LCCC
ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِAugust
27/2011
Bible Quotation for today.
Latest
analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases
from
miscellaneous
sources
Divided,
Mikati’s cabinet stands/By:
Michael Young/August 26/11
We have a voice/Now
Lebanon/August
26/11
Syria: It would be better if the
Arab League didn’t meet/By Tariq Alhomayed/August
26/11
Libya: Pandora's box or coffer of
jewels?/By Amir Taher/August
26/11
The end of Gaddafi: A message to
Syria and Yemen?/By Osman Mirghani/August
26/11
Latest News
Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for August 26/11
Explosion Targets U.N. Building in
Nigeria's Capital
Gunmen kidnap 2 anti-Assad Syrian
nationals
STL’s Registrar Says Trials Open
Mid-2012
Nasrallah to Address STL,
Electricity Draft Law Friday
WikiLeaks: France Said Syrian
General Killed in Regime Feud
Report: Al-Sadr’s Body Thrown into
Sea
Clinton Calls for Democratic 'New
Libya
At Least 6 Protesters Killed as
Thousands Flood Syria Streets
Qatar Emir Tells Syria Force is
'Fruitless,' Urges Serious Reforms
Syria Seeking Cartoonist's
Attackers
Syrian forces fire at Friday
prayers protests
Geagea Holds President, Premier,
Army Responsible for Situation in Lassa
March 14 Rejects Turning Parliament
into Anti-STL Platform
$254,000 and 60,000 euros Stolen in
Haret Hreik Heist
Suleiman Meets Qahwaji, Lauds
Army’s 'National Immunity Against Bickering'
Siniora discusses Arab uprising
with Turkish officials
Miqati Could Meet Saudi King during
Visit to Mecca
Jumblat’s Sources: We Are Not Tools
Lebanon's Diaspora voting may be
feasible in 2013
35 Tons of Lebanese Aid Airlifted
to Somalia’s Famine Victims
Iran Says Palestine Statehood 'Step
Forward' for Full Liberation
Iran stirs up new conflict: Its
Iraqi terrorist arm shoots Scuds at Kuwait
Ahmadinejad: Holocaust 'big lie'
used to justify establishment of Israel
Report: Israel to allow Egypt to
deploy troops in Sinai
Jimmy Carter to Haaretz: Recent
Cairo protests threaten Israel-Egypt peace treaty
U.S. envoy: We will stop aid to
Palestinians if UN bid proceeds
Arab League chief: Egypt-Israel
peace treaty not as sacred as the Koran
IDF discloses soldier killed by
friendly fire in south Israel terror attack
Hundreds rally in Cairo to demand
Israeli ambassador's expulsion
Palestinians clash with IDF
soldiers over access to Temple Mount in Jerusalem
Iran stirs up new conflict: Its Iraqi terrorist arm shoots Scuds at Kuwait
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report August 26, 2011, Three Scud missiles flying from Iraq
to Kuwait early Friday, Aug. 26 were launched by the Iran-backed Ketaeb
Hizballah of Iraq, the first such attacks since the US invaded Iraq in 2003. It
was also the first time any Middle East terrorist group had used Scud missiles.
They exploded on open ground, but debkafile's sources report that this round was
meant as a warning for Kuwait to halt construction of the Grand Mubarak Port
opposite the Iraqi shore - or else it would be followed by a massive volley.
In the second week of August, Kuwait massed troops on Boubiyan Island just
across from Iraq to defend the huge $1.1 billion Grand Mubarak Port under
construction there. The force was composed of Military Police of the Amoun
Defense Organization, units of intelligence and air defense, the 35th Company,
the 6th Brigade and naval forces.
This appeared to be rather a disproportionate reaction to Iraq's demand that
Kuwait freeze construction of the Persian Gulf port until guarantees were
provided that the new facility would not hinder the operations of Iraq's own
planned harbor in the southern region of Basra. Iraq also fears it will block
the main Persian Gulf gateway for its oil exports to reach the world's shipping
lanes from the Shatt al-Arb.
A government spokesman in Baghdad demanded assurances that free and safe
navigation would not be affected by the Kuwait port which is scheduled for
completion in 2016.
This dispute did not account for Kuwait's heavy military deployment on its
largest island.
What did is another factor DEBKA-Net- Weekly's military and intelligence sources
reported on Aug. 12: A threat from the Iraqi Shiite radical Ketaeb Hizballah, an
arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Al-Qods Brigades, trained by the
Lebanese Hizballah, to strike the new port with Scud missiles, a threat they
started carrying out this Friday.
This followed Tehran's discovery that Mubarak Port was also projected to house a
large naval base to serve the fleets of Kuwait, the US and Saudi Arabia in the
Persian Gulf, a project Iran is determined to put paid to by any means.
Until Friday, there was no confirmation of the group's claim to have recovered
most of the inventory of 250 Scuds held by Saddam Hussein before the US invasion
of 2003. But now, is clear to Kuwaiti and Western intelligence officials in the
Gulf that the Scud cache has indeed fallen into the hands of the Ketaeb
Hizballah of Iraq and that there is a real danger of Tehran using Iraqi Shiite
extremists to sabotage the Boubiyan Island project.
Last week, Iraqi Hizballah activities staged a demonstration against the port on
the Iraqi-Kuwait border. Kuwait warned it would show zero tolerance for any
border incursions.
At Least 6 Protesters Killed as Thousands Flood Syria
Streets
Naharnet /Security sources killed six people when they opened fire on
demonstrations across Syria on the last Friday of Ramadan, as thousands of
protesters flooded the country’s streets vowing to bring down President Bashar
al-Assad’s regime despite deadly crackdowns. Protesters took to the streets in
response to calls by The Syrian Revolution 2011 Facebook group which urged
rallies under the banner of "Friday of patience and determination." Syrian
forces killed three protesters in the eastern protest hub of Deir al-Zour, one
in the Damascus neighborhood of al-Qaboun, one in the Idlib province town of
Maarat al-Numan and another in the southern town of Nawa, the Facebook group
reported. The group identified the victims as Merhi Hassan al-Hammoud, Odai al-Bahloul,
Bassel Mohammed Najib al-Abdullah, Jadou Abu al-Sill, Ali Ramadan and Nasr al-Bedewi.
Thousands of people demonstrated in the flashpoint central city of Homs,
emerging in several neighborhoods of the industrial hub, the Syrian Observatory
for Human Rights said. Security forces broke up a demonstration in Deir al-Zour,
one of the hubs of the protest movement that was launched in mid-March, the
rights group said. Protests also took place in al-Bukamal, a town on the border
with Iraq, in the Damascus suburbs of Douma and Kiswah, in Hirak in the south
and in the mostly Kurdish-populated city of Qamishli in the northeast, said Omar
Idilbi, a spokesman for the Local Coordination Committees group. The LCC has
people on the ground across Syria and is involved in organizing protests against
the Assad regime. For its part, The Syrian Revolution 2011 group reported a
demonstration in the Damascus flashpoint neighborhood of al-Midan.
