LCCC
ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِNovember
14/2011
Bible Quotation
for today/The Things That Make a
Person Unclean
Matthew 15/10-20: " Then Jesus called the crowd to him and said to them, Listen
and understand! It is not what goes into your mouth that makes you ritually
unclean; rather, what comes out of it makes you unclean. Then the
disciples came to him and said, Do you know that the Pharisees had their
feelings hurt by what you said? Every plant which my Father in heaven did
not plant will be pulled up, answered Jesus. Don't worry about them! They are
blind leaders of the blind; and when one blind man leads another, both fall into
a ditch. Peter spoke up, Explain this saying to us. Jesus said to them,
You are still no more intelligent than the others. Don't you understand?
Anything that goes into your mouth goes into your stomach and then on out of
your body. But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and
these are the things that make you ritually unclean. For from your heart come
the evil ideas which lead you to kill, commit adultery, and do other immoral
things; to rob, lie, and slander others. These are the things that make you
unclean. But to eat without washing your hands as they say you should—this
doesn't make you unclean.
Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from
miscellaneous sources
Protection of religious freedom
should be a priority for all democracies/By Tony Blair/November
13/11
Banking on not getting
sanctioned/By:
Matt Nash/November 13/11
Happy New Jumblatt! A Lebanese
Leader Gets Brave and What it Means/By: Barry Rubin/November 13/11
Why Did Sarkozy and Obama "Dis"
[Disrespect] Bibi?/.By: Barry Rubin/November 13/11
Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for November 13/11
Lebanon's Arabic press digest - Nov.13, 2011
Iran loses its top missile expert
in explosions sparked by failed bid to fit nuclear warhead on Shahab-3/DEBKAfile
Special Report November
13/11
Senior officer killed in Iran blast
Iran exile group: Explosion of
rockets caused deadly blast near Tehran
Poll: Most Americans back Israeli
strike on Iran
Bahrain says cell plotting attacks
broken up
Turkey FM: We oppose any military
strike on Iran
Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi Quits
Power
Merkel urges use of
more sanctions on Iran-paper
Syria takes bloody
new turn; 250 killed in 11 days
Head of the Syrian National Council
Burhan calls on Syrian people to “escalate revolution”
Arab League suspends
Syria, calls for sanctions
Obama praises Arab League for
suspending Syria
France calls for ending violence in
Syria
Britain: Syria’s suspension shows
Arab League 'frustration'
Lebanon votes against Arab
League decision to suspend Syria
Hariri Says Lebanon’s Stance at
Arab League ‘Shameful’, Doesn’t Express Will of Lebanese
Deputy Speaker Farid Makari
Lebanon’s position on Syria ‘reveals’ cabinet appointed by Syria
March 14 MP Marwan Hamadeh calls on
cabinet to “immediately” resign
March 14 General Secretariat
coordinator Fares Soueid: Arab League decision on Syria ‘historical’
No disagreement with Dar
al-Fatwa: Siniora
Aoun meets Rai in Bkirki
Al-Rahi Slams Ad-Diyar Report,
Denies he Visited Anjar
March 14 delegation visits Lebanese
border town
Kataeb Party leader Amin Gemayel:
Hezbollah’s Resistance is a ‘trick’
Lebanon's Arabic press digest - Nov.13,
2011
November 13, 2011 11:02 AM The Daily Star
Following are summaries of some of the main stories in a selection of Lebanese
and Pan-Arab newspapers Sunday. The Daily Star cannot vouch for the accuracy of
these reports.
Ad-Diyar
Arab League suspends Syria's membership
Patriarch Rai attack on Ad-Diyar ignoring the publisher of the book. Is the
person who conveys infidelity himself an infidel?
In a historic decision, yet harmful one to Pan-Arabism, the Arab League Saturday
suspended Syria's membership and before getting into the details we would like
to respond to Maronite Patriarch Beshara Rai who spoke and offended the dignity
of the owners of Ad-Diyar. That is because Ad-Diyar published one page from a
French book that Ad-Diyar has no links to. [The newspaper's] aim was to warn the
Maronite patriarch of the presence of this book in the market and has been
published on the Internet against the patriarch. Does this mean that those who
publish infidelity are themselves infidels? We say to the patriarch that we did
not actually publish the contents of the book. We will not publish anything that
offends us. We will not publish the contents of the book that was approved for
publication by the French House of Publications but we will publish two
sentences from French officials who participated in the meeting [with the
patriarch] who asked: How can Patriarch Rai, a man of religion and who is over
70 years old, dye his hair black contrary to the concepts of purity and the
value of the patriarchate seat?So why does the Maronite patriarch ignore the
publisher, the house of publication, and the French authorities and attack us?
Al-Hayat
Islamic Council rejects harming post of PM or placing Lebanon in confrontation
with international legitimacy
The Higher Islamic Council in Lebanon headed by Grand Mufti Sheikh Mohammad
Rashid Qabbani said the critical balances which govern the country required
respect for posts that represent the various sects in society.
Consequently, the council warned against harming the status of the post of prime
minister or harming any other national position and [warned] against revenge
taken by officials so that it would not reflect negatively on the general
stability in the country.
The council urged the Lebanese to remain vigilant of the dangers in the current
phase, bolster the local scene, steer clear from any conflicts. The council also
urged that Lebanon not fail in its obligations toward the international tribunal
and not to place the country in confrontation with the international community.
The council held its meeting in Dar al-Fatwa with the presence of Prime Minister
Najib Mikati and head of the Future Movement Parliamentary bloc, MP Fouad
Siniora, where they discussed developments on the Arab and Lebanese scenes.
Sources told Al-Hayat that the council's warning against harming the post of
prime minister stemmed from the heated debate that took place during a Cabinet
session two days ago while the ministers were discussing a draft law to separate
ministerial posts from parliamentary ones.
During the session, Free Patriotic Movement ministers insisted that the draft
law include the separation of the post of prime minister. That proposal was
rejected by Progressive Socialist Party ministers as well as Mikati's ministers
and prompted Mikati to say that the post of the prime minister was similar to
the post of the president and the speaker of the house.
The council also expressed its deep concerns over the scenes of killing and
violence that was accompanying peoples’ movements calling for freedom, dignity
and the right to a descent life in some Arab countries. It urged Lebanese
institutions and civil society to play an active role in guaranteeing shelter
for the Syrian brothers who were forced to escape their country and take refuge
in Lebanon.
Al-Mustaqbal
Government isolates Lebanon from the Arabs
Lebanon’s rejection of the Arab League’s decision on Syria will not go unnoticed
on the domestic and Arab scenes, especially given that Foreign Affairs Minister
Adnan Mansour insisted after the [League] meeting to express solidarity with the
Syrian regime in the face of Arab consensus, saying: "Lebanon cannot tolerate
that and it is useless," according to diplomatic sources.
