LCCC
ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِMarch
04/2011
Bible Of The
Day
Lamentations 3:31-36/Let him sit alone and keep silence, because he has laid it
on him. 3:29 Let him put his mouth in the dust, if so be there may be hope. 3:30
Let him give his cheek to him who strikes him; let him be filled full with
reproach. 3:31 For the Lord will not cast off forever. 3:32 For though he cause
grief, yet he will have compassion according to the multitude of his loving
kindnesses. 3:33 For he does not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of
men. 3:34 To crush under foot all the prisoners of the earth, 3:35 To turn aside
the right of a man before the face of the Most High, 3:36 To subvert a man in
his cause, the Lord doesn’t approve
About.com: Today's Inspiring Thought: Paths of Disappointment
An honest Christian will admit that the walk of faith will sometimes lead down
paths of disappointment and grief. Our prayers at times go unanswered and we
feel like God has cast us off or let us down. For this reason, it's important to
stay immersed in the Scriptures and spend time with God, so that we don't forget
... the Lord will not forsake us. He will have compassion on us according to his
steadfast love.
Latest
analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases
from
miscellaneous
sources
Life in the bunker/Special:
Ynet offers rare glimpse into Nasrallah's life in hiding, secret bodyguard
unit/Yoaz Hendel/March
03/11
Iran and Syria: BFFs?/By: Judith
Levy/March
03/11
Canada Expresses Condolences
Following Assassination of Pakistani Minister for Minorities/March
03/11
Siniora rejected 2006
bid to put UNIFL at ports:
WikiLeaks/Zawya/March
03/11
Local, not global, consensus, will
unite Lebanon's parties/Michael Young/March
03/11
Political risks to watch in
Lebanon/Reuters/March
03/11
Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of
Islam: Jews Behind Mideast Crisis/FrontPage/March 03/2011
Pope exonerates Jews for Jesus'
death/AP/March
03/11
The US’s increasing inconsequence/By: Tony Badran/Now
Lebanon/March
03/11
Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for March
03/11
Clinton: Iran Using
Hizbullah to Shape Events in the Region/Naharnet
Report: Bellemare Requested
Fingerprints of 4 Million Lebanese/Naharnet
Geagea: Lebanese Army Better
Equipped and Trained than Hizbullah/Naharnet
Geagea charges Aoun with
“constitutional heresy”/Now Lebanon
Gemayel Says Situation Delicate,
Warns Over Return of Hegemony Era/Naharnet
Cassese Delivers Copy of
STL 2nd Annual Report to Ban, Lebanese Govt/Naharnet
Iranian navy ships re-enter Egypt's
Suez Canal/Israel
News
Tehran's hands-off threat to Riyadh
incites Saudi Shiites to revolt/DEBKAfile
Egypt PM Ahmed Shafiq quits/AFP
Syria suspected of nuke
activity/Washington Times
Syria agrees to
IAEA inspection of nuclear site/AFP
Clinton: Keep up aid to
Lebanon/Washington Times
Lebanon's govt. formation
process 'natural': Berri/Ahram Online
The Palestinians' Long Wait in
Lebanon/New York Times
Iran and Syria: BFFs?/Washington
Times
Lebanon minister refuses to cooperate
with Hariri court/AFP
Hariri urges development of
Iran-Lebanon
ties/ABNA.ir
The Special Tribunal for
Lebanon's communications problem/Los Angeles Times
Lebanon speaker writes to Chavez
about Gaddafi's
crimes/Ya Libnan
Williams after Meeting Bassil: Demarcating Maritime Border Should Stand as
Obstacle for Drilling for Oil/Naharnet
Pietton after Meeting
Berri: We Hope New Government Will Respect International Agreements/Naharnet
China's U.N. Envoy: We
Want 'Objective and Transparent' Probe in Hariri Murder/Naharnet
Kanaan Demands Sovereign
Portfolio for FPM: March 14 Has Become Product Used for Personal Gain/Naharnet
Miqati Proposes Several
Formulas to Suleiman Amid Conflicting Reports on Franjieh-Aoun Meeting/Naharnet
March 14 Condemns 4
Ministers, Says Rally Should be a Referendum on Rejection of Arms/Naharnet
Berri from Baabda:
Government Formation Process Entered New Phase, Obstacles Can Be Overcome/Naharnet
Lebanon Aware of
Mediterranean Gas Fields Since 1969, U.S. Warships Studied them in 2009/Naharnet
Iranian navy
ships re-enter Egypt's Suez Canal /Naharnet
Naval frigate, supply ship carrying 'message of peace and friendship' on their
way to Red Sea after docking in Syria, official says
Reuters Published: 03.03.11, 11:12 / Israel News /Two Iranian navy ships have
entered Egypt's Suez Canal and are expected to reach the Red Sea later in the
day, a source in the canal authority said on Thursday. "The two Iranian ships
entered the Suez Canal at 4 am (0200 GMT) from the northern entrance of the
Mediterranean and are on their way to the Red Sea," the source said. Coinciding
with political turmoil in Egypt and elsewhere in the Arab world, Iran's decision
to send warships close to Israeli territory has rattled politicians in the
Jewish state.
The ships arrived on Feb. 23 in Syria, an ally of Iran and enemy of Israel,
after passing through the Suez Canal into the Mediterranean, the first Iranian
navy vessels to do so since Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution. "The Iranian ships
will cross the canal with the convoy starting in the north from the
Mediterranean," a canal official, who asked not to be named, told Reuters on
Wednesday. Iran's navy has said the ships, a naval frigate and a supply ship,
were not performing any military exercises but were on a routine friendly visit,
carrying a "message of peace and friendship" to the world.
Clinton: Iran Using Hizbullah to Shape Events in the Region
Naharnet/U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday that Iran is
communicating with Hizbullah in a bid to shape events in the Arab world. It was
the first time that Clinton detailed alleged efforts by Tehran to meddle in the
three-month wave of Arab revolts that has toppled presidents in Tunisia and
Egypt, convulsed Libya and shaken Yemen, Bahrain and Oman. "They are doing
everything they can to influence the outcomes in these places," Clinton told the
Senate Appropriations Committee. "They are using Hizbullah... to communicate
with counterparts... in (the Palestinian movement) Hamas who then in turn
communicate with counterparts in Egypt," the chief U.S. diplomat said. "We know
that they are reaching out to the opposition in Bahrain. We know that the
Iranians are very much involved in the opposition movements in Yemen," she said.
Clinton told Congress on Wednesday that the U.S. should continue to fund the
Lebanese army despite concerns that recent political gains by Hizbullah might
influence its leadership and pose a threat to Israel. She said U.S. support for
Lebanon's armed forces was in American and regional security interests. Clinton
added that the annual U.S. funding of about $100 million to the armed forces is
important to stability in Lebanon, particularly along its border with
Israel.(AFP-Naharnet) Beirut, 03 Mar 11, 09:32
Report: Bellemare Requested Fingerprints of 4 Million Lebanese
Naharnet/The Beirut office of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon's Prosecutor has
reportedly asked the interior ministry to provide it with the fingerprints of 4
million Lebanese. As Safir daily said Thursday that after reviewing laws, the
ministry provided Prosecutor Daniel Bellemare with only several hundred
fingerprints. The report came a day after it was revealed that Caretaker
Ministers Ghazi Aridi, Jebran Bassil, Ziad Baroud and Charbel Nahhas had turned
down requests from Bellemare to provide information and documents, in breach of
the cooperation protocol signed with the U.N. Nahhas confirmed on Wednesday that
he did not comply with Bellemare's request for information "until the legal
debate over the STL is settled at cabinet." As for Aridi, he told As Safir in
remarks published Thursday that he "would speak at the appropriate time and
unveil what Daniel Bellemare had requested from" the public works ministry.
