LCCC
ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِSeptember
23/2011
Bible Quotation for today
Matthew
5/1-11/Seeing the multitudes, he went up onto the mountain. When he had sat
down, his disciples came to him. He
opened his mouth and taught them, saying, “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. (Isaiah 57:15; 66:2) Blessed are
those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. (Isaiah 61:2; 66:10,13), Blessed
are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth. or, land. (Psalm 37:11),
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be
filled. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are
the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers,for they
shall be called children of God. Blessed are those who have been persecuted for
righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.1 “Blessed are you when
people reproach you, persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you
falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceedingly glad, for great is your
reward in heaven. For that is how they persecuted the prophets who were before
you.
Latest
analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases
from
miscellaneous
sources
Assad Has No Friend in Lebanon's
Christians/By: Karim A. Soyaid/September 22/11
Maronites pray to a
dispiriting trinity//By
Michael Young/September 22/11
The post-Assad
phase/By
Tariq Alhomayed/September 22/11
Will
Ahmadinejad be Iran’s Sadat?/By Ali Ibrahim/September 22/11
U.S. should recognize Palestinian state/By Zvi Bar'el/September 22/11
Netanyahu must be stopped from attacking Iran/By Sefi Rachlevsky/September 22/11
Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for September 22/11
Obama Says No 'Short Cut' to Middle
East Peace
Obama rejects Palestinian U.N. statehood bid
Senior Palestinian official: UN bid is only alternative to violence
Sarkozy Urges U.N. to Admit Palestine as Non-Member State
Syrian forces kill 6, face challenge from defectors
UNIFIL celebrates International Day of Peace
Pietton Tells al-Rahi French Officials Were 'Pleased to Host Him'
Sleiman tells U.N. Lebanon committed to STL
Sleiman and Ahmadinejad discuss bilateral ties
Russia banks on Assad’s survival as billions in arms deals hang in balance
French envoy meets Rai after controversial comments
Lebanese
Parliamentarians reach consensus on electricity bill
Future bloc condemns Syrian army incursion
Iran frees two U.S. 'hikers' after $500,000 bail paid by Oman
Syria accuses Israel of posing 'nuclear threat' to the world
Turkey's Erdogan calls Israel's offshore gas drilling 'madness'
Candidate: I'd support Hamas and Hezbollah if I became
president
Presidential candidate Hamdeen Sabbahi has said he would support resistance in
Lebanon and Palestine against Israel if he became president. “I will support
Hamas and Hezbollah in their endeavor,” he said.
“The fate of the peace treaty will be determined by the Egyptian people and no
one else,” he added. “And I oppose exporting gas to Israel.”
At a rally in the Nile Delta city of Mehalla on Monday, Sabbahi also said he
would fight poverty and corruption.
He also said that Egyptians are moderate by nature and will resist all forms of
religious extremism. “Egypt will remain a civil state,” he said.http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/497828
Maronites pray to a dispiriting trinity
September 22, 2011/ By Michael Young The Daily Star
This week the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Anbaa, citing sources at the Maronite
patriarchate in Bkirki, reported that relations between France and Patriarch
Beshara Rai had deteriorated. Rai apparently sought an apology from the French
ambassador, Denis Pietton, for having declared last week that his government was
“disappointed” with Rai’s recent comments in Paris, and would seek
clarification.
If Pietton is spared a surplus of patriarchal masses, he may come out of the
dispute a happy man. However, on Wednesday the ambassador visited Rai,
suggesting that their disagreement had been contained. Yet it is extraordinary
how Rai has made a splendid mess of things in just a few weeks, damaging his own
reputation, and with it that of his church. The patriarch gains nothing by
picking fights with foreign envoys who represent countries rather important for
Lebanon.
Someone should remind Rai that France has a large contingent in UNIFIL, the
United Nations force in southern Lebanon. It is well within Paris’ remit to ask
for clarifications from the patriarch when the position he has taken on
Hezbollah’s weapons – indicating that the party should hold on to them until the
Arab-Israeli conflict ends – directly contradicts Security Council Resolutions
1559 and 1701.
Rai’s gaffes are a manifestation of a larger problem among Maronites. The
community, through what is traditionally regarded as its three senior
representatives – Rai, but also President Michel Sleiman and the army commander,
Jean Kahwagi – has had pitifully little to add to the intellectual, spiritual,
political, and communal revitalization of a state that Maronites played so large
a role in creating and sustaining. The community is not alone in this
shortcoming, but it can offer considerably more for holding the crucial balance
between Sunnis and Shiites, who find themselves at profound odds over Lebanon’s
future.
Ironically, the one individual who once tried his best to define a particular
idea of Lebanon is former Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir. Today, he finds
himself routinely abused by followers of Michael Aoun and those pleased with
Rai’s political innovations.
That Sfeir made his share of mistakes is undeniable. In the end he presided over
a divided community, which sullied his reputation. However, he was always a
reluctant political actor, unlike his successor, and it was inevitable that he
would be sucked under by his fragmented flock. In the years when he stood alone
against Syrian hegemony, with Samir Geagea in prison and Aoun in exile, Sfeir
never wavered from a simple message: After a devastating 15-year war, Lebanon
was entitled to genuine sovereignty – meaning that Syria had to withdraw its
army from the country. And such a Lebanon could only survive through coexistence
between its religious communities.
Sfeir’s critics would do well to recall that this vision ended up informing
theirs. In the early postwar years when Aoun’s partisans were being beaten and
arrested, they sought Sfeir’s protection and sanction – though they had
humiliated the patriarch during their general’s failed campaign against the
Lebanese Forces. Aoun and Geagea, who contributed more than anyone to the
Christians’ ruin, still retain the loyalty of a majority in the community. But
the old man who echoed an earlier generation of Maronites, for whom Lebanon
personified communal self-confidence, achievement, and an often idealized form
of transcendental appeal, now finds himself compared unfavorably to the
careerist who followed him.
Rai has long tied his fate closely to that of Michel Sleiman, which should be a
cause for nervousness. To borrow from Vernon Walters’ remarks about former U.N.
Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar, Sleiman is a man who couldn’t make
waves if he fell out of a boat. There was high promise the day he was
inaugurated, and that’s where the promise stayed. No one can say with a straight
face that Sleiman has turned himself into a credible alternative to Aoun or
Geagea. His influence among Maronites is anemic, and yet he has not succeeded in
incarnating the state either – particularly for those in the Muslim communities.