In any case, Mansour, who travelled to Egypt, said that “suspending the
participation of Syrian delegations in Arab League meetings signaled danger and
we cannot agree with such a decision, especially the decision to withdraw all
Arab ambassadors from Damascus and place economic and political sanctions
against Syria.”
Diplomatic sources said that the Lebanese stance was expected because the
Lebanese government is the only that still defends the Syrian regime and it is a
government formed by that regime. Consequently, we cannot stand against
[Lebanon] but it is unacceptable for Lebanon to be in confrontation with Arab
consensus like Yemen. Lebanon should have at least abstained from voting .
Meanwhile, MP Marwan Hamadeh welcome the "Arab awakening which began by
supporting the fight of the Syrian people against its oppressive rulers," asking
the government to resign for isolating Lebanon from the Arab world in addition
to its international and national isolation.
An-Nahar
Hariri expressed disgrace over government’s position [on Syria]
March 14 discuss the fate of Syrian, Lebanese ambassadors
The Syrian event yesterday was also a Lebanese one par excellence. Foreign
Affairs Minister Adanan Mansour's position to support the Syrian regime during
the Arab foreign ministers' meeting in Cairo triggered a storm of reactions from
various parts of the opposition, primarily former Prime Minister Saad Hariri,
while other officials remained silent when we asked them about their reaction to
biases when faced with an Arab consensus. The official reaction will come during
Cabinet regular session Tuesday at the Grand Serail. Talks are expected to
center on how Lebanon is going to deal with the consequences.
A senior source in the March 14 coalition told An-Nahar that the alliance would
begin raising the issue of the fate of both the Syrian and Lebanese ambassadors
in Beirut and Damascus (Ali Abdel Karim Ali and Michel Khoury) respectively, in
light of the Arab ministers' call to withdraw all Arab ambassadors from
Damascus. The source described Mansour's decision as a reflection of Hezbollah's
government and Yemen's President Ali Abdullah Saleh. He noted that Iraq's
decision to abstain showed respect for the ties between Iraq’s government with
Syria and Iran and respected the domestic makeup of the country, something that
Hezbollah's government did not respect.
Source asked: "Where are they taking Lebanon after Hezbollah's Secretary-General
Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah announced that he did not recognize international
resolutions and Mansour's decision not to recognize Arab ones?"
Hariri said he was shamed of Lebanon’s position in the Arab league, urging the
Syrian people not to consider this a reflection of the will of the Lebanese.
During a Twitter session Saturday, Hariri described the Arab League's decision
as a victory and evidence that Arabs can take stances on the international
scene, adding that, finally, the Arabs had taken a position regarding the Syrian
people, who have been calling for freedom, democracy and dignity.
Obama praises Arab
League for suspending Syria
November 12, 2011 /US President Barack Obama on Saturday praised the
"leadership" of the Arab League after the grouping suspended Syria in a move
that deepened the Damascus government's isolation. The League said the
suspension will remain in place until President Bashar al-Assad implements an
Arab deal to end violence against protesters, and called for sanctions and
transition talks with the opposition. "I applaud the important decisions taken
by the Arab League today, including the suspension of Syria's membership," Obama
said in a written statement issued in Hawaii, where he is hosting an
Asia-Pacific summit. "After the Assad regime flagrantly failed to keep its
commitments, the Arab League has demonstrated leadership in its effort to end
the crisis and hold the Syrian government accountable. "These significant steps
expose the increasing diplomatic isolation of a regime that has systematically
violated human rights and repressed peaceful protests," he added. Obama's
government ditched its earlier strategy of seeking engagement with the Assad
regime after government forces unleashed a fierce crackdown on demonstrators,
which the US president deplored as "callous violence."
Now, Washington says Assad has lost legitimacy and must step down, and wants to
see Syria trace a similar political transition to other states caught up in the
Arab Spring uprisings that are reshaping the Middle East.In Cairo, the Arab
League said Syria's suspension would last "until the total implementation of the
Arab plan for resolving the crisis accepted by Damascus on November 2." Under
the deal, Assad's regime agreed to release detainees, withdraw the army from
urban areas, allow free movement for observers and media and negotiate with the
opposition.Instead, human rights groups say, the regime has intensified its
crackdown, especially in the city of Homs, an epicenter of protests. More than
3,500 people have been killed in the Syrian crackdown, according to the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights.-AFP/NOW Lebanon
Britain: Syria’s suspension shows Arab League 'frustration'
November 12, 2011 /British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Saturday's
decision by the Arab League to suspend Syria showed the "frustration" of its
members at President Bashar al-Assad's stance.Hague, who has previously called
for Assad to step aside over his regime's failure to end a government crackdown
on protesters, said Britain shared the Arab League's frustration at Assad's
"intransigence".The pan-Arab body, meeting in Cairo, suspended Syria until Assad
implements an Arab deal to end violence against protesters and called for
sanctions and transition talks with the Syrian opposition. Hague said: "I
welcome the strong stance taken by the Arab League today. "Its decision to
suspend Syria from Arab League activity until the Syrian regime stops the
repression of civilians and implements its commitments, demonstrates the
frustration Arab League members feel at President Assad's continuing
intransigence."
Hague added: "As Syrian security forces escalate the violence on the streets of
Syria, we and others across the international community share this frustration.
"We support the Arab League in its efforts to bring about an end to the killing
of Syrian people. The continuing violence is deplorable and must stop."
Under a deal struck on November 2, Assad's regime agreed to release detainees,
withdraw the army from urban areas, allow free movement for observers and media
and negotiate with the opposition. Instead, human rights groups say, the regime
has intensified its crackdown, especially in the flashpoint city of Homs, where
at least 125 people have reportedly been killed since the deal was inked.-AFP/NOW
Lebanon
France calls for ending violence in Syria
November 12, 2011/France, which has sought for months a firm condemnation of
Syria at the UN Security Council, urged the international community to act
swiftly to "make the violence end, protect the civilian population and allow for
political transition in Syria," Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said. He said that
the Arab League’s suspension of Syria demonstrated that "it is high time to step
up pressure on the Syrian regime so that it immediately ends the savage
repression against its population,” AFP reported.Earlier on Saturday, the Arab
League suspended Syria until President Bashar al-Assad implements an Arab deal
to end violence against protesters and called for sanctions and transition talks
with the opposition.