Meanwhile, An Nahar daily quoted informed sources as saying that developments at
the STL were making more progress than the cabinet formation process, hinting to
the possibility that Premier-designate Najib Miqati would form the government
until after the release of the indictment. Pre-Trial Judge Daniel Fransen is
tasked with confirming the charges in the indictment, widely believed to
implicate Hizbullah members in ex-Premier Rafik Hariri's assassination. The
sources said that Bellemare transferred the indictment under seal to Fransen
more than six weeks ago, hinting that it would be released in the coming weeks.
Beirut, 03 Mar 11, 08:42
Gemayel Says Situation Delicate, Warns Over Return of
Hegemony Era
Naharnet/Phalange Party leader Amin Gemayel warned on Wednesday over the return
to the era of hegemony under the reign of Premier-designate Najib Miqati's
government.
Describing the current political situation as "delicate," Gemayel said following
talks with Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir in Bkirki that "there are fears
over the return … of hegemony and repression." "We fear the return of unilateral
and one-party system in one way or another," he said. The former president
hinted the March 8 forces were seeking to "avenge" the March 14 Cedar Revolution
that forced the withdrawal of the Syrian forces from Lebanon in 2005, helped
establish the Special Tribunal for Lebanon and contributed to holding free and
fair presidential and parliamentary elections. In response to a question,
Gemayel said March 8 is capable of forming the government "because there is a
single maestro managing the operation," a reference to Syria. About the sixth
anniversary of the Cedar Revolution, the Phalange leader said that Sunday, March
13 will be an occasion to reject the return of hegemony. Beirut, 03 Mar 11,
13:14
Geagea
charges Aoun with “constitutional heresy”
March 3, 2011 /Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea said that Free Patriotic
Movement leader MP Michel Aoun’s demands to make amendments regarding the
president’s shares in a cabinet are “constitutional heresy.”“What Aoun is saying
about stipulating the president’s [cabinet shares] in the constitution is a
constitutional heresy,” Geagea told France 24 television.
He said that “President Michel Sleiman and Prime Minister-designate Najib Mikati
are the only two authorized to form the new cabinet.”He also said that Aoun is
not the “key figure” of the March 8 coalition. “March 14’s problem is not with
Aoun but with the state that is within the [Lebanese] state,” Geagea added in a
reference to Hezbollah. “Hezbollah sticks to the use of its arms and is capable
of using them whenever it pleases and in any Lebanese region.”“Resisting Israel
is the responsibility of the [Lebanese] state and we should publically reach an
understanding regarding this issue.”The LF leader added that more than half of
the Lebanese people are against Hezbollah’s arms. “The state cannot be
straightened with the existence of the ‘state of Hezbollah’ on the one hand and
with the influence that Syria is trying to regain on the other.” “Hezbollah must
give us our right. We do not want an army [other than] the Lebanese
army.”Outgoing PM Saad Hariri vowed on Monday to fight the use of non-state
weapons in Lebanon in a “peaceful and democratic way.”The formation of a new
cabinet headed by Mikati is reportedly being delayed by a dispute between Aoun
and President Michel Sleiman over the Interior Ministry portfolio.Aoun said last
week that Sleiman has no right to shares in the cabinet and should form his own
political party if he wants to be involved in politics.
-NOW Lebanon
Williams after Meeting Bassil: Demarcating Maritime Border Should Stand as
Obstacle for Drilling for Oil
Naharnet/U.N. Special Coordinator for Lebanon Michael Williams revealed on
Thursday that the international organization is currently studying the best way
to assist Lebanon in drilling for petroleum in the Mediterranean and demarcating
its maritime border. He made his statements after holding talks with Caretaker
Energy Minister Jebran Bassil on the political situation in Lebanon and the
economic challenges facing it, as well as the government formation process. He
stressed during the meeting the need for Lebanon to take several steps in
demarcating the maritime border with Syria, Cyprus, and Israel, adding that this
issue should not stand as an obstacle for it to drill for petroleum, especially
since Lebanon has signed a cooperation agreement with Cyprus and that this
matter has nothing to do with Israel. Furthermore, he hoped that this issue
would be set as a priority for the new Cabinet. Williams added that he held a
meeting earlier on Thursday with President Michel Suleiman during which he
informed him of the U.N. Security Council's latest report on the implementation
of resolution 1701, announcing that it will convene at the end of the month to
discuss the resolution. The talks also addressed regional developments and the
government formation process. Beirut, 03 Mar 11, 17:09
Pietton after Meeting Berri: We Hope New Government Will Respect International
Agreements
Naharnet/French Ambassador to Lebanon Denis Pietton hoped on Thursday that the
new government would be formed as soon as possible "because Lebanon is in need
of its institutions."He said after holding talks with House Speaker Nabih Berri
that the new government should also respect international agreements and
maintain Lebanese unity. The meeting also addressed regional developments,
especially those in Libya. Berri also met with Syrian Ambassador to Lebanon Ali
Abdul Karim Ali in the presence of MP Ali Hasan Khalil.
Beirut, 03 Mar 11, 14:31
Life in the
bunker
Special: Ynet offers rare glimpse into Nasrallah's life in hiding, secret
bodyguard unit
Yoaz Hendel: 03.03.11, / Israel News
Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah has been living underground for
almost five years now, in hideouts that are little known. A fugitive who fears
for his life and is committed to his Iranian patrons, he stays deep inside the
soil that he claims to have liberated from the Israelis. Nobody knows his
whereabouts with the exception of a small group of bodyguards.
Senior officials who wish to meet him and even representatives of Iran's
Revolutionary Guards do it at a central bunker; Nasrallah arrives for such
sessions under heavy security and a veil of secrecy. The views regarding his
hideout the rest of the time are inconclusive.
An Israeli intelligence official estimates that Nasrallah leads a life similar
to that of a wanted terror suspect in the territories. He sleeps at various
sites, meets his family infrequently, and runs his guerilla empire via decoded
technology provided by the Iranians.
However, Colonel Shlomo Mofaz, the former deputy head of the army's research
division, says that Nasrallah is unlikely to conduct himself like a Gaza
fugitive. "We are talking about a man with great self-respect; a man who is
above the masses…a man like him does not dart from one place to another.
Nasrallah has an underground system of bunkers where he spends most of his day."
Intelligence officials do agree about Nasrallah's general location. "In order to
continue to run the organization and be close to the decision-making center, he
must be in the Beirut region," a defense official who made Nasrallah his life's
work says. "The chances that Nasrallah chose the Sunni or Shiite quarters as a
hideout are slim. The Dahiya neighborhood, Hezbollah's former nerve center, is
the most reasonable possibility."
"It's a crowded neighborhood that takes up several kilometers; Hezbollah's
operations and communication centers are located underneath it to this day.
