Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for November 01/12
Israel: the Iranian drone took no photos. Tehran: Yes it did
STL Appeals Chamber Dismisses Challenges against in Absentia Trial
Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea: Era of Settlements with Other Camp is Over, Govt. Represents the Killers
Berri postpones Parliament session
Sleiman urges speedy release of Lebanese hostages
Elizabeth Jones: Lebanese Deserve a Govt. that Reflects Their Aspirations
Madi Files Lawsuit against Persons Unknown in al-Hasan Case, Refers It to Investigative Judge
U.S. stresses importance of avoiding power vacuum in Lebanon
Lebanon's Arabic press digest - Nov. 1, 2012
Jumblatt congratulates Rai, says dialogue needed
Lebanese Soldier Wounded in Shooting in Front of ISF Intelligence Bureau Chief's Residence
Abducted journalist says Turkish authorities obstructing his return to Lebanon
U.S. stresses importance of avoiding power vacuum in Lebanon
Lebanese-Americans weigh in on U.S. election
Rumors abound about Geagea and anti-Aoun Kesrouan list
Metropolitan Palace Hotel closes: sources
Sleiman: Door open for unity government
Lebanese-Americans weigh in on U.S. election
Jumblatt, Wahhab agree to maintain stability in Chouf
Relatives of hostages protest outside Turkish mission
Campaign pushes for news on fate of missing
Israeli army kidnaps Lebanese shepherd
U.S. stresses importance of avoiding power vacuum in Lebanon
Arab world will be “relieved” by strike on Iran, Israeli PM says
Barak: Israel won't outsource its security to anyone
UN security council forced to relocate after storm
Israeli army kidnaps Lebanese shepherd
American “leftists” whitewash Nasrallah
Syrian opposition to form government in exile
US wants Syrian opposition shakeup to defeat Assad
Fuel tanker explosion kills 22 in Saudi capital
Kuwait warns of harsher measures against protests
Officials: CIA head in Egypt for security talks
Sinai Salafists threaten Israel, Egypt security
Shin Bet: Gaza trader funnels millions to Hamas

Arab world will be “relieved” by strike on Iran, Israeli PM says
October 31, 2012 /The Arab world will be "relieved" if Israel strikes at Iranian nuclear installations, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told France's Paris-Match weekly.
He said in case of an attack, "five minutes later, contrary to what skeptics think, I believe there will be a great feeling of relief throughout the region,” Netanyahu said in an interview published Wednesday.
"Iran is not popular in the Arab world, far from it," he said in comments reported in French. "And some neighboring regimes and their citizens have well understood that a nuclear-armed Iran is a danger for them, not only for Israel," he said, without mentioning specific nations. Netanyahu has warned that a nuclear Iran would pose an existential threat to the Jewish state and has repeatedly refused to rule out military action, fuelling speculation that an attack was imminent. But he then appeared to pull back, pushing the deadline until spring or even summer 2013, ostensibly to allow time for international sanctions to work. Iran denies Israeli and Western suspicions that its nuclear program is a front for a drive for a weapons capability. Netanyahu also said economic sanctions aimed at forcing Tehran to abandon its nuclear arms program were biting "but have not impacted on the nuclear program in any way," adding: "How do we know this? Because the regime is organizing tourist visits to its centrifuges."He said he would discuss "concrete ways of stepping up sanctions against Iran," in his first face-to-face talks with President Francois Hollande.-AFP

Barak: Israel won't outsource its security to anyone
By YAAKOV LAPPIN 10/31/2012 In London, defense minister signals J'lem will not rely on "even our closest, most trusted allies" to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, adds Israel lives in a tough region where there is "no mercy for the weak." Israel will not outsource its vital security interests to anyone, “not even to our closest and most trusted allies,” Defense Minister Ehud Barak said in London on Wednesday. Speaking at the British Israel Communications and Research Center, Barak addressed Iran’s uranium enrichment program: “All options are on the table to prevent Iran from crossing the point of no return. We expect all those who say it to mean it; we mean it.”The defense minister signaled that Jerusalem would not rely on US assurances to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. “The State of Israel was founded precisely so that our fate would remain in our own hands. When it comes to the very future of Israel, and its vital security interests, we cannot… and will not outsource the responsibility for making the decision. Not even to our closest and most trusted allies,” he said.
“We live in a tough neighborhood, one in which there is no mercy for the weak and no second chance for those who cannot defend themselves – ‘a villa in the jungle,’ as I once put it. In such a place, it is imperative to remain strong, open-eyed, with both feet on the ground,” Barak said. “We always say that a pessimist in the Middle East is merely an optimist with experience,” he added.
Turning his sights to Syria, Barak noted that over 30,000 Syrians have been killed in that country’s civil war, adding that “Iran and Hezbollah are the only allies Assad has left. They will suffer a major blow with his inevitable downfall. We can only hope that it won’t end up in total chaos, and another hotbed of terror on our borders.”
Israel will take military action should it identify an attempt to transfer Syrian chemical weapons to terrorists, the defense minister warned.
“Taking into account the warm ties between Hezbollah and Syria, I have instructed the IDF to closely monitor the possible transfer of advanced weapons systems and Assad’s chemical arsenal into Lebanon. We will take any necessary action to prevent this,” he said during the speech. Barak also touched on changes in Egypt, noting that the country has “entered a new era. The Muslim Brotherhood regime provides a tailwind for Hamas in Gaza and extremists in Jordan.”At the same time, Barak said, “The peace treaty with Egypt remains a strategic asset for both countries and we expect the new government to respect it, as well as all their other international obligations, for the sake of peace and stability for the entire region.”

