LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِNovember 07/2011

Bible Quotation for today/The Purpose of the Parables
Matthew 13/10-17: "Then the disciples came to Jesus and asked him, Why do you use parables when you talk to the people? Jesus answered, The knowledge about the secrets of the Kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. For the person who has something will be given more, so that he will have more than enough; but the person who has nothing will have taken away from him even the little he has. The reason I use parables in talking to them is that they look, but do not see, and they listen, but do not hear or understand. So the prophecy of Isaiah applies to them: This people will listen and listen, but not understand; they will look and look, but not see, because their minds are dull, and they have stopped up their ears and have closed their eyes. Otherwise, their eyes would see, their ears would hear, their minds would understand, and they would turn to me, says God, and I would heal them.  As for you, how fortunate you are! Your eyes see and your ears hear. I assure you that many prophets and many of God's people wanted very much to see what you see, but they could not, and to hear what you hear, but they did not.
 

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Ensuring Israel's Qualitative Military Edge/Andrew J. Shapiro/November 06/11/US Department of State (press release)
Myth of the Iranian bear/By Ahmed Al Attar/November 06/11
Israelis see war as inevitable if talk of strike on Iran proves true/By Donald Macintyre/November 06/11

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for November 06/11
11 Killed as Syrians Rally on Eid al-Adha
March 14 to step up efforts to seek Cabinet collapse:  Fares Soueid
Lebanese MP Nuhad Mashnouq: Mikati deceiving Lebanese on STL funding
Qabbani Rejects Bickering with International Community, Slams Divisions
Hariri Tweets: Assad Regime Will Never Change Unless it is Changed
Bkirki Sources: Al-Rahi Asked Ban to Announce Lebanon a Neutral State
Khaddam: Lebanon Can Only be Liberated when Assad’s Regime Collapses
Rights Activist Hints Syrian Nationals Wrongly Charged with Arms Trade
Lebanese Forces students renounce NDU clashes
Lebanese bloggers, free-speech advocates concerned about regulations
Turkey's decisive about-face on Syria
Lebanon's Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri. Hezbollah's weapons not up for debate
Lebanese Minister AlaaeddineTerroNational dialogue can touch on all matters barring STL
Lebanese MP Ahmad Fatfat regrets rhetoric used in Parliament
President Amin Gemayel wants national dialogue to discuss Hezbollah’s arms
Energy Minister Gebran Bassil: Hezbollah's weapons target Israel
Interior Minister Marwan Charbel clarifies statements about political assassinations
 

Peres Warns Attack on Iran Getting 'Closer'
Naharnet Israeli President Shimon Peres warned on Sunday that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely, days before a report by the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog on Iran's nuclear program is due."The possibility of a military attack against Iran is now closer to being applied than the application of a diplomatic option," Peres told the Israel Hayom daily.
"We must stay calm and resist pressure so that we can consider every alternative," he added.
"I don't think that any decision has already been made, but there is an impression that Iran is getting closer to nuclear weapons."
His comments came after he warned in an interview aired by Israel's privately-owned Channel Two television on Saturday that an attack on Iran was becoming "more and more likely."
"The intelligence services of the different countries that are keeping an eye on (Iran) are worried and putting pressure on their leaders to warn that Iran is ready to obtain the nuclear weapon," he said.In France meanwhile, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe warned that an attack on Iran would be disastrous.
"We have imposed sanctions that continue to expand, we can toughen them to put pressure on Iran," Juppe told Europe 1 radio.
"We will continue on this path because a military intervention could create a situation that completely destabilizes the region," he said.
"Everything must be done to avoid the irreversible."In recent days, speculation in Israel has grown about the possibility of a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, with Haaretz newspaper reporting that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak were seeking cabinet support for an attack.
And the military last week carried out what Israeli media called a "ballistic missile" test, as well as a large-scale civil defense drill simulating the response to conventional and non-conventional missile attacks.Officials said both events were long-planned, but they drove talk in Israel about whether the Jewish state is ramping up plans for an attack.
On Sunday, Haaretz reported that U.S. officials had failed to secure a commitment from Israel that it would coordinate any attack plans with Washington.
Still, media reports suggested no final decision has been taken and that a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) nuclear watchdog on November 8 or 9 would have a "decisive effect" on decision-making.Previous IAEA assessments have centered on Iran's efforts to produce fissile material -- uranium and plutonium -- that can be used for power generation and other peaceful uses, but also for the core of a nuclear warhead.
However the new update, which diplomats say will be circulated among envoys on Tuesday or Wednesday, will focus on Iran's alleged efforts to put the fissile material in a warhead and develop missiles to carry them to a target.On Monday, Barak denied reports that he and Netanyahu had already decided to attack Iran over the opposition of military and intelligence chiefs.
But he said "situations could arise in the Middle East under which Israel must defend its vital interests independently, without having to rely on regional or other forces."
Haaretz said a majority of the 15 members of Israel's security cabinet were still against an attack on Iran, and a poll published by the newspaper found Israeli public opinion divided, with 41 percent in favor, 39 percent opposed and 20 percent undecided.
Israel has consistently warned all options remain on the table when it comes to Iran's nuclear program, which the Jewish state and Western governments fear masks a drive for nuclear weapons.Iran denies any such ambition and insists its nuclear program is for power generation and medical purposes only.
In comments published on Sunday, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi accused the IAEA of "political" behavior and said its report would be "baseless."
"I believe that these documents lack authenticity. But if they insist, they should go ahead and publish. Better to face danger once than be always in danger," several Iranian dailies quoted Salehi as saying."We have said repeatedly that their documents are baseless. For example one can counterfeit money, but it remains counterfeit. These documents are like that," Salehi said.
*Source Agence France Presse

Bkirki Sources: Al-Rahi Asked Ban to Announce Lebanon a Neutral State
Naharnet/Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi has suggested to U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon to announce Lebanon as a neutral country, Bkirki sources told the Kuwaiti al-Anbaa daily on Sunday.The sources said that al-Rahi made the proposal during his visit to New York last month. He allegedly asked for U.N. assistance to achieve this objective which serves the stability of Lebanon and the region. The suggestion complements another proposal made by President Michel Suleiman to transform Lebanon into a permanent center of dialogue between cultures and civilizations, al-Anbaa said.“The positive neutrality that the patriarch is calling for means not to be a follower of any country or regional or international axis,” the sources said.
Al-Rahi celebrated mass in Bkirki on Sunday. In his sermon, he said that if Christians are minorities in the east then they should preserve their identities. Bkirki’s press office has announced a postponement of the patriarch’s trip to the northern port city of Tripoli that was scheduled to take place on November 12 upon the request of Tripoli and the North Mufti Sheikh Malek al-Shaar.Al-Shaar is currently in Saudi Arabia to perform the hajj.