Since the Second Lebanon War, and with Iran's support, Hezbollah boosted its
fortification and infrastructure," he said. "This complex is also connected in
one way or another to the Iranian embassy. Nasrallah stays there and manages the
organization's daily activity from there. When he needs to move somewhere, he
does it secretly."
In his day-to-day life, Nasrallah maintains contact only with one close circle
of associates. Most of them are members of his bodyguard unit. "Nasrallah
undertakes major screening," says Colonel Mofaz. "Hence, as is the case with
other terror leaders, the close circle around him comprises relatives and people
he trusts."
This is confirmed by Shiite websites maintained by Nasrallah's fans. The fear
that Israel will penetrate his close circle prompted him to disengage from
anyone he doesn't know or doesn’t fully trust. Even in his central bunker,
Nasrallah is surrounded by a secret bodyguard unit established by Hezbollah. The
unit is so secretive because Nasrallah fears that should the identity of his
guards become known, the Israelis would manage to reach them.
Nasrallah's bodyguards
The members of the Shiite bodyguard unit are distinguished Hezbollah men who had
proven their loyalties and fighting skill. The unit expanded in the wake of the
Second Lebanon War and today comprises 19 men, all tasked with safeguarding the
secretary general. Bodyguards are recruited after several years of field
service.
A Shiite youngster who wishes to become Nasrallah's bodyguard must undertake
basic and advanced training, which usually takes place in northern Lebanon.
After proving his skill in handling guns, explosives, communication equipment
and anti-tank weapons, and especially after showing that he is ideologically fit
for the job, a candidate is examined in the field. There is no shortage of tests
under fire in Lebanon, and those who wish to stand out have an opportunity to do
so.
In the next phase, the young men are sent to a Revolutionary Guards training
camp near Tehran. Just like Hezbollah men earmarked for other posts, the
bodyguards undergo additional basic training. Only after successfully completing
this phase, Nasrallah's guards advance to learning bodyguard techniques.
The instructors are Iranian bodyguards who belong to the Revolutionary Guards
and possess great skill. In a state where assassination attempts are a matter of
routine, there is no other way.
The Second Lebanon War and Nasrallah's move to the bunker forced his bodyguards
to develop further skills. A defense official estimates that in recent years the
guards have also turned into communication experts. They are responsible for
connecting Nasrallah to the outside world by recording his speeches and
facilitating coded broadcasts and calls.
Hence, any Nasrallah speech, whether recorder or live, is facilitated by his
bodyguards. The fear of Israeli infiltration is so great that even employees of
the group's television station, al-Manar, are not allowed to enter the secret
bunker.
According to Shiite websites, the Hezbollah chief's bodyguard unit is headed by
Abu-Ali, Nasrallah's son-in-law. He is also regularly escorted by Abu al-Fadel,
a loyal sniper who has been trained by the Revolutionary Guards.
The spectrum of potential assassination scenarios faced by the bodyguard unit is
wide. A Lebanese news website that is not associated with Hezbollah reports that
when Abu-Ali married Nasrallah's daughter, the groom's mother wanted to offer
sweets to party attendants. Despite the family connection and that fact that the
mother was considered a trusted source, she was ordered to leave the sweet
outsides – the fear of Israeli poisoning overcame the desire for traditional
desserts.
Nonetheless, is it possible to overcome all the security rings and pinpoint
Nasrallah's location? Israel's intelligence community is considered a world
leader in utilizing agents, but an intelligence official says that in
Nasrallah's case the mission becomes increasingly complex, even compared to
radical regimes. Israel could have targeted Nasrallah when he delivered his
public speeches. Despite the potential collateral damage, at the end of the day
this is mostly a matter of decision. And here we face the question of the
benefit of assassinating the Hezbollah chief
Colonel Mofaz believes that killing Nasrallah would be good for Israel. "At this
time I do not see a charismatic successor like him; a man who has the political
clout, ties with the Iranians, and religious authority."
For the time being, Nasrallah continues to take over Lebanon and threaten
Israel. Hezbollah in 2011 is no longer a small guerilla group, but rather, an
organization that maintains major missile capabilities. In the midst of an
unstable, volatile Arab world, Nasrallah is able to produce a steady,
problematic threat against Israel. Most Israeli officials admit that killing him
may prompt a powerful Hezbollah response. On the other hand, even if he is
eliminated, the Iranian interest to maintain Hezbollah as a doomsday weapon may
ensure a proportional response. Now, all we need is an opportunity and a
decision.
Tehran's hands-off
threat to Riyadh incites Saudi Shiites to revolt
DEBKAfile Special Report March 3, 2011,Ahead of the first Day of Anger planned
in Saudi Arabia for March 11, a senior Iranian figure close to Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned Riyadh Wednesday, March 2, against launching
preventive security measures against, or cracking down on, the kingdom's two
million Shiites who live and work in the oil regions of the east. The world's
biggest oil exporter, Saudi Arabia covers 40 percent of the world's oil needs.
Saudi and other Gulf security sources called the Iranian warning unprecedented
interference in the domestic affairs of Saudi Arabia and a call to the Shiite
minority to rise up against the throne under the shield of Iran's protection. It
also struck the match for reigniting Shiite riots in Bahrain, fomenting the
Shiite minorities in other Gulf emirates and further complicating the explosive
situation in Yemen.
In Washington, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton came forward for the first
time in the three-month wave of Arab uprisings to accuse Iran of using its
Lebanese surrogate Hizballah to shape events in the Arab world. Addressing the
Senate Budget Committee Wednesday, March 2, she said "They are doing everything
they can to influence the outcomes in these places," she said, citing Egypt,
Bahrain, Yemen and the Palestinians, though not Saudi Arabia. "They are using
Hizballah to communicate with counterparts. … in (the Palestinian movement)
Hamas who then in turn communicate with counterparts in Egypt."
debkafile's Washington sources note that the allegations she leveled against
Iran contradicted the position taken by the Chairman of the US Chiefs of Staff
Admiral Mike Mullen, who has said repeatedly in the last couple of weeks that
the uprisings had domestic origins and Iran was not stirring the pot.
Clinton's words also countered the view presented by Defense Secretary Robert
Gates on March 1that the unrest in Arab countries was a major setback for Iran
and al Qaeda.
The Obama administration is clearly divided on its reading of the upheavals in
Arab countries and the role played in them by Iran, indicating that as the
disturbances go into their third month, a consistent policy has yet to be
formulated in the White House.
The warning to Riyadh came from Iranian parliament Mohammed Dehgan, one of the
closest and most influential members of the Ahmadinejad circle. It was couched
in stark and brutal terms: "The Saudi leadership should know that the Saudi
people have become vigilant and do not allow the rulers of the country to commit
any possible crime against them," said Dehqan. "Saudi Arabia should account for
the suppressions of the Shiite and Sunni people in the country for numerous
years."
He went on to threaten that Saudi Arabia, whose Shiite minority accounted for at
least 15 percent of its population, could be the next target of the revolution
engulfing the Arab world. The Iranian lawmaker went on to warn Saudi Arabia
against interfering in the course of events in Bahrain and Yemen.
Dehqan and other senior Iranian officials have also warned Saudi Arabia to stop
taking the fingerprints of Iranians entering the kingdom - or face reprisals.
debkafile's Gulf sources find three major implications in the harsh Iranian
warning to Riyadh:
1. Tehran is for the first time taking an overt stand on the Arab uprisings,
using their Shiite minorities as levers of manipulation.
