of Muhammad blindly. If we do nothing else to appease the restless souls of those slaughtered by the Islamists of 9/11 we must quest for the truth so that we might act to secure our future.
We, Americans, have forgotten the pain of the fire that burned us on September 11, 2001. We have allowed the pain to subside, the scar to heal; we have done our best to “move on.” Sadly, in a confrontation of cultures, such as this is – ideological, violent, totalitarian, deceptive and oppressive – moving on leaves our society and the culture of the Western World open to conquest. We “move on,” we forget, at our own peril.
God bless the lost souls of September 11, 2001, comfort their families and friends and give us the strength to survive, as individuals and as a nation.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu demands Palestinians recognize Israel as Jewish state
By JPOST.COM STAFF
09/12/2010 11:59
Netanyahu: "I don't hear the other side saying 'two states for two nations.' I hear two states, but I don't hear two nations"; ministers speak up on settlement freeze.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Sunday said that a peace agreement is based, first of all, on the recognition of Israel as the national state of the Jewish People.
"The conflict between us and the Palestinians, as opposed to other conflicts that were resolved by peace agreements, is over the same piece of ground," Netanyahu continued.
The prime minister stated that "we say that the solution is two states for two peoples, meaning two national states, a Jewish national state and a Palestinian national state. To my regret, I have yet to hear from the Palestinians the phrase 'two states for two peoples'. I hear them saying 'two states' but I do not hear them recognizing two states for two peoples."
Netanyahu referred to the scheduled meeting in Sharm a-Sheikh on Tuesday and said "I believe that if the Palestinian leadership adheres to continuous negotiations, despite the obstacles that are coming up on every side, and if it is serious and determined in its intention to advance towards peace, just as we are serious, then it will be possible to,within a year, reach a framework that will be the basis for a peace settlement.
The prime minister did not refer to an end of the settlement freeze at the beginning of the cabinet meeting.
Contrary to Netanyahu's silence on the issue, a number of ministers gave their opinion on the issue of the West Bank building moratorium, which is set to expire at the end of September.
Social Affairs Minister Isaac Herzog referred to the settlement freeze and said that the talks scheduled for Sharm e-Sheikh "are an important step.... Brave steps need to be taken during the negotiations, even if it means that a continuation of the settlement freeze."
In contrast, Interior Minister Eli Yishai claimed that "we need to face the truth and not hide our head in the sand. I am very skeptical. I do not believe that the Palestinians want political negotiations

Terrorist 'planned to bomb IDF fundraising event in Paris'
By JPOST.COM STAFF AND ASSOCIATED PRESS
09/12/2010 07:25
French head of counterespionage agency says the man was arrested in Egypt and extradited to France, where current terror risk is high.
A terrorist who planned to bomb an IDF fundraising event in Paris was arrested in Egypt and extradited to France, the head of the head of the French counterespionage agency said in an interview released Saturday. Although he did not specify when the arrest had occurred, Bernard Squarcini said that the risk of a terrorist attack on French soil has never been higher than it is now. Squarcini told Le Journal du Dimanche newspaper that France's history as a colonial master in North Africa, its military presence in Afghanistan and a proposal aimed at banning full-covering face veils in public all make the country a prime target for certain radical Islamist groups. The risk of an attack is now as high as it was in 1995, before deadly attacks on the Paris subway by Algerian Islamic extremists, he said. "Objectively, there are reasons for worry. The threat has never been as high" as now, the interview quotes Squarcini as saying. "We foil an average of two (planned) attacks a year, but one day or another, we're going to get hit." Squarcini said the threat is threefold, coming from al-Qaida's North African affiliate — an Algerian insurgent group that allied itself with the international terror network several years ago and has targeted French interest in the region in the past — radical French converts to Islam and French nationals who have trained with extremist groups in Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia. "All (such) scenarios are possible," Squarcini said.