Qabbani Rejects Bickering with International Community, Slams Divisions
Naharnet/Grand Mufti Sheikh Mohammed Rashid Qabbani said Sunday that Lebanon should improve its relations with the international community and rejected any deal that would divide the region.“We should hold onto each other amid attempts to redraw the map of the world particularly in our Arab region,” Qabbani said in his Eid al-Adha sermon.
“We won’t allow for a new Sykes-Picot agreement in the Arab region that comes in Israel’s interest,” he said in reference to the 1916 deal that divided the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire outside the Arabian peninsula into areas of future British and French influence.“We as Lebanese should preserve our friendship with abroad and work on improving our ties with the international community and avoid bickering with it,” he said.“Our only enemy is the Zionist entity which has usurped the land of Palestine, Lebanon and the Arabs,” he added.
Turning to the bickering between the March 8 and 14 forces, Qabbani said in his sermon that the word “minority” should be limited to the parliamentary representation.
“Minority should be dropped from our public, social and national lives,” he said.“We are all majorities and there are no differences between us,” Qabbani added.
He stressed that “Lebanon does not belong to anyone,” saying it neither belongs “to any sect nor to any party or movement or politician.”Lebanon is for all its citizens who should reject its division, Qabbani told worshippers, asking them “do you want to break your country?”“We should hold onto our nation … reject differences and walk hand in hand towards a strong and fair state in which the Lebanese race towards serving each other,” he said

March 14 to step up efforts to seek Cabinet collapse:  Fares Soueid
November 05, 2011/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: In a bid to translate words of support for the “Syrian revolution” into deeds, The March 14 coalition will step up its efforts to see the collapse of Prime Minister Najib Mikati’s Cabinet that has shown total allegiance to President Bashar Assad, Fares Soueid told a pan-Arab daily.
“The Lebanese opposition’s role in the past was limited to voicing solidarity with Arab revolutions, including the people’s revolution in Syria,” the March 14 secretariat general Coordinator told Ash-Sharq Al-Awsat in an interview published Saturday. "But now we are trying to unite views in the opposition by moving from verbal to practical support for what is going on in Syria without interfering on the ground.”
Lebanon has adopted a neutral policy regarding unrest in its neighbor Syria in a bid to balance its international interests, with Mikati repeatedly saying that Lebanon should be isolated from regional events. The government disassociated itself after the fact from a United Nations Security Council presidential statement issued on Aug. 3 condemning the violent crackdown in Syria, a decision that received widespread criticism from the March 14 lawmakers.
The majority in the government, Hezbollah and its allies, have described the seven-month-old anti government protests in Syria as part of a larger conspiracy to target the rule of President Bashar Assad.
Souied said the Lebanese opposition had started to reprioritize its political objectives after the launch of the revolutions in the region, “and particularly after the Syrian revolution.”
The March 14 secretary-general said Mikati’s government was a main hurdle to progress on several fronts and said his grouping would seek its collapse.
“This support [for the Syrian revolution] will be [translated] by calling for the collapse of the government that no longer has a role other than to secure cover for the Syrian shabiha [thugs] in Lebanon, work toward withholding the funding for the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, particularly given that a key political party inside this Cabinet is implicated in the assassinations in Lebanon,” Soueid said.
In late June, the STL indicted four members of Hezbollah in the 2005 assassination of five-time Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The four men remain at large and Hezbollah has vowed not to cooperate with the U.N.-backed court, saying it is aimed at targeting the resistance group. While Mikati has voiced support for funding the controversial court, Hezbollah, a major player in the Lebanese government, has outright rejected the idea but has said that the Cabinet should either reach consensus or put the issue to a vote.

Lebanese MP Nuhad Mashnouq: Mikati deceiving Lebanese on STL funding
November 06, 2011/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: MP Nuhad Mashnouq launched a scathing attack on Prime Minister Najib Mikati over the weekend, describing him as disingenuous over the issue of funding for the Special Tribunal for Lebanon as well as belittling the intelligence of Lebanese by misrepresenting Hezbollah’s clear opposition to the court’s funding.
“He [Mikati] is deceiving the Lebanese when he pretends to be the champion of defending the funding for the Special Tribunal, forgetting or ignoring that the issue of funding is not a favor by anyone but a national duty on Lebanon imposed via an international resolution under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter,” the Future Movement politician said in a statement Saturday.
Mashnouq’s remarks were aimed at a recent interview Mikati had with the BBC in which the prime minister said Hezbollah had not closed the door on the issue of funding for the U.N.-backed court.
“Mikati joined a party ‘but’ by trying to belittle the Lebanese under the slogan that the doors are open to all possibilities except the possibility [of providing] the Lebanese their genuine right to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon … and this through his individual and unique reading of the words of [Hezbollah Secretary-General] Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah,” Mashnouq said.
In an interview with Hezbollah’s Al-Manar television station on Oct. 24, Nasrallah voiced outright rejection to the court, let alone funding it, and said that ministers in the Cabinet, where Hezbollah and its allies hold a majority, should either arrive at a consensus on the issue or, if that failed, put it to a vote.
Speaking to the BBC on the eve of his first official visit to the United Kingdom Thursday, Mikati acknowledged that Hezbollah held reservations about the STL, which in July indicted four members of the resistance group in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, but said that “Nasrallah left the issue to the constitutional institutions to play their part.”
Asked about Nasrallah’s suggestion that individuals that support the court fund it themselves, Mikati asked: “When someone says, ‘why not pay from your own pocket,’ does this not mean an acceptance to the principle of funding?”
Mashnouq criticized Mikati’s analysis of Nasrallah’s remarks on the issue of funding and said even its leader would be perplexed.
“Of course Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah would be the most perplexed about Mikati’s remarks for [Nasrallah] is the one who left no room for doubts during his interview that the party rejects outright the court,” Mashnouq said. On Mikati’s comments that Hezbollah had in principle accepted the issue of funding for the court, worth some $32 million, Mashnouq said: “[Mikati] is deceiving the Lebanese when he considers that ‘if you want to fund then from your own pocket’ meant acceptance in the principle of funding.”Hezbollah denies involvement in the assassination of Hariri and says the tribunal is part of ‘U.S.-Israeli project” aimed at targeting the resistance group and sowing strife in the country.