When confronted, he has consistently backed down, playing it safe and preserving
his measured gains. As a friend once put it, Sleiman came to office with the
ambition of being an ex-president, and it’s difficult to disagree with so
decapitating a phrase.
As for Kahwagi, he is now in the throes of that great malady of army commanders:
an expectation that he will become Lebanon’s next president. The stark measure
of the Maronites’ political poverty these days is that when it is not their
clergymen fiddling with politics, it is their soldiers. Since Emile Lahoud was
selected in 1998, it seems the presidency is reserved for anyone wearing a
cocked beret. And so we Lebanese for years have had to endure army commanders
who have meticulously, almost seismographically, assessed prevailing power
relationships in the country before taking their every decision – and who have
relatively frequently faced the dilemma of having to choose between their own
welfare and that of the institution they lead.
Absent from this triumvirate is any farsightedness as to the destiny of the
Maronites. Rai still seeks to unify the community, with a meeting planned for
this Friday in Bkirki, even as he has provoked the greatest internal upheaval
that Maronites have experienced since Aoun and Geagea fought each other more
than two decades ago. Sleiman is marching stalwartly toward a legacy whose
greater part threatens to be inconsequence. And Kahwagi will remain a hostage to
the house of many mansions that is Lebanon’s army – over which Hezbollah has
inordinate influence, arousing the suspicion of Sunnis – incapable of
transforming its battalions into the valid basis of a national project.
Maronites have the institutions, talent, and memory to reverse their community’s
steady mediocrization. What they don’t have is the self-assurance required to
reinvent themselves in the shadow of their demographic decline. Rai, Aoun,
Sleiman, perhaps even Kahwagi, have adjusted to this decline by accommodating
the view that their minority has a stake in allying itself with other
minorities, no matter how repressive these may be. Such is the path to communal
suicide.
Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR and author of “The Ghosts of
Martyrs Square: An Eyewitness Account of Lebanon’s Life Struggle” (Simon &
Schuster). He tweets @BeirutCalling.
Assad Has No Friend in Lebanon's Christians
Patriarch Rai has unraveled the struggles of millions of Maronites..
By KARIM ANTON SOUAID/WSJ
Syrian dictator Bashar Assad has now killed nearly 3,000 people and detained
70,000 in suppressing his country's opposition movement. This is a crisis not
just for Syria and the region, but for humanity and peoples of all faiths, and
the Maronite Church in Lebanon has taken notice. Lebanon's largest Christian
body has long supported independence from dictatorship and military occupation,
and allies itself with the present struggle of Arab youths against Arab tyrants,
a struggle that began with Lebanon's 2005 Cedar Revolution.
But Patriarch Beshara Rai, the Maronite Church's current head, did an about-face
on these core beliefs recently. During a visit to France last week, the
Patriarch urged the international community to give Syria's dictator an
opportunity to reform. Calling Assad "open-minded," the Patriarch said that "the
poor man cannot work miracles." "What we are asking of the international
community and France is not to rush into resolutions that strive to change
regimes," he said.
With just a few words, Patriarch Rai has unraveled the struggles of millions of
Maronites, sullied the memories of hundreds of thousands of Maronite martyrs
against Syria, and crushed the hopes of many Lebanese. Assad is a dictator of
the same lineage that oppressed Lebanon for 30 years. Today he is fighting his
own people with planes, tanks and artillery. Despite Patriarch Rai's remarks,
Assad has no friend in Lebanon's Maronites.
Some may have forgotten the history of Syrian violence against Lebanon's
Christians. I have not. Growing up in war-torn Lebanon in the 1970s and '80s, I
knew nothing but Syrian onslaughts. During my youth, we were constantly running
away from the shelling, bombing, booby-trapped cars and assassinations that the
Syrian Army was perpetrating in Lebanon against the Christian population.
Syria's violence is not perpetrated purely on religious grounds. No "Masada
syndrome," in other words, afflicts the fears of Lebanon's Christians. Syria is
an equal-opportunity butcher of all Lebanese who dare raise their voices to
proclaim the independence of the Land of the Cedars.
But Syria's leaders target Christians specifically. Christians are the first to
be persecuted whenever there are rumblings of opposition to the regime. In 1978,
I survived the 100 Days' war in Ashrafieh, a Christian district of Beirut. Just
as is the case today in Homs and Hama in the Syrian hinterland, Ashrafieh was
encircled, deprived of food and water, and pounded with heavy machine guns,
artillery and tanks. Many of my young friends died in such battles.
A few years later, in 1981, the Syrian Army besieged Zahle, a Christian
stronghold in the Bekaa Valley. Zahle's population was deprived of water and
basic supplies, and the Syrian Army attacked the city's defenders with full
force. Many of my friends lost their lives that summer defending their ancestral
land and their right to freedom. In 1982, the Syrian Army assassinated a newly
elected Christian President of Lebanon, without any hint of regret,
accountability or remorse. For Syria, it was business as usual.
Fast-forward to 2005, when Syrian-occupied Lebanon saw a series of
assassinations, among them the killing of Prime Minister Rafic Hariri. A scare
campaign in the Christian neighborhoods followed, in the form of random bombings
and nightly explosions. What was Syria's message? We can kill a Sunni leader,
but if the Christians call for our withdrawal from Lebanon, your fate will be
darker than at the hand of your Sunni fellow Lebanese.
That message was opposed fervently by the leaders of the Cedar Revolution,
Christians and Muslims alike, who banded together in the wake of Hariri's
assassination. It was fought with equal fervor by Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir, the
head of the Maronite Church at the time. Since 2000, Patriarch Sfeir had called
for the withdrawal of the Syrian Army from Lebanon, and for Christian-Muslim
unity in Lebanon. During his tenure, he spearheaded a movement that culminated
with the exit of the Syrian Army after 30 years of occupation—30 years of
spreading corruption, destroying Lebanon's social fabric and reducing the
majority of its political class to mere vassals.
Maronite leaders have stood up for Syria, too. On May 29, 1945, France bombed
Damascus and tried to arrest its democratically elected leaders. That day Prime
Minister Faris al-Khoury, a Christian, was at the founding conference of the
United Nations in San Francisco, presenting Syria's claim for independence from
the French Mandate. It was left to Maronite Patriarch Anthony Peter Arida to
oppose the brutal attacks, decrying France's barbaric assault against civilians.