Report:
Al-Sadr’s Body Thrown into Sea 4
Naharnet/ The regime of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi killed Shiite cleric
Moussa al-Sadr 33 years ago and threw his body into the sea, Iranian security
sources said.
The sources, who had collaborated with the Shah’s regime, told an Iranian
website that al-Sadr and his two companions Sheikh Mohammed Yacoub and
journalist Abbas Badreddine were killed upon their abduction by the Gadhafi
regime and their bodies were thrown into the sea after being attached to cement
blocks. Former Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat has reportedly confirmed that
the Egyptian intelligence had information that Sadr was murdered. Western
sources also said the Gadhafi regime assassinated the group that killed the Imam
and his companions by blowing up the helicopter that had thrown the bodies into
the sea. In 1978, al-Sadr and his companions flew to Tripoli for a week of talks
with Libyan officials. They were never seen or heard from again. The day he was
last seen, on Aug. 31, 1978, is still marked annually in Lebanon. At the time,
the Libyan regime insisted al-Sadr and his aides left on a flight to Rome at the
end of their visit and suggested the imam fell victim to an inter-Shiite power
struggle.
WikiLeaks: France Said Syrian General Killed in Regime Feud
Naharnet /A senior Syrian general who was assassinated in 2008 was most likely
the victim of a power struggle between figures linked to Bashar al-Assad's
regime, France told U.S. envoys at the time.According to a U.S. diplomatic cable
published online by the whistle-blower site WikiLeaks, a senior adviser to
President Nicolas Sarkozy and an expert from the foreign ministry branded the
killing a "mafia-like hit".
Brigadier General Mohammed Suleiman was slain in the Syrian coastal city of
Tartus in August 2008. At the time it was widely rumored that he was gunned down
by an Israeli sniper hidden on board a yacht moored offshore. But, according to
the U.S. cable, French intelligence believed that he may have been killed
because he "knew too much" about the Assad regime's nuclear program and ties to
Lebanon’s Hizbullah.
Alternatively, he could have been a victim of a struggle for influence and
access to corrupt wealth between rival members of the business elite linked to
Assad's ruling clan, Sarkozy's adviser Boris Boillon told U.S. officials. "When
asked how he interpreted the killing, Boillon said several theories presented
themselves, the only common denominator of which was internecine rivalry in the
entourage close to Bashar al-Assad," the cable said.
"He flatly rejected the notion that the Israelis had taken out Suleiman,
particularly the theory that a sniper had shot him," it continued
"French information was that the hit was more 'classic' and 'mafia-like' with
police stopping traffic in the immediate vicinity, bodyguards looking the other
way, and the assailant pumping a slug into Suleiman's head."The official floated
a theory the killing could have been ordered by Assad's powerful brother, Maher
al-Assad, a military commander and regime insider -- sometimes referred to as
the second most powerful man in Syria.
"Boillon described Maher as ambitious, a bit of a wild man, and determined to
increase his power and influence within the inner circle," the cable said.
The envoys said "Boillon's rundown of the various theories sounded like he had
recently read a finished French intelligence assessment of the situation."
Ludovic Pouille, a senior Middle East expert at the French foreign ministry, was
"less forthcoming" about his theories in a separate 2008 meeting with U.S.
officials, but he agreed the killing looked like an inside job."He was equally
categorical in disputing the theory that the Israelis were responsible," the
cable recounted.
According to Pouille, the French ambassador in Damascus believed Suleiman might
have died because he knew too much about the murder of former Lebanese prime
minister Rafik Hariri and about Syria's nuclear program.
According to the cable, French officials said Sarkozy planned to "cultivate his
personal relationship with Bashar" hoping to convince him to make peace with
Israel, “stop destabilizing Lebanon” and review his ties with Iran.**Source
Agence France Presse
Clinton
Calls for Democratic 'New Libya
Naharnet /U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday pledged support
for a "new Libya," urging triumphant rebels to turn the page on Moammar
Gadhafi's rule and build a secure, democratic state. She also called on the
rebels to guard weapons stockpiles and take a hard line against "extremism," as
the United Nations began releasing $1.5 billion in Libyan assets earmarked for
U.N. programs, food and basic services. "The situation remains fluid, but it is
clear that the Gadhafi era is coming to an end, opening the way for a new era in
Libya -- one of liberty, justice, and peace," Clinton said in a written
statement. "There can be no place in the new Libya for revenge attacks and
reprisals... Libya's future will be peaceful only if the leaders and people of
Libya reach out to each other in a spirit of peace." She said the coming days
and weeks would be "critical," as the rebels prepared to march on Gadhafi's
heavily-guarded hometown of Sirte and pressed a manhunt for the ousted strongman
and his family. The rebels' arrival in Tripoli came six months after
pro-democracy protests inspired by the Arab Spring erupted against Gadhafi's
four-decade rule, drawing a brutal crackdown that soon escalated into war. The
insurgency was aided by a NATO air campaign against Gadhafi's forces that
Clinton said had saved thousands of lives, and the United States and its allies
have recognized the rebels' National Transitional Council (NTC) as the country's
de facto government.
U.S. officials hope that Libya will not go the way of Iraq, where the U.S.
invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein spawned a brutal insurgency and a wave of
sectarian killings that verged on civil war.Clinton called on the NTC to ensure
that the rebels fulfill Libya's treaty obligations, guard its weapons stockpiles
and adopt a "firm stand against violent extremism."
The rebels include some Islamist militants, but have insisted they want a free
and democratic Libya and denied any links to al-Qaida and its offshoots.
But in March top NATO commander and U.S. Admiral James Stavridis said he had
seen "flickers" in intelligence about an al-Qaida presence among the rebels.
And Gadhafi, who has not been seen since the rebels poured into Tripoli, early
on accused all the rebels of belonging to Al-Qaeda, in an apparent bid to play
on Western fears of the global network founded by Osama bin Laden. Clinton's
statement came shortly after the rebels announced they had moved their interim
government to Tripoli from their eastern stronghold of Benghazi. It also came as
the U.N. Security Council released $1.5 billion of seized Libyan assets
following a dispute between the United States and South Africa, which had feared
the release of the assets from U.S. banks would amount to international
recognition of the rebels. Neither South Africa nor the African Union has
recognized the NTC.
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said the assets would pay for U.N.
programs, energy bills, health, education and food, and would not be used for
any "lethal or military purposes."**Source Agence France Presse
Geagea Holds President, Premier, Army Responsible for Situation in Lassa
Naharnet/Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea criticized on Thursday President
Michel Suleiman, Prime Minister Najib Miqati, Defense Minister Fayez Ghosn,
Interior Minister Marwan Charbel, the army, and security forces for their
shortcomings in dealing with the developments in the town of Lassa, holding them
“responsible before history” for the ongoing incidents taking place in the
area.He said after holding talks with a delegation from the town and other Jbeil
District areas: “You will be held accountable because you are allowing the
people to resolve their disputes in their own hands, is this acceptable?” “Does
the town of Lassa lie outside of the Lebanese republic? Do we need visas to be
allowed to enter it?” he asked.