US Department of State (press release)
Ensuring Israel's Qualitative Military Edge
Andrew J. Shapiro
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs
Remarks to The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Washington, DC
November 4, 2011
Introduction
Good morning. It’s great to be back at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The Washington Institute is a place that will always be near and dear to my heart. They did after all give me my first job in Washington. I can tell you that the place has gotten a lot bigger and a lot fancier than when I was here. But that’s because of the great work they do and I commend the work of Robert Satloff, David Makovsky, and many others for helping to build the Washington Institute into the place that it is today.
I come before you at a time of dramatic change in the Middle East. In the past 11 months the region has undergone one of the most remarkable transformations since the end of the Cold War. Popular protests and uprisings across the region have brought about immense hope for the region. As President Obama said: “the United States sees the historic changes sweeping the Middle East and North Africa as a moment of great challenge, but also a moment of opportunity for greater peace and security for the entire region, including the State of Israel.”
However, change – even for the better – is never easy. The tremendous events of the past year also bring uncertainty. For Israel, a country with security challenges that few countries in the world can contemplate, the volatility that we are witnessing in the region, is both a cause for optimism and concern. But in these changing times, there is one thing that Israel can always be certain of – and that’s America’s enduring commitment to its security. To be clear, in this time of dramatic change in the Middle East, the United States understands the challenges that these changes could pose to Israel’s security. Our policies and decisions will take this uncertainty into account. As Israel looks to the future, it should know that America will be there by its side.
I am proud to say that this administration has taken steps to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship and preserve it in a new century and era of dramatic change. As a result of the Obama Administration’s commitment, our security relationship with Israel is broader, deeper and more intense than ever before. Prime Minister Netanyahu has said that the security cooperation between our two countries is “unprecedented.” In fact, I believe that no American administration has done as much as ours for Israel's security.
Yet, with such significant change in the region, we must continue to forge an ever closer relationship. As Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs, one of my primary responsibilities is to preserve Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge, or QME. This is not just a top priority for me, it is a top priority for the Secretary and for the President. To ensure Israel’s qualitative military edge, we are closely analyzing the changes in the region and assessing the impact on Israel’s security.
Today I want to talk to you about U.S. support for Israel’s security – about why this is important to the United States, why it benefits our national security, and about the steps we are taking to ensure Israel’s security in these turbulent times.
A Strong Partnership Supports U.S. National Security
So let me first turn to why this relationship is so important to the United States.
It is widely known that our two countries share a special bond that is rooted in our common values and interwoven cultures. It famously took President Truman just 11 minutes to extend official, diplomatic recognition to the State of Israel when it was founded in 1948. Since then, the United States’ unwavering commitment to Israel’s security has been one of the fundamental tenets of America’s national security. This commitment has stretched back over 60 years – across Democratic and Republican administrations – and has been continued by the Obama administration. As President Obama said, “the United States is committed to Israel's security. We are committed to that special bond, and we are going to do what's required to back that up, not just with words but with actions.”
The cornerstone of America’s security commitment to Israel has been an assurance that the United States would help Israel uphold its qualitative military edge. This is Israel’s ability to counter and defeat credible military threats from any individual state, coalition of states, or non-state actor, while sustaining minimal damages or casualties. This commitment was written into law in 2008 and each and every security assistance request from the Israeli Government is evaluated in light of our policy to uphold Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge.
The most direct tool that the United States uses to ensure Israel’s qualitative military edge is security assistance. For some three decades, Israel has been the leading beneficiary of U.S. security assistance through the Foreign Military Financing program, or FMF. Currently, Israel receives $3 billion per year in U.S. funding for training and equipment under FMF. To put this in perspective, the total FMF account is about $5.5 billion annually and is distributed among some 70 countries. So it is a testament to our special security relationship that each year Israel accounts for 60 percent of U.S. security assistance funding distributed through FMF.
The Obama Administration is proud to carry on the legacy of robust U.S. security assistance for Israel. Indeed, we are carrying this legacy to new heights at a time when Israel needs our support to address the multifaceted threats it faces. Despite these budget constrained times our commitment is unshakeable. For Fiscal Year 2012, the Administration requested more than $3 billion in security assistance funding specifically for Israel, the largest such request in U.S. history. These requests fulfill the Obama Administration’s commitment to implement the 2007 memorandum of understanding with Israel to provide $30 billion in security assistance over 10 years. Our funding commitment directly supports Israel’s security, as it allows Israel to purchase the sophisticated defense equipment it needs to protect itself, deter aggressors, and maintain its qualitative military edge. Today, I can assure you that – even in challenging budgetary times – this Administration will continue to honor this 10-year, $30 billion commitment in future fiscal years.
But today, in these budget constrained times – some are now asking the question why should we keep providing aid to Israel? Yes, Israel is a long time democratic ally and we share a special bond – but some skeptics are questioning whether that’s enough of reason to continue to spend hard earned American tax payer dollars on Israel’s security. I can answer that skepticism directly – we don’t just support Israel because of a long standing bond, we support Israel because it is in our national interests to do so.
This aspect of our relationship with Israel is often overlooked. America’s commitment to Israel’s security and prosperity has extended over many decades because our leaders on both sides of the aisle have long understood that a robust United States-Israel security relationship is in our interests.
Our support for Israel’s security helps preserve peace and stability in the region. If Israel were weaker, its enemies would be bolder. This would make broader conflict more likely, which would be catastrophic to American interests in the region. It is the very strength of Israel’s military which deters potential aggressors and helps foster peace and stability. Ensuring Israel’s military strength and its superiority in the region, is therefore critical to regional stability and as a result is fundamentally a core interest of the United States.
The United States and Israel also see eye to eye on host of strategic questions. Indeed, a new Washington Institute report by Robert Blackwill and Walter Slocombe articulates the strategic benefits of the relationship for the United States. The authors argue that “the commonality of interest has long been the dominant theme of the U.S.-Israel bilateral relationship.” Israel is a vital ally and serves as a cornerstone of our regional security commitments. From confronting Iranian aggression, to working together to combat transnational terrorist networks, to stopping nuclear proliferation and supporting democratic change and economic development in the region – it is clear that both our strategic outlook, as well as our national interests are strongly in sync.
The United States also experiences a number of tangible benefits from our close partnership with Israel. For instance, joint exercises allow us to learn from Israel’s experience in urban warfare and counterterrorism. Israeli technology is proving critical to improving our Homeland Security and protecting our troops. One only has to look at Afghanistan and Iraq, where Israeli armor plating technology is being used on U.S. military vehicles and innovative equipment, such as the specially designed “Israeli bandage,” is being used to treat our troops. The links between our two governments and U.S. and Israeli defense companies have yielded important groundbreaking innovations that ultimately make us all safer. This involves sensors, unmanned aerial vehicle technology, surveillance equipment, and detection devices to seek out IED’s that support our forces. Additionally, if we are considering the economic impact, it is important to note that our security assistance to Israel also helps support American jobs, since the vast majority of security assistance to Israel is spent on American-made goods and services.
In sum, while our commitment to Israel’s security is rooted in our shared values and outlook, we don’t provide assistance out of charity. We provide assistance because it benefits our security.
Regional Threats
Yet, the change that is sweeping the region has added a new degree of uncertainty to our efforts to ensure Israel’s security. Therefore as rapid change has swept the region, we have been intensely focused on meeting Israel’s security requirements. We recognize that today Israel is facing some of the toughest challenges in its history.
Despite the massive changes affecting the region, the threat posed by Iran remains. The Iranian regime continues to be committed to upsetting peace and stability in the region and beyond. Iran’s nuclear program is a serious concern, particularly in light of Iran’s expansion of the program over the past several years in defiance of its international obligations. As Secretary Clinton said, “for Israel, there is no greater strategic threat than the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran.” In response the Obama administration has rallied the international community and built an unprecedented coalition to impose the most far-reaching sanctions Iran has ever faced. Today, Iran finds itself increasingly isolated from the international community, making it ever harder for it to acquire materials for its nuclear and missile programs.
However, the dangers emanating from Iran go well beyond its nuclear program. This was clearly demonstrated last month with the uncovering of the Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador on U.S. soil. While such a brazen and reckless plot has surprised many around the world, to many Israelis, Iran’s menacing actions are all too familiar. Iran’s support for Hezbollah and Hamas, enables these groups to fire rockets indiscriminately at Israeli population centers. Iran’s extensive arms smuggling operations, many of which originate in Tehran and Damascus, weaken regional security and disrupt efforts to establish lasting peace between Israel and its neighbors. As change sweeps the region, Iran has and should be expected to continue its attempts to exploit much positive change for its own cynical ambitions.
Iran’s support also extends to Syria, which has long threatened Israel’s security. In the last few months, the true nature of the Syrian regime has been vividly displayed with its brutal oppression of the Syrian people. Violence is escalating in the country rooted above all in the regime’s refusal to allow a real political transition to go forward. Not only is the regime driving the cycle of violence and sectarianism – we believe it is a deliberate strategy. In these circumstances, a peaceful political transition is the only positive way ahead, and we urge President Assad to step aside and allow other Syrians to move it forward.
But despite the instability in Syria, its support for Lebanese Hezbollah continues virtually unhindered. Syria remains the vital link between Hezbollah and Iran. The Syrian regime continues to provide critical military and logistical support to Hezbollah, including safe passage for Iranian assistance to the group via overland transit routes. Hezbollah also maintains a permanent presence in Syria via its offices in Damascus. And there is growing concern in the region that Syria may be providing sophisticated missile technology to Hezbollah.
We must recognize that the ever-evolving technology of war is making it harder to guarantee Israel’s security. For six decades, Israelis have guarded their borders vigilantly. But advances in rocket technology require new levels of U.S.-Israel cooperation. Rockets with better guidance systems, greater range, and more destructive power are spreading to actors that threaten Israel. Hezbollah has amassed tens of thousands of short- and medium-range rockets on Israel’s northern border. Hamas has a substantial number in Gaza. And even if some of these are still crude, they all pose a serious danger. These and other threats to Israel’s security and civilian population are real, they are growing, and they must be addressed. And we are standing shoulder-to-shoulder with our Israeli partners to do so.
Maintaining Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge
Preserving Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge is therefore a multi-faceted endeavor that includes more than just security assistance or ensuring that Israel has access to technologically advanced defense systems. It also involves building operational capability through exercises, training, and personnel exchanges. It involves a close bilateral relationship with constant consultations. It includes taking Israel’s QME into consideration when conducting defense cooperation with other countries in the region. And lastly it involves maintaining and strengthening our very close ties with countries throughout the region.
But let me be clear on this point: the changes that are impacting the region are prompting us to redouble our commitment to Israel’s security. This is why this Administration is not only sustaining and building upon practices established by prior administrations, but we are also undertaking new initiatives to make our security relationship more intimate than ever before.
In this light, we are taking steps to help Israel better defend itself from the threat of rockets from Hezbollah and Hamas. This is a very real daily concern for ordinary Israelis living in border towns such as Sderot, who know that a rocket fired from Gaza may come crashing down at any moment. Recently, the rockets from Gaza were fired toward Ashdod and Ashkelon. As a Senator, President Obama travelled to Israel and met with families whose homes had been destroyed by rockets. So the President understands this threat. Secretary Clinton understands it. And I understand it, having visited the border with Gaza as well.
That is why last year, the President asked Congress to authorize $205 million to support the production of an Israeli-developed short range rocket defense system called Iron Dome. The funding for Iron Dome is above and beyond the $3 billion in Foreign Military Financing we provide. Iron Dome is part of a comprehensive layered defense against the threat of short range rockets fired at the Israeli population. Our funding enables Israel to expand and accelerate Iron Dome production and deployment and improve its multi-tiered defense against short-range rockets. This system is proving its worth. Having deployed several Iron Dome units to protect areas in southern Israel, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak noted that Iron Dome was showing “exceptional” results.
As National Security Advisor Tom Donilon said in a speech to the Washington Institute just a few months ago: “We are proud to stand by this project. It is imperative that we do so, because there can be no peace without security.” Helping to make Israel's population more secure from the short range rocket and missile threat its border towns face is not only the right thing to do, but it is the type of strategic step that is good for Israel’s security and for the United States’ interests in the region. Our support for Iron Dome and similar efforts help provide Israel with the capabilities and the confidence that it needs to take the tough decisions ahead for a comprehensive peace.
Additionally, we are working to better protect Israel from the threat of short and medium-range missiles. We are enhancing Israel’s Arrow Weapon System to counter long-range ballistic missile threats by co-developing the Arrow-3 interceptor. We are upgrading Israel’s Patriot Air and Missile Defense System, which was first deployed during the 1991 Gulf War. And we have also deployed an advanced radar system to provide Israel early warning of incoming missiles. Furthermore, David’s Sling, a system developed to defend against short-range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles, was developed jointly by Israeli and American companies.
Another way we help ensure Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge is through joint military exercises and training. Last fall we conducted the ballistic missile defense exercise: JUNIPER COBRA 2010. More than 1,000 U.S. troops participated in JUNIPER COBRA, making it the largest U.S.-Israeli military exercise in history. However, that accolade won’t last long. Because next year, we will combine the U.S. European Command’s premiere annual exercise, Austere Challenge, with the annual iteration of the Juniper Cobra exercise. This will involve more than 5,000 U.S and Israeli forces simulating the ballistic missile defense of Israel, making it by far the largest and the most significant exercise in U.S.-Israeli history. U.S. and Israeli forces also take part in numerous exercises throughout the year in order to test operational concepts, improve interoperability, and practice urban terrain and counter-terrorism operations. This intensive collaboration enhances Israel’s military capabilities and develops a greater understanding and closer relationship between our military and the Israeli Defense Forces.
This collaboration is also furthered by the fact that many Israeli officers and enlisted personnel attend U.S. military schools such as the National War College. These personnel exchanges allow Israel’s future military leaders to acquire essential professional skills, as well as build life-long relationships with their U.S. military counterparts.
A third way we support Israel’s defense needs is by ensuring Israel is equipped with highly advanced systems. Through both our government-to-government Foreign Military Sales program and Direct Commercial Sales, we are able to provide Israel with advanced products and systems that are restricted to only the closest of allies and partners. In the past few years, we have notified Congress of a number of significant sales, most notably the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The F-35’s advanced capabilities will prove a key contribution to upholding Israel’s military edge for many years to come.
Additionally, Israel benefits from a War Reserve Stockpile that is maintained in Israel by U.S. European Command. This can be used to boost Israeli defenses in the case of a significant military emergency. Also, like many of our partners overseas, Israel is also able to access millions of dollars in free or discounted military equipment each year through the Department of Defense’s Excess Defense Articles program.
We are also improving the process through which defense sales to Israel are notified to Congress. Israel will soon join some of our closest partners, including NATO members, Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand, as a country subject to an expedited Congressional Notification process. This also puts higher thresholds on the value of transactions that need to be notified to Congress. This means that the smaller routine sales and purchases that occur between allies can happen more quickly. By including Israel in this small group we are better able to meet their defense needs and therefore ensure their security.
Furthermore, unlike other beneficiaries of Foreign Military Financing, Israel is the only country authorized to set aside one-quarter of its FMF funding for off-shore procurements. This exception provides a significant boost for Israel’s domestic defense industry, as it helps them to develop indigenous production capacity and enables them to invest in research and development, which is critical to developing advanced systems.
However, what underpins all of these efforts to support Israel’s qualitative military edge, is the closeness of our bilateral political-military relationship. This Administration’s commitment to Israel’s security is not just about providing resources or just implementing existing policies. Rather, we have been cultivating new ways to ensure Israel’s security and enhance our relationship. During the Obama Administration, there has been an unprecedented reinvigoration of our bilateral defense consultations. And in the wake of the dramatic changes in the region, we are looking to expand these even further.
Through nearly continuous high-level discussions and visits, we have re-energized established dialogues such as the U.S.-Israel Joint Political-Military Group, or JPMG, and the Defense Policy Advisory Group, among others. I lead the U.S. government’s discussions within the JPMG, which includes representatives from both the State Department and the Pentagon on the U.S. side and the Foreign and Defense Ministries on the Israeli side. These discussions cover a wide range of political-military issues, but it is first and foremost focused on maintaining Israel’s qualitative military edge. The DoD-led Defense Policy Advisory Group also provides a high-level forum that is dedicated to further enhancing defense policy coordination.
But these forums are just one piece of a larger set of dialogues. We are conducting an unprecedented number of intimate consultations at senior levels of our governments. These small, often informal, private sessions allow us to talk about a wide range of security issues, ranging from defense procurement to regional security. These consultations provide an opportunity for our governments to share perspectives on policies, explain how we perceive certain threats, address potential concerns, and find new areas for cooperation.
One example of our growing cooperation, can be found in our joint efforts to prevent and interdict the illicit trafficking of arms into Gaza. In 2009, the United States and Israel began intensive consultations to address this threat. It has become a top agenda item whenever we meet for bilateral security talks. And these efforts have since expanded into a wider international effort involving more than 10 countries and international organizations called the Gaza Counter Arms Smuggling Initiative – or GCASI. The eighth GCASI meeting will be held in Paris in December. And under this multi-national initiative, we are working to employ a broad range of diplomatic, military, intelligence and law enforcement tools to stop the shipment of arms, especially rockets and missiles into Gaza that threaten neighboring Israeli communities. The United States and Israel are also working closely in a number of other areas, such as combating terrorist financing and countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction through the Proliferation Security Initiative. This collaboration is only possible because of the strength of our bilateral political-military relationship.
Our Commitments To The Region Support QME
Now let me turn to another critical component of our efforts to preserve Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge and that is our engagement with the broader region. Our QME considerations are not simply focused on our security assistance and defense sales to Israel, they extend to our decisions on defense cooperation with all other governments in the region. This means that as a matter of policy, we will not proceed with any release of military equipment or services that may pose a risk to allies or contribute to regional insecurity in the Middle East. In the wake of the dramatic events impacting the region, we are closely examining all defense cooperation in light of QME. And these assessments are aided by our close consultations with Israel, which I have mentioned.
But it is also important to note that our close relationships with countries in the region are critical to regional stability and Israel’s security. Our relationships with Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and many Gulf countries allow the United States to strongly advocate for peace and stability in the region.
For instance, our close relationship with Jordan has helped support peace in the region and is especially critical in light of the uncertainty in Syria. Our longstanding friendship and our extraordinary relationship of cooperation is reflected in the more than $300 million in security assistance that we provide Jordan annually. Jordan continues to provide support for U.S. regional priorities, such as the Middle East Peace Process, countering radicalism, stabilizing Iraq, and most recently Operation Unified Protector in Libya.
Additionally, our longstanding relationship with Egypt has helped support peace in the region. And we believe that as Egypt undergoes its political transition, it has the opportunity to become a model for a new democratic Middle East and an even more positive force for peace and stability in the region.
Yet we understand that change can also be unsettling. The attack on the Israeli Embassy in Cairo this last September raised legitimate concerns. However, I am confident that Egypt will continue to value the security and opportunities that the Israel-Egypt peace treaty provides. We are also encouraged by the positive, cooperative steps that Egypt and Israel have taken since then, including their cooperation on the release of Gilad Shalit.
Our close partnership with Egypt is rooted in the peace reached at the Camp David Accords and has been an important factor in maintaining peace in the region. For the past 30 years, the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt has served as the basis for the $1.3 billion in annual Foreign Military Financing (FMF) that we provide Egypt. This assistance helps Egypt maintain a strong and disciplined professional defense force that is able to act as a regional leader and a moderating influence. Our assistance helps build ties between militaries, ensures that foreign militaries conduct themselves in restrained and professional ways, and creates strong incentives for recipient countries to maintain good ties with the United States.
I know that the uncertainty over the Egyptian transition has prompted some in Congress to propose conditioning our security assistance to Egypt. The Administration believes that putting conditions on our assistance to Egypt is the wrong approach, and Secretary Clinton has made this point strongly. Egypt is a pivotal country in the Middle East and a long-time partner of the United States. We have continued to rely on Egypt to support and advance U.S. interests in the region, including peace with Israel, confronting Iranian ambitions, interdicting smugglers, and supporting Iraq. Egypt’s well-being is important for the region as a whole.
I understand that in these budget constrained times Congress will take a close look at all our assistance programs. However, now is not the time to add further uncertainty to the region or disrupt our relationship with Egypt: Conditioning assistance risks putting our relations with Egypt in a contentious place at the worst possible moment. As the Secretary explained, “We support the democratic transition, and we don’t want to do anything that in any way draws into question our relationship or our support.” The Egyptian people, not just the Egyptian government, view our assistance as symbolic of our support for their country and their transition. At this time of great change, we need to maintain the flexibility to respond to events and adjust our assistance accordingly.
Additionally, Members of Congress should be clear about the potential second and third order effects of cutting off assistance to Lebanon or the Palestinian Authority. We must ask ourselves – if we are no longer a partner, who will fill the void? We must think about the other potential partners that could fill the space we leave behind – and that should give us pause.
Furthermore, with our troops coming home from Iraq at the end of the year, Secretary Panetta has noted that the U.S. will continue to have a robust presence in the region. As U.S. forces begin to come home after years at war in Iraq, our diplomatic efforts, our development work, and our security assistance programs will prove critical to maintaining a robust presence in the region. Our total FMF funding amounts to just $5.5 billion per year, of which more than 80 percent goes to the supporting our partners and allies in the Middle East. Therefore deep and disproportionate cuts to the State Department budget, which accounts for just one percent of the overall federal budget, will not make a dent in the deficit or debt. But they will undermine U.S. national security and our ability to effectively engage the region. We don’t yet know how the budget discussions will play out but we are all bracing for their impact.
The last point I would like to make today is also one of the most important ways we work to support Israel’s security. And that is through our efforts to promote peace between Israelis and Palestinians. As the President and the Secretary, as well as many in this room, have acknowledged time and again, the status quo is simply unsustainable. Neither Israel’s future as a Jewish, democratic state nor the legitimate aspirations of Palestinians can be secured without a negotiated two-state solution.
Israel itself is not immune from the winds of change. As the people of the region attain greater freedom of movement, access to information and a deeper understanding of the political landscape, Israel will come under even greater scrutiny. This will certainly bring increased pressure to bear on the efforts to achieve a comprehensive peace in the region.
Israel has also faced concerted diplomatic efforts to undercut its legitimacy and isolate it from the international community. As the President has said, Israel's legitimacy is not a matter for debate. We have consistently opposed efforts to isolate Israel. We have stood up strongly for Israel and its right to defend itself after the Goldstone Report on the 2009 Gaza conflict was released. We have refused to attend events that endorse or commemorate the flawed 2001 World Conference Against Racism, which outrageously singled out Israel for criticism. This Administration has also made clear that a lasting and sustainable peace can only come though negotiations and remains firmly opposed to one-sided efforts to seek recognition of statehood outside the framework of negotiations, whether in the UN Security Council or other international fora.
Nonetheless, the United States remains committed to the pursuit of an enduring peace between Israelis and Palestinians. In his May remarks, the President outlined a comprehensive vision for peace between the parties, including goals and principles for negotiations. In doing so, he laid a firm foundation for future negotiations. His vision carefully weighs and balances difficult tradeoffs that the parties will need to make, which we believe are necessary to reach our common goal: two states for two peoples - Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people, each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace. We continue to work towards this goal and remain committed to using every opportunity and every tool to make this a reality.
Our work is rooted in knowledge shared across the decades by presidents and policymakers on both sides of the aisle that a strong and secure Israel – and an Israel at peace with its neighbors – is critical not only to the interests of Israelis and Palestinians, but also to America’s strategic interests. This is manifested in this Administration’s unwavering dedication to ensuring that Israel is prepared to defend itself against the multitude of threats it faces. Since day one, President Obama and Secretary Clinton have not only honored and re-energized America’s enduring commitment to Israel’s security, but have taken action to expand it to an unparalleled level. And I can assure you that under the leadership of President Obama and Secretary Clinton, the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable and our commitment to Israel’s qualitative military edge has never been greater.
Today, November 4th, is also somewhat of a somber day. 16 years ago on this day Yitzak Rabin was assassinated in Tel Aviv. The strength and courage Rabin exhibited as he sought peace in a time of great uncertainty is an example that lives on today. While Rabin was pragmatic and tough in his defense of Israel and its interests, he also had an unassailable optimism about the future. He not only believed that the world could be a better a place – that peace was possible – but he also had the strength and courage to try to make it a reality. As we ponder how to react to a world that is rapidly changing, we should remember Rabin’s example.
Thank you for your time and attention this afternoon. I look forward to your questions.