He added that before the 1995 bombings on the Paris subway, which killed eight people and wounded hundreds, the risk came solely from insurgent groups from France's former colony, Algeria. One such group, the Armed Islamic Group, claimed responsibility for the 1995 attacks. Next week, the Senate, the upper house of the French parliament, will vote on a bill that would ban the wearing of burqas or niqabs, fully covering Islamic veils, in public places in France. The proposal, which was overwhelmingly approved in the lower house of parliament in July, drew the indignation of the No. 2 of al-Qaida, Ayman al-Zawahri, who said the drive to ban the veil amounted to discrimination against Muslim women.
France's terror alert level remains at red, the second-highest rank out of four.

Playing Russian Roulette in Tehran
10/09/2010
By Amir Taheri
Al Sarq Al Awasat
It reminds me of Egypt under Nasser," a friend commented the other day as we watched television footage of crowds in Tehran shouting the usual slogans.
Crowds always resemble each other. It is individuals that are different.
In this particular case, however, the resemblance went beyond the crowds. Like Egypt in the 1960s, the Islamic Republic appears to be determined to provoke a war without being prepared for it.
Some commentators believe that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's public statements do not reflect the "deep down" position of the Islamic Republic. After all, he is one player among many in Tehran, they argue.
Nevertheless, whether or not Ahmadinejad speaks for the 'real leaders' of the Khomeinist regime is beside the point. There is no doubt that the president's statements, and behaviour, have contributed to raising the tension in the region and increasing the threat of war.
Judging by his public statements, Ahmadinejad seems to believe that only two countries might take military action against the Islamic Republic: Israel and the United States.
He further believes that neither nation would take such action for fear of defeat. "If Israel takes action against us, it will be wiped off the map," Ahmadinejad said in Doha, Qatar, the other day as a smiling emir watched.
As for the US, Ahmadinejad claims that a military clash with the Islamic Republic would spell "the end of American global hegemony."
In his Qatar statement, Ahmadinejad revealed that his analysis of the situation was based on two assumptions.
The first is that Israel "lost" the mini-wars against Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. If they couldn't win against such weak adversaries, how could they win against us?
Ahmadinejad's second assumption is that the US is incapable of fighting a "real war."
"The Americans never fought a real war," he said in Qatar.
In Korea and Vietnam, the Americans were just "slaughtering civilian populations." As for Afghanistan and Iraq, the US did not face "a real army" and just "walked through an empty country."
It is astonishing how Ahmadinjad's analysis resembles that of Nasser and Saddam Hussein in their respective moments of truths.
In his memoirs, former Russian Prime Minister Yevgeni Primakov relates how, on the eve of the Six Day war in 1967, Nasser assured him that Israel would not dare attack Egypt and that if they did the Jewish state would be "wiped off the map."
As fate would have it, Primakov also had an opportunity, almost four decades later, to hear similar analysis from another Arab autocrat, Saddam Hussein.
The Iraqi despot was also "absolutely certain" that the Americans had no stomach for a "real war" and would not come down from their planes to "fight like men."
Just 18 hours before the first Americans tanks entered Baghdad Saddam Hussein was shown on his television telling a crowd that no US soldier would dare enter the capital.
Ahmadinejad's stance may be written off as another example of his naiveté or his widely publicised claim that the Hidden Imam, a messiah like figure who is supposed to come at the end of time, will charge into the battle to annihilate his enemies.
However, Iranians would have every reason to be concerned about the president's judgement. He is violating many of the rules of leadership at a time of crisis.
All thinkers on warfare, from the Chinese Sun Tzu to the Italian Machiavelli and the French Jomeini, passing by the German Clausewitz, insist that the best war leader is one who achieves his objectives without going to war.
Ahmadinejad's rather juvenile optimism is against the first rule of leadership which is to hope for the best while preparing for the worst.
He is also violating the principle of prudence which is designed to prevent playing poker with a whole country. Prudence dictates that we should assume that a designated adversary might indeed attack us. And, if that happens, we cannot rule out the possibility of losing. Those who play Russian roulette assume that the sole bullet in the gun may go off when they pull the trigger against their temple.