2. Iran is flexing muscle for the first time in the role it covets of regional
superpower which calls the shots for the oil states and challenges US supremacy.
3. Iran wants Riyadh to call off the preventive measures Saudi security and
intelligence have been conducting for some days to offset a Shiite uprising on
the Day of Anger, including the arrests of political and religious activists.
Egypt PM Ahmed Shafiq quits
By Mona Salem | AFP News
Thu, 3 Mar, 2011
Egypt's military rulers have accepted the surprise resignation of Prime Minister
Ahmed Shafiq, seen by protesters as a symbol of ousted president Hosni Mubarak's
regime, the army said on Thursday. He will be replaced by Essam Sharaf, a former
transport minister who took part in the mass rallies in Cairo's Tahrir Square
which led to strongman Mubarak's resignation on February 11 after three decades
in power. Shafiq was appointed by Mubarak in the dying days of his rule, in a
failed bid to quell the protests. The military council has been running Egypt
since Mubarak stood down. "The Supreme Council of Military Forces announces that
it has accepted the resignation of Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq," the statement
said, without elaborating on the reasons for the move. Since the fall of
Mubarak, protesters have continued to call for a replacement of the current
government, which includes several ministers from the toppled regime. The
council has previously ordered the government to run the country's affairs for
six months "or until the end of parliamentary and presidential elections" and is
also examining constitutional reforms. Shafiq had been expected to stay in
office at least until the elections.
His successor, Sharaf, was transport minister from 2002 to 2005. He was sacked
over differences with then-premier Ahmad Nazif. Nazif was himself sacked four
days after the start of the anti-Mubarak protests. Sharaf is popular with the
youths who launched the revolt against Mubarak, having taken part in the huge
demonstrations in Tahrir Square in central Cairo.
Key opposition figure Mohamed ElBaradei, who headed the Vienna-based UN
International Atomic Energy Agency from 1997 to 2009 and returned to Egypt join
the protests, welcomed Shafiq's resignation. On Twitter, he said: "We are on the
right track, I express my sincere appreciation to the Supreme Council of Armed
Forces who have accepted the demand of the people." The nationwide protests that
erupted on January 25 left at least 384 dead, more than 6,000 injured and scores
detained.
Mubarak is currently receiving medical treatment for cancer in Saudi Arabia, a
state-owned newspaper reported on Wednesday, despite the fact that the
government imposed a travel ban on him and his family at the weekend. The paper
reported that Mubarak left for the Saudi city of Tabuk days after he resigned.
Egypt's military council met a group including ElBaradei and Arab League chief
Amr Mussa on Tuesday to discuss upcoming reforms, the state news agency MENA
said. The talks focused on constitutional reform, especially on the conditions
for presidential candidates and the reduction of the number of terms to two of
four years instead of an unlimited number of six-year terms, it said.
Mussa said last month he would be a candidate for Egyptian president.
Siniora
rejected 2006 bid to put UNIFL at ports: WikiLeaks
03 March 2011
BEIRUT: U.N. representatives were dismayed by the conduct of former Prime
Minister Fouad Siniora, who failed to push for international peacekeeping access
to air and seaports during the Israeli-imposed blockade of Lebanon following the
2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, a leaked United States diplomatic cable
has revealed.
The cable, sent in late August 2006 by former U.S. Ambassador in Lebanon Jeffrey
Feltman and released by whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks, details conversations
between Feltman and former U.N. envoy Terje Roed-Larsen and reveals the chaotic
first few days of U.N. peacekeeping presence in Lebanon following the conflict.
“The U.N. envoys admitted that they failed in one of their goals, getting
Siniora to ask for UNIFIL (U.N. Interim force in Lebanon) presence at the
seaport and airport,” the cable said.
“Had Larsen and [former U.N. envoy Vijay] Nambiar managed to extract a request
from Siniora to get a UNIFIL presence at the airport and seaports? Larsen
acknowledged that they had pushed this topic hard, but that Siniora repeated his
usual infringement-of-sovereignty concerns … Larsen agreed with the ambassador
that Siniora’s answers have not been satisfactory on this point.”
Feltman argued in the cable that failure by the Lebanese government to allow
UNIFIL access to air and seaports provided Israel with a pretext for prolonging
its crippling blockade, under the excuse that Hezbollah was restocking its
arsenal.
Feltman also expressed concern that a recent Israeli raid in the Bekaa Valley
risked blowing apart the agreement for a cessation of hostilities between Israel
and Hezbollah.
“By declaring that they would kill Hezbollah officials wherever they could find
them, the Israelis had given Hezbollah the perfect excuse to refuse to disarm.
Moreover, the Israeli action in the [Bekaa] would only serve to discourage troop
contributors to UNIFIL,” the cable said.
In addition, Larsen described the Lebanese Army as in “dire need” of equipment,
spare parts and ammunition to fill a security void left in the country following
the war. The envoy detailed examples of the Lebanese Army refusing to cooperate
with UNIFIL.
“Former UNIFIL Commander Alain] Pellegrini complained about what he described as
an overly secretive [Army] command structure,” the cable said. “The [Lebanese
Army], Pellegrini told Larsen and Nambiar, seems to see a relationship with
UNIFIL not as one of partners but rather as one by which UNIFIL provides fuel,
supplies, and spare parts to the [Army]. UNIFIL wants to be much better informed
about [Army] thinking on coping with threats, force protection, etc.”
Larsen and Feltman also discussed the issue of Shebaa Farms, with the U.N. envoy
proposing a solution to the disputed territory, one which would enable the
international community to put pressure on Syria for being non-cooperative with
global territorial initiatives.
“[Larsen] said that he now believed that the only way to demarcate the border is
to use private property deeds, as maps simply aren’t clear or don’t support the
Lebanese claims in the Shebaa area. Larsen predicted that U.N. cartographers
would end up with a ‘very small’ Shebaa Farms,” the cable said.
“Larsen said the trick will be to convince the Lebanese to accept a modest-sized
Shebaa Farms as ending the dispute once and for all – if Israel could be
persuaded to give up that modest-sized Shebaa Farms in the first place.”
Larsen is quoted as saying that his initiative “gives us another opportunity to
corner Syria, show a lack of cooperation [from Syria].”
Feltman also documented a conversation with Larsen, in which the envoy spoke of
a talk between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the then-U.N. Secretary
General Kofi Annan. Larsen claimed Ahmadinejad had threatened the U.S. and
Britain over insistence in enforcing U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701,
which was drafted at the end of the war.
“Larsen – please protect – also talked of ‘a terribly frightening’ conversation
between Kofi Annan and Iranian President Ahmadinejad, when Annan urged
compliance with 1701,” the cable said. “The Iranian, Larsen said (quoting from a
transcript of the conversation), spoke of ‘punishing’ the U.S. and U.K. ‘He’s
crazy, and he’s going to attack you,’ Larsen said.”