Israelis see war as inevitable if talk of strike on Iran proves true
By Donald Macintyre/New Zealand Herald
Saturday Nov 5, 2011 /Four out of five Israelis expect a strike by its military on Iran to lead to war with Hamas and Hezbollah, a poll showed yesterday after media speculation about a possible attack on Tehran's nuclear facilities.Yet despite the widespread assumption that the country would find itself in a war on at least two fronts in Gaza and Lebanon, Israelis are almost evenly divided over whether such a strike should be launched. The poll came after Thursday's test of a ballistic missile and the military's disclosure that three F16 fighter-bomber squadrons had exercised over Sardinia in the past week. Then yesterday, the Tel Aviv area held a drill to practice dealing with rocket attacks. The military was quick to say the drill had been arranged long before the present welter of media debate about whether the country's political leadership was seeking to ramp up support for a strike designed to damage Iran's nuclear capacity. But the publicity given to the test launch and the recent joint air exercise with Italy has helped renew the debate in Israel over whether a strike on Iran by its military is desirable or likely.
Some analysts have suggested this could be partly designed to increase pressure on the international community to tighten sanctions after next week's International Atomic Energy Authority report on Iran's nuclear programme and its widely perceived efforts to acquire atomic weapons.
Discussion between Britain and Israel over Iran intensified with a visit to Tel Aviv by the Chief of Defence Staff, General Sir David Richards, and the arrival in London of the Israeli Defence Minister, Ehud Barak. Barak saw Richards - who was also holding talks with the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) chief of staff Benny Gantz - before flying to London for a trip which included meetings with Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, and William Hague, Foreign Secretary. Officials emphasised that Richards' visit was one of a regular series by British defence chiefs to see their Israeli counterparts and had been arranged many months ago.
British and American sources say any military move in the foreseeable future by the Israelis would have to be sooner rather than later, because of the difficulties of winter conditions. Those in favour of an attack are said to be arguing that in a year the Iranian sites will be too well-protected for missile strikes. But some senior IDF officers are said to be arguing there is insufficient evidence to justify this claim and saying any decision on this basis would in fact be political rather than military.
And yesterday Nato Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said they were in favour of diplomatic means to resolve the dispute with Iran, adding: "Let me stress that Nato has no intention whatsoever to intervene in Iran, and Nato is not engaged as an alliance in the Iran question."
Yesterday's Haaretz-Dialog poll found 59 per cent of respondents thought it "highly likely" that war would occur with Hamas and Hezbollah and 21 per cent that it would be "fairly likely". Forty-one per cent supported a military strike and 39 per cent were opposed with only 11 per cent having no opinion.
Perhaps more surprisingly, 21 per cent of Israeli Arabs support an attack with 54 per cent opposing one. Thirty-seven per cent of "Russian Israelis" and 50 per cent of ultra-orthodox Jews support an attack.
Two respected security commentators, Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff, wrote in the Haaretz newspaper that the purpose of some of the military moves was "not necessarily an Israeli attack" but could be to spark international diplomatic manoeuvres to ratchet up sanctions on Iran.
But they warned this was a "dangerous game" in which, in the event of several weeks of tension, "one party or another might make a fatal mistake that will drag the region into war".
Haaretz-Dialog poll:

Berri: Hezbollah's weapons not up for debate
November 05, 2011/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri ruled out the possibility of discussing the issue of Hezbollah’s weapons in any future national dialogue sessions, as March 14 lawmakers maintain that the divisive issue is the single remaining item that needs to be addressed. “Whoever wants to portray the dialogue as a means to discuss Hezbollah's arms is mistaken since their agenda is clear and it is best we don't try to outsmart each other,” Al-Manar quoted Berri as saying Friday night.
Berri’s remarks comes only a few days after the speaker held talks with former Prime Minister MP Fouad Siniora, who heads the opposition Future Movement parliamentary bloc, on the need to revive national dialogue sessions, a proposal that was first put forward by President Michel Sleiman following the formation of the Cabinet in late June.
Since his meeting with Berri Wednesday, Siniora has placed conditions on resumption of all-party talks, namely that agreements arrived at during previous sessions be implemented, including those relating the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, the removal of arms from the outside the Palestinian refugee camps and the demarcation of the Lebanese-Syrian border.
He also said that the only remaining topic to be discussed was Hezbollah’s weapons.
However, Berri said during the interview that he had advised Siniora to think before giving a response for the dialogue calls.
The speaker also said that his reasons for wanting to revive national dialogue and his support for Sleiman’s calls to restart the all-party talks stemmed from for external and not domestic factors.“I think we are in dire need for dialogue at present. And if some think that the reasons ... are purely domestic ones, then I would like to assure [them] that my reasons this time stem from external [factors],” he said.During his interview with Al-Manar, Berri also echoed remarks by his allies in the Hezbollah-led March 8 coalition that the only strategy capable of defending the country was the tripartite formula of the “the army, the people, and the resistance.”
“They [Mach 14 politicians] should take it from me. [The strategy] is the tripartite formula of ‘the army, the people, and the resistance,’ and they can rearrange [the order] whatever way they choose.”Although the speaker did not elaborate further on the external factors, Berri said that his focus today was on the U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, saying: “[My eye] is on what a loser might do to export sectarianism to compensate for [his] losses.”Asked whether he was afraid of a possible attack from Israel against Lebanon, Berri said he was not afraid at all, but that “we should not dismiss” such threats either.Berri, who heads of the Amal Movement, also spoke about the controversial issue of funding the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, which in late June indicted four members of Hezbollah of involvement in the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.“Democracy ensures the right to propose anything for a vote in Cabinet, and whoever wants to put it for a vote in Parliament then they are welcome to do so,” Berri said.Hezbollah and its allies hold the majority in Prime Minister Najib Mikati, who has repeatedly voiced support for paying Lebanon’s $32 million share of the U.N.-backed court’s budget.“Western democracy has its advantages and the legal frame is clear and the issue is not related to the funding, which is a partial matter. It is related to whether or not it is constitutional and related to its establishment,” Berri told Hezbollah’s Al-Manar.
March 8 lawmakers maintain that the tribunal was not established via a vote in Parliament, but during dialogue sessions.