Israel: the Iranian drone took no photos. Tehran: Yes it did
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report November 1, 2012/Israel and Iran are trading words and insinuations over whether the Iranian stealth drone which Hizballah launched over Israel on Oct, 6 did or did not obtain images of sensitive Israeli sites. Wednesday, Oct. 31, an Iranian Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) spokesman contradicted comments made two days earlier by IDF Northern Command chief Maj. Gen. Yair Golan, who said the unmanned aircraft had not been able to take photos as Iran claimed, because "I don't think there was a camera there."
IRGC spokesman Brig. Gen. Ramezan Sharif retorted: “The fact that we have obtained the images of many areas that are important for us is the proof that we have conducted a successful mission,” he said.
debkafile's military sources: This was the first public admission by an Iranian official that the IRGC was indeed behind the drone’s launching from Lebanon into Israel’s air space from the Mediterranean Sea. It was shot down over the Negev desert after several hours.
After the intrusion, Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah said his movement had sent the drone and that the aircraft was "Iranian-built and assembled in Lebanon."
On Sept. 16, the IRGC chief Gen. Ali Jaafari announced that units of Al Qods Brigade, the corps’ intelligence and terror arm, had taken up position Lebanon.
Lebanese President Gen. Michel Sleiman’s angry request for clarifications from Tehran has never been answered. Neither US nor Israel reacted to this infringement of Lebanese sovereignty, or to the placement of Iranian soldiers in areas bordering Israel.
The IRGC official’s statement Wednesday actually confirmed the charge that Iran was using Lebanese territory for operations against Israel and that the stealth unmanned aircraft was the precursor of direct military operations. In his words, "They (Israelis) must know that we possess the information we need on necessary areas in case a particular situation arises" – indicating those areas would be targeted for Iranian retaliation in the event of an Israeli attack on Tehran's nuclear sites.
His comments were released just hours after French President Francois Hollande received Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu at the Elysée in Paris. The issue of a nuclear Iran topped their agenda.
Ahead of their meeting, Netanyahu told French reporters: "Five minutes after an attack on the Iranian nuclear program, a sense of relief would spread across the Middle East."
debkafile's military and intelligence sources say that by the verbal duel, Jerusalem and Tehran are trying to find out how much the other has discovered in the wake of the drone’s expedition into Israeli airspace: Iran wants to know what Israeli cyber warfare and air force experts have learned from the downed intruder, while Israel is trying to figure out what intelligence, if any, it transmitted to the Iranian cyber warfare experts and IRGC controlling the drone operation from Hizballah security headquarters in southern Beirut.
Maj. Gen. Golan threw out a hint, when he said the Iranian aerial vehicle "could fly over Israel for a long time, which could develop into filming abilities." In other words, the Iranians may have assembled images with the help of simulation equipment other than cameras.
The Revolutionary Guard spokesman's comment that "we possess the information we need" fits in with the Israeli general’s remark.
Also suggested by the Iranian general’s comments, say debkafile’s Western intelligence sources, is the suspicion in Tehran that their drone was not shot down by Israeli missiles, as officially reported, but downed intact with very minor damage by a joint operation of the Israel Air Force and cyber warfare experts. Now, Tehran is trying to reconstruct how much the Israelis learned from the equipment it carried.

Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea: Era of Settlements with Other Camp is Over, Govt. Represents the Killers
Naharnet/Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea on Wednesday announced that “the era of settlements with the other camp is over,” noting that Prime Minister Najib Miqati's government “represents the killers.”“We want to stop the killing machine that is targeting us. Assassinations have become a trivial thing and unfortunately some officials are calling for dialogue as if nothing happened,” said Geagea in an interview on Future television. “For the institutions to continue functioning, we must stop the killing machine and this is what March 14 wants,” he added.
The LF leader noted that ousting Miqati's government is only one aspect of March 14's strategy “because the killers are part of this government.”
“How can we explain the fact that from 2004 until today assassinations have only targeted the March 14 camp,” Geagea asked rhetorically.
Pointing the finger at the rival March 8 camp over the series of assassinations and assassination attempts in the country, the last of which was the assassination of Maj. Gen. Wissam al-Hasan, Geagea said: “Before they assumed power, they voiced objections over telecom data and against the Intelligence Bureau because it is the only security authority that is not under their control.”
Asked about the March 8 camp's rationale that handing over the entire telecom data to security agencies would be an invasion of citizens' privacy and therefore a human rights violation, Geagea said: “How can they support a regime that is 'stepping on' human rights and still say that the issue of telecom data violates human rights.”
“The issue is that the March 14 camp is facing systematic killing operations organized by large groups and armed organizations that have military wings,” Geagea charged.
“How can we speak of a political life amid these assassinations? How can we head to polls amid this killing? We must improve the current situation in order to have (parliamentary) elections” in 2013, he added. Asked about the attempt to storm the Grand Serail following al-Hasan's funeral, Geagea said: “Everyone knows that we had no intention or plan to storm the Grand Serail and we ordered our youths to withdraw immediately.” “I disagree with PM Miqati who said that ousting the government is a personal vendetta, because the government represents the killers,” Geagea added.
Slamming Hizbullah for sending an Iranian-built drone over Israel, the LF leader said: “Who asked Hizbullah to send the drone? Did the government allow it to do so? The drone was sent at the expense of Lebanon and Iran obtained its images.”
“I ask the (Lebanese) defense minister whether the Lebanese army has copies of the images taken by the reconnaissance drone,” Geagea went on to say.
He stressed that “it is unacceptable to employ the interests of the Lebanese in the framework of Iran's strategy against Israel.”
Answering a question, Geagea added: “I don't know when will the government fall, but we will continue our efforts to topple it because it contains the representatives of the March 8 camp which is responsible for the assassination operations.”
Asked about Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblat's remarks about preserving national unity in the country, Geagea said: “How can we speak of national unity while there are parties voicing support for a regime that sent explosives to Lebanon and while some parties have sent jihadists to support it.”
“Jumblat is not refusing to leave the government out of his fear of vacuum, but rather out of his fear of the 'monster',” added Geagea.
“We started serious efforts to ally with the centrist blocs, and this is what pushed them to speed up the assassinations and this was the reason behind the attempt on (MP) Butros Harb's life,” Geagea noted.
“The March 8 camp has been trying to cripple political life since 2005 until today,” he added.
Turning to the economic situation, Geagea said “decent living requires a good economy and a good economy requires stability which in turn requires putting an end to crime.”