Lebanon, Syria and Yemen objected while Iraq abstained from voting. -AFP/NOW
Lebanon
Head of the Syrian National Council Burhan calls on Syrian people to “escalate
revolution”
November 12, 2011 /Head of the Syrian National Council Burhan Ghalioun called on
the Syrian people on Saturday “to escalate the revolution” so they can “get rid”
of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime “as soon as possible.”He also
called on international organizations to bear their responsibilities by
withdrawing ambassadors from Damascus and by imposing more sanctions on the
Syrian regime. Ghalioun also told Al-Jazeera television that the Syrian
opposition is “united,” and its aim is to overthrow Assad’s regime and establish
a democratic, civil country. Earlier on Saturday, the Arab League suspended
Syria until President Bashar al-Assad implements an Arab deal to end violence
against protesters and called for sanctions and transition talks with the
opposition. Lebanon, Syria and Yemen objected while Iraq abstained from voting.
-NOW Lebanon
Former Prime Minister Saad Hariri says “ashamed” by
cabinet’s position on Syria
November 12, 2011 /Former Prime Minister Saad Hariri said on Saturday in his
posts on the social network Twitter that he, as a Lebanese citizen, is “ashamed”
of the government’s position in the Arab League and asked the Syrian people to
not consider “this [position] the will of the Lebanese people.”Earlier on
Saturday, the Arab League suspended Syria until President Bashar al-Assad
implements an Arab deal to end violence against protesters and called for
sanctions and transition talks with the opposition. Lebanon, Syria and Yemen
objected while Iraq abstained from voting. The Arab League’s Saturday decision
is a “victory” for the League, Hariri said, adding that the decision “proves
that the Arabs can act on the world stage, starting with their own
turf.”“Finally the Arabs assumed their responsibilities regarding the plight of
the Syrian people seeking freedom, democracy and dignity.”“It is time for us to
bow our heads in prayer [and honor] the memory of all who have fallen on the
road to freedom and particularly in Syria,” Hariri added.
-NOW Lebanon
March 14 MP Marwan Hamadeh calls on cabinet to “immediately” resign
November 12, 2011 /March 14 MP Marwan Hamadeh on Saturday welcomed the Arab
League decision to suspend Syria and called on the Lebanese cabinet to
“immediately” resign after Lebanon objected to the League’s decision. According
to a statement issues by his office Hamadeh said the Lebanese cabinet has placed
the country in “Arab isolation” in addition to its “national and international”
isolation.He also slammed the Lebanese delegation’s “shameful” position at the
Arab League’s meeting in Cairo, and said such a position calls on President
Michel Sleiman, the parliament and the “honorable” ministers to embrace an
“upright standpoint.”Earlier on Saturday, the Arab League suspended Syria until
President Bashar al-Assad implements an Arab deal to end violence against
protesters and called for sanctions and transition talks with the opposition.
Lebanon and Yemen objected while Iraq abstained from voting. -NOW Lebanon
March 14 General Secretariat coordinator Fares Soueid: Arab
League decision on Syria ‘historical’
November 12, 2011 /March 14 General Secretariat coordinator Fares Soueid said on
Saturday that the Arab League’s decision to suspend Syria is “a historical
decision even though it came late.”He also told Future News television that, as
a Lebanese and an Arab citizen, he was “ashamed” of the Lebanese cabinet, which
“sided with a regime that was killing children.”
Earlier on Saturday, the Arab League suspended Syria until President Bashar
al-Assad implements an Arab deal to end violence against protesters and called
for sanctions and transition talks with the opposition. Lebanon, Syria and Yemen
objected while Iraq abstained from voting. According to UN estimates, more than
3,500 people have been killed in the crackdown on Syrian protesters who have
been demonstrating against the Baath regime since mid-March. -NOW Lebanon
Deputy Speaker Farid Makari Lebanon’s position on Syria ‘reveals’ cabinet
appointed by Syria
November 12, 2011 /Deputy Speaker Farid Makari on Saturday slammed the Lebanese
position opposing the Arab League’s decision to suspend Syria and said that
Lebanon’s stance “revealed the truth that the [Lebanese cabinet] was appointed
by the Syrian regime.”The cabinet’s position is a “flagrant bias” toward the
Syrian regime and contradicts the cabinet’s statement that it wants to distance
Lebanon from Syrian events, he said in a statement. “The Lebanese official
position [on Syria] is an obstruction of the Syrian people’s will and a
violation of Arab consensus.” Makari also said that it is “more honorable” for
Prime Minister Najib Mikati to step down and “distance himself from more
shameful and embarrassing situations.”
Earlier on Saturday, the Arab League suspended Syria until President Bashar
al-Assad implements an Arab deal to end violence against protesters and called
for sanctions and transition talks with the opposition. Lebanon, Syria and Yemen
objected while Iraq abstained from voting. -NOW Lebanon
March 14 delegation visits Lebanese border town
November 12, 2011 /A delegation from the Western-backed March 14 General
Secretariat on Saturday kicked off a visit to the northern Lebanese town of Wadi
Khaled, which sits along the Syrian border.According to the National News
Agency, March 14 General Coordinator Fares Soueid said upon arrival that the
visit is “a political message” intending to urge the government to handle the
unrest on the Lebanese-Syrian border “responsibly.”He said that Syrian refugees
are pouring into Lebanon to flee “the oppression” in their country.
“The Lebanese government is responsible for providing security to the refugees,”
Soueid added. He also said that “no one is allowed to pressure the Syrian
families,” and urged the Lebanese cabinet to aid the refugees. The NNA reported
that the March 14 delegation included MPs Nadim Gemayel, Antoine Zahra, Samir
al-Jisr, Mouin al-Merhebi, Ahmad Fatfat, Badr Wannous, Hadi Hobeich, Khodor
Habib, and other public figures.The northern village of Wadi Khaled currently
hosts more than 3,000 Syrian refugees and who have complained over some measures
taken by Lebanese authorities.According to LBC television, the refugees said
that “they are not allowed to move freely or travel to areas beyond the Shadra
checkpoint.” They also said that they are suffering from “lack of humanitarian
aid.” The UN estimates that more than 3,500 people have been killed in the
crackdown on Syrian protesters who have been demonstrating against the Baath
regime since mid-March. Thousands have fled to Lebanon seeking refuge from the
violence.-NOW Lebanon
Kataeb Party leader Amin Gemayel: Hezbollah’s Resistance is a ‘trick’
November 12, 2011 /Kataeb Party leader Amin Gemayel on Saturday said that
defining Hezbollah as a “Resistance” is a “trick that serves certain goals.”
“The term ‘Resistance’ is a trick because the weapons of Hezbollah are being
used for certain aims and to serve [the party] only,” Gemayel told the Voice of
Lebanon (100.5) radio station.