Even if Ahmadinejad is right and a war with Israel, and/or the US, leads to their "annihilation", it is prudent to assume that Iran would not emerge from it without any damage. A good leader's duty is to prevent damage to his country and people.
Those familiar with the state of Iran's defences, or lack of them, know that the country is in no way prepared for a major war. Almost two years ago, General Rahim Safavi, then Commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), warned against starry-eyed assessments of the nation's military capabilities. Last year, a string of generals from the regular army, which, one must assume would have to defeat Israel and the US in Ahmadinejad's fantasy-land, revealed its shortcomings in a series of public statements.
The late Ruhallah Khomeini, the mullah who founded the Islamic Republic, was equally unable to control his rhetoric. His provocative policy provided Saddam Hussein with a pretext to attack Iran in 1980, triggering an eight-year war that claimed over a million lives.
Three decades later, Iran has not yet repaired the damage done by that war. Almost half of those displaced by that war have not yet returned to their original towns and villages. Khorramshahr, once Iran's largest port, remains a shadow of its past. The Abadan refinery, the world's largest on the eve of the war, is down to a fifth of its original capacity, forcing Iran to import 40 percent of the gasoline it needs. Iran's official estimated the damage done by that war as being over $1 trillion or the equivalent of five years of the gross domestic product. The country cannot fully provide for the estimated 2.3 million people left disabled by that war.
Add to that the human and economic cost of the wars that the Khomeinist regime has waged against political opponents and ethnic minorities, and it becomes clear that Iran has had enough of war for a long time to come.
Rather than play with the idea of war, as a teenager would with his games console, Ahmadinejad should tell us which national objective might justify taking the country to the brink.
Bravado is no substitute for a national strategy.

A Talk with Arab League SecGen Amr Musa
12/09/2010
By Sawsan Abu-Husain
Cairo, Asharq Al-Awsat- Arab League Secretary General Amr Musa has called on Washington to take effective action to extend the moratorium on settlement activities Israel is expected to end on the twenty-sixth of the current month. Musa said in an interview with Asharq Al-Awsat in Cairo: "We are not going to provide concessions as a gift with nothing in return from Israel". He stressed his support to the stand of Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas who rejects continuation of the negotiations if Israel refuses to extend the moratorium on settlement activities which expires in two weeks' time. He said that this date was considered a real test on whether the negotiations process will survive and whether it will be a gesture of good intentions if such intentions exist in Israeli policies.
Musa also spoke about prospects for peace and issues on the agenda of the Arab Foreign Ministers conference scheduled for the sixteenth of the present month. These include the subjects that will be prepared for the coming Arab Summit. He said it was too early to raise doubts about Iraq's ability to host the Arab summit, expressing hope that Iraq will succeed in forming a national accord government.
Musa added that it is difficult to ignore the Arab role in Iraq and that this role should be active within a framework of accord and support for stability. He said that the international dialogue with Iran could be accompanied by an Arab-Iranian dialogue.
The text of the interview follows:
[Asharq Al-Awsat] How would you evaluate the first round of negotiations that were launched in Washington?
[Musa] It is too early to evaluate the results now because President Obama has asked in mediating for the direct negotiations for a timeframe of one year. Subsequently it is not possible to give an evaluation and an assessment on every session, even though the situation as a whole does not inspire optimism.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Are we going to wait for one year of negotiations and 10 years for implementation, as proposed by Washington and Tel Aviv?
[Musa] Those who talked about 10 years for implementation are some Israelis. This comes within the framework of procrastination and disdain for the minds of the Palestinians and Arabs. Consequently this is not going to be rational or acceptable. But it is logical of course that there should be a timetable or timeframe for the negotiations and implementation. This is what the Arab side is always demanding, within what is reasonable, and that it should be under international supervision to prevent procrastination and fraud. As for proposing open-ended negotiations and a long period for implementation, this would be an indication of ill intentions and a kind of playfulness that benefits the Israeli occupation and hurts the Palestinian moves to establish a State. In any event, it is assuring that there are stations for following the negotiations and how serious and successful they are. The first station is extending the moratorium on building settlements which expires on 26 September. The moratorium itself is weak but it is still considered an indication of how much political will there is to facilitate the negotiations and also accept the establishment of a Palestinian State. Of course, continuing the negotiations while the settlement activities are continuing creates a frivolous situation that hurts the Palestinian and consequently the Arab interests. It is either the negotiations or the settlements. But if the settlements stop this will be a kind of positive symbolism and a show of some good will to provide an opportunity for the negotiations.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] But it is clear that Washington is demanding that President Mahmud Abbas should continue negotiations even if the settlement activities continue. How then can this situation be reconciled?