Soldier Wounded in Shooting in Front of ISF Intelligence Bureau Chief's Residence
Naharnet/A soldier was wounded on Wednesday in a shooting in front of the Beirut residence of Internal Security Forces Intelligence Bureau head Imad Othman, reported LBCI television.It said that two assailants riding on a motorcycle opened fire at an ISF patrol in front of Othman's residence in Beirut's Qasqas neighborhood. The security forces promptly retaliated to the attack by opening fire at the perpetrators. The assailants soon fled the scene on foot, abandoning their motorcycle, said LBCI. Blood was found near their vehicle, confirming that one or both of them may have been wounded as well. At the time, the patrol was searching for potential explosives that may have been planted in the area, added LBCI. Residents in the area recognized the assailants as robbers that frequent the area, with LBCI adding that they have a criminal record in theft. It said that they were likely planning on carrying out a robbery in the area, but they were surprised by the presence of the ISF patrol and opened fire at it.

Abducted journalist says Turkish authorities obstructing his return to Lebanon
October 31, 2012 /The Lebanese journalist abducted in Syria said that Turkish authorities were stalling in receiving him from his abductors for flimsy reasons. “One of the [Turkish authorities] pretexts is that they want to provide a private jet for me,” Fidaa Itani told LBC on Wednesday during a phone call. Itani also said that the leader of the group that abducted him, known as Abu Ibrahim, was still alive. “I met him a while ago along the Syrian-Turkish border.”He also said that Abu Ibrahim said he would only hand him over to “officials from the Lebanese embassy [in Turkey].” Lebanese media reported earlier on Wednesday that Itani was released and crossed the border to Turkey. On Ocotber 27, Syrian rebels said that they arrested Itani and handed him over to the abductor of the 11 Lebanese pilgrims due to “suspicions” surrounding him, LBC television reported.  The rebels holding the Lebanese journalist said that the latter’s “[affairs were not harmonious with] the trajectory of the Syrian Revolution and rebels.” -NOW Lebanon

Lebanese cabinet approves diplomatic appointments
October 31, 2012/The Lebanese cabinet convened at the Baabda Presidential Palace and approved a series of diplomatic appointments.The cabinet also approved amendments to a number of financial credits in the 2012 state budget, Information Minister Walid Daouq said following the government’s Wednesday meeting. He added that the ministers agreed to provide the Health Ministry with financial aid to purchase medical equipment. -NOW Lebanon