He said that the Lebanese government and army must take war and peace
decisions.Gemayel added that Hezbollah’s arms will harm the party, but said that
the Shia group is “the one that is taking decisions [on the behalf of the
government].”Lebanon’s Western-backed March 14 parties have been calling for
disarming Hezbollah. -NOW Lebanon
Poll: Most Americans back Israeli strike on Iran
Some 57% of Americans say they support Israeli military action against Iran's
nuke sites
Yitzhak Benhorin Published: 11.12.11, 18:58 / Israel News
Most Americans support an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear sites, while a
smaller majority endorses such US strike, according to a poll commissioned by
the Anti-Defamation League.
Some 63% of poll respondents characterized Israel as a "crucial ally" and said
that the Jewish state's relationship with the US does not undermine America's
image in the world.
As to Iran's development of nuclear weapons, the poll showed that 57% of
Americans support Israeli military action to prevent such scenario while only
31% opposed such move. Some 50% of respondents supported US military action
against Iran, while 44% expressed their objection to such strike.
Meanwhile, nearly half of all Americans said they sympathize with the State of
Israel, while only 18% said they sympathize with the Palestinians. Some 63% of
respondents said they believe Israel is serious about peace, while only 37%
thought otherwise.
Overall, 73% of Americans said that the US can count on Israel as a strong ally.
"The poll demonstrates once again that no matter the degree of change in the
Middle East, the one constant is the American people's strong support for
Israel," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. "It is particularly
significant that Americans 'get it' with regard to the need for direct
negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians as well as the need to act to
prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power."
The poll, titled American Attitudes Toward Israel, the Palestinians and
Prospects for Peace in the Middle East, encompassed 1,754 adults and was
undertaken in October.
Senior officer killed in Iran blast
Brigadier general in Iran's Revolutionary Guards killed in Saturday's explosion
at military base that left at least 17 people dead
Dudi Cohen Published: 11.12.11, 23:50 / Israel News
More details emerging following explosion near Tehran: A senior officer in
Iran's weapons industry was killed in Saturday's blast outside Tehran, officials
in the country said.
The officer, identified as Hassan Tehrani Moqaddam, held a rank parallel to
brigadier general in Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, the Fars news agency
said. He reportedly served as a researcher at a Tehran university and headed the
"Jihad Self-Reliance" unit, mostly tasked with developing arms and missiles
following the embargo imposed on Iran since 1979.
Saturday's blast killed at least 17 people and wounded 16 others, some of them
gravely. Earlier reports put the number of fatalities at 27, but a Revolutionary
Guards spokesman said the numbers were inflated as result of a "fax error." The
official apologized to the Iranian people for the supposed error.
'Missile base hit in blast'
Iranian officials said the explosion was an accident that took place while
munitions were being moved inside the military base. However, according to
opposition reports the base where the huge blast took place is home to a
Revolutionary Guards missile unit and holds long-rang Shihab-3 missiles.
A former spokesman for the Mujahedin-e Khalq, or MEK, in Washington, citing
reliable sources inside Iran, said Saturday that the explosion hit the Modarres
Garrison of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps west of Tehran. Alireza
Jafarzadeh said the garrison belongs to the IGRC's missile unit and the blasts
"resulted from the explosion of IRGC missiles."
Although Iranian reports did not refer to the possibility that the base was
struck from the air, some assessments indicate that the explosion may have been
the result of a military operation based on intelligence information.
Tehran Police Chief Ahmad-Reza Radan said that a specialized team has been
dispatched to the scene to examine the circumstances surrounding the blast.
AP contributed to the story
Iran loses its
top missile expert in explosions sparked by failed bid to fit nuclear warhead on
Shahab-3
DEBKAfile Special Report /November 12, 2011/
Brig. Hassan Moghadam, head of Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) missile development
and sections of its nuclear program, was killed in one of the two consecutive
explosions that hit two IRGC bases 46 kilometers west of Tehran Saturday, Nov.
12. The official fatality figure is 32. Fourteen hours after explosions blasts
could still be heard and fires raged. debkafile's exclusive sources report the
bases are located in Malard, a town in the Shahryar district. The Moadarres
facility was the first to be hit, while the second and bigger blast occurred at
Amir-al-Mo'menin.
Their force was such that the Iranian Red Crescent rushed 45 ambulances to the
two facilities plus 23 buses converted to first-aid vehicles and a helicopter to
evacuate the critically injured.
However, only six rescue workers were given access to the Moadarres base and
none were permitted to enter to enter Amir-al-Mo'menin because of the facility's
sensitivity.
Fourteen hours after the explosions, the blasts continued and fires raged.
Surrounding streets were closed and reporters kept away from the scene.
Our sources report increasing evidence that the first explosion was caused by a
failed effort to mount a nuclear warhead on a Shahab-3 intermediate-range
missile.
It was powerful enough to shatter windows and damage shops in Tehran. People
gathering on street corners wondered if Israel had attacked Iran's nuclear sites
or destroyed Revolutionary Guards missile bases. They recalled Supreme Ruler
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's threat Thursday, Nov. 10 to take the war to the streets
of Tel Aviv if Tehran was attacked.
IRGC spokesman, Brig. Ramedan Sharif, sharply denied what he said was
speculation that the military base was linked to Iran's nuclear program. "This
blast is not related to any nuclear tests," he said in response to widespread
rumors. He insisted the explosion had occurred at an ammo store which was part
of the Guards' "self-sufficiency" system, a term they apply to their munitions
plants and the factories manufacturing missile components.
The Iranian authorities, after raising the fatality figure to 32, withheld
information on the injured, most of which where transferred to IRGC rather than
civilian hospitals. Some may have been foreign engineers or scientists whose
presence Tehran is anxious to conceal.
The Emergency Council which deals with extraordinary happenings liable to affect
the regime's stability met in emergency session Saturday night.
Earlier Saturday, debkafile reported on the two huge explosions at two separate
military bases west of Tehran killing dozens of Iranian Revolutionary Guards (IRGC),
wounding many more and trapping an unknown number under rubble.
In Tehran, 40 kilometers away, windows were shattered and damage caused vehicles
and shops. The blasts were heard in Tehran's center.
debkafile's military and Iranian sources report that the explosions may have
been part of a series carried out by Iranian dissident groups last month.
The suspicion of sabotage was strengthened by the occurrence Friday of a big
fire at a Tehran warehouse used according to our sources by the IRGC for crowd
dispersal gear.
The ammo base blown up Saturday in the town of Malard in Shahryar district
contained large quantities of rubber bullets, tear gas and other ordnance. A
short time later, the second explosion hit a light arms depot at a military camp
of Bidganeh several kilometers away. That both were accidents is hardly
credible.
The two blasts were confirmed by the Iranian lawmaker Hossein Garussi without
further details.