© Copyright The Daily Star 2011.
x DISCLAIMER
Zawya is a distributor (and not a publisher) of content supplied by third
parties and subscribers. Any opinions, advice, statements, services, offers, or
other information or content expressed or made available by those third parties,
including information providers, subscribers or other users of the Service, are
those of the respective author(s) or distributor(s) and not of the Company. The
Company neither endorses nor is responsible for the accuracy or reliability of
any opinion, advice or statement made on the Service by anyone other than
authorized Service employee spokespersons while acting in their official
capacities. The Company is not responsible for any infringement of intellectual
property rights or breach of any applicable law or regulation, including
regulation in relation to financial services or the distribution of financial
products, defamation, data protection, telecommunications (including regulations
relating to excessive use, spamming or other abusive activities) or obscene,
offensive or illegal content). Under no circumstances will the Company be liable
for any loss or damage caused by a member's reliance on information obtained
through the Service. It is the responsibility of member to evaluate the
accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, opinion, advice or
other content available through the Service. Please seek the advice of
professionals, as appropriate, regarding the evaluation of any specific
information, opinion, advice or other content.
Read the full Member Agreement
http://www.zawya.com/legal/NewsLetter.cfm?name=disclaimer
Access to this article is subject to specific terms and condition.
Iran and Syria: BFFs?
Tuesday, March 1, 2011 -
Israel Online
By: Judith Levy
QuestionISRAEL — March 1, 2011 — Iran never misses an opportunity to seize an
opportunity.
When the Mubarak regime collapsed in Egypt, Iran was quick to characterize the
event — possibly with some justice — as signaling the decline of
American/Western influence in the region. Whether that’s true or not, Mubarak’s
departure constituted an unexpected and exciting opening for Iran, which
immediately tested the Americans’ and the Israelis’ stomach for provocation by
sending two warships through the Suez Canal.
This was a major development for two reasons. The first you probably already
know: it was the first time Iranian warships had passed through the Canal since
the Iranian Revolution in 1979. The second point, which got far less attention,
is this: the transit marked the first time Iranian warships had ever been
granted permission to dock at Jeddah, in Saudi Arabia. This is extraordinary,
considering the Saudis’ urgent desire to contain Iran. It suggests a timidity in
the face of an emboldened enemy that might, one would hope, be of some interest
to the US State Department.
Iran's navy chief Adm. Habibollah Sayyari says the visit by two Iranian warships
to Syria is part of efforts to build up Iran's defense capabilities. (Photo:
Associated Press)
The Iranian ships were destined for Syria, with which Iran is swiftly
consolidating its military relationship. Both countries have been busy of late,
but the radar sweep of American media attention seems determined to avoid
catching a blip anywhere other than Libya at the moment. You should be aware of
the following recent events:
1. Iran and Syria have formally agreed to cooperate on naval training, including
personnel exchange. (Hence the warships.) Iranian naval commander Rear Admiral
Habibollah Sayyari said “the message of the ships is to announce peace and
friendship to Islamic countries and the region and attempt to strengthen
relations between the countries,” while Iranian Ambassador to Syria Ahmad
Mousavi hastened to reassure skeptical observers that Iran “does not seek to
wage war against anyone.” (The reassurance wasn’t really necessary, it seems,
since no one is admitting to paying much attention. The Israeli FM Avigdor
Lieberman called the Iranians “insolent,” but DM Ehud Barak insists there wasn’t
anything on the ships to worry us. The Americans admitted rather diffidently to
“watching” the progress of the ships, but wouldn’t commit themselves to concern
or even interest.)
2. In the wake of the collapse of the Egyptian military’s efforts to impede arms
smuggling into the Gaza Strip, Iran has rushed in to build new infrastructure in
the Sinai to enable more efficient arms transfers to Hamas. (By efficient, I
mean more advanced weaponry and in larger quantities.) During the Egyptian
uprising, dozens of police stations in the Sinai Peninsula were abandoned by
policemen fleeing Bedouin armed with missiles and assault rifles. The resulting
Wild-Westian anarchy has enabled Iranian proxies to act in the area with near
impunity.
3. Last Saturday, Russian DM Anatoly Serdyukov said that Russia has decided to
fulfill a contractual obligation to complete the transfer of cruise missiles to
Syria, despite two years of entreaties by the Israelis not to do so. The Israeli
Defense Ministry fears that the missiles could “fall into the hands of
Hezbollah, just as other weapons systems came from Syria.” The weapons in
question are surface-to-air rocket units armed with P-800, or Yakhont, missiles.
According to Haaretz, they are capable of hitting ships 300 kilometers off
Syria’s coast.
It’s impossible to tell from the lack of media attention to these events whether
the White House is oblivious to them or maintaining a shrewd and tactical
silence. It’s safe to say, though, that the President is clearly profoundly
uncomfortable with anything resembling imperial meddling. Is this prudent
caution, or is he – as his critics contend — constitutionally unable to defend
American interests abroad without compromising his personal principles? I
honestly don't know, and at this stage of the game, any commentator who claims
to know for sure is probably yanking your chain. I will say, however, that the
total silence emanating from the White House in the face of developments that
are threatening both to American interests and to American ideals doesn’t
inspire much confidence.
If the overthrow of Ahmadinejad and the mullahs fails, as it almost certainly
will, the US will need to be prepared for a much bolder Iranian theocracy,
whether it likes it or not. As far as Syria is concerned, it is certainly in
American interests to address that country’s apparent decision to formalize its
relationship with Iran. Assad has picked his team, and it ain’t us. The
strategic consolidation currently in progress will almost without question
eventually turn to aggression against Americans or American allies. When it
does, polite protestations from Washington that “the violence must stop” just
won’t cut it.
**Judith Levy is a Duke- and Oxford-educated writer with a background in History
and International Relations. She was the Soref Research Fellow at the Washington
Institute for Near East Policy and has also spent time working in finance as an
editor and writer. Judith keeps a blog, judithlevy.com, where she focuses
primarily on Israel and its neighborhood. Follow Judith on Twitter: @levyjudith.
**Read more of Judith at Israel Online in The Communities at The Washington
Times.
Canada Expresses Condolences Following Assassination of Pakistani Minister for
Minorities
(No. 88 - March 2, 2011 - 4:45 p.m. ET) The Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister
of Foreign Affairs, today issued the following statement expressing his
condolences to the government and people of Pakistan following the assassination
of Shahbaz Bhatti, Federal Minister for Minorities, on March 2, 2011:
“On behalf of the Government of Canada, I extend my deepest condolences to the
family and friends of Minister Bhatti and to the Pakistani people. I was moved
by Minister Bhatti’s great courage when I met him last month, and it is with
great personal sadness that I receive this news. We are appalled by this
cowardly attack against a brave individual who had the courage to speak out
against extremists in Pakistan.
“Canada strongly condemns this assassination and attempts by extremists to
silence human rights defenders in Pakistan.
“We urge Pakistan to protect all those who find the courage to speak out against
the country’s controversial blasphemy laws and to bring to justice the
perpetrators of this heinous crime.
“We continue to call on the Government of Pakistan to prevent the abuse of the
blasphemy laws, which restrict freedom of religion and expression and have
disproportionately targeted religious minorities.
“The Government of Canada will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with those
who defend human rights around the world.”
Local,
not global, consensus, will unite Lebanon's parties
Michael Young /The National
Mar 3, 2011
All politics are local. But Lebanon continues to prove that its local politics
are regional, and even international. As the country awaits the formation of a
new government under prime minister-designate Najib Mikati, a process that has
been stalled until now, Lebanon's factions are manoeuvring with one eye fixed on
external developments.
