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.



.