Tehran recently broke up an armed dissident group called Oghab. Three members
were executed and the others were allowed to flee the country. An organization
of that name operates in the United States, but its leader denied involvement in
any sabotage operations inside Iran.
Arab
League suspends Syria, pledges sanctions
By OREN KESSLER/Jerusalem Post
11/13/2011 00:37
US, Europeans hail surprise move, which calls on Arab states to withdraw envoys
from Damascus; Cairo-based bloc has suspended members only twice before in
66-year history.
The Arab League suspended Syria on Saturday, pledging new sanctions against the
Bashar Assad regime for its bloody eight-month crackdown on protesters and
urging member states to withdraw ambassadors from Damascus.
The Arab bloc’s suspension – just the third since it was founded in 1945 –
underlined the Assad government’s deepening international isolation over a
brutal counterinsurgency campaign estimated to have killed more than 3,500
people.
“We were criticized for taking a long time, but this was out of our concern for
Syria,” Qatar’s Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani told reporters
at League headquarters in Cairo. “We needed to have a majority to approve those
decisions.
“We are calling all Syrian opposition parties to a meeting at the Arab League
headquarters to agree to a unified vision for the transitional period,” said
Sheikh Hamad, who is also foreign minister of Qatar, which holds the
organization’s rotating chairmanship.
Earlier this month the Arab League drafted a plan to stem the violence. That
program called for Syrian forces to withdraw from major cities, as well as the
release of political prisoners and official dialogue with opposition groups.
Damascus accepted the proposal, but took no visible steps to implement it.
Since the plan’s announcement, more than 100 people have been killed in the
protest hotbed of Homs alone, according to a Human Rights Watch report issued on
Friday.
Activists said at least six people were killed nationwide on Saturday.
Walid Phares – a Mideast affairs adviser to US Republican presidential hopeful
Mitt Romney and author of the recent book The Coming Revolution: Struggle for
Freedom in the Middle East – said the League decision reflects the
“internationalization” of the Syria crisis. “Expect Iranian counter-escalation
to respond to this move. One concern here is that Syria, Hezbollah and Iran may
trigger a regional, or a series, of clashes in multiple places to deter the Arab
League leadership” from following through, Phares told The Jerusalem Post in an
email.
Qatar’s Sheikh Hamad said the League may ask the United Nations to step in to
help protect the rights of Syrians.
“If the violence and killing doesn’t stop, the secretary-general will call on
international organizations dealing with human rights, including the United
Nations,” he said.
Syria’s Arab League representative struck back that the decision was “not worth
the ink it was written with.”
It was clear that “orders were issued to them from the United States and Europe
to hasten a decision against Syria,” Youssef Ahmed told Syrian state television.
Saturday’s move was surprising given that the Arab League rarely condemns the
actions of member states.
In 1979, the bloc suspended Egypt for 10 years after Cairo signed a peace deal
with Israel, and in February of this year it suspended Libya as the death toll
mounted in the popular revolt against Muammar Gaddafi. Libya’s suspension from
the 22-member League paved the way for the UN Security Council to support NATO
intervention in the country.
On Saturday, Syrian TV reported a demonstration outside the Qatari Embassy in
Damascus, while Assad’s opponents hailed the League’s new resolve.
“This gives a lot of strength to the position of the Syrian National Council.
This is now an Arab position,” said Basma Qadmani, a member of the executive
committee of the Syrian National Council, the most prominent opposition group.
The League was split between states such as Saudi Arabia and others that are
hostile to Syria’s ally Iran, and countries such as Yemen, struggling to quell
widespread unrest, and Lebanon, where Syria’s influence looms large.
Yemen and Lebanon opposed the suspension and Iraq abstained in the vote, Hamad
said. Political and economic sanctions would begin on Wednesday, he said,
without elaborating on the sanctions’ exact nature.
Sources familiar with the League’s deliberations said countries like Somalia and
Mauritania had taken a cue from Sudan and backed the tougher stance on Syria,
while Algeria was persuaded to switch camps under pressure from France.
“Algeria took the same position, which was challenging for the Arab League to
achieve because of the uprising Algeria had earlier in the year and its location
close to Tunisia, Libya and Egypt,” a source at the League said.
US President Barack Obama welcomed the decision, saying the suspension had
further isolated Assad.
“These significant steps expose the increasing diplomatic isolation of a regime
that has systematically violated human rights and repressed peaceful protests,”
Obama said in a statement from Honolulu, where he is hosting an Asia-Pacific
summit.
“We will continue to work with our friends and allies to pressure the Assad
regime and support the Syrian people as they pursue the dignity and transition
to democracy that they deserve.”
“The United States commends the principled stand taken by the Arab League and
supports full implementation of its efforts to bring a peaceful end to the
crisis,” the office of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton quoted her as saying
in a statement.
“The failure of the Assad regime, once again, to heed the call of regional
states and the international community, underscores the fact that it has lost
all credibility. As today’s Arab League decision demonstrates, the international
pressure will continue to build until the brutal Assad regime heeds the calls of
its own people and the world community,” Clinton said.
French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé said it was time for international bodies to
take more action. “France appeals to the international community to hear the
message sent by the Arab states, to take its responsibilities and to thus act
without further delay,” he said in a statement.
German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said the decision sent an important
signal to those in the Security Council who had up to now prevented a clear
resolution on Syria.
Andrew Tabler, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and
author of the new book In the Lion’s Den: An Eyewitness Account of Washington’s
Battle with Syria, advised the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week
to take a multi-pronged approach in confronting Damascus.
Tabler identified seven key steps in applying pressure on the Assad regime: Form
a contact group with regional allies and Syrian opposition leaders, help
opposition leaders draft a coherent working strategy, work to persuade remaining
Assad supporters to defect and push for more human-rights monitoring of the
government.
Tabler also urged lawmakers to prepare for militarization of the conflict, and
to explore “the possibility of the creation of ‘nofly,’ ‘no-go’ or ‘buffer
zones,’” and Security Council action.
“Security Council resolutions will serve as the basis for maximizing
multilateral pressure, especially comprehensive sanctions and possible future
use of force,” he said.
Farid Ghadry, president of the US-based Reform Party of Syria, called in his
blog on Friday for robust international engagement in helping bring down Assad.
“In politics, as in life, one either is more apt at making friends or at making
foes. In the Middle East, no Arab regime has as many enemies as the Assad
regime,” Ghadry wrote.
“Consider only a partial history of its actions against Syrians, Lebanese,
Iraqis, Turks, Israelis, Jordanians, Palestinians and Americans, and you will
get a sense of how easy it is to demolish this anomaly of terror,” he wrote.
“Everyone wants this cancerous existence terminated.”
Reuters contributed to this report.