Lebanese MP Ahmad Fatfat regrets rhetoric used in Parliament
November 05, 2011/The Daily Star /BEIRUT: Minieh MP Ahmad Fatfat said Friday he regretted the rhetoric used during Wednesday’s Parliament session, when lawmakers from the Hezbollah-led March 8 alliance and the rival March 14 coalition exchanged such words as “violation” to refer to Hezbollah’s brief seizure of west Beirut in 2008 and Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon. “Some insisted on using the language they are good at using, like violation and other expressions when they talked about Beirut,” he told a local website.
Fatfat said Speaker Nabih Berri did well when he reminded lawmakers that Beirut was violated by the 1982 Israeli invasion.
However, Fatfat recalled that Beirut was “violated again on May 7- 8, 2008 when it was invaded by Hezbollah’s militia, which broke into the houses of officials, lawmakers and citizens, attacking them and looting them. This was a real act of violation of the capital.”

Lebanon's Energy Minister Gebran Bassil: Hezbollah’s weapons target Israel
November 4, 2011/Energy Minister Gebran Bassil said on Friday that “Hezbollah’s weapons only target Israel.” “The issue of Hezbollah’s weapons is not the only controversial matter in Lebanon,” Bassil told MTV television, adding that “there are more dangerous issues to be discussed, such as corruption.”Bassil also said that “Fatah al-Islam militants, who killed Lebanese army soldiers, are nowadays killing civilians and soldiers in Syria.”On September 2, 2007, the Lebanese Army took control of the Nahr al-Bared Palestinian refugees camp in North Lebanon, after three months of fighting Fatah al-Islam militants. Assad's regime has been engaged in a seven-month brutal crackdown of protesters that UN officials say has claimed more than 3,000 lives since mid-March.-NOW Lebanon

Lebanese Minister AlaaeddineTerro: National dialogue can touch on all matters barring STL
November 05, 2011/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Minister for the Displaced Alaaeddine Terro said Saturday any future national dialogue could include a variety of subjects barring the issue of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.
“All subjects can be proposed for discussions during national dialogue except for the Special Tribunal [for Lebanon] because it is a subject that was arrived at through internal consensus and it should not be politicized,” Terro, a member of MP Walid Jumblatt’s National Struggle Front, told a local a radio station.
“Ministers belonging to the National Struggle Front will vote in favor of funding the court and this issue is final and not amenable to change,” Terro added. Jumblatt’s parliamentary bloc maintains three seats in Prime Minister Najib Mikati’s Cabinet.
The minister said discussions were under way with President Michel Sleiman and Mikati on the issue of the controversial court in order to prevent a further fissuring among the country’s politicians. Jumblatt, who maintains he is a centrist in the government of Mikati, has voiced alongside the prime minister and president support for funding Lebanon’s share of the tribunal’s budget, worth $32 million. Terro expressed hope that the government would respect Sleiman and Mikati’s positions on the matter of funding the court, saying they “had pledged before the highest international authorities to fund.”In September, both Mikati and Sleiman were in New York on the occasion of the annual U.N. General Assembly meeting and they both voiced Lebanon's commitments to international resolutions, including those relating to the STL, which in late June indicted four members of Hezbollah in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Hezbollah has denied involvement in the case and has vowed not to cooperate with the Hague based court.