Syrian opposition to form government in exile
By Paula Astatih/Asharq Alawsat
Beirut, Asharq Al-Awsat – More than 200 members of various Syrian opposition groups, following a three-day conference in Istanbul, issued a general declaration agreeing to form a “government in exile” in preparation for the transitional phase in Syria.
Syrian political and military opposition figures, from inside the country and abroad, responded to an invitation from the Syrian Center for Political and Strategic Studies [SCPSS] to participate in a conference to discuss how to manage the post-Assad transitional stage in the country. This three-day conference, which began on Monday and ended with the agreement to form a transitional government in exile, was entitled “Managing the Transition in Syria: Challenges and a Vision for the Future”.
The participants issued a statement following the three-day conference announcing that “the conference agreed on the need to put aside our ideological differences to agree on creating a government in exile.”
The statement added “it would be in the form of a transitional government to grab more political support from the international and Arab community, in order to support the revolution.”
The declaration was signed by the SNC, FSA, Kurdish National Council, Damascus Declaration, Muslim Brotherhood and Syrian Revolution General Commission, amongst others.
The declaration was read by SCPSS Executive Officer Dr. Radwan Ziadeh. He said “all the attendees, who represent all the political parties of Syria, agreed that a general assembly should be held and from this, the general assembly-in-exile will be elected. Such a general assembly should be held inside Syria in liberated areas, if possible. If not, a preparation committee can look for other options, such as other countries.”
For his part, SCPSS President Dr. Osama Kadi, speaking during the opening ceremony of this conference, asserted that it would not be easy to implement the transition in Syria without working out a clear vision for the future of Syria, placing the country on the path to political change.
The conference attendants focused on the importance of planning for the transitional stage, particularly as major parts of the country have been liberated from the grip of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, most importantly the border crossings, which have high strategic importance, particularly in terms of national sovereignty. The conference attendants agreed that this is something that necessitates the establishment of a central authority that is able to manage the transitional stage on the basis of the two agreements reached by the Syrian opposition during the July Cairo Conference. The July Cairo Conference resulted in two major agreements, namely a national charter, as well as an agreement on the features of a post-Assad transition stage.
Speaking exclusively to Asharq Al-Awsat, SNC-member Luay Safi stressed that “this conference is the culmination of previous efforts to develop a detailed plan for the transitional stage.” He added “the conference’s importance lies in the efforts to reach an understanding among the revolutionary and political forces regarding the broad outlines for this plan, which was developed in Istanbul four months ago and was submitted to the Friends of Syria conference.”
He asserted that “we are focusing on four central points; firstly, how to politically run the transitional stage; secondly, how to achieve transitional justice; thirdly, how to achieve security; finally, how to run the national economy during this stage.”
The SNC member also told Asharq Al-Awsat that “efforts are being made, during this conference, to develop this 16-page plan in a way that satisfies all attendants.”
He added “we will attempt to examine the details of each point and to seek to achieve a political and military consensus on everything."
For his part, FSA Joint Command spokesman, Fahd al-Masri, informed Asharq Al-Awsat that the conference’s main objective is to “seek to expand the consensus on the operational mechanisms for the transitional and democratic stages.”
He also revealed that “there will also be preparation for a future conference, which will be attended by all components of the Syrian opposition, which will be transformed into a revolutionary parliament.”
He added that this revolutionary parliament “will establish a Higher Council to Protect the Revolution…as previously presented in plans put forward by the FSA Joint Command.”
The FSA spokesman stressed that “one of the main tasks of this Higher Council will be to restructure the regime's military and security establishments, with the FSA absorbing all those who wish to carry weapons." Al-Masri also told Asharq Al-Awsat that “it would be a grave mistake to wait for the collapse of the regime and then to build these establishments" adding "these establishments should be ready and prepared from the first moment following the collapse of the regime."
He said “as for the transitional government, it will come to light following the establishment of the Higher Council to Protect the Revolution.”
According to the organizers, the “Managing the Transition in Syria: Challenges and a Vision for the Future” conference was attended by more than 150 Syrian opposition political leaders and activists who belong to various political trends. SCPSS revealed that representatives of the SNC, Kurdish National Council, Assyrian Organization, Damascus Declaration, Muslim Brotherhood, Syrian Revolution General Commission, Local Coordination Committees, Levant Scholars Commission, and others attended the opposition conference. A number of senior political figures who defected from the al-Assad regime, including former Prime Minister Riad Hijab and various former Syrian ambassadors, also participated in the conference in addition to former Syrian diplomats and FSA and opposition brigade commanders

Jordan, Egypt and the gas crisis
By Tariq Alhomayed
Asharq Al-Awsat
Over the past few weeks, Egypt has ceased pumping gas to Jordan without providing any real or convincing justifications for this, and despite the binding agreements signed between Cairo and Amman in this regard. Whilst within the past 48 hours, Egyptian sources announced that Egypt would resume pumping gas to Jordan. So why did Egypt stop pumping gas to Jordan in the first place?
What is strange is that there are no logical or legal or indeed political reasons for Egypt’s actions. There is no justification to suspending a legal agreement based on political differences – if this should be the case – particularly as Egyptian gas stopped being pumped to the Kingdom of Jordan at the same time that it continued being pumped to Israel. Despite the clamour surrounding this case, from issues regarding tariff rates to other accusations made against symbols of the former Mubarak regime, gas continued to be exported to Israel, and we did not hear any problems in this regard. So, how can gas exports be stopped to Jordan based on such flimsy pretexts, particularly as there are no security justifications for this, such as terrorists targeting gas pipelines and so on?
The strangeness surrounding this case does not stop here, for according to information I heard from sources that are well informed about this particular issue, some Muslim Brotherhood affiliates in Jordan offered to mediate between Amman and Cairo over Egypt resuming to export gas to Jordan. This is something in itself that can be considered a dangerous indicator regarding the forthcoming period in terms of relations between Arab states, in addition to a warning bell regarding the manner in which the Brotherhood is managing its sphere of influence in the region. This is also something that strengthens the grave doubts over the Muslim Brotherhood’s intentions in the region. The targeting of the Kingdom of Jordan at this particular time by using a sensitive issue such as gas is a serious issue and a worrisome indicator, patricianly as there are those in Jordon who are seeking to provoke a crisis to incite the Jordanian street to pull the country as a whole into the so-called Arab Spring camp, under any circumstances, and for whatever reasons, even if they are feeble. It is no secret that those most keen to do this are the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan. There can be no doubt that Egypt halting its gas supply to Jordan is considered helpful towards provoking an internal Jordanian crisis, particularly in terms of the repercussions this has on Jordanian citizens. Egypt stopping its gas imports to Jordan is akin to adding fuel to the fire, and this is very dangerous and concerning, particularly if we take into account the threat represented by the al-Assad regime towards Jordan, which is preoccupied with Syrian refugees, not to mention al-Assad security forces daily violations of Jordanian territory.
It is true that the Egyptian leadership, ever since President Mursi was elected, has sought to reassure Arab states, particularly the Gulf States, sending reassuring messages to them that Cairo will not seek to export the Brotherhood ideology. Yet politics is not just talk, but this is actions and maintaining one’s interests. Therefore Egypt cutting off gas to Jordan is a concerning message to everyone, especially the Gulf states that are keen on Jordan's security and stability based on a number of real and strategic reasons. The questions that must be asked here is: Why is Amman’s security being threatened? Why are all those who are keen on protecting the security of the Kingdom of Jordan being provoked?