Patriarch Arida's speech that day was hailed in the Al Omari Mosque in Damascus
by Sunni worshipers, who had no other voice to defend them but the patriarch's.
The Maronite Church is not a bastion of democracy. But the church has long been
an advocate for an independent Lebanon, free from the shackles of foreign
powers—whether Turkish, French or Syrian. For decades the church has been in
synch with Arab nationalists who yearn to be free of dictatorship and military
occupation.
So when Patriarch Rai says that the international community should not oppose
Bashar Assad's slaughter, Maronites around the world know better. Lebanese
Christians' fight against illegal militias, vassal politicians and rogue heads
of state has only begun.
—Mr. Souaid is an independent asset manager and member of the New York State Bar
Association.
Iran's Latin American presence discussed
Florida Jewish Journal
September 21, 2011
As The Israel Project's director of Spanish Media Program, Leah Soibel is
responsible for helping the world wide Hispanic media learn the important facts
about Israel.
Soibel's expertise includes knowledge of Israel's security needs and peace
efforts, international terrorism, and Iran-backed activities in Latin America
and the Middle East. She recently shared her knowledge in Coral Gables with the
briefing, "Recent Iranian Inroads in Latin America."
Among the facts Soibel shared included Iran's threat to the Jewish community in
Latin America as well as the Iranian backed terrorist organization Hezbollah's
presence in the region.
"The Jewish communities have been dealing with this threat for a very long time
in Latin America," Soibel remarked. "It's by no means going away."
Regarding Hezbollah's presence in Latin America, Soibel said that numerous cells
are present throughout South America, that the organization is setting up base
in Cuba, and that it played a role in the1990s bombings of the embassy and the
Jewish community center in Argentina. She said that the military terror aspect
is the most disturbing issue regarding this presence in the region and mentioned
that there are terror training camps in Venezuela.
Soibel also discussed Iranian Ambassador to Uruguay Hojatollah Soltani's
statement that the death of millions of Jews in the Holocaust was a lie.
"This was the first time, at least for what I can tell, that you have such a
senior Iranian official making such a staunch comment from Latin American and I
believe it just goes to show how comfortable they really feel in the region that
they're able to make such a strong statement," she remarked.
Soibel also expressed concern with Iran's strategic influence, which she finds
most frightening regarding its presence in the region. This influence includes
Iranian state news agencies transmitting in Spanish for some time and its
launching of HispanTV, the Spanish language version of Press TV. She said that
in its trial phase, it works hand-in-hand with Venezuela's TELESUR TV network.
Following the briefing, Soibel was asked what the United States can do to help
in raising awareness of this issue. She responded that this help comes from both
the local and global communities as well as political representatives.
"It's not just a Jewish issue and it's not just an Israeli issue," she added.
"It's also a global issue and an American issue and it's here in America's
background."
Bruce Rubin, a Miami resident who was at the briefing, said "Leah's briefings
rise to a White House level. She's one of the smartest people in the world when
it comes to this subject."
Copyright © 2011, South Florida Sun-Sentinel
fl-jjdc-briefing-0921-20110921
Sleiman tells U.N. Lebanon committed to STL
September 21, 2011
By Thomas El-Basha The Daily Star
President Michel Sleiman addresses the 66th United Nations General Assembly in
New York, Sept. 21, 2011. Reuters
BEIRUT: President Michel Sleiman said in a speech at the U.N. General Assembly
Wednesday Lebanon would uphold its rights over its territorial waters and
exclusive economic zone against any designs by Israel, while reaffirming
Beirut's commitment to international resolutions, including the Special Tribunal
for Lebanon.
Sleiman also expressed his government’s backing of the establishment of a
Palestinian state and commended the role of U.N. peacekeepers in south Lebanon.
“We emphasize that we strongly uphold our full sovereignty and economic rights
over our territorial waters and exclusive economic zone as well as freedom of
the exploitation of our natural resources, be they on land or in the deep sea,
independently from any designs or threats,” Sleiman said at the 66th meeting of
the General Assembly in New York.
The Lebanese president said his government had been in correspondence with
Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon on the extent of Lebanon’s waters and boundaries,
“namely the geographic coordinates respectively pertaining to the southernmost
and southwest border of the economic exclusive zone of Lebanon.”
Sleiman said Lebanon had expressed its objection to Israeli violations and
aggression that affected these rights, and warned against "any initiative to
exploit the resources of the disputed maritime zone.”
Sleiman also touched on the issue of Lebanon’s international obligations,
including that of the U.N.-backed court that has been a divisive issue among
Lebanese politicians.
“Lebanon has always been committed to respecting resolutions of international
legitimacy including those of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon and that is in
accordance with the letter and spirit and ministerial statements of successive
cabinets,” he said, referring to the international court that is probing the
assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and which has indicted four
members of Hezbollah in the crime.
Sleiman launched his speech by noting that this year’s U.N. gathering was taking
place at a time when the region was witnessing what he described as a
renaissance in Arab countries which are seeking “freedom, democracy and the
establishment of the rule of law, away from authoritarianism, favoritism and
corruption.”
“Lebanon, along with its scholars, media and activists, has accompanied and
supported every renaissance project in the East and contributed to refining and
upholding its banner. It can only hail all peaceful approaches or means to
achieve reform, to consecrate the principles of democracy, justice and modernity
and to preserve human dignity and fundamental freedoms.”
Sleiman said the transformations transpiring in the Arab world needed to be
channeled for the common good of the people and to prevent it from “veering
toward extremism, chaos or fragmentation and division on religions and sectarian
bases.”
The president, who will chair a Security Council meeting later in the week, said
Lebanon supported Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in his efforts to gain
recognition for a Palestinian state.“It is important to underscore the rightful
Palestinian efforts aiming at earning the recognition of the state of Palestine
and its full membership to the United Nations in line with the right of self
determination. Lebanon will back these efforts in order for the latter to
succeed with the coordination and cooperation of brotherly and friendly
countries.”
However, Sleiman stressed that recognition of Palestinian state would not equate
to a final solution to the Palestinian question, adding that UNWRA, the U.N
agency caring for Palestinian refugees, would still bear full responsibility for
providing relief for the refugees until they could exercise their right to
return.