“Should every village in Lebanon follow its example and establish its own
security and defenses?” he wondered.
Geagea described the situation at Lassa as “uneasy”, revealing that he had
contacted President Michel Suleiman and all other concerned sides urging them to
tackle the matter, but to no avail. “How come if a dispute erupts in Jounieh,
the security forces immediately intervene to end it, but in Lassa any citizen
can assault the other under the security forces noses and they would be able to
get away with their crime,” he continued.“We want the state’s authority to be
established in Lassa, is that too much to ask?” he wondered.
“The attackers should be arrested because we are setting a bad example to the
Lebanese in that they can get away with a crime without punishment,” noted the
LF leader.
Geagea also voiced his support for Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel
Aoun’s proposal to resolve the Lassa dispute through the judiciary.
Property disputes erupted in Lassa a few weeks ago when Hizbullah members
prevented a Maronite League team from surveying land owned by the Maronite
Patriarchate in the predominantly Shiite town of Lassa in the Jbeil District.
They also came after members of the same party prevented an MTV crew from
filming a report on the issue in the town.
A clergyman was also recently assaulted, but his attackers remain at large.
U.S. Treasury: Sanctions on Rami Makhlouf Apply to Miqati
Naharnet /The U.S. Treasury Department team that imposed sanctions on Rami
Makhlouf, Syrian President Bashar Assad’s cousin, in 2008 is aware that the
factors that incurred the sanctions are applicable to Prime Minister Najib
Miqati and his brother Taha.Sources told the Kuwaiti al-Rai newspaper in remarks
published on Friday that the Miqati family owns the majority of shares of the
MTN mobile phone company in Syria. This company, they added, is a branch of the
Lebanese premier’s MTN Group in South Africa, which is in turn owned by the
Beirut-based M1 group, whose boards of administrators is headed by a number of
Miqati family members. Washington recently imposed sanctions on the Commercial
Bank of Syria, the largest bank in Syria, which is accused of setting up deals
with Iran and North Korea. It also imposed sanctions on its branch in Lebanon,
the Syrian-Lebanese Commercial Bank.
The sources asked: “Did the Miqati family employ its political power and ties
with the Assad family to obtain illegal material gain in Syria?”
“The majority of experts in the Treasury believe so,” they stressed. They
wondered whether Miqati family funds actually funded the Syrian security forces
that are cracking down on anti-regime protests. “According to our data, the MTN
Group in Syria provides around a million dollars each month as a tax to the
Syrian regime and gifts to Syrian officials who allow the company to maintain
its work in the country,” they added. Al-Rai had reported U.S. Treasury sources
as saying last week that a team from the department, charged with monitoring
Assad’s financial activity, is close to reaching a connection between Assad and
senior Syrian official with Miqati and his brother Taha.
Explosion
Targets U.N. Building in Nigeria's Capital
Naharnet /A large explosion struck a United Nations building in Nigeria's
capital of Abuja on Friday, with one complete wing of the building leveled by
the blast, witnesses said. A U.N. official in Geneva called it a bomb attack.
Witnesses told The Associated Press on Friday that the blast happened just
before 11 a.m. in the same neighborhood as the U.S. Embassy and other diplomatic
posts in Nigeria's capital. They say many are feared dead. Police and the
wounded thronged the three-story building as people began to search for victims.
Local police spokesman Jimoh Moshood confirmed the blast, but said police were
still investigating the cause. Alessandra Vellucci, a spokeswoman for the U.N.
office in Geneva, said the global body's offices in Abuja had been bombed. She
told The Associated Press that there was no word yet on casualties. *Source
Associated Press
$254,000 and 60,000 euros Stolen in Haret Hreik Heist
Naharnet /Occupants of two vehicles robbed $254,000 and 60,000 euros from two
men in Beirut’s southern suburbs as they were transporting the money in their
car, the National News Agency reported Friday.NNA said that Hussein Mohammed
Srour and Ali Mustafa Srour filed a complaint to police claiming that two
vehicles with tinted windows – a Murano and a BMW X5 without license plates –
intercepted them at around 2:00 am in Haret Hreik and snatched from their car a
red bag that contained the money. The robbers did not harm the two men and
didn’t steal their vehicle, they said, adding however that they forgot to steal
another bag containing $216,000, 10,000 euros and 2,300 Swiss Francs. The
victims claimed that they had received the currencies at Rafik Hariri
international airport and were transporting them on behalf of a money transfer
company. NNA said that the movement of the two men could have been monitored.
Suleiman Meets Qahwaji, Lauds Army’s 'National Immunity
Against Bickering'
Naharnet /President Michel Suleiman said Friday that political stability backed
by security stability contributes to a large extent to economic growth in the
country. In a statement issued by his press office, Suleiman expressed his
confidence in the ability of the Lebanese economy to rise and adjust to the
developments due to the investments that Lebanese expatriates make in the
country. Suleiman held talks with Army chief Gen. Jean Qahwaji at his summer
residence in Beiteddine. They discussed the security situation and issues linked
to the security institutions. Suleiman lauded the military institution for
enjoying “national immunity against political bickering and the stances made
from time to time.”He also praised the role the army plays in preserving civil
peace and defending its borders and the unity among its ranks.
Miqati Could Meet Saudi King during Visit
Naharnet /Prime Minister Najib Miqati will probably meet with Saudi King
Abdullah bin Abdul-Aziz during his visit to the country to perform the Omra.
Sources told al-Liwaa newspaper on Friday that the Lebanese officials are
observing how the official Saudi reception of the PM will be. They noted that
Miqati will remain in Mecca until the night of al-Qadr, thus he will probably
return on Saturday to Beirut. The prime minister headed to Saudi Arabia on
Wednesday night aboard a private jet. Meanwhile, the sources added that he isn’t
ready to be held accountable for approving the electricity draft law without a
specific mechanism that controls the implementation and the spending on the
project.
Bassil: We'll Topple Govt. if It Doesn’t Implement
Electricity Plan
Naharnet /Energy and Water Minister Jebran Bassil on Thursday warned that the
country will suffer “governmental and parliamentary paralysis if the dispute
over the electricity plan is not solved,” noting that “the issue can be resolved
in cabinet.”“We will topple any government that does not want to implement the
plan,” Bassil vowed. At a press conference he held to discuss his plan, the
minister noted that “the electricity plan, with all of its technical and
financial aspects, is clear, but it is facing political disapproval,” wondering
“whether the (parliamentary) minority has sympathizers in the
government.”Despite holding four sessions to discuss Bassil’s plan, the
government has failed to reach a final agreement on the project, under which
$1.2 billion would be earmarked to build plants that would produce 700 Megawatts
of electricity. Bassil warned that failure to adopt the plan would “deprive
people of seven hours of power supply daily and the treasury of $460 million,”
noting that “the demand for electricity is on the rise and the problem is
aggravating every year.”“Blackouts could last for 15-16 hours daily in summer
2013 if the electricity plan was not adopted, Bassil said, adding that “we’re
not asking for extraordinary powers, we’re just saying ‘implement the law’ and
those who want to deprive the minister of some of his powers must first amend
the constitution.”