American “leftists” whitewash Nasrallah
Alex Rowell, October 30, 2012
Eager as they ever are to believe that no enemy of Israel can go far wrong, two prominent figures on the American “left” have penned a righteous critique of what they call a “disastrous” and “embarrassing” New York Times op-ed that portrays Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah as anti-Semitic.
Not the easiest blemish to brush off, one might have thought, but then such people are well-practiced in furnishing bigots with excuses they haven’t and wouldn’t make for themselves. After claiming the particular “supposedly anti-Jewish” quote attributed to Nasrallah in the Times is “in all likelihood a fabrication,” Phil Weiss and Max Blumenthal proceed to paste a lengthy tract by “widely-published Marxist thinker” Louis Proyect, who has concluded after “assiduous” research that there isn’t a scrap of evidence—anywhere—implicating Nasrallah in any kind of funny business on the Jewish question.
Now, the Times article certainly wasn’t fantastic, and I happen to share Weiss’ and Blumenthal’s distaste for the manner in which Israel’s defenders cry “pogrom” at the mildest political criticism. Yet as a secularist who actually lives in Lebanon, I’ve long wearied of reading hagiographies of the “Party of God” from pseudo-dissidents and laptop-Leninists 7,000 miles away.
Weiss and Blumenthal are probably right that the quote (“If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice I do not say the Israeli”) comes from Amal Saad-Ghorayeb’s Hizbullah: Politics & Religion. Though it purports to quote Nasrallah, the footnote in fact cites an interview with Hezbollah MP Muhammad Fneish on August 15, 1997.
Thereafter, however, the writers quickly wade far out of their depth. Put aside the fact that Nicholas Noe, editor of the party-approved Voice of Hezbollah: The Statements of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah says the quote is genuine after all. Even if it were a fake, what Weiss and Blumenthal damningly omit to mention—presumably because they haven’t actually read her book—is that Saad-Ghorayeb also produces a number of further statements, directly attributed to Nasrallah, that are—how to put it?—difficult to read as philo-Semitic. These include:
· That Jews are “renowned for breaching covenants and promises, even with God and the prophets” (p. 171 in the 2002 Pluto Press paperback version; citing Nasrallah in Amiru’l-Zakira, February 23, 1992, p. 139).
· That Jews are “the enemies of God [and] humankind” (p. 175; citing a Nasrallah speech in Beirut’s southern suburbs on August 8, 1997).
· That God “imprinted blasphemy” on the Jews’ hearts (p. 176; citing Nasrallah, August 8, 1997).
· That the Jews fabricated the Holocaust in order to advance their plot to control the world (pp. 181-2; citing a Nasrallah speech in Beirut’s southern suburbs on “Jerusalem Day,” January 24, 1998).
When I pointed this out to Blumenthal on Monday morning, he replied, “I do not consider [Saad-Ghorayeb] reliable, though I don’t doubt Nasrallah has used some f’ed up rhetoric.” Regarding the first half of that statement, one might direct his attention to, say, this video from 2006, in which Nasrallah begins by lamenting that Salman Rushdie hasn’t been murdered yet, and then goes on to say the following:
“A few years ago, a great French philosopher, Roger Garaudy, wrote a scientific book […] in which he discussed the alleged Jewish Holocaust in Germany. He proved that this Holocaust is a myth. The great French philosopher Roger Garaudy was put [on] trial […] Why? Because freedom of expression extends [only] to the Jews.”
Regarding the second half, if Blumenthal was already in no doubt that Nasrallah was an anti-Semite, why did he contribute to an article strongly suggesting the very opposite might be the case? A curious undertaking for any “leftist,” let alone one who so piously accused Christopher Hitchens of “enabling Holocaust-deniers” (echoing—hilariously enough—Henry Kissinger, who quickly shut up after Hitchens’ lawyers threatened a libel suit). Curious also that the argument the authors set out to disprove—namely, that certain elements on the “left” are too ready to give the benefit of the doubt to Jew-baiters—is ultimately the one they succeed in advancing.

Rumors abound about Geagea and anti-Aoun Kesrouan list
November 01, 2012/By Antoine Ghattas Saab The Daily Star
JOUNIEH, Lebanon: At a recent social gathering, supporters of a number of politicians from Kesrouan – including the head of the Industrialists Association Naamat Frem and former MPs Mansour al-Bon and Farid al-Khazen – called on them to run for parliamentary seats next year.
The gathering took place as rumors continue to circulate about upcoming electoral alliances in the region.
Some of those rumors contend that a list of candidates is being assembled under the supervision of Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea, his intention being to challenge the Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun’s list.
Sources say Geagea’s list will include Frem, Bon, Khazen, Wissam Baroudi and a fifth candidate from the March 14 coalition.
While March 14’s LF and Kataeb parties are both angling to put their own candidate in the fifth slot, it has been speculated that the chosen candidate might be Shaker Salameh, Alexander Rizk or Nawfal Dao, all of whom are independents.
Kataeb leader Amin Gemayel recently invited Frem for dinner at his home to discuss how to finalize a list to confront the FPM’s.
Senior LF sources say that contacts are ongoing with Kataeb to agree on the fifth candidate. According to sources, the Kataeb might acquire a seat in Kesrouan in return for giving the Maronite seat in Tripoli to the LF.
After agreeing the name, the LF and Kataeb will hold talks with the Future Movement to agree on a strong list that could mount a substantial challenge against the incumbents in next year’s parliamentary elections.
Meanwhile, former Minister Ziyad Baroud has still not decided which list he wants to run on. Baroud fears a quick decision on his electoral alliance might negatively affect his reputation as an independent.
In recent years Baroud has received support from both sides of the divided political spectrum, especially from FPM supporters. For this reason, it remains very difficult for Baroud to ally himself with the rivals of Aoun. Frem has recently advised Baroud to remain neutral for now.
Sources close to Frem reiterate that he remains an independent candidate for Kesrouan and that rumors to the contrary are an attempt to tarnish his image.
Sources also say the Lebanese are fed up with political conflicts and are expecting future MPs to do real work on the ground, particularly in the areas of the economy, health care and national social security.
The FPM, however, is closely watching developments and has so far avoided commencing list formation, since there is a possibility that elections will not be held on time due to the absence of an agreement on a new electoral law.
Khazen, for his part, says that his candidacy depends on the changes that might be made to the electoral law.
Khazen, who supports the electoral law drafted in 2006 by Fouad Boutrous’ commission, says that he represents the independent movement the country really needs amid the ongoing sectarian tensions between March 14 and March 8.
He says his beliefs are rooted in strengthening Christian representation, by boosting the role of the president, supporting the Army leadership and supporting the Maronite Patriarchy.
He also voices support for giving the Christians a united role in support of stability in the country.
He expressed hope that President Michel Sleiman and Maronite Patriarch Bechara Rai would not take a stand in the coming elections as he makes extensive political contacts.
Meanwhile, sources close to Baroudi refuse to align him with any electoral alliance, saying that what matters most to him is giving the Lebanese youth a role in the political life of the nation and strengthening the role of state institutions and civil society groups.