During his speech, Sleiman also praised the role of U.N. peacekeepers based in
south Lebanon and denounced bomb attacks earlier this year against members of
the Italian and French contingents of the United Nations Interim Force in
Lebanon. While voicing support for United Nations Security Council Resolution
1701, which brokered a cessation of hostilities of the July-August 2006 war
between Lebanon and Israel, Sleiman slammed the Jewish state for its constant
breaches of the resolution.
Sleiman urged the international community to pressure Israel to comply with the
provisions of the resolution. “This requires Israel to halt its daily violations
of Lebanon’s sovereignty and to immediately pull out from Lebanese territories
that it still occupies in the northern part of Ghajjar village, the Shebaa Farms
and the hills of Kfar Shouba.”Sleiman added that the Jewish state had to end its
“designs to destabilize the country through its formation of spying networks and
the recruitment of agents.” Without referring to the Lebanese resistance,
Sleiman added: “We retain the right to liberate or retrieve all our occupied
territories by all legitimate means.”
Russia banks on Assad’s survival as billions in arms deals
hang in balance
September 21, 2011/By Nicholas Blanford/The Daily
Star
BEIRUT: The uncompromising use of force by Syrian President Bashar Assad’s
authorities in attempts to crush the popular uprising against the state, which
has left some 2,600 people dead since March, has earned Damascus widespread
international opprobrium.
But the beleaguered Syrian president has been able to count on the active
support of one powerful global player – Russia.Russia’s motivation for
continuing to support Assad is rooted in the billions of dollars of investments,
especially arms deals, and military arrangements with Syria as well as Moscow’s
innate aversion to popular protest movements and foreign interventions.
According to diplomats and analysts, the Russian leadership has calculated that
Assad could yet prevail against the Syrian opposition movement.
The Syrian opposition remains divided and has yet to gain sufficient momentum to
turn the tide in its favor. The army – at least the core military units – along
with the intelligence services remains firmly behind the state. And there is
little appetite for a Western intervention in Syria similar to the NATO-led
support for Libyan rebels against Colonel Moammar Gadhafi.
Ilyas Umakhanov, deputy chairman of the Russian Federation Council and head of a
delegation currently in Syria, Monday said he was confident Assad would
implement a series of reforms measures announced in previous months, including
constitutional changes, a new electoral law and the annulment of the state of
emergency.
“I think the country’s leaders have managed to turn the tide” against the
uprising, he said.
Since the revolt began mid-March, Russia has blocked action against Damascus in
the United Nations Security Council, dispatched delegations and envoys to the
Syrian capital and warned repeatedly against the perceived folly of
international intervention. Recently, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said
that some of those taking part in the Syrian street protests had links to
“terrorists.” Such comments – which echo those of the Assad regime – are warmly
greeted in Damascus.
Assad Sunday welcomed the “balanced and constructive Russian position toward the
security and stability of Syria.”
Certainly Moscow is not the only country expressing wariness at sudden change in
Syria: the five-nation BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South
Africa) recently declared they were against a Libya-style intervention in Syria
and urged for dialogue between the Assad regime and the Syrian opposition.
But Russia’s repeated defense of the regime in Damascus has frustrated the
Syrian opposition which is seeking the support of the international community in
its bid to oust Assad.
Last week, Syrian protesters vented their irritation at Moscow’s stance by
holding protests dubbed a “day of anger” against Russia.
Yet Russia holds a contrary view from the West in its assessment of the series
of uprisings that have swept the Middle East and North Africa this year. Even
though the influence of the United States in the Arab world has been weakened as
a result of the revolutions, the West adopts a generally optimistic stance
toward the Arab Spring, viewing it as a welcome shift toward democracy in the
region. Russia, however, takes the more hard-nosed and pessimistic view that the
outcome will lead to instability and bloodshed.
“If the Syrian government is unable to hold on to power, there is a high
probability that radicals and representatives of terrorist organizations will
become entrenched,” Ilya Rogachyov, a top official in the Russian Foreign
Ministry, said last week.
Russia can be forgiven feeling some unease at the prospect of regime change in
Syria. According to a recent article in The Moscow Times, Russian investments in
Syria in 2009 were valued at $19.4 billion, mainly in arms deals, infrastructure
development, energy and tourism. Russian exports in 2010 totaled $1.1 billion,
the newspaper said.
Russian-Syrian ties are perhaps strongest in the field of arms sales. The Soviet
Union was Syria’s main supplier of weapons during the Cold War era, leaving
Damascus saddled with a $13.4 billion arms debt. Although trade dwindled
following the collapse of the Soviet Union, it picked up again from 2005 when
Moscow wrote off almost 75 percent of the debt. Russia and Syria have signed
arms deals worth some $4 billion since 2006. They include the sale of MiG 29
fighter jets, Yak-130 jet trainers, Pantsir and Buk air defense systems and
P-800 Yakhont anti-ship missiles.
Syria also hopes to receive Iskandar ballistic missiles and S-300 anti-aircraft
missiles, the latter of which would pose significant threats to hostile aircraft
operating in Syrian skies. Much of the funding for the arms deals reportedly is
underwritten by Iran, which signed several defense agreements with Syria from
2005.
Russia also operates a naval supply and maintenance site near the northern
Syrian port city of Tartus.
The Soviet-era facility has been in Russian hands since 1971 but fell into
disrepair in 1992. However, the port is undergoing a major refurbishment which
will grant Russian naval vessels a permanent base in the Mediterranean after
2012.
Presently, Russia’s only other warm water naval facility is at Sevastopol in the
nearly landlocked Black Sea. All Russian shipping exiting the Black Sea must
sail through the narrow Bosporus channel which lies within Turkish waters.
However, the billions of dollars in investments and the strategic naval facility
in Tartous could all be jeopardized if the Assad regime is overthrown or the
country descends into violent chaos.
As it is, Moscow, having opposed the NATO-led intervention in Libya, is waiting
to see if the new authorities in Tripoli will honor some $10 billion worth of
business deals reached with the Gadhafi regime.
Obama rejects Palestinian U.N. statehood bid
September 21, 2011/By Matt Spetalnick, Laura MacInnis
Daily Star /UNITED NATIONS: U.S. President Barack Obama Wednesday rejected Palestinian plans
to seek U.N. blessing for statehood and urged a return to peace talks with
Israel as he tried to head off a looming diplomatic disaster.
Addressing the U.N. General Assembly, Obama – whose earlier peace efforts
accomplished little – insisted Middle East peace “will not come through
statements and resolutions” at the world body and put the onus on the two sides
to break a yearlong impasse.