At the heart of the government-formation crisis is the Special Tribunal for
Lebanon, created to put on trial those responsible for the assassination of the
former prime minister Rafik Hariri in 2005. The previous government of Prime
Minister Saad Hariri was brought down by Syria and Hizbollah because of a deep
rift between the party and the Hariri-led March 14 coalition over Hizbollah's
demand that Beirut end its ties with the tribunal. Last weekend, Mr Mikati's
attempts to fashion a consensual government were dashed when March 14 announced
that it would not participate, because the prime minister-designate had offered
no guarantees that he would protect the tribunal.
The tribunal is expected to indict Hizbollah members, and the party spent months
trying to force the Hariri government to denounce the institution as "politicised".
Hizbollah says the tribunal will base its indictment on what it calls "false
witnesses", in other words witnesses who allegedly lied in their testimony to UN
investigators probing the Hariri murder. The party had demanded that the
government initiate its own investigation of these false witnesses, and is
expected to do the same of a new Mikati government.
The false witnesses charge is a red herring. Only verifiable evidence can be
approved for an indictment by the tribunal's pre-trial judge. Hizbollah's real
objective, however, is to set up a parallel legal process inside Lebanon in
order to erode the legitimacy of the Special Tribunal and protect itself
politically. Hizbollah knows that any legal case targeting its members could
devastate the party's reputation in Lebanon and the region, not least because a
Shiite organisation would be seen as having taken part in the killing of a major
Sunni figure.
Such an accusation would not only undermine Hizbollah, but could also render the
party less effective as a promoter of Iranian interests and as a military
vanguard against Israel. That's because Hizbollah's efforts to intimidate Saad
Hariri, the most dominant Lebanese Sunni politician, have exacerbated tensions
with Sunnis, so that in a conflict with Israel the party might find itself
precariously isolated. Indeed, earlier this week, Mr Hariri declared that
Hizbollah's readiness to use its weapons against other Lebanese had become a
national problem.
Less clear are Syria's calculations when it comes to the next government.
Damascus was instrumental in bolstering Mr Mikati, who is close to the Syrian
President Bashar al Assad. Even though a government may well be formed soon, in
the past weeks Mr Assad has conspicuously not pushed hard for the rapid
establishment of one. There are several reasons for this.
The Syrian leader grasps that acting too hastily in Lebanon might backfire
against Syria given the volatility in the Arab world. He must sense that if the
formation process drags on until after an indictment is issued by the tribunal,
and Syrians are named, it would be preferable then to have a more broadly
representative government in Beirut than one controlled by Hizbollah and its
like-minded partners.
Conversely, if no Syrians are named, Mr Assad might prefer to address the
indictment with a political vacuum in Beirut. This would allow him to exploit
Lebanese divisions and enhance Syrian influence over Lebanon's affairs, at the
expense of Mr Hariri and Hizbollah.
Mr Assad is also aware that a Hizbollah-dominated government may provoke unease
further afield. Friends of Syria, such as Turkey and Qatar, have reportedly told
the Syrian president that they are unhappy with the way the Hariri government
was brought down and Mr Hariri sidelined. Mr Assad will also have to be cautious
and not allow a new government to harm Syria's ties with Saudi Arabia. As for
the United States, France and the European Union, they have warned that they
would object to Beirut's backtracking on its international commitments,
especially those to the tribunal, which was set up under the binding authority
of Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Syria would gain little by being perceived in
foreign capitals as the foremost sponsor of a government covering up an
assassination. Next page
FACTBOX-Political risks to watch in Lebanon
02 Mar 2011 11:25
Source: reuters // Reuters
By Dominic Evans
BEIRUT, March 2 (Reuters) - Without a government, politically divided and braced
for possible indictments of Hezbollah members in a 2005 assassination, Lebanon
faces uncertainty and fears of sectarian confrontation. Hezbollah-backed Prime
Minister-designate Najib Mikati is trying to form a government after the Shiite
group and its allies toppled Saad al-Hariri over his refusal to cut links with a
U.N.-backed court investigating the killing of his father. The tribunal issued a
still-secret indictment in January which is expected to accuse Hezbollah members
of involvement in killing Sunni statesman Rafik al-Hariri, Saad's father.
Hezbollah denies any role in Hariri's killing and says the tribunal is
"politically motivated" and that Mikati's new government must end funding and
withdraw Lebanese judges from the court. The role of Hezbollah, which is
supported by Syria and Iran, in bringing down the Western and Saudi-backed
Hariri and nominating his successor alarmed the United States and also Israel,
which fought an inconclusive 34-day war with Hezbollah in 2006. Renewed military
conflict with Israel is possible after Israel accused Syria last year of sending
long-range Scud missiles to Hezbollah.
Following are risks to watch:
CAN MIKATI FORM A GOVERNMENT?
Mikati, a Sunni Muslim like Hariri, has said he wants the widest possible
participation in his new government and asked Hariri's March 14 coalition
to take part -- an offer the coalition has rejected. Mikati has not set any
deadline for setting up the government
WHAT TO WATCH:
- The political balance of Mikati's government.
- Mikati has said if Hariri's allies stay out, he would prefer to assemble
a cabinet of technocrats rather than one dominated by Hezbollah and its allies.
But even forming a cabinet of technocrats could take time because political
factions would still have preferred candidates.
- Hezbollah, which had two ministers in Hariri's unity government, has not
said publicly how many ministers it is seeking. A prominent cabinet role for the
militant group would encourage Israel to portray its conflict with Hezbollah as
a conventional state-on-state confrontation.
HARIRI TRIBUNAL
The prosecutor of the U.N.-backed tribunal investigating Hariri's killing
submitted a confidential draft indictment in January, which could be made public
in March.
Hezbollah says the tribunal is a U.S.-Israeli project which aims to discredit
it, and has vowed to "cut off the hand" of anyone who tries to arrest its
members. March 14 has called on Mikati to commit to maintaining Lebanon's
ties with the court.
Mikati has not said how he would deal with the tribunal, saying the issue should
be resolved by consensus -- a tall order given the deep domestic divisions and
the failure of months of mediation efforts by regional powers Syria and Saudi
Arabia.
WHAT TO WATCH:
- Regional efforts to intervene or ease the tension. Saudi Arabia said it was
abandoning mediation efforts, but Syria continues to wield influence.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad called for a national unity government, warning
that "if you have one side taking over the other side, this means a conflict"
which may lead to civil war. He said the government should reject any tribunal
indictment.
The United States and European countries have said Lebanon should respect
commitments to cooperate with the court.
ECONOMIC STABILITY
The Central Bank, with foreign reserves of $31 billion, has said it is committed
to maintaining the stability of the Lebanese pound <LBP=>, which has been
trading at the higher end of its range between 1,501 and 1,514 pounds to the
U.S. dollar.
But protracted political deadlock would further delay meaningful economic reform
and ratings agency Moody's said it could curb the strong economic growth
which Lebanon enjoyed for three successive years and hurt the banking sector.
Economists also worry that increased fiscal spending has added to a huge public
debt, estimated at $51 billion. Its debt to GDP ratio is projected to fall
slightly to 129 percent in 2011, still one of the highest levels in the world.
As in many Arab countries, nervously watching uprisings spread from Tunisia and
Egypt, Lebanese complain of high fuel and food prices. One economist put
unemployment among under-25s at 20 percent.