Lebanese Forces students renounce NDU clashes
November 5, 2011 /Lebanese Forces students condemned on Saturday recent clashes between pro-Kataeb students and Lebanese army soldiers who were deployed around the campus of the Notre Dame University (NDU), the National News Agency (NNA) reported. “Hezbollah’s youth [supporters] fire their guns in the air whenever [Hezbollah chief] Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah delivers a speech. Have fireworks become more dangerous than bullets and guns,” they asked in a statement. The LF students called on security authorities to embrace equal and impartial measures when dealing with security situations and to “impose the army’s authority” on all Lebanese land “without any exception.”MTV reported Friday that “Lebanese army soldiers fought with the students under the pretext that fireworks [launched by NDU students following the victory of March 14 supporters in NDU’s student elections] were disturbing the residents of the area; the clashes led to several injuries among the students.”-NOW Lebanon

Interior Minister Marwan Charbelclarifies statements about political assassinations
November 5, 2011
Interior Minister Marwan Charbel clarified on Saturday during a conversation with LFTV recent statements he made regarding the possibility of political assassinations resurging in Lebanon.
“[Some Lebanese political factions] misunderstood what I said in France. I said that if political schism [in Lebanon] stayed as it is today, then a third party [might interfere] and stir a minor problem that would later evolve into a big crisis,” Charbel said.“What we need to do is prevent [this third party] from taking advantage of our [political] rift and sit together on a roundtable to see which Lebanon we want since we in fact disagree on this issue.”Charbel on October 22 reportedly said that political assassinations will resume in Lebanon.Regarding the security situation in Lebanon, Charbel said that incidents are increasing. However, he added that the situation is not out of control. “The political environment affects the security situation.” Regarding the issue of abduction of Syrian nationals in Lebanon, Charbel confirmed that the four Jassem brothers were kidnapped. In March, Syrian National Jassem Merii al-Jassem and his three brothers Chedid, Ahmad and Ali were abducted in Lebanon. -NOW Lebanon

Myth of the Iranian bear
The regime must realise its military abilities have been degraded by sanctions making it tougher to achieve strategic objectives
By Ahmed Al Attar, Special to Gulf News
November 6, 2011
Kara/©Gulf News
In 1984 a movie named Red Dawn was released. It tells the story of a group of High School kids from Colorado who almost defeat a Russian and Cuban invasion of their hometown. The over-blown view of the threat of the Russian military then is similar to views of the threat of the Iranians and their military today.
Like all bogeymen, the fear of them does not match their reality. Iran’s military has been degraded from decades of sanctions and has seen its ability to project force crippled. The main elements of traditional symmetrical military operations are the Air Force, Navy and Army. The Iranian Air Force’s capabilities have been severely hampered through the lack of spare parts due to international embargoes. Its best fighter jets are the basic Soviet export version of the old MiG-29, and F-14s that have been in service from before the Iranian revolution. Its navy has a hodgepodge of ancient surface vessels, mediocre submarines, and modern small (but very vulnerable) fast-attack boats. While the Iranians have large ground forces, it is hampered by a lack of amphibious or airborne lift capability in order to project/transport their forces across the Gulf; notwithstanding the presence of the US Fifth Fleet. Iran therefore cannot use its ground forces to achieve strategic objectives.
The Iranian military is hampered by a system of embargoes that doesn’t allow it to purchase modern equipment from outside sources. Its military industry has made some strides in military production but many of its “indigenous designs” are simply copies or modifications of obsolete 1970s equipment. Its economic situation means that it cannot invest in the production of conventional equipment in large number to impact the regional balance of power.
Consequently, Iran has concentrated its resources in asymmetrical warfare. It has a long coastline on the Arabian Gulf, many strategic islands in the Gulf itself, and a vast mountainous interior. These geographical features allow it to engage in asymmetrical warfare involving the use of a combination of anti-ship missiles (ASM), mines, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and light aircraft. Iranian ASMs are an important part of its asymmetrical warfare doctrine. Iran has large quantities stockpiled in the Iranian-occupied islands in the Arabian Gulf and along its coastline. In July 2006, a Chinese-manufactured C-802 ASM fired by Hezbollah from the Lebanese coast was responsible for severely damaging the Israeli ship INS Hanit. It was given to Hezbollah, and is suspected to have been operated by, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). But the problem with such systems is that Iran can only sustainably deploy them from ground-based launchers. This significantly narrows down the areas where these launchers can be used, offering opposing forces a better chance of finding and neutralising them. Additionally, the Hezbollah missile was successful in part due the fact that it was completely unexpected, something that will not happen in the Gulf.
Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities, while impressive, do not allow it to compensate for its inability to field an effective airforce. While targeting civilian sites is a possibility for the Iranian ballistic and cruise missile force, the targeting of military installations and units effectively will prove to be difficult. There are a number of reasons for this: Ground and naval forces do not necessarily require the use of installations for very long periods of time, Airforce assets do require such support but the widespread use of Hardened Aircraft Bunkers (HABs) and improvised landing strips (like the modification of highways as landing strips as in Taiwan and Sweden for example) means that dependence on such infrastructure can be significantly reduced. Combined with the introduction of medium to long-range missile defence systems in the GCC, the striking power of a ballistic missile force is greatly reduced.
Another important point is that Iran’s stockpiles of ballistic missiles may be too few in number to have a major impact due to the sheer amount of targets it would have to engage. Ports, bridges, airbases, airports, and other installations would run into the tens of thousands. Iran probably has around 1,000 ballistic missiles (ranging from the older Scud-B variants up to its newer Shahab-3 missile, a modified version of the Korean no-dong missile). It is therefore logical to assume that while concentrated use of ballistic and cruise missile assets could damage some regional civilian and military infrastructure there is nothing to say that it could cripple everyday civilian life and military operations. The Iranian ability to deliver its cruise and ballistic missile systems accurately has not been proven under operational combat conditions. Iran claims that the accuracy of its Shahab-3s falls to around 200m CEP (cruise missiles, highly accurate usually have a CEP of under 100m). But this accuracy is under test conditions, hardly similar to warfighting conditions. The rapid development of Satellite and Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) technology will enhance the acquisition and targeting of ballistic missiles, both fixed and mobile, and degrade the Iranian ability to hit their targets. The Iranian missile forces may end up devoting a significant amount of their time to trying to survive a response from firing such missiles.
Iranian naval mining of the Arabian Gulf, and most specifically the strait of Hormuz is perhaps the most difficult to counter. Naval mines can be deployed through specialised vessels, civilian vessels, and aircraft. In 1988, the US frigate Samuel B. Roberts struck an Iranian naval mine and was almost lost. Naval mine deployment on a large scale would greatly restrict and hamper oil shipments and maritime trade in the Arabian Gulf, and would prove difficult, but not impossible to counter. But the mining of the Gulf would affect Iranian oil revenues as much of it not more than its enemies. GCC countries are seeking ways to avoid the Strait of Hormuz with the UAE building facilities on the Gulf of Oman.
While Iran sustained an eight-year conflict with Iraq, it quickly found itself out of options when it started to confront the US fleet in the tanker wars of 1988. Iran’s strategy then and now is not game-changing in nature nor sustainable. Targeting cities and states that have not directly threatened Iran with ballistic and cruise missiles will make it an international pariah, ala Iraq of 1990. Mining the Gulf and deploying ASMs would lock down trade not only for the Arabian Gulf states but for Iran itself. Once they have deployed their asymmetric card, the Iranian armed forces will quickly find themselves without air cover and subject to repeated air strikes. As in Libya, they will have to watch as their air force and navy are annihilated. Subsequently, their opponents will have a free hand to wear down their asymmetrical warfare capabilities through raids and air strikes. The Iranian military industries would probably share a similar fate. Iran would eventually realise that with its forces deteriorating and its asymmetrical warfare only expanding the scope and breadth of challenges it faces, it would be time to throw in the towel.
The availability of asymmetric warfare assets will therefore most probably turn into a strategic weakness if used. Because they are the only offensive military assets that Iran commands, they will be used as a last resort and will most probably be significantly degraded.
One of the reasons the Soviet Union broke up was that it saw that it could not hope to achieve its political goals through its military capabilities. Hopefully, like the USSR before them, the Iranians will realise they don’t have the military abilities to achieve their goals. And unlike the USSR, a bloody war will not be needed to show them up. Brinksmanship and the escalation of regional tensions will most probably be unsuccessful in the long-term, and the sooner Iran realises this, the faster it can rejoin the international community. Here’s hoping for an Iranian bear devoid of the need to parachute from planes.
**Ahmed Al Attar is a defence affairs commentator. You can follow him at www.twitter.com/ahmedwalattar