“There is no short cut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades.
Peace is hard work,” Obama told an annual gathering of world leaders.
Grappling with economic woes and low poll numbers at home and growing doubts
about his leadership abroad, Obama is wading into Middle East diplomacy at a
critical juncture for his presidency and America’s credibility around the globe.
He faced the daunting test of Washington’s eroding influence in the region in
his last-ditch bid to dissuade the Palestinians from going ahead with a push for
statehood in the U.N. Security Council this week in defiance of Israeli
objections and a U.S. veto threat.
Obama attempted to strike a delicate balance as he took the U.N. podium. He
sought to reassure Palestinians he was not abandoning his pledge to help them
achieve eventual statehood while also placating any Israeli concerns about
Washington’s commitment to their security.
Members of the General Assembly, where pro-Palestinian sentiment is high,
listened politely but had only a muted response to Obama’s 36-minute speech.
There was widespread skepticism about Obama’s chances for success – not least
because of deeply entrenched differences between the two sides – and he may not
be able to do much more than contain the damage.
The Obama administration says that only direct peace talks can lead to peace
with the Palestinians, who in turn say almost two decades of fruitless
negotiation has left them no choice but to turn to the world body.
Obama followed his speech with a round of talks with Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu, who echoed the president’s assertion that renewed
negotiations were the only path to a peace deal but offered no new ideas how to
get back to the table. He said, however, that the Palestinians’ U.N. statehood
effort “will not succeed.”
Signalling European patience was also wearing thin after years of halting
U.S.-led diplomacy, French President Nicolas Sarkozy proposed an ambitious
timetable to resume peace talks within a month and achieve a definitive deal in
a year.
The drama over the Palestinian U.N. bid is playing out as U.S., Israeli and
Palestinian leaders all struggle with the fallout from Arab uprisings that are
raising new political tensions across the Middle East.
It also comes as Israel finds itself more isolated than it has been in decades
and confronts Washington with the risk that, by again shielding its close ally,
the United States will inflame Arab distrust when Obama’s outreach to the Muslim
world is already faltering.
Taking note of deep frustrations over lack of progress on the
Israeli-Palestinian front, he said: “Israelis must know that any agreement
provides assurances for their security. Palestinians deserve to know the
territorial basis of their state.”
He was due to meet Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas later on the U.N.
sidelines.
With the looming showdown overshadowing the rest of Obama’s U.N. agenda, failure
to defuse the situation will not only mark a diplomatic debacle for Obama but
also serve as a stark sign of the new limits of American clout in the Middle
East.
Obama also used his wide-ranging speech to tout his support for democratic
change sweeping the Arab world, urge further U.N. sanctions against Syrian
leader Bashar Assad and call on Iran and North Korea to meet their nuclear
obligations – twin standoffs that have eluded his efforts at resolution.
Senior diplomats from the United States, Russia, the European Union and the
United Nations – the Quartet of Middle East mediators – were scrambling for a
compromise but with little sign of a breakthrough.
The speech offered no new prescriptions for Israeli-Palestinian peace from
Obama, who laid out his clearest markers for a final deal in May and angered
Israel by declaring its pre-war 1967 borders as the starting point for any
future negotiations.
Obama will urge Abbas face-to-face against going through with his plan to
present U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon with a membership application Friday,
setting the stage for a Security Council vote that the United States says it
will block.
In separate talks, Obama had been expected to ask Netanyahu – who has had
strained relations with the U.S. president – to help coax Abbas back to
negotiations and also curb dangerous new tensions with Egypt and Turkey, two of
Washington’s top regional partners.
But Obama was considered unlikely to lean too hard on the hawkish Israeli leader
for concessions to the Palestinians, mindful he cannot afford to alienate
Israel’s broad base of support among American voters as he seeks re-election in
2012.
Most analysts remain skeptical that the latest diplomacy by Obama and others
will be enough to spur serious negotiations after earlier efforts hit a dead
end.
Syrian forces kill 6, face challenge from defectors
September 21, 2011/By Khaled Oweis /Daily Star
AMMAN: Syrian forces killed at least six civilians in military operations in
central and northwestern regions on Wednesday, residents said, following an
increase in attacks on the army by defectors sheltering in rural areas.
Neighboring Turkey, once a backer of President Bashar al-Assad, said it had
suspended talks with Syria and may impose sanctions on Damascus, after failing
to persuade it to stop a military crackdown on protests demanding Assad step
down.
In a sign of the economic damage wreaked by the unrest, the International
Monetary Fund forecast that Syria's economy will shrink this year by 2 percent
-- a sharp downward revision from 3 percent growth which the fund predicted in
April.
The killings occurred in Jabal al-Zawiya, rugged terrain near Turkey, where
defectors have taken refuge in hideouts, and in the province of Homs, where army
buses and checkpoints have been attacked more regularly, residents and activists
said.
"Jabal al-Zawiya has become a hub for army defectors and we have received
numerous eyewitness accounts of defectors and villagers who shelter them found
killed summary execution style," said Rami Adelrahman, director of the
British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.
A farmer from the region who gave his name as Khaled said several more bodies
were found shot with their arms tied behind their back since last week, when
forces loyal to Assad mounted an operation in pursuit of defectors.
Residents and activists said Jabal al-Zawiya has been a route for deserters
trying to flee to Turkey from the plains in the provinces of Homs and Hama to
the south.
Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan told journalists in New York that "we do
not have any confidence in the current (Syrian) government" and accused Damascus
of launching "dark propaganda against Turkey".
"I halted talks with the Syrian government. I did not want to come to this
point. But the Syrian government forced us to make such a decision," Erdogan
said after meeting U.S. President Barack Obama on the sidelines of the U.N.
General Assembly.
European Union governments, which have imposed an embargo on Syrian oil imports,
banned on Wednesday European firms from making new investments in its oil
industry and added several new entities and two individuals to a sanctions list.
The sanctions, which will take effect on Saturday if formally approved in
writing by the 27 EU states, also include a ban on delivery of Syrian banknotes
and coins produced in the European Union.
Assad, who had strengthened an alliance with Iran prior to the unrest and
support for the Lebanese Shi'ite group Hezbollah, has sent mostly core troops
from his minority Alawite sect across Syria to crush the six-month uprising.
The crackdown against protests calling for political freedoms in the country
that has been dominated by him and his late father for the last 41 years has led
to increased defections among the rank-and-file Sunni majority in the army.