Divided, Mikati’s cabinet stands
Michael Young, /Now Lebanon
August 26, 2011
Sometimes a surfeit of optimism looks suspiciously like self-delusion. As the
masonry came crashing down around Najib Mikati’s head on Wednesday, it was
disquieting to hear the prime minister declare that all had gone well at the
cabinet meeting held in Beiteddine.
There is electricity in the air over Gebran Bassil’s $1.2 billion energy bill,
with Aounist ministers threatening to boycott government sessions unless, and
until, the legislation is approved. In the latest development, Walid Jumblatt
announced that his three ministers would reject such approval unless comments on
the bill from his National Struggle Front were taken into consideration.
There is more to this than Jumblatt’s and Michel Aoun’s longstanding loathing
for each other. Look more closely at the dynamics of the majority now in control
of Lebanon and you will see that Aoun also has deep-seated problems with Mikati
and Nabih Berri, the speaker of parliament. While this will limit his margin of
maneuver in the coming months, it will also allow the general to precipitate
crises that ultimately strengthen him with his Christian electorate.
During the government-formation process, the prime minister did not hide from
his political interlocutors that he had problems with returning Bassil to the
Energy Ministry, for reasons of integrity. He was forced to back down when
President Bashar al-Assad made it clear last June that he wanted a government in
Beirut as soon as possible. But the reality is that Mikati is no keener to see
the minister have access to a substantial sum of money than Jumblatt is, even if
the Druze leader is an old hand at patronage politics and pie-sharing, so that
his salvo against Aoun must be viewed in that light as well.
As for Berri, his resentment has long been building against Aoun, especially
after the speaker lost the election in Jezzine in 2009 against candidates backed
by the general. There have been rumors circulating among parliamentarians that
Berri is looking for openings to strike back at Aoun by helping to undercut the
general’s legislative agenda. More profoundly, nothing unites Aoun with the
speaker, just as nothing unites Aoun with Jumblatt: The general regards the two
as prime beneficiaries of the early post-Taif system that he abominates,
principally because French exile denied Aoun the worldly temptations and the
political authority that he felt was his by right.
Pity Najib Mikati for being a prisoner of clashing interests impossible to
reconcile. When he is not facing Michel Aoun itching for a fight, the prime
minister is submitting to the humiliations of Hezbollah. Last week, Time
magazine published an interview with one of the suspects indicted by the Special
Tribunal for Lebanon. It was no surprise to hear him say that the Lebanese
authorities knew where he was, but would not arrest him. Mikati asked Hezbollah
to deny the interview. This the party did, which in no way lessened the impact
of the message: On the tribunal, the government does Hezbollah’s bidding.
One might almost say the same thing when it comes to domestic security. Marwan
Charbel, the interior minister, continues to defend a statement he made on the
day of the Antelias bombing, to the effect that the explosion was the outcome of
a personal dispute. No one buys that story, and even less so Charbel’s
protestations that he was not protecting Hezbollah. That’s because it took
almost no time for the verbose minister to contradict himself, when he declared
that the Time interview was “dangerous and targets Hezbollah.”
Charbel knew very well that the interview was intentionally set up by Hezbollah.
If he could so brazenly misstate the facts about that matter, then we can be
assured that he could do the same about the Antelias blast. Charbel may be the
common property of Aoun and President Michel Sleiman, but the interests of both
are parallel these days, and Aoun is the stronger of the two. As a result, the
minister has no trouble emulating Aoun in being a Hezbollah buffer.
March 14 has repeatedly said that it intends to bring Mikati’s government down.
There is something rather unsettling in that vow—a sense that a government only
has relevance in the context of partisan fighting between the country’s
political alignments. You have to wonder where the interests of the Lebanese
come in.
Yet Mikati and his turbulent team have done nothing to prove the opposition
wrong. Aoun will continue to ride roughshod over his partners in search of
greater power to offset his debilitating envy; Hezbollah has missed few
opportunities to disgrace the prime minister; Jumblatt has no stomach for Aoun,
and is rethinking his rapport with Hezbollah; and Mikati is a bright mask on a
squalid tragicomedy—powerless, unable to escape his predicament through
resignation, a man tied to a tree receiving a steady pummeling.
This is a government inspiring groans, pretty much the same groans merited by
its predecessors. Ignored in the egotistical thrusts and parries of the
politicians is the Lebanese public—disgusted with what is going on, yet in large
part responsible for giving their leaders so much leeway to act as they please.
Mikati’s government is effectively stillborn, despite a useful achievement here
and there. Unfortunately, putting it out of its misery may not necessarily bring
better.
**Michael Young is opinion editor of the Daily Star newspaper in Beirut and
author of The Ghosts of Martyrs Square: An Eyewitness Account of Lebanon’s Life
Struggle. He tweets @BeirutCalling.
The allure of treason
Hazem al-Amin, August 26, 2011
A few days ago, Secretary General of the March 14 Coalition Fares Soueid held a
press conference dedicated to the issue of Lasa in the Jbeil region. During this
conference, he mentioned an aggression that targeted – or almost succeeded in so
doing – the deacon of the Lasa church. The perpetrators, Soueid said, were
members of Hezbollah.
The deacon of the Lasa church surely deserves to be defended. The March 14
coalition, as a framework and project that is presented to all the Lebanese
people, should rise up against injustice caused to any citizen, let alone a
deacon.
The March 14 coalition is for all the Lebanese, save the Shia community. During
the same week that witnessed “the Lasa church deacon incident,” a judicial
ruling cleared Mohammad Ali Husseini, a Shia cleric opposed to Hezbollah, who
had been imprisoned on charges of collaboration with Israel. The March 14
coalition did not feel that it was its mission to defend him, nor did it feel
that his case could have justified a political showdown with Hezbollah. It is as
though this coalition’s self-awareness is not sensitive to injustice against a
Shia cleric.
Furthermore, another Shia cleric, Sheikh Hassan Mcheimech, is imprisoned in
Syria. This man, who was visited by his family in his Syrian prison, is being
detained on the sole charge of opposition to Hezbollah. In turn, he did not
spark a feeling of sovereignty in the March 14 coalition, and his case remained
a Shia one that his family cannot bring forth to the Lebanese public.
Many within the March 14 coalition and around it have always wondered about the
secret behind the Shia “embrace” of Hezbollah. They thus cited the party’s
financial capacities and their role in this respect, its security and military
apparatus controlling any attempt to divert from the party’s options and the
penetration of state institutions by Hezbollah and its allies, and their
monopoly over Shia representation in them. All this is true and may even amount
to an understatement.
Yet the question remains: Does the March 14 coalition wish to break this
cohesion? Hence, has it made any plan, be it a stumbling one, in this respect?