If I Were Ahmadinejad
Leslie J. Sacks
Los Angeles, CA
The possibilities are fascinating. He may or may not be as rational as many assume, considering his messianic beliefs in the pending arrival of the Madji (the Shi'ite version of the coming of the Christ). However, he certainly is wily, manipulative, devious and a superb strategist operating with patient yet amoral political acumen.
If I were Ahmadinejad, I would offer the White House a deal they could not refuse:
-Iran would agree to cease enriching uranium over 20% concentration
-The White House would in turn agree to reduce sanctions against Iran
The Obama campaign desperately needs a game changer now that the debates and post-debate dialogue seems to be going Romney's way. A deal with the Iranians could be such a revelation and the only proof of any success for the beleaguered White House foreign policy of negotiation and accommodation.
This political coup could well swing the election back the Democrats. After November 6, Obama will have another four years and Ahmadinejad will have reduced sanctions, and increased prestige and power.After a while Iran will likely revert back to its nefarious activities and sanctions may possibly be reimposed. Despite Iran's deception, Obama would at least, for his part, remain in office and continue implementing his remaking of the world in his image. Ahmadinejad would not have to deal with an implacable Romney, who clearly has campaigned as a formidable obstacle to Iran and their nuclear ambitions. Romney sees a nuclear Iran as the preeminent enemy of the USA and Ahmadinejad knows this well, if he knows anything. So in Ahmadinejad's playbook, a preferable Obama is a pushover compared to the Republican ticket.
The State Department has had 1460 days in Obama's 4-year term to conclude a deal. Is it conceivable that only in the last 14 days of this term the White House will manage to expediently cut a deal? Gaming the system, even for dispassionate observers, would be clearly an inescapable conclusion. This deal will, if enacted, become Obama's Watergate just as the seeming cover-up of the Al Qaeda terrorist attack in Benghazi (within Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans murdered) is fast becoming one too. It is tragic that members of both parties so willingly politicize the debate, risking further the security of Israel and the USA in their unstoppable quest for one-upmanship.
If this arrangement between enemies does not eventuate, one plausible reason may be the recognition that it would sound suspiciously like a campaign ploy and would therefore be more damaging to Obama’s prospects than productive.
So words and paper agreements can possibly help swing an election.
Leslie J. Sacks

Will we pay for Iran’s madness?
By Emad El Din Adeeb/Asharq Alawsat
The most dangerous thing in the ideology and policy of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp [IRGC] is its support, funding and arming of organization involved in armed struggles far away from Iran’s regional borders. This means that should these struggles escalate into full-blown wars, Iran will be safe from the fire. Based on this logic, Iran backed the Huthi rebels in Yemen, various armed groups in Somalia, Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon not to mention the Sudanese army against Southern Sudan.
All these regions are far from Iran’s borders and outside of the sphere of influence of Iran’s national security.
Regardless of the Iranian denials and Israeli attestation of the existence of an arms factory producing weapons for Iran in Sudan, the reality is that this factory remains on fire today. This fire – not to mention the sounds of explosions –would not continue unabated in this manner in a factory that was producing harmless toys or sewage pipes!
During the Bill Clinton era, the US targeted a similar factory in Sudan. Whereas this time, Israel took the initiative to prevent the manufacturing of Iranian-design surface-to-surface missiles that were going to be sent to Gaza via the Egyptian-Sudanese border.
Ultimately, Sudan, Egypt and Hamas will be held responsible for the Iranian manufacturing of such missiles.
For when Israel responds, this will not be against Iran, but rather Sudan, Egypt or Hamas.
There is nothing easier than playing the proxy-war game, utilizing proxies and the territory of others to hit one’s target, without risking any direct reaction.
The logic behind igniting the region, which Iran has adopted under the pretext of “supporting and strengthening the resistance”, is nothing more than using good words with bad intentions.
We all are being used as tools of a regional Iranian nuclear project that ultimately has nothing to do with us. We are not part of this nuclear project, nor can we sit idly by and watch this farce!
Iran has every right to fight a war – whether a large-scale conflict or a minor skirmish – against whoever it likes whenever it likes. This is a sovereign national decision, and Iran – as a sovereign state – is entitled to take such decisions. Yet, Iran is not entitled to jeopardize our national security, or the security and safety of our people, as part of a futile conflict against the so-called “Great Satan”, namely the US.
If Iran wants to fight the US or Israel, it must wage such wars away from our national security.
If it is true that modern geo-politics means that we are neighbours with Iran, then we must use our wisdom and insight to avoid the forthcoming hellish and insane war!