Protection of religious freedom should be a priority for all democracies
12/11/2011
By Tony Blair*
There will be no peace in our world without an understanding of the place of
religion within it. The past decade has seen many convenient myths which
disguised the importance of religion, stripped away. Many thought: as society
progressed, religion would decline. It hasn’t happened.
Then there are those that insisted that as the Arab Revolution knocked over long
established regimes and created movements for democracy, so those societies’
religiosity would take second place to the new politics. It hasn’t happened.
Religion is fundamental to those societies and if anything, in the foreseeable
future, will become more so. And do we seriously think the issue of Jerusalem
can be resolved without at least some discussion of its religious significance
to all three Abrahamic faiths?
The virus of terror based on a perversion of the proper faith of Islam, shows no
signs of abating. But it is not only the acts of terror that should alarm us. It
is the extremism that promotes persecution of religious minorities too. The
challenge is that much greater where human dignity is not respected and freedom
of religion denied. This results in a general oppression of people of faith. It
means we must support Muslims in Gujarat, India; non-Orthodox Christians in
Moldova; Bahai’s in Iran; Ahmadis in Pakistan; all Christians in North Africa;
Hindus in Sri Lanka; Shi’a in several Sunni majority countries, and other
places.
The basic point is this: On every side, in every quarter, wherever we look and
analyse, religion is a powerful, motivating, determining force shaping the world
around us.
For some, this is final proof of the iniquity of religious faith. The answer
they say is to abandon it. But for millions of people, faith is not measured in
prejudice, intolerance or violence; but in love, compassion, a desire for and a
striving for a more just and humane world.
It is this belief in a higher purpose, and in an era of globalisation
particularly in the aftermath of the financial crisis, makes them assert the
civilising force of faith in the modern world. But for this to happen,
religious, secular and political people need to start talking with each other to
build peaceful co-existence.
The correct and welcome push towards greater democracy round the globe increases
the urgency. We need religion-friendly democracy and democracy-friendly
religion. I offer here a third way. Those of us inspired by our faith must have
the right to speak out on issues that concern us and in the name of our beliefs.
At the same time our voice cannot predominate over the basic democratic system
that functions equally for all, irrespective of those of faith or of none.
In turn, this should lead to a vital debate about the nature of democracy, a
debate all the more critical as we witness the Arab Revolutions. I find it hard
to define democracy by reference to one faith. The essence of democracy is that
it is pluralistic. It is inherently secular, even if rooted in cultures that are
profoundly religious. This is where democracy-friendly religion really means
something very important in the way society is governed.
It is about free media; freedom of expression; and about freedom of religion. It
is also about an independent judiciary and the rule of law and even about free
markets albeit with appropriate government intervention and regulation.
Political pluralism and religious pluralism go together.
The challenges are thus made very clear. Religion matters. Faith motivates and
compels. If democracy is to function effectively therefore, religion itself has
to embrace the open mind not the closed mind.
This open attitude of mind cannot be inculcated by politicians alone. It has to
be undertaken, in part at least by those of faith. They have to provide:
a) the platform of interfaith understanding and respect; and
b) the theological and scriptural justification for the open mind.
With the best will in the world, protective constitutional provisions will
remain paper aspirations if religious and government leaders do not educate
their constituencies in religious minority rights. A commitment to human dignity
means concrete action: training law enforcement officers to uphold these values,
teaching from primary school upwards of respect and understanding for people of
other faiths, religious literacy for national leaders.
This undeniably presents an enormous challenge to religious leaders: to draw
from their own traditions and sacred texts the values and vision that will
create a culture of democracy. The defence of the rights of people of other
beliefs should be a routine part of their work, just as they defend the rights
of their own community. Otherwise how can they stand as champions of universal
values?
The question whether the truth-claims of the monotheistic religions draw them
inevitably into intransigent, non-negotiable, positions is a real one. But it is
the interpretation of these truth-claims that is the problem; the repeated human
desire to claim that God is on our side, that we have formed the Party of God,
that our human frailty, cruelty and inhumanity is sanctioned by God. The
arrogance behind that is surely the true meaning of blasphemy.
The first is the reason I began my Foundation. Without inter-faith
understanding, the exclusivist and closed-minded attitude is allowed free
occupation of the religious space in politics. The second is where I, and others
like me in politics, need help. Religious leaders must step forward and engage.
How faith impacts us all must be a question for universities and schools, where
education about others is so crucial; and a political question.
Finally, were this to happen, there would be one major and positive consequence
for faith itself. It would open up the potential of faith to many who at present
search for spiritual meaning but have come to regard the practice of faith as
the preserve of the irrational, the superstitious and the prejudiced. It would
allow a true and rational belief in God to direct the path of the 21st Century.
That is where Faith belongs. And why the world needs it.
* Tony Blair is Former Prime Minister of United Kingdom and Founder and Patron
of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation. This is the edited version of a speech made
on 10 November on why the protection of religious freedom should be a priority
for all democracies. To read the speech in full go to:
www.tonyblairfaithfoundation.org
Al-Rahi
Slams Ad-Diyar Report, Denies he Visited Anjar
Naharnet /Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi slammed on Saturday a report
published in ad-Diya newspaper, describing it as a “false” report aimed at
misleading the public opinion.
Al-Rahi wondered during a meeting with Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel
Aoun how a newspaper would “publish such a false report?”
Ad-Diya newspaper published on Saturday a report about a French book entitled
“The Arabian Tsunami, Le Tsunami Arabe” stating the reasons behind al-Rahi’s
opposing position on the Arab spring in general and the Syrian revolution in
particular.
Author Antoine Basbous, who is from Lebanese origins, wrote in two pages about
the relations that linked the patriarch with the late Syrian Interior Minister
General Ghazi Kanaan, where Kanaan had planted espionage devices at the
Archbishop of Jbeil.
Al-Rahi said that he held a meeting with Kanaan at the Archbishop of Jbeil,
however “I informed Patriarch (Nasrallah)Sfeir, the bishops and then President,
PM and Speaker about the nature of his visit.”
The Author wrote that before the patriarch headed to Paris on an official visit,
Syria summoned over a bishop close to the patriarch to Damascus, where the
authorities allegedly asked him to warn al-Rahi against any negative statements
in Paris.
According to the book, the relations between al-Rahi and Kanaan go back to 1998
when then Patriarch Sfeir began his battle against the Syrian domination over
Lebanon, where Kanaan tried to break into Bkirki by using three bishops: Emile
Saade, Youssef Beshara and Beshara al-Rahi.
The author states that Patriarchs “ Emile Saade and Youssef Beshara revealed to
Patriarch Sfeir the scheme of Kanaan, but al-Rahi didn’t stop meeting Kanaan.”