Of course, it has not; rather, it developed a rhetoric, whereby Shia are
zealots. Hezbollah contributed to shaping the March 14 rhetoric vis-à-vis the
Shia by cornering them into being rivals. Yet the “pro-independence group” did
not show any resistance to this endeavor; rather, due to its sectarian position,
it was lured into the stance Hezbollah wanted it to take. For instance and
regardless of the details, the Lasa case seems, from afar, like a civil
confrontation in addition to being a confrontation between Hezbollah and
Christians, or one between people who have rights and those who are attacking
those rights. The inhabitants of Lasa are Shia and the opposite party is the
Christian community. The March 14 coalition did not make any effort to
dissociate the civil content of the confrontation from its party-related,
security and legal aspect.
The latest March 14 statement, which condemned Hezbollah’s attempt to link the
Shia community to those accused of assassinating former PM Rafik Hariri, comes
within the framework of “defending the Shia” by picturing them as zealots.
Hezbollah has thus succeeded in luring the March 14 coalition into a discussion
of this issue with the Shia community rather than with the party. It is
self-evident that the Shia are innocent from such claims… The denial of such
charges may be well-intentioned, but it may also spring from a sectarian
awareness that embodies a feeling, whereby partnership with “the others” calls
for a devious clearance rhetoric.
This leads to dangerous potential implications. Many Shia-born individuals are
today at the heart of March 14 elites and will find themselves exposed in case
they are ever subjected to situations like clerics Husseini and Mcheimech. The
March 14 coalition will not defend their cause as this is an internal Shia
matter. As for the Shia community itself, it has been confiscated and they have
betrayed it. Despite all these risks, the fact remains that treason by one
community, regardless of its identity, is attractive and alluring. This allure
of treason carries implications that are stronger than the allure of one
community on account of the fact that young men and women acquire the full
meaning of their youth by falling prey to the enticement of such treason.
This article is a translation of the original, which appeared on the NOW Arabic
site on Friday August 26, 2011
We have a voice
Now Lebanon/Already the cynics are pointing to the fact that Colonel Muammar
Qaddafi could not have been overthrown (as it increasingly looks like he has
been) without NATO support. They will point to the fickle nature of realpolitik
and how in the 1980s Qaddafi was arguably held in lower regard than even Osama
bin Laden in his heyday, how Ronald Regan called him the “Mad Dog of the Middle
East,” and how his bombings of a German nightclub and Pan Am Flight 103 over
Lockerbie, Scotland made him a murderous pariah.
Then we had the reconciliations and the powwows in the desert tents with world
leaders, including the famous handshake with then-British Prime Minister Tony
Blair. Qaddafi was back in the fold, a moderate—albeit an eccentric one—who had
been misunderstood, who had played by the rules of what, let’s face it, was a
tricky region.
But then came the Arab awakening with the wave of popular discontent that spread
across North Africa. Qaddafi saw what had happened to Egyptian President Hosni
Mubarak and, no doubt keen to ensure that he wouldn’t suffer the same fate, went
on the offensive with typical panache, firing helicopter-mounted rockets into
crowds of protesters and employing his famous colorful language to blame the
armed rebellion on drug-crazed teenagers, calling them rats that needed
extermination.
The upshot was a civil war, the first chapter of which ended earlier this week
when rebel fighters entered Tripoli, finally breaching Qaddafi’s compound. Along
with the by-now-traditional looting, the defacing of the gold statuettes and the
plundering of the despot’s wardrobe, there is the hope that in Syria—where for
months a less homogenous popular uprising has been trying to break the back of
the Assad regime—the tide will turn in favor of those who want a freer, more
democratic society.
To support this, we must look beyond the NATO jets, and we must resist the urge
to rail against outside intervention and whispers of Western nations protecting
their interests and the lucrative contracts being drafted. For doing so will
undermine the aspirations of those Arab people who want liberty, democracy,
transparency, and freedom from the ever-present shadow of the secret police and
the terrifying dungeons of the state jails.
Already we have seen the Syrian opposition take heart from the successes of the
Libyan people, and the hope is that, with redoubled efforts, we will see regime
change in a country that has for four decades lived under the heel of
authoritarianism.
But today it is time to applaud the bravery and determination of the Libyan
people who have seized the Zeitgeist and, albeit with Western support, have
taken a giant step in the journey to self-determination. The transformation to
genuine democracy in Libya, and hopefully later in Syria, will not happen
overnight, but what we are witnessing across the Middle East is the reclaiming
of a people’s dignity. As we have seen in Iraq, the people are happier to have a
system that is still a work in progress than to live under a bloody dictator
like Saddam Hussein and his family. The Qaddafi family has gone, and so have
those of Mubarak, Ben Ali and Saleh. It is likely that the Assad name will be
also appear on the roll of deposed clans.
Lebanon is more fortunate than most. Our democratic mechanisms are in place, and
gone are the days when we lived in fear of the authorities. Yet there is still
much that Lebanese can do to tweak the mechanisms of our political system. We
can demand greater accountability from our leaders. We can tell them that we
have demands and that they need to be heard. Suddenly the Arabs, all Arabs, have
found a voice, and they are not going to lose it any time soon.
Report:
Israel to allow Egypt to deploy troops in Sinai
The Economist reports that Barak, following the series of terror attacks on
Israel's southern border, agreed to Egypt's stationing of helicopters, armored
vehicles, thousands of troops in Sinai; Rivlin says move may need Knesset
approval.
By Avi Issacharoff /Haaretz
Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that Israel will soon allow Egypt to deploy
thousands of troops in the Sinai Peninsula, the Economist reported on Friday.
What is in store for the Israel-Egypt border?
According to the report, Israel will allow helicopters and armored vehicles into
Sinai, but will forbid the entrance of tanks.
Haaretz reported earlier Friday that Barak said he would agree to send thousands
more Egyptian soldiers into eastern Sinai in order to end the anarchy there,
saying it would be "a clear Israeli interest" since it would stop smuggling of
weapons and people from Gaza.
The move comes after the series of terror attacks in southern Israel on August
18, which left eight people dead. Israel and Egypt believe the gunmen
responsible for the attacks were militants that infiltrated from the Gaza Strip
via Egypt's neighboring Sinai desert.
Officials also suspect that militants from Sinai had also joined the Gaza gunmen
in carrying out the attacks on Israelis.
The deployment of Egyptian troops in Sinai violates the Israeli-Egyptian peace
treaty, in which both countries agreed that the Sinai Peninsula will be a
military-free zone.
“Sometimes you have to subordinate strategic considerations to tactical needs,”
the Economist quoted Barak as saying.
Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin responded to Barak's interview with the Economist
on Friday, saying that the deployment of Egyptian troops in Sinai, a violation
of the Camp David Accords, may need the Knesset's approval – not only the
government's.
Rivlin explained that any fundamental alteration of a diplomatic agreement
requires the Knesset's approval and instructed the Knesset Legal Adviser Eyal
Inon to immediately examine the recent matter.
Meanwhile, Israel agreed Thursday to a joint investigation alongside Egypt of
the events surrounding the terror attacks which left eight Israelis dead.
The details of the investigation would be agreed upon by both Israel’s and
Egypt’s militaries, according to National Security Advisor Yaakov Amidror.