Syrian opposition to form government in exile
31/10/2012
By Paula Astatih
Beirut, Asharq Al-Awsat – More than 200 members of various Syrian opposition groups, following a three-day conference in Istanbul, issued a general declaration agreeing to form a “government in exile” in preparation for the transitional phase in Syria.
Syrian political and military opposition figures, from inside the country and abroad, responded to an invitation from the Syrian Center for Political and Strategic Studies [SCPSS] to participate in a conference to discuss how to manage the post-Assad transitional stage in the country. This three-day conference, which began on Monday and ended with the agreement to form a transitional government in exile, was entitled “Managing the Transition in Syria: Challenges and a Vision for the Future”.
The participants issued a statement following the three-day conference announcing that “the conference agreed on the need to put aside our ideological differences to agree on creating a government in exile.”
The statement added “it would be in the form of a transitional government to grab more political support from the international and Arab community, in order to support the revolution.”
The declaration was signed by the SNC, FSA, Kurdish National Council, Damascus Declaration, Muslim Brotherhood and Syrian Revolution General Commission, amongst others.
The declaration was read by SCPSS Executive Officer Dr. Radwan Ziadeh. He said “all the attendees, who represent all the political parties of Syria, agreed that a general assembly should be held and from this, the general assembly-in-exile will be elected. Such a general assembly should be held inside Syria in liberated areas, if possible. If not, a preparation committee can look for other options, such as other countries.”
For his part, SCPSS President Dr. Osama Kadi, speaking during the opening ceremony of this conference, asserted that it would not be easy to implement the transition in Syria without working out a clear vision for the future of Syria, placing the country on the path to political change.
The conference attendants focused on the importance of planning for the transitional stage, particularly as major parts of the country have been liberated from the grip of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, most importantly the border crossings, which have high strategic importance, particularly in terms of national sovereignty. The conference attendants agreed that this is something that necessitates the establishment of a central authority that is able to manage the transitional stage on the basis of the two agreements reached by the Syrian opposition during the July Cairo Conference. The July Cairo Conference resulted in two major agreements, namely a national charter, as well as an agreement on the features of a post-Assad transition stage.
Speaking exclusively to Asharq Al-Awsat, SNC-member Luay Safi stressed that “this conference is the culmination of previous efforts to develop a detailed plan for the transitional stage.” He added “the conference’s importance lies in the efforts to reach an understanding among the revolutionary and political forces regarding the broad outlines for this plan, which was developed in Istanbul four months ago and was submitted to the Friends of Syria conference.”
He asserted that “we are focusing on four central points; firstly, how to politically run the transitional stage; secondly, how to achieve transitional justice; thirdly, how to achieve security; finally, how to run the national economy during this stage.”
The SNC member also told Asharq Al-Awsat that “efforts are being made, during this conference, to develop this 16-page plan in a way that satisfies all attendants.”
He added “we will attempt to examine the details of each point and to seek to achieve a political and military consensus on everything."
For his part, FSA Joint Command spokesman, Fahd al-Masri, informed Asharq Al-Awsat that the conference’s main objective is to “seek to expand the consensus on the operational mechanisms for the transitional and democratic stages.”
He also revealed that “there will also be preparation for a future conference, which will be attended by all components of the Syrian opposition, which will be transformed into a revolutionary parliament.”
He added that this revolutionary parliament “will establish a Higher Council to Protect the Revolution…as previously presented in plans put forward by the FSA Joint Command.”
The FSA spokesman stressed that “one of the main tasks of this Higher Council will be to restructure the regime's military and security establishments, with the FSA absorbing all those who wish to carry weapons."
Al-Masri also told Asharq Al-Awsat that “it would be a grave mistake to wait for the collapse of the regime and then to build these establishments" adding "these establishments should be ready and prepared from the first moment following the collapse of the regime."
He said “as for the transitional government, it will come to light following the establishment of the Higher Council to Protect the Revolution.”
According to the organizers, the “Managing the Transition in Syria: Challenges and a Vision for the Future” conference was attended by more than 150 Syrian opposition political leaders and activists who belong to various political trends. SCPSS revealed that representatives of the SNC, Kurdish National Council, Assyrian Organization, Damascus Declaration, Muslim Brotherhood, Syrian Revolution General Commission, Local Coordination Committees, Levant Scholars Commission, and others attended the opposition conference. A number of senior political figures who defected from the al-Assad regime, including former Prime Minister Riad Hijab and various former Syrian ambassadors, also participated in the conference in addition to former Syrian diplomats and FSA and opposition brigade commanders.