Al-Rahi denied that he had visited Anjar, noting that a “person is accused when
he’s innocent. I’m not targeting the media, but the newspaper that published
this false report.”
He added: “How can we read a newspaper like this after today.”
Banking on not getting sanctioned
Matt Nash, November 12, 2011/Now Lebanon
Lebanese bankers are concerned the US may sanction the sector sometime in the
near future, which would severely hurt the local economy, despite reassurances
from the Central Bank. (AFP Photo/Joseph Barrak)
While there is some concern in the banking sector that US sanctions could be in
the offing, few expect Washington to deal what would be a crucial blow to
Lebanon’s economy. Assistant US Treasury Secretary for Terrorist Financing
Daniel Glaser visited Beirut this week as part of a regional tour and met with
top officials just as the Financial Times reported that “between three and five
billion dollars” flowed to Lebanon from Syria since mid-March.
Glaser, according to a press release, met with Prime Minister Najib Mikati,
Central Bank Governor Riad Salameh and members of the banking community. He
“stressed the need for authorities to protect the Lebanese financial sector from
potential Syrian attempts to evade US and EU financial sanctions,” according to
the press release.
Given the timing of the FT report and Glaser’s visit, there has been speculation
in the local press that Lebanon’s banks are flush with Syrian cash. Not so, the
banking community responded. One source in the banking sector, who spoke on
condition of anonymity because the topic is politically sensitive, confirmed to
NOW Lebanon that customer deposit growth slowed in October, indicating large
amounts of cash are not flowing in.
However, he noted that deposit growth spiked in April and March, but cautioned
that given Lebanon’s banking secrecy laws, it’s impossible to know for sure
(unless you’re the Central Bank) if that money belonged to Syrians or not. Also,
he said that there is no problem with individual Syrian citizens or
businesspeople moving money into Lebanon.
Lebanese banks would only be in trouble if they accepted deposits from
individuals or businesses subject to sanctions. Economist Jad Chaaban, echoing
comments made by Mikati on Tuesday, said that it would not make sense for banks
to accept deposits from sanctioned people or businesses because there’s too much
at stake.
“It’s in nobody’s interest,” Chaaban said. The economy would suffer if the US
sanctioned Lebanese banks, and they all know that, he added.
An aide to PM Mikati told NOW Lebanon that the issue of Syrian money coming into
the Lebanese banking system was not even discussed during the meeting with
Glaser, nor were sanctions on Lebanon.
In fact, the FT report specifically said money smuggled out of Syria into
Lebanon was not destined for the banks.
“Syrian money is being stashed in the grey economy that has long existed between
the two countries,” FT reported, citing a Syrian businessman.
The banker NOW Lebanon spoke with said that if money is coming over, people are
likely converting it from Syrian pounds and then keeping it instead of spending
it, arguing that this sort of activity wouldn’t have much of an impact on the
local economy. Chaaban pointed to Jordan and said it took years for an influx of
capital from Iraqi refugees to have any noticeable effect on the Jordanian
economy.
While they are apparently working diligently not to run afoul of US and EU
sanctions on Syria, Lebanese banks are still “concerned” about the possibility
of sanctions hitting Lebanon, the banker NOW Lebanon interviewed said, rejecting
the label that banks “feared” such action.
Indeed, the row over Lebanon paying its $32 million share of funding for the
Special Tribunal for Lebanon could potentially lead to US sanctions should the
country not front the cash. In late October, US Ambassador to Lebanon Maura
Connelly warned of “serious consequences,” should Beirut not fund the court.
The banking sector is a bulwark of the local economy, and Chaaban said that
sanctions, depending on their severity, could lead to serious capital flight. He
noted that banks would still likely be operational, but have problems finding
access to foreign capital, which would hurt them.
Moody’s investor services, reacting to Connelly’s statement, noted in a “Weekly
Credit Outlook Report” on Lebanon from October 31 that any US economic sanctions
aimed at the banking sector would have a negative impact. The rating agency said
that the banking sector depends on customer deposits and remittances from
Lebanese abroad to function, and highlights the fact that local banks fund much
of the government’s enormous debt.
“Sanctions that reduce the inflow of remittances or deposits could pose a threat
to the stability of the banking system and the sovereign’s finances. Lebanese
banks are the main lenders to the highly indebted Lebanese sovereign and their
capacity to fund government debt depends on the stability of their depositor
base,” Moody’s said.
Happy New Jumblatt! A Lebanese Leader Gets Brave and What
it Means
By Barry Rubin
http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2011/11/12/happy-new-jumblatt-a-lebanese-leader-gets-brave-and-what-it-means/
November 12,
Happy New Jumblatt! What’s a Jumblatt? Well, it’s a joke that tells us a lot
about Middle East politics. A friend of mine created the “Jumblatt” as a unit of
time, one complete rotation in the political maneuvers of Lebanese Druze leader,
Walid Jumblatt.
For example, during the previous Jumblatt, he moved from being a stalwart client
of Syria to join the March 14 Coalition to push Syrian troops out of Lebanon. At
the peak of the last Jumblatt, he gave a rather unforgettable interview which I
will paraphrase here (note: this is my wording not a precise quote):
Interviewer: Is it true that you called Syrian President Bashar al-Assad a dog?
Jumblatt: Yes, I did. But I want to apologize to all dogs for comparing them to
Assad.
But like all Jumblatts the last one came to an end. Threatened with death,
facing a powerful Hizballah militia, and knowing full well that he and his
coalition allies couldn’t depend on the United States or France, Jumblatt
surrendered in August 2009, deserting the pro-democratic alliance and joining
Hizballah’s coalition! He made his peace with Syria, going to Damascus and
bowing to Bashar al-Assad.
This was not something easy for a man whose father was murdered by Bashar’s
father.
I’m not suggesting that Jumblatt is a coward or a buffoon though, certainly, his
life has given him a sense of irony. After all, Jumblatt is the feudal
hereditary leader of the Progressive Socialist Party. See, names don’t
necessarily tell you what’s really going on, a good idea to keep in mind when
examining the humanitarian-style slogans of “Moderate Islamists.”
No, Lebanese politics are a life-and-death matter. Said Hariri, the main leader
of the March 14 coalition also knows his own father was killed by Bashar, yet he
had to bow down for a while, too, to survive.
What’s the lesson here? Middle East politicians must respond in some way to
threats and opportunities. When the United States overthrew Saddam Hussein in
Iraq, Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi suddenly decided to stop being aggressive
and cozy up to the America (little good it ultimately did him). When the United
States seemed weak, eager to coddle its enemies and bash its friends, the
Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood decided to overthrow President Husni Mubarak, a U.S.
ally (little good it ultimately did him).