An initial probe carried out by Egyptian security forces, says that three
Egyptians were killed in reprisal for the attacks, all of which were members of
an extremist Islamic group. One of them had escaped from an Egyptian prison
during the revolution against Hosni Mubarak.
While Israel moved to ease tensions with Egypt, it mounted further attacks
against Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip, from where more than 20 rockets
have been launched at southern Israel since Wednesday, despite a truce announced
on Monday.
Five Palestinians, including a local commander of the Islamic Jihad group in the
Gaza Strip, have been killed in the latest round of bloodshed.
The end of Gaddafi: A message to Syria and Yemen?
By Osman Mirghani
do not know what feelings haunt those leaders who have fallen from power and are
watching the people celebrate their departure; tearing apart their portraits,
chanting against their regime, and generally witnessing the extent of the
people’s hatred for their regime. I would imagine that they cannot believe the
images that they are witnessing with their own eyes, because they were blinded
by power, and their policies of oppression and suppression ensured that they
only heard the voices of those closest to them, the climbers and opportunists
who said that their people loved them and were willing to die for them. This is
why they fail to understand the message their people are trying to send them
when they rise up and revolt, and why they fail to learn their lesson from the
experience of other leaders. Instead, they insist on viewing the people’s
uprising as part of a conspiracy that must be crushed by their security and
military apparatus.
Mubarak failed to benefit from Ben Ali’s experience, and did not understand his
people’s message, and so threw away the opportunity step down from power [in a
dignified manner]. The same applies to Ali Abdullah Saleh, who survived an
assassination attempt, but continues to refuse to understand the message being
relayed by the Yemeni street. Bashar al-Assad has gone too far in his insistence
on addressing the Syrian uprising, which he viewed – from day one – as a
conspiracy against Syria and its role of “resisting” and “confronting” [Israel]
(rather than change and the Syrian people’s will). As for Colonel Gaddafi, that
is another story altogether, for he not only refused to believe that the people
of the Jamahiriya could rise up against him, but he considered those who opposed
his rule to be “rats”, “vermin”, and “drugged cockroaches.” Gaddafi, his sons,
and their battalions, committed many massacres and atrocities in Zawiyah,
Misrata, Zintan, Nalut, Ajdabiya, and elsewhere.
What planet are some of these leaders living on? The Syrian president came out
and conducted a televised interview – at the same time that Colonel Gaddafi’s
regime was collapsing – in which he said that security achievements had been
made in his country and in which he spoke – once more – about forming one
committee after another to look into the [Syrian protesters] demands, and
announce a timetable for reform, all the while the suppression and torture
[being conducted by the Syrian forces] is intensifying. When he was asked about
the West’s calls for him to step down from power, al-Assad said “such remarks
should not be made about a president who was chosen by the Syrian people and who
was not put in office by the West, a president who was not made in the United
States.” While Gaddafi, during the early days of the uprising in Libya, stressed
that he did not have a position to resign from, and that if he were president he
would have thrown his resignation in the face of the protesters. As for Ali
Abdullah Saleh, after everything that has happened, including surviving an
assassination attempt in which he suffered severe burns and other injuries, he
has come out to say “see you soon in Sanaa.”
Is power worth all this?
Colonel Gaddafi who ruled Libya for 42 years, and who bestowed titles upon
himself like “King of Kings of Africa” and “Dean of the Arab leaders”, may
provide a useful lesson on how power corrupts and subjugates. For he came to
power in the sole possible manner that power exchanges hands in our Arab
republics, namely via a military coup, raising revolutionary slogans and making
promises of change that all evaporated, leaving behind a man that lost his mind
trying to hang onto power. Gaddafi took part in crazy foreign adventures in the
belief that this would enable him to change the face of the world, according to
his bizarre theories put forward in the three parts of his “Green Book.” Gaddafi
said that he would implement a unique concept with regards to the rule of the
people that did not depend upon traditional democracy, which he viewed as a
failed mode because “representation is fraud” and “there can be no
representation in lieu of the people.” As for [political] parties, in Gaddafi’s
view these are nothing more than the modern equivalent of the tribal or
sectarian system and are an instrument of dictatorial government which means
that the “partisan game is a deceitful farce.” Following this, Gaddafi put
forward his ultimate solution to the problem of governance, an alternative to
traditional democracy. This solution was based on the People’s Congress and the
People’s Committee system that he set up in Libya. Libya spent billions of
dollars promoting the so-called “Third International Theory” put forward by
Colonel Gaddafi, dismantling the institutes [of a traditional state], with only
the People’s Committees remaining present, which Gaddafi utilized to tighten his
security grip on the people of Libya.
Some believe that Gaddafi was insane even before he took power; however there is
nothing to back up this theory. Most likely, wielding absolute power is what led
Colonel Gaddafi to lose his senses, whilst the prevailing conditions in our
region would only have aided his mental deterioration. Human history is full of
stories of leaders who were seduced and driven mad by power, establishing
dictatorial and suppressive regimes that destroyed their country and people.
However as the proverb goes, “thus always to tyrants”, for every dictator must
face the wrath of his people when their patience finally runs out, and so
Gaddafi today is facing the wrath of the good people of Libya who finally had
enough and who – in the beginning – took to the streets in peaceful protests
inspired by the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions. However Colonel Gaddafi
insisted on turning the situation into a bloody confrontation against those that
he described as “rats” when he made his famous “Zenga Zenga” speech in which he
vowed to hunt down the protesters “inch by inch, room by room, home by home,
[and] alleyway by alleyway.” Gaddafi’s battalions committed a number of
massacres, but in the end they were not able to stand in the face of the [Arab]
revolutionary spirit that was backed by Arab resolutions and NATO airstrikes.
Although it is true that NATO intervention was a critical factor in stopping the
Gaddafi troops advance to eliminate the rebels [in Benghazi], but these
airstrikes would not have succeeded without the steadfastness of the Libyan
revolutionaries and their determination, not to mention their sacrifices, to
ensure their revolution ended in success.
Colonel Gaddafi, who described himself as a “mujahid from the desert” ended in
hiding, from where he called for the Libyan tribes to rise up against the rebels
before he can be brought to justice. He was not defended by the millions [of
Libyans] who he deluded himself into believing loved him, for in reality they
abhorred him for 42 years of oppression, during which he contributed to the
poverty of his people and squandered his country’s wealth.
At the time of writing, the battle is not completely over, although it is clear
that the speed of the regime’s collapse – at the last minute – shocked
everybody, and is reminiscent of the manner that the Egyptian and Tunisian
regimes collapsed in the face of popular uprising. Whilst it is true that the
Libyan rebels took 6 hard months before they even entered the Libyan capital, in
the end they proved that steadfastness and sacrifice is enough to achieve
victory over any military machine or suppression, no matter how strong. Today,
the Libyan people are facing a new challenging era to complete the journey,
particularly as periods of transition are extremely difficult, as we have seen
in Egypt and Tunisia. The Libyan people must be patient and exhibit restraint in
order to pass the exam of building a new Libya, made up of democratic
institutions, and which is based upon general political participation that
supports the national cohesion that was reflected in the revolution and the hard
times faced by the rebels.