[Musa] If Israel resumes building the settlements and Abu-Mazin is asked to continue the negotiations this would be a very serious matter. It would mean that he is required to continue in the negotiations for the sake of appearances and to accept giving Israel the opportunity and time to complete building the settlements and thus the prospects for establishing a Palestinian State would have been eradicated. Consequently, it is not logical for the negotiations to continue with the continuation of building the settlements because there will be no use in the negotiations after colonization swallows the Palestinian lands. The Palestinian President has spoken clearly in stressing this position. The position of the Arab League is very clear, namely that the settlement activities conflict with the seriousness of the negotiations. In any event the matter will be clarified by the end of this month, and after this we shall see what happens.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] What do you think of the proposal by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on the importance of the presence of international forces in the West Bank? Would this proposal help in curbing the settlement activities?
[Musa] This proposal aims to provide serious alternatives that will perhaps facilitate final status negotiations, that is the permanent solution, especially since Israel insists on Israeli presence on the lands of Palestine after the establishment of the State. This raises questions about Israel's objectives and whether it is seeking to perpetuate the Israeli occupation under other pretexts and different berets? Does Israel and those who protect it believe that the Arabs are that dumb to accept the berets of Israeli security instead of the berets of the Israeli occupation and the change of the classification of the Israeli soldiers from occupation forces to security forces, and that there should be no Israeli withdrawal? Thus, President Mubarak's article came within the framework of providing a visualization for the final status that seeks to prevent this. This is what I understood.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] How can real peace be achieved?
[Musa] We have options which are serious negotiations, or official intervention by the Security Council, or a decisive Arab stand that rejects the policies of procrastination, deception, and repetition of the well-known tactics we have suffered from. We chose indirect negotiations as a test. If it had not been for the pressure of the American Government, the Palestinians would not have gone to the direct negotiations. Consequently, Washington must exert pressure to stop the building of settlements in order to salvage these negotiations.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Israel has not provided a clear vision on the final solution issues (Jerusalem - the borders - the refugees)?
[Musa] All these dossiers are supposed to be clarified during the negotiations that is within the year specified as a timeframe. But many doubt that Israel has anything to offer at the negotiating table that is sincere and rational.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Some reports have indicated that the negotiations during the period of Israel's former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made progress on 90 percent of the issues of a solution. Will the negotiations start from where they ended or from square one?
[Musa] The Arab League had no knowledge of what happened at the time and has no details about what Olmert offered. Actually, President Abu-Mazin continued to say throughout Olmert's tenure that he had not moved a single inch. Olmert talked only but refused to put a single word on paper. This is what Abu-Mazin said. What we know is that there are basic rules for negotiations, and what we know is the Arab Peace Initiative through which we move in addition to the road map. We are not aware of and do not know that there is an Israeli position, plan, elements or initiative for peace until this moment.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Will Arab Foreign Ministers discuss at their 26 of September meeting the solutions and alternatives in the event that the negotiations stumble?
[Musa] The Foreign Ministers will meet in Cairo and in New York. But we are following matters and consulting as of now on how to behave so all options are feasible. If Israel refuses to freeze settlement activities, then it is assumed that the negotiations will stop--unless frivolous and motion picture scenes are what is required. I mean moving from one city to another to conduct negotiations and photograph tables and smiles being flashed around. Who among the Arabs can accept such a responsibility? Can Abu-Mazin accept it?