Diplomats, however, said the defectors lack outside support and have not managed
to organise into a force that could pose a serious threat to Assad, with Syria's
neighbours, especially Turkey, keen to avoid instability on their borders.
"Defections have not reached a level that threatens Assad, but he cannot rely on
most of the army. Otherwise he would not have had to use the same loyalist core
troops again and again to crush protests and move them from one city to
another," a European diplomat said.
"It is clear that the security solution he has chosen is losing him support by
the day from the Sunni majority."
ASSASSINATIONS OF DISSIDENTS
The United Nations says 2,700 people have been killed in the crackdown,
including 100 children.
Western diplomats and human rights activists have also reported an increased
number of assassinations of dissidents and protest leaders in the last several
weeks, and a spike in arrests that have seen tens of thousands of people
detained, focusing on professionals and academics.
French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said on Monday Syrian leaders would have to
answer for crimes against humanity that he said were being committed in Syria.
But Assad has relied on Russia and China -- both with major oil concessions in
Syria and with veto power on the U.N. Security Council -- to avoid a Western
proposed resolution for sanctions on Syria's ruling elite.
The authorities have repeatedly denied reports of assassinations and suspected
torture, saying that arrests are made according to the constitution, and that
700 soldiers and police have been killed, and the same number of "mutineers".
In the region of Houla in the countryside of the city of Homs, 165-km north of
Damascus, a resident said a bus carrying troops and secret police came under
attack near the village of Tel Dehab on Tuesday but there were no reports of
casualties.
The area, as well as densely populated neighborhoods in Homs, has seen large
protests demanding the removal of Assad in the last several weeks, drawing
increased deployment of troops and gunmen loyal to Assad, residents said.
Sectarian tensions have been also rising between majority Sunni inhabitants and
a large Alawite minority in the city, hometown of Assad's wife Asma. Local
activists said three residents of Bab Sbaa and Bab Amro neighborhoods were
killed on Wednesday, including a woman and a man shot by army snipers.
The Syrian state news agency said troops dismantled on Tuesday a bomb near Homs
which had been placed under a pipeline delivering crude oil to a refinery in the
city, adding that a member of the security forces was shot dead by an "armed
terrorist group" in Homs.
Twenty kilometres to the north, in the town of Rastan, defecting soldiers
announced the formation of a battalion called "Khaled bin al-Walid", after an
Arab Muslim commander who conquered Syria.
Parliamentarians reach consensus on electricity bill
September 21, 2011/ By Wassim Mroueh/ The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Parliamentarians reached consensus Wednesday on a controversial
electricity draft law and agreed it should be discussed and put to a vote in
Parliament as originally endorsed by the government.
The plan was widely expected to be put to a vote after the opposition said the
bill lacked the necessary controls on the plan’s spending, worth $1.2 billion.
The draft electricity law was referred by the joint parliamentary committee
without amendments to Parliament’s general assembly, where it will be discussed
and put to a vote Thursday.
Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri called Tuesday for a legislative session Thursday
to study and approve remaining draft laws, including the controversial
$1.2-billion bill endorsed by the government last week.
Berri’s decision came a day after the joint committee failed to reach agreement
on the electricity plan following a heated debate between March 8 and March 14
lawmakers.
The bill is expected to pass in Parliament given the consensus agreed Wednesday.
Opposition lawmakers had demanded that the draft law include several amendments
that they argued would help ensure transparency and proper spending for the
plan, which is designed to boost Lebanon’s power supply by 700 MW.
However, majority lawmakers rejected the amendments, accusing March 14
politicians of attempting to undermine the prerogatives of Energy Minister
Jibran Bassil, who has proposed the electricity plan.
The joint parliamentary committee meeting kick started at around mid-day amid
reports that the participants would either form a consensus or call for a vote.
“The meeting of the joint parliamentary committee will end today in a decision
either by consensus or by vote," said MP Mohammad Qabbani, head of Parliament’s
public works and transport committee.
MP Marwan Hamadeh, a member of the opposition March 14 coalition, said
Parliament was engaged in a “battle” over the electricity bill.
“We’re heading into the [political] battle,” Hamadeh told reporters as he walked
into the meeting.
Pointing to a headline in the local newspaper Ad-Diyar which read “Conflict over
$360 million commission for the electricity [plan],” Hamadeh said: “This is a
scandal. This is the real battle.”
However, Hezbollah MP Nawar Sahli ruled out a vote taking place Wednesday.
Lawmaker Alain Aoun, a member in MP Michel Aoun’s Change and Reform
parliamentary bloc, said Berri was seeking to reach consensus.
His colleague in the Change and Reform bloc, MP Nabil Nichola, for his part,
said while “calm” has prevailed over the meeting, each party remained committed
to its stance.
The post-Assad phase
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat,
At a time when the Russians say that the best way to deal with the Syrian
revolution is dialogue between the opposition and the government, the New York
Times newspaper revealed that Washington has begun planning for the post-Assad
phase, so how can we interpret this?
In reality, following the experiences in Saddam’s Iraq and Gaddafi’s Libya, and
Moscow’s stances with regards to both, perhaps it is possible to say that the
world should actually prepare for the post-Assad phase. The Russian
interpretation of events in our region, specifically regarding authoritarian
regimes, has never been accurate. Likewise, Russian stances always reverse at
the last minute, after those regimes face a disaster, and the most prominent
example here is Iraq. If the Russians, and the French at the time as well, had
sufficiently realized the gravity of Saddam’s regime, and been told that no one
could defend it, then maybe - and we say maybe - they would have had a different
stance towards the dictatorship.
The story is not Saddam Hussein’s regime of course, but rather it is about
repeating errors, and building on the Russian positions, and this is what we
have in front of us today in the Syrian revolution. The al-Assad regime’s crisis
is not external, nor is it not a crisis of fundamentalists or armed groups as
the regime likes to portray; rather it is a genuine, internal Syrian crisis. It
would not have lasted so long if it weren’t genuine, especially with the
regime’s brutal repression. Russia’s stance today is like a drug for the
al-Assad regime, which will not wake up until the moment of its great downfall,
which the Americans, along with the Turks, deem to be inevitable. In particular,
we see the Turks accusing the al-Assad regime of lying, having not instigated
any of the promises it made during a six-hour meeting in Damascus.