Libya will require Arab and international support and assistance in order to be
able to stand on its own feet as soon as possible, and in order to re-start its
economy and to lift the [economic] sanctions against it, as well as to ensure
that security prevails and stability is restored. Most importantly of all, this
[Arab and international support and assistance] must help Libya to build a state
of institutions from the wreckage of Colonel Gaddafi’s “Jamahiriya.”
The Gaddafi regime collapsed despite its policy of suppression and torture, so
will others understand this message? Particularly as the run of Arab revolutions
and uprisings that stalled – and which some thought had ended – is back on
course in Libya. So who is next? What will happen now in Yemen and Syria?
Syria: It would be better if the Arab League didn’t meet
26/08/2011
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat,
The Arab League is scheduled to hold a meeting of foreign ministers on Saturday;
the aim of which is to discuss the Syrian crisis and the Libyan file, following
the collapse of the Muammar Gaddafi regime. The Arab League is also expected to
unfreeze Libya’s membership, particularly as the country now requires the
support of all Arab states, which contrasts with Algeria’s behavior towards the
Libyan National Transitional Council.
As for the state of affairs in Syria – which is the crux of the matter – if you
can believe the information that a reliable Arab source told me, then it would
be better if the Arab League did not meet and the Arab Foreign Ministers did not
discuss the Syrian file. I have been informed that the Arab League is attempting
to put out a weak statement that satisfies all parties…a statement that
represents a number of different views. According to my source, the Qataris have
also succeeded in convincing the Syrian representative [to the Arab League] to
attend the meeting; under the proviso that the Arabs understand that Syria is no
Libya! If this is true, then the Arabs are committing a grave mistake against
the unarmed people of Syria, and against the security of the region as a whole.
The Syrian regime has committed the same sort of crimes against its citizens as
Gaddafi did against the people of Libya. Rather, the question that must be asked
here is: what Arab leader will today dare to shake the hand of the al-Assad
regime, whose hands are drenched in the blood of the Syrian people?
Someone might say that this is something that the Arabs have already done during
the reign of al-Assad senior, shaking his hand despite the Hama massacre, and
they did the same with Saddam Hussein despite his massacring of the Kurds. All
of this is true, but times change, as do circumstances, and the public today is
far more informed about what is going on around it. In addition to this – and
this is most important of all – the Arab region has witnessed the fall of three
Arab leaders in six months, whilst two Arab leaders are on the way to meeting
the same fate, namely the Yemeni and Syrian presidents. Therefore it is absurd
for Arab states today to place their own security in danger in an attempt to
polish the image of the al-Assad regime, especially as it is clear to the
Syrians and Arabs that the only state defending al-Assad – despite all the
horrors committed by the Damascus regime – is Iran. Indeed even the Iranian
regime today has begun a public relations campaign to improve its relation with
the Syrian people via Hezbollah affiliated al-Manar TV. In an interview with al-Manar
TV regarding the situation in Syria, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said
that the Syrian people have a right to demand “freedom, justice, and free
elections.” Therefore, it is only right for any statement issued by the Arab
League’s ministerial meeting towards Syria to be no less forceful than the UN
Security Council statement on Syria, the Human Rights Council statement on the
situation in Syria, and the historic address issued by Custodian of the Two Holy
Mosques King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz towards Syria. In the event that the Arab
League statement is less forceful than the three statements mentioned above then
this would mean that the Arab League – which we hoped would withdraw Arab
ambassadors from Syria and freeze its Arab League membership – has instead come
out to try and polish the blood-stained image of the al-Assad regime which is no
different in any way, shape, or form than the Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein. Such a
statement would itself constitute a crime against the people of Syria!
Libya: Pandora's box or coffer of jewels?
By Amir Taheri/Asharq Al-Awsat,
By the time this column appears, Libyan despot Muammar Gaddafi could be
anywhere.
He could be in Mauritania where he is reported to have extensive investments, or
in South Africa, or what about Venezuela where his “brother-friend” Hugo Chavez
is in power? Also, he may be in the hands of the rebels who have entered his
capital.
However, the truth is that, politically, wherever he is, Gaddafi is nowhere. The
mischief he has made in the past six months was the final bouquet in the
fiendish fireworks he triggered 42 years ago.
What is important now is to make sure that Libya does not end up with another
Gaddafi or a “lite” version of the colonel-clown.
However, it would be naive to think that post-Gaddafi Libya would simply reverse
gears and take the road to democracy. There is little in the Libyan society as
it emerges from Gaddafism to support that vision.
Comparisons with Egypt and Tunisia would be misleading.
Egypt had a taste of proto-democracy before Abdul-Nasser seized power. Partly
thanks to contact with Western Europe, Egyptian elites had at least flirted with
democratic ideas for 150 years. Before General Ben Ali imposed his police state,
Tunisia had lived under Habib Bourguiba’s autocracy that, though far from
democratic, was not despotic either. More importantly, perhaps, the presence of
a million Tunisian immigrants in Western Europe and North America, many of whom
visit the country every year, provided a human link to a different world.
In Libya, the situation is different. Most Libyans have known nothing but
despotism. Almost two-thirds were not even born when Gaddafi seized power. Apart
from Sufi fraternities, the country had few civic institutions. It never had
political parties of an appreciable size. Nor did it enjoy the experience of
free and robust media, even for a short while.
Thus, the current tendency of the Libyan society is towards dictatorship, not
democracy. It is no accident that a majority of the members of the National
Transition Council, now the interim government, consists of defectors from
Gaddafi's regime.
This does not mean that the individuals in question are necessarily bad men.
What it means is that Libya needs a system of government in which even bad men
are denied the chance to do mischief. A bad system run by the best of men seldom
does any good while the worst of men could do little harm in a good system.
As far as Libya is concerned the first rule must be: do no harm. One must not
assume that Libya is a blank page on which to draw the image of an ideal
society. Over the past weeks, we have seen dozens of “drafts” for a future ideal
Libya. Some of us have even been invited by the French government to help
produce “a project for society” in post-Gaddafi Libya. (Needless to say, we
refused.)
The only problem with Gaddafi's system was not that it was not democratic. After
all, democracy is a relatively recent method of government. Human history is
full of fairly successful, and relatively humane, societies that were not
democratic.
The fundamental problem with Gaddafi's system was that it was not Libyan in the
sense that it had nothing to do with Libyan history, culture and sensibilities.
It was a fabrication, a lie, imposed on the Libyan people. Beginning with its
very name, everything about this Jamahiryah was a lie. The “Supreme Guide” lied
to the people, and the people lied back to him. What Gaddafi achieved over 42
years was the destruction of the Libyan government, in fact of the very sense of
government in Libya.
Any system of government should reflect the history, aspirations, and realities
of the society it pretends to administer. The Gaddafist system did nothing of
the sort.
To be credible a system must have an inner logic and respect its own rules and
laws. The Gaddafist system failed on both scores. Over four decades, several
senior Libyan personalities, including Gaddafi's son Saif al-Islam, have
admitted to this writer that they were unable to define the inner logic of their
system. They were also obliged to admit that rules that one thought were in
place could change even while one talked about them.