[Asharq Al-Awsat] In the event that the American effort for a peace agreement flounders, is there an Arab drive to obtain a resolution from the Security Council to establish the State of Palestine and ask the world to recognize it, a resolution similar to Resolution 181 which led to the establishment of the State of Israel?
[Musa] Resolution 242 stipulates that it is inadmissible to seize territories by war. This applies to all the Arab territories occupied in 1967. As for the right to establish the State of Palestine, it is contained in the Partition Resolution 181 and is mentioned in more recent resolutions by the General Assembly.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] During your participation recently at an economic conference held in Italy, the Israeli press circulated various reports about a meeting you held with Israeli President Shimon Peres. Is this true?
[Musa] What happened was that we were in one place during the conference and a few words [were exchanged]. It was not a meeting for negotiations or defining positions. This is for the table of negotiations taking place in Washington and not any place else.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Did Peres ask you for moderate Arab League positions toward Israel, as mentioned in the Israeli media reports?
[Musa] What Peres should understand, and I hope he has understood it, is that the moderate positions are required from Netanyahu and not Abu-Mazin who is accepted [as moderate] to begin with, and that the positive steps are required from Israel and not the Arab side. He should understand that all the Arab steps are continent on conditions specified in the Arab Initiative. This means that the League is committed to its resolutions, to the Arab Initiative, and to very clear conditions for any peace or progress with Israel. These are issues on which there can never be any compromise. I would like to assure you that no one can budge me from my position on the Palestinian case and that I sometimes feel I am able to convince those I speak with more than they can convince me.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] These reports coincided with statements by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu that the direct negotiations are proceeding together with attempts for normalization with the Arab countries. Was the objective of the leak to suggest that there were dialogues between the Arab League Secretary General and the Israeli President before a peace agreement is reached?
[Musa] There are no such dialogues. But the question is whether we shall be asked to adopt additional steps to satisfy Israel without any steps on its part. Who can convince any Arab country to provide another concession in return for "zero" concessions from the Israeli side? For whose sake would this be done? The required progress is from Israel's side and not from the Arab side. This is an announced Arab position and it will not change. We shall not provide any other concessions. We have provided a lot and we are waiting for what will happen on 26 September, the date for extending the moratorium on settlement activities.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] what other issues are on the agenda of the Arab Foreign Ministers other than the peace process?
[Musa] We have other items related to preparing for the extraordinary Arab summit that will be held in Serte on 9 October and the Arab -African Summit that will be held the next day on 10 October. We are due to consider two issues. The first is restructuring the system of collective Arab action. There are many proposals on the basis of the Libyan and Yemeni initiatives and on the basis of the discussions among member States and the views of the Secretary General. The second issue is the Arab Neighborhood Initiative which I proposed during the previous summit.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Will the situation in Iraq be discussed, especially in view of the difficulties in forming the Iraqi government and the possibility of holding the regular Arab Summit of 2011 in Iraq?
[Musa] The Iraqi issue is being discussed at various Arab League meetings within the framework of the Arab League's support for Iraq's stability especially after the withdrawal of American forces. As for the summit, it has been decided that Iraq will host it and there is no need to raise doubts about Iraq's ability to do so. We have sufficient time for forming the government of Iraq and stabilizing the situation in a better direction.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] When do you expect the formation of the Iraqi government?
[Musa] It must be mentioned first that I was very optimistic because of the results of the Iraqi elections which provided a horizon for the future and affirmed that the Iraqi people are not controlled by sectarian, ethnic, or denomination views but by the nationalist view that they are all Iraqis irrespective of these differences. Then the formation of the government floundered, perhaps for personal, sectarian, or denominational reasons. I mean what is going on now is the opposite of what the Iraqi people and their overwhelming majority expressed during the elections. All this leads to shaking the Iraqi political psychology after it had hopes for a future that is different from what happened since the US invasion in the past seven lean years. Despite this, there is no alternative to forming a national accord government because the Iraqi mood requires the enactment of accord in a fundamental and real way. I recently met with Mr. Adel Abdel Mahdi and Dr Iyad Allawi. Before that I met President Talibani and President Barzani and a number of other leaders and officials. I follow the statements and moves of Prime Minister Al-Maliki. Sometimes there are breakthroughs, and there are now more than one proposal and more than one idea that could lead to a solution.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] But there are apprehensions and fears that the situation would remain as it is for two months, something which would require conducting new elections that might not contribute to Iraq's stability in the foreseeable future?