When I say that the Russian stance is like a drug, it is because it prolongs the
duration of the Syrian crisis by giving the regime hope that nothing will be
done at the international level. This is not true, as all indications suggest
that there is an international surge coming, and likewise an Arab one. There are
even signs of internal escalation, through the Syrians themselves, and here it
is suffice to note the increasing number of defections from the army, rapidly
and clear for all to see. Externally, whether in the Arab or Western arena, the
diplomatic escalation continues, and here it is suffice to note the conflicting
and contradictory statements towards the situation in Syria, issued from the
al-Assad regime’s only ally, Iran. These statements clearly suggest that Tehran
itself is no longer certain whether the al-Assad regime is sustainable, or
whether to prepare for the post-Assad phase. Here it is enough to consider the
story published by the Iranian Fars news agency, quoting the Deputy Secretary of
Hezbollah, where he completely denied the intervention of the party in Syria,
but instead considered the charges false and unjust. This is despite the fact
that Hassan Nasrallah, a few weeks before, had boasted of his relations with the
al-Assad regime, and the need to protect it. Hezbollah has used its leader’s
statements as an indication of its guardianship, but not specifically in defense
of the regime in Damascus. The party did not want to seem the only one defending
the al-Assad regime, thus it took advantage of its leader and his statements.
To conclude, I would say that the all indications suggest that the region as a
whole is preparing for the post-Assad phase, whatever the Russians say.
Will Ahmadinejad be Iran’s Sadat?
By Ali Ibrahim/Asharq Al-Awsat
The general impression of the 6th and current president of the Islamic Republic
of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is that he is hardline in his ideology, populist
in his politics, and that he issues fiery but often illogical foreign policy
statements. Indeed Ahmadinejad sometimes speaks of “messages” and “dreams”
during his foreign policy statements, which is certainly something that has no
place in either the world of politics or reality.
However from time to time another personality appears which is completely
different than the image or impression that Ahmadinejad is keen to portray. This
is something that causes one to question whether our impression of Ahmadinejad
is correct or not, and whether we know everything about what truly goes on
behind the scenes in Iranian politics and decision-making, particularly as this
is a closed country where foreign journalists cannot work freely.
Ahmadinejad’s statements to the Washington Post, in which he announced the
“unilateral pardon” and release of two jailed American hikers who claim to have
accidently crossed into Iran – after a third hiker was released on bail [in
2010] – is an example of the Iranian president’s pragmatism. The issuance of
this statement was timed to coincide with his trip to New York to attend the UN
General Assembly. However this decision to pardon the American hikers was not
received favorably by Ahmadinejad’s conservative rivals who are stalling on its
implementations under a number of pretexts, the latest being that the judge that
must sign their release documents has not returned from holiday. In his
interview with the Washington Post, Ahmadinejad did not deny the presence of a
conflict between himself and the Iranian Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei, answering a question to this effect with another question, namely “can
you find two people who see the world the same?” Ahmadinejad therefore did not
deny that this conflict, more importantly he placed himself on the same level as
Khamenei.
Two months prior to this, specifically during the first week of July, Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – a graduate of the Revolutionary Guards who has a
PhD in transportation engineer and planning and who is known as a hardliner –
surprised us by coming out to announce his strong opposition to the decision
made by Iranian Higher Education Minister [Kamran Daneshjoo] to implement gender
segregation at Iran’s universities. Ahmadinejad ordered him to overturn this
decision, as part of his battle with the conservative camp in Iran which has
undergone a number of different stages since the beginning of the year.
Ahmadinejad’s battle with the conservatives, along with that of his team,
particularly his top aide and son-in-law Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, has entered a
more serious stage this year, and this is something that has confused the
[political] classification of this Iranian president, who was originally from
the conservative camp. The conservative camp strongly supported Ahmadinejad
during the first presidential elections in 2005; however this battle reached the
point where he was being accused of not recognizing Khamenei’s [religious]
authority, whilst some of his aides were most recently accused of being devil
worshippers.
The clear unifying thread in this conflict is that there is a silent battle
raging over influence and power between Ahmadinejad – who as the president of
Iran represents the country’s civil institutions – and the religious institution
that is led by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, whose position is unelected
and who is considered the highest and indeed final authority in Iran.
The difference is that this conflict took place following the 2009 presidential
elections, whose results were called into question by the Iranian opposition.
This resulted in widespread protests across the country which was strongly
suppressed by the Iranian authorities, whilst protest leaders Mir Hossein
Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi were placed under house arrest. Supreme Leader Ali
Khamenei intervened and took Ahmadinejad’s side, confirming that Ahmadinejad had
legitimately won the presidential elections. Ahmadinejad emerged from these
elections weakened, as he had only remained in power because the Iranian Supreme
Leader stood by him, whereas in the previous presidential elections it was his
own popularity that guaranteed his election.
Nobody knows where this clear conflict – which is ongoing – will lead. There is
talk that Ahmadinejad is planning for his son-in-law [Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei]
to stand at the forthcoming presidential elections. This is a conflict that
reflects a development that was certain to happen, three decades after the
Iranian revolution that resulted in religious scholars dominating rule in Iran.
Any person holding the presidency in Iran wants to rule in reality, rather than
being a subordinate to the Iranian Supreme Leader who has not left Iran since
1989. Will Ahmadinejad be the president that turns on the pillars of the regime
and renews the system of governance to confirm his own authority, as Sadat did
in Egypt with the so-called [Nasserite] “centres of power” in the early
seventies? This is an open question that requires thinking about, even if this
results in one jumping to the wrong conclusion.
U.S. should recognize Palestinian state
By Zvi Bar'el/Haaretz
Memory is short and forgetfulness is often deliberate, but 23 years ago the UN
General Assembly decided to move its session from New York to Switzerland so
that Palestine Liberation Organization head Yasser Arafat could deliver a
speech. The reason: U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz refused to issue
Yasser Arafat an entry visa to the United States.
Today too, with the opening of the session of the General Assembly, Washington
is standing like a fortified wall blocking the entry of Palestine to the UN
building. Although Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has no problem
getting a visa, when he comes to ask for a state for the Palestinians he is put
on a roller coaster. The list of threats and future punishments to be imposed on
him and his country, if it is established, guarantees that this will be a state
that is battered from birth.
Here is colonialism in all its glory. After all, the United States agrees that
there should be a Palestinian state, it even twisted the arm of Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu a little bit, cautiously so it wouldn't hurt, so that he
would blurt out the necessary formula "two states for two peoples." U.S.