WHAT TO WATCH:
- Signs of sustained transfer from Lebanese pounds into dollars. Bankers say the
central bank has had to intervene regularly to keep the currency within its
targeted trading range, but that demand for dollars has been manageable.
REGIONAL WAR?
Lebanon could be dragged into conflict with Israel, either through direct
confrontation or as part of a wider war. Possible triggers include:
- A border incident escalates into war. Israel launched a war with Hezbollah in
2006 after a cross-border raid by Hezbollah to capture Israeli soldiers.
Israeli Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom said after Hezbollah brought down
Hariri's government, the group may have become "a terrorist group in charge
of the country", suggesting any future war with the militant group would pitch
Israel in a wider conflict with the Lebanese state.
- Israel strikes against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon or Syria. As well as
accusing Syria of providing Scud missiles to Hezbollah, Israel has also said
Hezbollah is stockpiling weapons in southern Lebanon, in violation of a U.N.
Security Council Resolution which ended the 2006 conflict.
- Hezbollah, which is backed by Iran, could retaliate if Israel or the United
States strike Iran's nuclear programme.
* For political risks to watch in other countries, please click on [ID:nEMEARISK]
(Editing by Jon
Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam: Jews Behind Mideast Crisis
FrontPage/March 03/2011
Louis Farrakhan, the reliably anti-Semitic leader of the Nation of Islam,
claimed Tuesday at the Nation’s annual meeting in the Chicago area that Jews and
Zionists were “trying to push the US into war” and — in a revival of hoary
anti-Semitic clichés — that “Zionists dominate the government of the United
States of America and her banking system.”
The elderly Jew-hater also directed a warning to the president not to move
against the man Farrakhan called “my brother and my friend,” Muammar Gaddafi:
“President Obama, if you allow the Zionists to push you, to mount a military
offensive against Gaddafi and you go in and kill him and his sons, as you did
with Saddam Hussein and his sons… I’m warning you this is a Libyan problem, let
the Libyans solve their problem among themselves.”
Farrakhan at the same time denied that he was – despite appearances — “just
somebody who’s got something out for the Jewish people.” Farrakhan directly
addressed those who might get such a crazy idea: “You’re stupid.” And he
explained: “Do you think I would waste my time if I did not think it was
important for you to know Satan? My job is to pull the cover off of Satan so
that he will never deceive you and the people of the world again.”
A rational analyst would be hard-pressed to explain why Zionists might wish the
U.S. to embark upon a military operation to remove Gaddafi, when the successor
to his odious regime is likely to be an Islamic state that is even more
virulently anti-America and anti-Israeli than that of the aging rock star who is
still quixotically holding the fort in Tripoli. But Farrakhan’s anti-Jewish
conspiracy paranoia is not entirely irrational, either: it is founded in a book
revered by Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam, albeit not in a wholly conventional
fashion: the Koran.
Neither Sunni nor Shi’ite Muslim authorities generally regard the Nation of
Islam as an orthodox expression of Islam; nevertheless, its adherents identify
themselves as Muslims and read the Koran. And the Koran, whether or not it
really is, in the words of Michael Potemra, Deputy Managing Editor of National
Review magazine, “one of the loveliest books ever written…full of spiritual
wisdom,” is undeniably full of venomous hatred toward the Jews.
The Koran puts forward a clear, consistent image of the Jews: they are scheming,
treacherous liars and the most dangerous enemies of the Muslims. This
theological tenet provides a basis for Islam’s deeply rooted anti-Semitism, and
illuminates Farrakhan’s latest outburst. For the Koran depicts the Jews as a
gang of corrupt, deceitful cut-throats.
The Koran condemns Jews for speaking “a lie concerning Allah knowingly” (3:75).
The Jews are “men who will listen to any lie” (5:41). They also spread them:
“There is a party of them who distort the Scripture with their tongues, that ye
may think that what they say is from the Scripture, when it is not from the
Scripture. And they say: It is from Allah, when it is not from Allah; and they
speak a lie concerning Allah knowingly” (3:78). They are so deceitful that they
dare to distort “Divine Revelation and Allah’s Sacred Books. Allah says in this
regard: ‘Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands
and then say, ‘This is from Allah,’ that they may purchase a small gain
therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them
for that they earn thereby’” (2:79).
The Jews in the Koran are so obstinate before Allah that they refuse to believe
in the prophets Allah has sent them, even Moses, telling him: “O Moses! We will
not believe in thee till we see Allah plainly” (2:55). They are hypocrites
(2:14; 2:44) who “grow arrogant” before the messengers of Allah, refusing to
believe in some and killing others (2:87). They are so arrogant and haughty that
they “claimed to be the sons and of Allah and His beloved ones” – a fault they
share with the Christians: “The Jews and Christians say: We are sons of Allah
and His loved ones” (5:18).
The Jews also try to lead others away from the truth: “Many of the People of the
Scripture long to make you disbelievers after your belief, through envy on their
own account, after the truth hath become manifest unto them” (2:109). They
rejoice in others’ ill-fortune: “If a lucky chance befall you, it is evil unto
them, and if disaster strike you they rejoice thereat” (3:120).
And so when Farrakhan refers to Jews as Satanic deceivers, he is actually being
more moderate than the Koran itself. For Farrakhan and his ilk, eliminating the
Jewish state is not just a foreign policy goal; it is a religious imperative
Pope exonerates Jews for Jesus' death
In new book, Benedict XVI explains biblically and theologically why there is no
basis in Scripture for accusations against Jewish people as a whole
Associated Press Published: 03.03.11, 07:33 / Israel Jewish Scene
Pope Benedict XVI has made a sweeping exoneration of the Jewish people for the
death of Jesus Christ, tackling one of the most controversial issues in
Christianity in a new book.
In "Jesus of Nazareth-Part II" excerpts released Wednesday, Benedict explains
biblically and theologically why there is no basis in Scripture for the argument
that the Jewish people as a whole were responsible for Jesus' death.
Interpretations to the contrary have been used for centuries to justify the
persecution of Jews.
While the Catholic Church has for five decades taught that Jews weren't
collectively responsible, Jewish scholars said Wednesday the argument laid out
by the German-born pontiff, who has had his share of mishaps with Jews, was a
landmark statement from a pope that would help fight anti-Semitism today.
"Holocaust survivors know only too well how the centuries-long charge of 'Christ
killer' against the Jews created a poisonous climate of hate that was the
foundation of anti-Semitic persecution whose ultimate expression was realized in
the Holocaust," said Elan Steinberg of the American Gathering of Holocaust
Survivors and their Descendants.
The pope's book, he said, not only confirms church teaching refuting the deicide
charge "but seals it for a new generation of Catholics."
The Catholic Church issued its most authoritative teaching on the issue in its
1965 Second Vatican Council document "Nostra Aetate," which revolutionized the
church's relations with Jews by saying Christ's death could not be attributed to
Jews as a whole at the time or today.
Benedict comes to the same conclusion, but he explains how with a thorough,
Gospel-by-Gospel analysis that leaves little doubt that he deeply and personally
believes it to be the case: That only a few Temple leaders and a small group of
supporters were primarily responsible for Christ's crucifixion.
The book is the second installment to Benedict's 2007 "Jesus of Nazareth," his
first book as pope, which offered a very personal meditation on the early years
of Christ's life and teachings. This second book, set to be released March 10,
concerns the final part of Christ's life, his death and resurrection.