But now that Bashar is under assault from a revolution, Jumblatt has taken heart
and made a dramatic speech criticizing Syria and asserting Lebanese sovereignty.
In other words, he’s changed sides.
Happy New Jumblatt!
Among his complaints are Syria’s use of Lebanese security forces to arrest
Syrian oppositionists in the country and ship them back to Syrian prisons;
Syrian troops entering Lebanese territory; and the use of torture by the Syrian
regime.
Perhaps this will mark the revitalization of the March 14 Coalition. But can it
hope for Western help? Can the democratic Iranian, Turkish, and Syrian
oppositions depend on Western—especially American—help? How about the real
moderate parties in Tunisia and Egypt (and perhaps soon in Libya)?
No. The Obama Administration is too busy helping the Islamists. It isn’t hard to
understand the reality of how international affairs work: The more aid,
encouragement, and support given to the anti-Islamist forces, the braver they
will be and the more they will achieve.
This is not a mere matter of the “enemy of the enemy is my friend.” True, some
of those allies are repressive dictatorships like the Saudi monarchy. Yet most
of them are “good guys” in themselves, or at least the best you’re going to find
in the region. Why encourage their enemies and ours? If the United States and
Europe had a better policy there would be many more “New Jumblatts” moving in a
good direction, and they would last longer. Now that would be a real Arab
Spring.
Why Did Sarkozy and Obama "Dis" [Disrespect] Bibi?
.by Barry Rubin on Friday, November 11, 2011
http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2011/11/11/why-did-sarkozy-and-obama-dis-disrespect-bibi/
During a conversation when they thought nobody was listening French President
Nicholas Sarkozy and U.S. President Barack Obama said nasty things about Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. A lot of the analysis about what this tells
us I think is rather misleading.
Regarding Sarkozy, French-Israel relations have been good and there have not
been major problems with Sarkozy. On one hand, Sarkozy has been far friendlier
to Israel than his Gaullist and Socialist predecessors. True, he is surrounded
by some hostile advisors, including the career staff at the Foreign Ministry,
but on the other hand there is a defense and counterterrorism establishment that
admires Israel.
Indeed, Sarkozy helped kill the Palestinian unilateral independence effort in
the UN Security Council, a major service to Israel. Yet France voted in favor of
the Palesstinian entry into the UNESCO organization. Incidentally, Sarkozy has
also not been a fan of Obama in the past.
Why suddenly has Sarkozy turned against Netanyahu? I can't prove it but I think
there is evidence for the following scenario. Sarkozy decided that he was going
to broker a major deal at the UN, showing that France was a leading great power
in the world. (A theme I think you have heard before is a major French goal.) So
he went to Netanyahu with a proposal: Israel would accept unilateral
independence for Palestine and Sarkozy would get Israel something from the
Palestinians (perhaps recognition of a Jewish state?)
Netanyahu played along a bit but, of course, knew that Sarkozy wouldn't get
anything from the Palestinian Authority. Sarkozy's idea--like that of virtually
all the well-intentioned or bad-intentioned, naive or cynical, friendly or
hostile to Israel busybodies who think they are going to make peace--just didn't
make real sense. At any rate, Sarkozy thought he had something from Israel that
he didn't have. His UN speech implying he wanted to support unilateral
independence was certainly bad from Israel's standpoint.
The deal fell through--it was doomed from the start since the Palestinian
Authority wouldn't compromise--and, of course, he blamed Israel and not the
Palestinians. Hence his fury that Netanyahu was a "liar."
As for Obama, some have explained his remark about frustrations in dealing with
Netanyahu every day as just going along with Sarkozy. Others claimed Obama's
remark was justified. This latter point is absurd. The truth is that Netanyahu
has done everything Obama has asked while the PA has done nothing at all. If
only there was a U.S. president who talked that way. But there's more,
apparently, to be gained by bashing Israel and coddling the PA in words.
Remember two things. First, U.S. policy has taken virtually no material action
against Israel in terms of bilateral relations. The hostility is all words.
Better nasty words and okay actions than the other way around.
Second, when PA leader Yasir Arafat doomed the Camp David talks in 2000 and
turned to massive violence, then President Bill Clinton was livid. He openly
blamed Arafat and the PA. Over time, though, this was all forgotten. Clinton
today blames Israel for the lack of peace.
Why recent American presidents behave this way would have to be the subject of
another article. But you all know the list of factors involved.
An interesting question is this: What could Netanyahu have possibly done to
underpin Obama's anger? There is only one real possible argument: Netanyahu's
trip to Washington in which he gave Obama a lesson in Middle East politics and
made a stirring speech to Congress that made Obama look foolish.
But why did Netanyahu do this? Only because while on the way to Washington he
was ambushed by a major Obama speech--which had not been discussed with him
beforehand--that badly undercut Israel's strategic position. The point most
cited in the speech was the idea of returning to the 1967 borders but there are
worse things in it. Besides the substance, you just don't present a major new
policy critical of an ally's interests while he's on the plane to Washington and
you haven't even fully discussed it with him.
I could here provide a list of broken promises from Obama to Israel along with
insulting and verbally damaging behavior.
But put that aside. Obama's Administration has endorsed Israel's deadliest enemy
and the most important antisemitic group in the world--the Muslim
Brotherhood--coming to power in Egypt. A similar stance is being taken toward
Tunisia and Libya; U.S. policy is treating the Islamist regime in Turkey as its
closest ally in the Middle East despite that country's leader making hysterical
anti-Israel rants and virtually threatening war on Israel. The Obama
Administration is also helping Islamists in Syria and doing lots of other
dangerous things on a regional level.
In the face of this long list of damage being done by Obama to Israel, he has a
lot of nerve to snap about Netanyahu. Meanwhile, we are still being told from
certain quarters that Obama is the most pro-Israel president in history,
practically Jewish, and we should shut up about any criticism, get down on our
knees and vote for him.
A little lesson in diplomacy: the king of the land is the king. Israel must get
along with Obama to the best of its ability. It cannot criticize him in public
and must be circumspect in discussing even his policies. It must take the course
of a university official in a Terry Pratchett book who told his boss: "You're
right, sir, but I can tell you how to be even more right!" Suppose you were to
ask an Israeli official what he thinks of Obama and his policies? If completely
candid, that person would respond: It doesn't matter what I think we have to do
our best to get along with him.
Ironically, Obama says that he is ashamed of past U.S. bullying and arrogance,
its treatment of smaller countries. Often, however, that only seems to be true
regarding countries hostile to the United States. The fact is that Israel's
existence is on the line and Obama is playing with that country's fate.
I won't go further here but if I make the mistake of talking in front of a
microphone that I think is "off," I might get caught complaining that we have to
deal with Obama every day.
.