By Avoiding a Strike on Iran before U.S. Election, Israel Is Learning from History
David Makovsky and Amanda Sass/Washington Institute
November 1, 2012
Israel's non-strike against Iran means it is keeping its options open while avoiding once-familiar tensions with the United States.
Just days before the U.S. presidential election, it is worth considering how -- barring an unforeseen development -- one of the most widely trailed military operations in recent years will not in fact have taken place: Israel will not have attacked Iran before Americans go to the polls.
We do not know with absolute certainty if Israel did not attack because it chose not to do so, or if it felt compelled not to attack because of the red light for the operation from Washington. In an interview with Britain's Daily Telegraph at the end of October, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that the delay of the strike was due to Iran diverting uranium from its military to civilian programs. Yet, based on private conversations, one cannot preclude the possibility that Defense Minister Barak withdrew his support because he feared it would be viewed as interfering with the upcoming U.S. election. The premise of any pre-election strike was that Israel would be taking advantage of a time when it had maximum political influence in Washington, since President Obama would have been constrained in his reaction. The implication is that the pre-election period could be 'insulated', and therefore the consequences would not be felt after the election.
In the context of this non-strike it is worth recalling the events of 1956. The Suez Crisis/Sinai Campaign occurred only days before the U.S. elections called for November of that year, but its consequences over the months that followed marked the worst months in the history of the U.S.-Israel relationship.
The pre-election strategy to attack at Suez was not Israel's, as some may believe, but was the initiative of France's Foreign Minister Christian Pineau. He was confident that the U.S. would not criticize its friends for a firm stance against a hostile Soviet Union and a difficult President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt. In this effort, Israel was a bit player. Pineau thought incumbent U.S. President Eisenhower would be concerned about the American Jewish vote and therefore would allow the British-French-Israeli move to go forward and that this would be a massive setback to Nasser.
Pineau believed that the attack could not wait until after the U.S. elections, since Eisenhower may subsequently have changed course. He thought Eisenhower, in a second term, might seek to be more accommodating of Nasser as part of a wider relaxation of tensions with the Soviets. In a meeting on September 28 with his counterpart, then-Israeli Foreign Minister Golda Meir, Pineau said, "If Eisenhower is re-elected...[he would possibly favor] a consensus with the Russians."
Indeed, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion did not share Pineau's confidence that the U.S. would acquiesce, but felt Israel had little choice. One month later, on October 28, at an Israeli cabinet meeting, Ben-Gurion declared, "I know that our operation will not find favor with Mr. Dulles," referring to the American Secretary of State. While Pineau was the mastermind of the strategy, President Eisenhower immediately blamed Israel. In a letter to a friend at the very time that the war was unfolding, Eisenhower wrote about Ben-Gurion, "We realized that he might think he could take advantage of this country because of the approaching election." Abba Eban, Israel's ambassador to the U.S. at the time, concurred with this analysis. In his memoirs, Eban wrote, "Official Washington was in an angry mood. It had no doubt that we had deliberately chosen election week as an occasion for our operation. This suspicion increased the President's rage."
One of Pineau's miscalculations was how he overstated the strategic value of the American Jewish vote for Eisenhower. If he had been more perceptive or informed about the American national mood, he would have realized that Eisenhower would win by a landslide against candidate Adlai Stevenson in 1956, and therefore, was not worried about the Jewish vote, which he did not win anyway.
The aftermath of the 1956 war is well known. The newly reelected Eisenhower embarked upon a very public effort to press Israel to fully withdraw from the Sinai, including a national televised address for this very purpose. In February 1957, Dulles said the U.S. would employ sanctions against Israel via the UN. To this day, Eisenhower's post-1956 approach is viewed as the high-water mark for Arab states who want the U.S. to twist Israel's arm and "deliver" Israel.
However, the U.S. of 2012 is not the U.S. of 1956, even if there are some commonalities. Indeed, during both the Cold War and today, the U.S. viewed close ties with the Arabs as a component of a wider objective. In the 1950's, the wider objective was the Cold War against the Soviets, amidst hope to keep the Arab states away from the Soviet side. In post-9/11 America, both the Bush and Obama administrations see Arab democracy as providing closer ties with Arab peoples in order to create political distance between mainstream Muslim countries and radical elements like Al-Qaida. The success of such efforts is a different story.
Elections in 1956 trumpeted Eisenhower keeping the U.S. out of war, and today, neither major presidential candidate shows any interest in continuing the war in Afghanistan or returning to Iraq. Then, as now, the incumbents are proud of their commitment to multilateralism and international law.
Yet, there are profound differences between 1956 and today. While ties between Obama and Netanyahu have often been tense, the security web of bilateral ties is much thicker today, beyond anything imaginable in 1956, a time when the U.S. maintained its arms embargo upon Israel despite the fact that Egypt was being supplied with Soviet weaponry via Czechoslovakia. In 1956, there was no U.S. President and Congress identifying an Egyptian threat in concrete terms as it does today, when it comes to Iran. Israel's clout in Congress is immeasurably stronger now than it was in 1956. Then, there were no repeated UN Security Council resolutions against Egypt. Today, against Iran, there are UN and EU-sanctioned international oil embargoes and financial sanctions.
It is not 1956 today, but concerns in Israel linger. Notwithstanding all the sanctions and the international diplomacy that aim to halt the Iranian nuclear program, the international negotiations will probably be invigorated no matter who wins on Tuesday. Israel today fears the worst-case scenario. Israel fears it will ultimately be left alone to act, so that it does not live in the shadow of a nuclear Iran. Israel's inaction until now reflects a sense that it is better off going along with the international community for as long as possible -- until it has no choice but to act. As such, Israel keeps its options open; and the non-strike means it does not have to worry about the prospect of the consequences of a pre-election attack regarding its relations with post-election America.
*David Makovsky is director of the Project on the Middle East Peace Process at The Washington Institute and coauthor, with Patrick Clawson, of the recent study Preventing an Iranian Nuclear Breakout: U.S.-Israel Coordination. Amanda Sass is an intern at the Institute.