The Vatican's publishers provided a few excerpts Wednesday.
'Jesus' blood brings reconciliation'
In the book, Benedict re-enacts Jesus' final hours, including his death sentence
for blasphemy, then analyzes each Gospel account to explain why Jews as a whole
cannot be blamed for it. Rather, Benedict concludes, it was the "Temple
aristocracy" and a few supporters of the figure Barabbas who were responsible.
"How could the whole people have been present at this moment to clamor for
Jesus' death?" Benedict asks.
He deconstructs one particular biblical account which has the crowd saying, "His
blood be on us and on our children" - a phrase frequently cited as evidence of
the collective guilt Jews bore and the curse that they carried as a result.
The phrase, from the Gospel of Matthew, has been so incendiary that director Mel
Gibson was reportedly forced to drop it from the subtitles of his 2004 film "The
Passion of the Christ," although it remained in the spoken Aramaic.
But Benedict said Jesus' death wasn't about punishment, but rather salvation.
Jesus' blood, he said, "does not cry out for vengeance and punishment, it brings
reconciliation. It is not poured out against anyone, it is poured out for many,
for all."
Benedict, who was forced to join the Hitler Youth as a child in Nazi Germany,
has made improving relations with Jews a priority of his pontificate. He has
visited the Auschwitz Nazi death camp in Poland and Israel's Yad Vashem
Holocaust memorial.
But he also has had a few missteps that have drawn the ire of Jewish groups,
most notably when in 2009 he lifted the excommunication of a traditionalist
Catholic bishop who had denied the extent of the Holocaust by saying no Jews
were gassed during World War II.
Benedict has said that had he known Bishop Richard Williamson's views about Jews
he never would have lifted the excommunication, which was imposed in 1988
because Williamson was consecrated without papal consent. Williamson is a member
of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X, which has rejected many Vatican II
teachings, including the outreach to Jews contained in Nostra Aetate.
Separately, Jewish groups have been outraged that Benedict is moving Pope Pius
XII closer to beatification, the first main hurdle to possible sainthood. Some
Jews and historians have argued the World War II-era pope should have done more
to prevent the Holocaust.
The Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit who writes frequently about spirituality, said
the pope's new book was a "ringing reaffirmation" of Nostra Aetate, which was
passed during the Second Vatican Council, with the pope putting his "personal
stamp on it in a way that's irrefutable."
"A Vatican Council is the highest teaching authority of the church," Martin
said. "Now that you have the pope's reflections underlining it, I don't know how
much more authoritative you can get."
Rabbi David Rosen, head of interreligious affairs at the American Jewish
Committee and a leader of Vatican-Jewish dialogue, said the pope's book may make
a bigger, more lasting mark than Nostra Aetate because the faithful tend to read
Scripture and commentary more than church documents, particularly old church
documents.
"It may be an obvious thing for Jews to present texts with commentaries, but
normally with church magisterium, they present a document," he said. "This is a
pedagogical tool that he's providing, so people will be able to interpret the
text in keeping with orthodox Vatican teaching."
The US’s increasing inconsequence
Tony Badran, March 3, 2011
President Obama’s statement on the Libya crisis last Wednesday elicited a
particularly apt criticism of the administration’s “rhetoric of futility” – a
reference to its knack for making pronouncements that carry no clear implication
of action. The same could be said of the Obama administration’s approach to
various other regional problems – which has only served to further embolden
adversaries. One fitting example is Washington’s response to Syria’s concealed
nuclear activities and its ongoing illegal transfer of ballistic missiles to
Hezbollah.
On the same day President Obama gave his Libya speech, the German newspaper
Sueddeutsche Zeitung reported that Western intelligence agencies had identified
a second suspect nuclear site near Damascus, which they believed hosted a
uranium conversion facility. Three such undeclared facilities had already piqued
the interest of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) back in 2008 for
possible functional links to the covert reactor in Deir al-Zour, destroyed in
September 2007. Syria has denied IAEA investigators access to all of them.
Even after its reactor was bombed, there have been possible indicators that
Syria’s nuclear quest has seemingly remained active. For instance, last year the
Japanese Nikkei news site reported that North Korea was helping Syria build a
production line for maraging steel “that can be used in missile skins, chemical
warheads and gas centrifuges, a vital component in the uranium enrichment
process.”
Despite its utter disregard for the IAEA’s requests, Syria has paid no penalty.
The Assad regime’s contempt likely stems from its calculation that at the end of
the day, there will be no consensus to push for a special investigation, which
would legally bind Syria to comply or face referral to the UN Security Council.
Indeed, there is reluctance among certain IAEA board member states, who, while
concerned about Syria’s covert program, are not willing “to go much further than
calling for everyone to cooperate more with the IAEA,” as one leaked State
Department cable noted was Brazil’s position in late 2009.
There are several reasons for this. Ironically, one reason stems from the fact
that the Syrian reactor at the al-Kibar site has already been destroyed. So, for
some, the urgency behind the special investigation is reduced.
Then of course there’s appeasement. For example, France’s disastrous engagement
policy with Damascus has played a role in compromising French support for a
tough position on Syrian non-compliance. One leaked State Department cable from
2008 describes how Nicolas Sarkozy’s advisor for the Middle East at the time,
Boris Boillon, had “convinced himself that escalating pressure on Syria at the
IAEA would be a mistake.” How, you might ask? Boillon reasoned “the Syrians may
pull back into their shell and turn again to Iran.”
Two additional years of continued Syrian stonewalling notwithstanding, President
Obama nevertheless found it fit to restore full diplomatic relations with
Damascus, appointing Robert Ford as ambassador to Syria during a Congressional
recess. The administration’s argument has been that an ambassador would be able
to better communicate US concerns and press Washington’s interests with the
Syrians. In light of Assad's track record, less optimistic analysts concluded
that Ford will “spend much of his time in Damascus delivering demarches.”
But here’s where the criticism of the administration’s “empty rhetoric” becomes
particularly relevant. If the US is not able to push its preference for a
special investigation, or to somehow hold Syria accountable for its violations
and utter contempt, then how exactly will Ford press US interests, and what
weight will his demarches carry?
This is not to mention how the administration has further undermined its
argument since Ford’s boss, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has already
dispatched a demarche to the Syrians over their transfer of advanced ballistic
missiles to Hezbollah. However, Clinton’s words were not followed by any
concrete action, and, as a result, were essentially brushed off. Assad continued
with business as usual.
With Russia confirming plans to supply Syria with the Yakhont anti-ship cruise
missile, concerns over arms smuggling have come to the forefront once again,
especially since Damascus has all but announced its intention to make the system
available to Hezbollah. But once the secretary of state’s warnings have been
ignored, any further reprimands by the ambassador will be all but meaningless,
unless the US finally lays out specific consequences for continued Syrian
contempt – something it has so far failed to do.
In his sharp criticism of President Obama’s Libya speech last week, Christopher
Hitchens took the administration to task for giving “the impression that the
opinion of the United States was no more worth hearing than that of, say,
Switzerland.”
As the region undergoes upheavals with potentially serious repercussions on
American influence and interests, Washington can ill afford to have rogues
continue to pursue destabilizing policies free of cost or worry. The US is not
Switzerland – or France, for that matter – nor can it assume such a dangerously
inconsequential posture.
*Tony Badran is a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.