Turkey's decisive about-face on Syria
Ankara is uniquely placed to play a major role in assisting and encouraging emerging democracies with its vibrant civil society and private sector
By Joshua W. Walker /Gulf Bews
Published: 00:00 November 6, 2011
Turkey's bold backing of regime change in Syria — until recently a close friend — has caught many by surprise. By hosting Syrian insurgents and political opposition figures, and by readying harsh unilateral sanctions against Damascus, Turkey's about-face with Syria signals a potentially significant shift to much stronger support for the democratic Arab awakening.
That could reinforce the recent agreement between the Arab League and the Syrian government. Syria had said it would end the bloody crackdown on protesters, release political prisoners, and begin talks with the opposition — and Turkish officials say they have heard these promises before.
Turkey's firm break with Syria should also reassure Turkey's Nato allies, who had begun to question the commitment of the region's most established Muslim democracy to its Western ties and values.
The Arab Spring is forcing Ankara to confront the new realities of the Middle East. For the last decade, it has sought to open new markets and expand its regional influence through a policy of "zero problems with neighbours". It put no democratic preconditions on economic partners such as Iran and Syria, and this accommodating approach has sometimes caused friction with its Nato allies.
True, Turkey initially inspired admiration in the West — and Arab world — for its early embrace of the democratic revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt. But it misjudged Libya, where it had strong business ties, by initially rejecting sanctions and even opposing Nato's involvement, before ultimately changing course.
Model for rapprochement
And Turkey's bellicosity toward former friend Israel stood in stark contrast to its silence with Iran and Syria as they buried their citizens' demands for democracy. But Ankara's 180-degree turn with Damascus marks a decisive break from its "zero problems" policy.
In 2002, Turkey had invested more diplomatically and economically in Syria than in any of its neighbours. This transformed its relationship from one of military confrontation rooted in cold-war geopolitics and Syria's support for separatist Kurdish militants in Turkey, to one of economic cooperation. Turkey's ties to Syria became a model for rapprochement that Ankara then applied to other problematic neighbours such as Greece and Iraq.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is known for valuing loyalty. True to his word, he stuck by Syrian President Bashar Al Assad longer than any other western friend — to the point of risking his own credibility in the Transatlantic community. Following a similar pattern in Libya, he tried to play the role of mediator and empathetic friend until it became painfully clear that Damascus was no longer listening.
Now Turkey has advanced decisively beyond private criticism by leading the push for international action and sanctions against Damascus. Ankara is publicly hosting Syrian opposition leaders along with insurgents who have based themselves within Turkey's borders, and has reportedly been secretly arming the same forces. It's preparing unilateral sanctions that go far beyond what any western power has thus far attempted.
The breakdown in Syrian relations is having a precipitously negative affect on Turkey's ties with neighbour Iran, its chief rival — but also important economic partner — for influence in the region. Add to that Turkey's decision to host Nato radar installations aimed at Iran, and Turkey's interests are now much more convergent with the West.
Turkish-Syrian relations have oscillated wildly over the years. Given the countries' extensive shared border, security self-interest may be the overriding motive for this departure from detente. Turks suspect that last month's well-coordinated attack by Kurdish PKK militants in Turkey was supported by Syria as a throwback to the 1990s, when Damascus hosted the PKK leader as leverage against Turkey.
On the other hand, Muslim-majority Turkey's credibility as a democratic model for the region is being put on the line with every suppressed Syrian protest and refugee who flees to Turkey. Prime Minister Erdogan also recognises Turkey's historic opportunity: "Turkey is playing a role that can upturn all the stones in the region and that can change the course of history."
While traditional Turkish foreign policy has been conservative and inward focused, a ‘new' Turkey that boasts the fastest growing and largest economy in the region has far more tools to push a democracy agenda. As a result of its own process of reform, it is uniquely placed to play a decisive role in assisting and encouraging emerging democracies with its vibrant civil society and private sector.
Turkey may still have serious problems with its allies in the West — for instance, its accession to the European Union is stalled. But with its break with Syria, it is now working from the same script as the US and Europe.
From the point of view of Turkey's western allies, there is more reason than ever to refocus on Ankara's value as a strategic, economic, and diplomatic bridge between Europe and the Middle East, pointing the way from autocracy to democracy.
— Christian Science Monitor
Joshua W. Walker is a Transatlantic Fellow at the German Marshall Fund

Lebanese bloggers, free-speech advocates concerned about regulations
November 5, 2011 ?Los Angeles Times
REPORTING FROM BEIRUT -- Lebanon has long been a haven for press freedom in a region where censorship and state-controlled viewpoints often predominate. Now, some fear that proposed new regulations could pose a challenge to the country's free-wheeling online media culture.
The National Audiovisual Media Council, which regulates TV and radio, has asked all Lebanese news websites and blogs to register with the agency starting this month, according to local media reports.
The news has set the Lebanese blogosphere abuzz and raised suspicions of an effort to muzzle online media.
Abdel-Hadi Mahfouz, who heads the media council, told the Lebanese news website Now Lebanon that sites that fail to register could be subject to a ban, and that news websites will be asked to write an ethics code and help draft new legislation that will regulate news sites, according to the report.
The aim of the initiative, Mahfouz said, is to get a rough understanding of what types of online media are operating, in preparation for the new legislation.
He insisted that the council wanted to protect digital media -- not to restrict free speech.
"Our recent decision to organize the online media will only protect websites from a future government ruling against them. … If they are not registered or within our database, the government could easily ban them,” Mahfouz told the Lebanese English-language newspaper the Daily Star.
Little detailed information about the media council's plan was available, a fact that troubles press-freedom advocates. It was not immediately clear what the council defines as a news website or a blog, whether all types of blogs need to register and whether blogs will be put in the same category as news websites.
A quick browse through the Lebanese blogosphere and social media sites finds a torrent of criticism against the registration plan. Many are far from convinced that the council’s intentions are benevolent.
"Protect from what? Critique, free thinking, inquiry?" asked a posting on the Karl reMarks blog titled "Online Regulation? No, Thanks, I like my Freedom."
The media council’s proposal has also caused concern among press-freedom activists who fear the move could be a veiled excuse to impose control, and ultimately censorship.
Ayman Mehanna, executive director of the Beirut-based media watchdog Samir Kassir Eyes Foundation, said the proposed website regulation is worryingly vague.
“It can be everything and it can be nothing," he said. "This makes us even more suspicious of their aims and motives."
Mehanna charged that the media council has no power to implement decisions because it's solely a consultative and regulatory body. He went on to say that the council has "never been a real defender of media freedom and freedom of expression.”
The council recently warned a number of local TV stations not to broadcast certain episodes reporting about social issues because of concerns from religious figures and civil society groups, according to Lebanese media reports.