President Barack Obama even spoke about the optimal borders of the Palestinian
state and Abbas was not yet required to recognize Israel.
After all, Arafat already recognized it. Palestine fulfilled all the threshold
conditions. And still, this state has only one chance of being born the American
way. Through negotiations that will lead to a consensual agreement and a
handshake. And if Israel's hand is missing, never mind, the Palestinians will
wait until it grows.
But Abbas has learned a thing or two from Israel. The main lesson he has learned
is that his real negotiations are not with Israel but with Washington. The
second lesson: The negotiations must not take place on a playing field that is
convenient for Obama, but rather at the United Nations. There Obama is not
facing a beggarly Palestinian Authority that can be frightened with a shout, but
193 countries, each of which must be negotiated with.
New York is not Ramallah. Abbas saw how Israel chose its own playing field in
the U.S. Congress, and carefully responded in kind. Instead of going out on a
limb, he planted the tree by himself, nurtured it, diligently recruited most of
the countries in the world, was helped substantially by Israel's mistakes, took
good advantage of Jerusalem's isolation, examined the pros and cons and decided
that even in loss there would be great gain.
If the United States casts a veto in the UN Security Council, it will cause more
damage to Washington than to Abbas; if he makes do with recognition in the
General Assembly, it will be in exchange for an American commitment to support a
Palestinian state if negotiations fail, as they will.
Abbas caused Washington to be embroiled in a dispute with its European
colleagues, and presented Israel as a cripple. He is forcing the United Nations
to do what it usually fails to do: to find a peaceful solution to conflicts. As
a bonus he caused Netanyahu to say that he is going to deliver a "speech of
truth" at the United Nations, thereby admitting in effect that until now he has
been lying.
The panic in Washington is genuine. It was evident when David Hale, Obama's
special envoy, was unable to control his temper and simply shouted at Abbas when
he understood that he had no intention of retreating from his initiative.
Anger and helplessness could also be detected in the voice of U.S. Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton, when she announced that the United States would cast a
veto in the Security Council. Suddenly she realized that the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict is not only "the business of the parties involved" but threatens
Washington's regional and international status.
If the United States fails to recognize the Palestinian state, it will have
difficulty sidelining its rivals in the new Middle East, where the public has
more power than the rulers; if it recognizes the Palestinian state, it will have
to ensure its sustainability, in other words, to direct the sanctions against
Israel. Truly a bad situation for a great power that aspires to draw the map of
the new Middle East.
Had it only made an effort to achieve genuine negotiations when that was still
possible, had it invested its efforts into reaching an agreement that it is now
investing in preventing the declaration of independence, had it shared the
threats equally between the PA and Israel, it may not have found itself in this
difficult situation.
It should at least recognize the state now. It should recall what has happened
since it refused to grant Arafat his visa.
Netanyahu must be stopped from attacking Iran
By Sefi Rachlevsky/Haaretz
Is it likely that Benjamin Netanyahu will announce at the United Nations that
several Israeli aircraft have just returned from Iran? At first glance, no.
But worry over this issue doesn't stem only from the assurance given by the
prime minister's friend, Dick Cheney, that Israel will attack; or from the
messianic statements about a possible attack that Haaretz has recently quoted
Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak as making in closed forums; or from
former Mossad chief Meir Dagan's warning that an attack will occur in the waning
days of September in response to Israel's increasing international isolation; or
from heightened anxiety caused by the imminent closure of the operational window
of opportunity.
The fog must not be allowed to close in. Precisely because I have written about
the conceptual necessity of carefully evaluating the effectiveness of activism
in stopping a messianic bomb, it's clear to me that building Western, and
especially American, support is a fundamental condition for even considering any
implementation of an action.
This must be said, and clearly: No leader has either the moral authority or the
strategic possibility of endangering tens of thousands of citizens before doing
everything possible to make Israel beloved of the West. That is how Yitzhak
Rabin made strategic decisions, while Barak at least talked about turning over
every stone. And what exactly does Netanyahu intend to say to the thousands of
bereaved families whose sons are not named Jonathan anymore?
A leader who genuinely believes that a bomb in messianic hands poses an
existential threat must go even further than making Israel the first state to
recognize Palestine in the 1967 borders. After all, even if the forecasts of
that majority which is convinced of the folly of a strike prove wrong, it isn't
a once-and-for-all solution: The need for a deep Western strategic rear goes way
beyond spare parts and bunker-busting bombs.
These circumstances make any operational plan or option completely illegal -
much worse than going to war in Lebanon in 2006 without any plans, supplies or
reserve forces. The thought of launching an attack against Iran not merely
without American and broader Western support, but from a situation of total
political isolation and hostility, is so unsound that it calls into question the
right to issue the order and the duty to carry it out. In these circumstances,
anyone with the ability to stop it must stop it.
Today is the autumn equinox, when day and night are of equal length. The
lengthening of the hours of darkness necessitates two additional notes of
caution. The first relates to the UN General Assembly, and here, too, the
obvious is being left unsaid. No Haaretz reader needs my permission to go to
Paris; that's the definition of independence, including political independence.
So the Palestinians have every right to define themselves, especially in light
of the fact that they are not demanding even a smidgen of sovereign Israeli
territory and are open to territorial exchanges. Anyone who opposes Palestinian
self-determination is undermining Israel's security.
One can understand the Evangelist Christians, who support a militaristic Israel
with the sole aim of its being destroyed in a war of Armageddon against Iran and
Iraq - a condition for the second coming of Jesus. But those who do not seek our
destruction must be cognizant of Israel's interests. Anyone who acts otherwise,
especially if he or she is Jewish, is kindly requested to send their children to
Masada.
The third warning is addressed to Labor Party voters. If Israel survives the
danger of Masada, it cannot live with a domestic conflagration. Herd voting in
today's primary will not be forgiven. The voters must ask themselves whether the
ballot in their hands was selected due to ethnic considerations.
Voters must also consider the announcement by Dalia Rabin-Pelossof, Rabin's
daughter, that Amir Peretz is Rabin's successor: He supports money going to poor
neighborhoods rather than West Bank settlements. Whether or not this
declaration, by someone who has personal knowledge of the danger posed by
Netanyahu, is accurate, the main question for every leader, and especially one
aspiring to lead Labor, is whether he or she intends to do everything possible
to stop Netanyahu on his way to Masada.