[Musa] We want to move in ways that ensure Iraq's stability under all circumstances. We must not forget the positive step which came concerning the withdrawal of American forces. I believe all of us, especially the neighboring countries, are required to work for Iraq's stability and independence. As for the Arab role, it is present and cannot be side-stepped through any attempts at exclusion which will not succeed because the Arab role is a principal role and because Iraq is an Arab country and it has an Arab mood that transcends Arab and sectarian and other engagement lines. The Arab role exists and is energetic but it is directed to saving Iraq not corrupting it.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] It was reported that the League tried during the past weeks to undertake a reconciliatory role with Syria to support the formation of the government?
[Musa] We always seek to undertake reconciliatory roles that support the formation of the Iraqi government and ensure the necessary measure of stability to get rid of the consequences of the previous stages the Iraqi people went through. The Syrian role is important and required, but we do not interfere in the internal affairs of the Iraqis.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] With the swelling of the dossier of Iranian interventions in Arab affairs, is it feasible for the Arab League to propose a working paper with Iran on disputed issues in order to narrow the gap in viewpoints as a start for an Arab-Iranian dialogue?
[Musa] As you know I believe that an Arab-Iranian dialogue has become necessary because there are many differences that must be discussed frankly. I believe that even if there are some reservations about the idea of dialogue, we must approach a dialogue from various angles. It is my view that if the negotiations are resumed between the Group of Six and Iran it would be appropriate for Arab-Iranian negotiations to be launched with them or parallel to them.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] I mean that the Arab League should prepare a report on Iranian interventions in Arab affairs and obtain a reply from Tehran on it as a beginning for a collective Arab dialogue?
[Musa] This is also relevant. It might be one of the ideal means of dialogue with Iran. But it has not ripened yet.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] The Arab League has exerted a commendable effort in Darfur and in South Sudan to support unity and peace. What are you going to do regarding the escalated tone about inevitable separation coming from the South?
[Musa] There is no such a thing as inevitable separation. Why should it be inevitable and why should unity not be inevitable? Both [options] depend on the results of the referendum. There are indications and assessments that might change the inevitable results you talk about. Unity is a legitimate option. Separation could be a majority decision and it would then also become legitimate. But we work on the basis of unity and demonstrating its benefits, just as we moved from the beginning when we went to Darfur and Juba together to launch Arab development projects in various fields that have already produced very good results. Perhaps there will be other visits by the Arab League to the South in the coming months. But the referendum that will be held next January will decide the issue.
The important thing is that it should be conducted on the set schedule and under safe political conditions; that the two sides should agree according to the concept of no victor and no vanquished, no one winning and no one defeated, and that all are brothers who accept the results of the referendum that must be conducted under international supervision. The Arab League will be present within this framework as an observer at the request of the Sudanese Government. This referendum must not create enmity or end in a collision that results in other problems that hamper development in North and South Sudan.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] What about the revival of the rebellion in Yemen and non-abidance by the Huthists regarding the ceasefire? How can this be solved?
[Musa] Sheikh Hamad Bin Jasim, Qatar's Foreign Minister, has informed me that they are on the way to reaching an agreement that ends the crisis. We hope the matter will end in a solution. He also informed me they have successfully ended the dispute between Djibouti and Eritrea. This is a good thing.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Do you plan on conducting a tour of Arab states before the Arab summit in Libya in order to narrow differences in viewpoints and end settle the outstanding disputes in intra-Arab relations?
[Musa] These matters require quiet diplomacy and this is what is taking place. I hope that these disputes will end and that we shall leave them behind our back. This might look difficult on the surface, but they are disputes caused by sensitivities and it is high time to get rid of them and not let them control us.