LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِAugust 27/2011

Bible Quotation for today.

Exodus 20:1-26 And God spoke all these words, saying, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. “You shall have no other gods before me. “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, .

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?