In comparison, the defunct Soviet Union had an inner logic and respected the
rules it set for itself. Even under Stalin a senior official could not suddenly
”disappear” without discussions in the Politburo and, in most cases, at least a
show trial. Nor could the “Man of Steel” change a major policy on a personal
whim.
The present Communist system in China is another example. It is certainly not
democratic and, in my opinion, a bad bargain for the Chinese people.
Nevertheless, it has its inner logic and is respectful of most of the rules it
sets.
With Gaddafi hopefully gone, the lid has been knocked off the Libyan box of
mysteries. No one knows whether we have opened Pandora’s Box or a coffer of
jewels long hidden by an evil warlock.
The best thing to do is to let Libyans talk, and listen, to each other and the
rest of the world, and be heard. For four decades, only one voice was allowed in
Libya: that of the colonel. Let us see, and hear, if there are other voices and,
if yes, whether they are worth listening to. Before aspiring to follow a
democratic course, Libya must correct its freedom deficit.
A Politician who sees only what he wants to see
By Bilal Hassen/Asharq Al-Awsat,
Benjamin Netanyahu is an example of a politician who sees only what he wants to
see. Indeed, this has been a characteristic of many Israeli leaders, including
Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barack. Those two conducted negotiations with the
Palestinians and never imagined a situation other than the Palestinian official
[sitting in front of them] agreeing to their views and the Israeli plan.
This is how Olmert acted with President Mahmoud Abbas. Negotiations subsequently
ended in failure, and Olmert did not learn his lesson from this. Ehud Barack
acted similarly with President Yasser Arafat in Camp David, and thus
negotiations failed and he also did not learn his lesson.
Now Netanyahu is using the same approach but on a larger and more comprehensive
scale, transcending the Palestinians and impacting upon the entire Arab nation
and the region at large.
Negotiations with the Palestinians have ceased for a considerable time, without
any signs of a possible resumption. When Mahmoud Abbas found the negotiation
route to be blocked, he decided to go to the UN to seek international
recognition for the state of Palestine. Netanyahu was enraged; he cursed the
Palestinians and condemned their "diplomatic" stance. Netanyahu then initiated
an Israeli effort to win over countries to advocate his position. With much
concern, he claimed to be seeking the support of 60 to 70 countries for the
Israeli cause, compared to the 120 to 130 countries supporting the Palestinian
position. In a foolish move, Netanyahu also reiterated the warning which he gave
to the Israelis; to be prepared to confront mass Palestinian demonstrations,
which will cross the West Bank into Israeli territory. Netanyahu is convinced
that danger only lies in this location, and he never imagines that it may emerge
as a result of Israel's rejectionist stance, even if presented in a "diplomatic"
framework.
At present, Israel is developing its stance by bringing itself into
confrontation with Egypt, the state with which Israel concluded its strongest
security agreement, namely the "Camp David Accords". The confrontation was
sparked by the Israeli army launching a raid on the Israeli-Egyptian border,
killing three Egyptian soldiers. Yet the Egyptian reaction was weak; recalling
its ambassador from Tel Aviv and requesting that Israel make an official apology
for its act. Instead of handling the crisis diplomatically, Israel aggravated
the crisis further by declaring that it is officially considering the withdrawal
of its ambassador from Egypt. All this happened despite the fact that Israel is
constantly warning against potential damage to the Camp David Accord. If this
agreement was invalidated, Israel would endure many losses, whilst Egypt would
be liberated from a heavy burden on its shoulders.
Yet the most notable Israeli development with regards to Netanyahu, who sees
only what he wants to see, concerns Turkey. Ever since the brutal Israeli
aggression on the Gaza Strip, the declaration of the Gaza blockade denying food
supplies to one and a half million Palestinian residents, and ever since the
Turkish civilian ships moved towards Gaza in a symbolic act intended to lift the
sanctions, Israel's only reaction during Netanyahu's reign has been to attack
peaceful ships in international waters. Israel directly targeted a Turkish ship
and killed nine civilian activists aboard. Nevertheless, in response, Turkey
only demanded that Netanyahu issue an apology for the crime it committed. Even
when the US intervened a few days ago and explicitly demanded that Israel make
the desired apology, in the hope that this would revive Turkish-Israeli
relations, Netanyahu declined to respond, subsequently jeopardizing this
strategic concept. Netanyahu instead believes that Turkey should make an apology
to Israel for sending a ship to Gaza in clear defiance of Israeli policies. He
does not want to admit that a crime is being committed in Gaza, hear any Turkish
objections, or admit that Israel has killed Turkish citizens. Nor does he wish
to see any American demands and their political significance. Rather, he insists
that Israel should not make an apology to anyone. For Netanyahu, Israel is
always right and everyone else is wrong, including its largest ally, the United
States.
In addition to these three crises - Palestinian diplomacy, Egypt and Turkey - a
new Israeli crisis has emerged with Gaza. If a single missile is fired towards
the outskirts of a settlement, Israel will launch a raid to punish Gaza, destroy
houses and kill civilians. If a clash breaks out with militiamen ten kilometers
from Gaza, near the Egyptian border, Israel will still launch raids on Gaza.
Gaza is always deemed guilty, and whether or not missiles were fired from there,
responsibility lies with it.
Yet now a fifth crisis is currently emerging within Israeli society. Even inside
Israel, Netanyahu only sees what he wants to see. For the first time, Israeli
society is protesting against the priorities of the state's budget spending,
which goes primarily towards the army and settlement construction, whilst people
are currently seeking to change the direction towards social services, and the
construction of housing units for ordinary people. To criticize public spending
on the army in Israel has always been something of a taboo, because the army
enjoys sacred status there. Yet the current state of social anger has surpassed
this, and now people are denouncing this taboo, and claiming their demand is
both normal and just. Netanyahu's reaction has been a hostile one, where he
accused those calling for a decrease in military spending of threatening
Israel's national security. However, he was soon to be surprised by the army
generals themselves. Shaul Mofaz (former Israeli Chief of Staff and Minister of
Defense) has demanded an instant reduction in the military budget. He went
further to say that the budget is huge owing to bureaucratic spending, and even
if the army is sanctified, it should not remain so after 300,000 have taken to
streets to demand an end to social and economic injustice.
Thus, a comprehensive political tableau has formed incorporating the
Palestinians, Egyptians, Turks, Americans and Israelis themselves, all
criticizing Netanyahu's positions. Yet for Netanyahu, he can confront and reject
them all, and declare clearly that he alone entertains the right opinion.
How long can such a ruler remain in his position? Some say that he can remain
for a substantial term, as long as the American Congress offers him unlimited
aid, even if this is contrary to the will of the US President. Didn't the
Congress overtly force the US President to change his position and meet
Netanyahu's demands, when the Israeli Prime Minister was present at a Congress
session, and when he acted as if he was the US President himself? Didn't Barack
Obama end up apologizing to him?
How long can this inverted situation continue? Is this the eighth wonder of the
world?