LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
October 17/12

Where do we finally End?
Elias bejjani/No one will live forever, no one. We all shall depart from this world once Almighty God decides to take back his gift, our life, the soul. What we always try to forget is the fact that no one can take with him any thing from this earth, nothing at all except his acts according to which he will face the Judgment Day. It is very helpful always to to keep this fact in mind and never ever fall in the delusion that we are living for ever. This reality is simplified in a Lebanese proverb that says: "If it had lasted for others, it would not have came to you".

Bible Quotation for today/
Luke 18/01-08: "Then Jesus told them a parable about their need to pray always and not to lose heart. He said, ‘In a certain city there was a judge who neither feared God nor had respect for people. In that city there was a widow who kept coming to him and saying, "Grant me justice against my opponent. For a while he refused; but later he said to himself, Though I have no fear of God and no respect for anyone, yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will grant her justice, so that she may not wear me out by continually coming. And the Lord said, Listen to what the unjust judge says. And will not God grant justice to his chosen ones who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long in helping them? I tell you, he will quickly grant justice to them. And yet, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?"

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
The secret channel between Tel Aviv and Damascus/By Emad El Din Adeeb/Asharq Alawsat/October 16/12
Will Iran Weather the Economic Storm/By: Patrick Clawson/Washington Institute/October 16/12
The Failure of the American Jewish Left/by David Brog/Middle East Quarterly/Winter 2013/October 16/12

The secret channel between Tel Aviv and Damascus
By Emad El Din Adeeb/Asharq Alawsat
The news leaked recently by Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, and then confirmed by the Israeli Foreign Ministry, about secret negotiations conducted between Tel Aviv and Damascus over the past few months in order to reach a Syrian-Israeli peace agreement is worthy of our contemplation.
We all know that, ever since the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, there has been a backdoor channel of communication between Damascus and Tel Aviv, conducted via the military intelligence apparatuses of the two countries. This secret channel has operated efficiently and regularly regardless of the nature – or complete lack – of overt relations between the two countries, and regardless of the level of tension between Syria and Israel. This channel has proven to be “highly efficient and of extreme importance to the security of both sides", after it was first consolidated during the Syrian-Israeli negotiation marathon that took place in Washington under US auspices during the era of President Bill Clinton. At the time the Syrian negotiation team was led by the then Foreign Minister Farouk al-Shara, who is the current Syrian Vice President. On Saturday, Israeli sources revealed that the aim of such negotiations with Syria was to attempt to drive a wedge between Syria one the one hand, and Iran and Hezbollah on the other, and that these negotiations were conducted under the auspices of the US State Department. In my opinion, you don’t need to be a genius to work out that such negotiations are doomed to failure in that regard, and that they will only serve to keep the al-Assad regime "afloat" and buy it more time. In my opinion, over the course of these negotiations, Tel Aviv and Washington will have quickly discovered that Bashar al-Assad's personal, psychological and security links with the Iranian regime are far stronger than any political flirtation with Washington, or any security yarn spinning with Tel Aviv.
These negotiations have been conducted at a time when the Arab Spring revolutions are posing a real burden for Washington, after they once represented the stuff of dreams for the American decision-maker. These secret communications have also been conducted at a time when Ehud Barak, the Israeli Minister of Defense, has been developing his plans to separate Gaza from the West Bank, and subsequently separate the West Bank from the Jewish state. Barak fears the emergence of an internationally-backed project, working on the assumption that a two-state solution is impossible, proposing the establishment of one state that incorporates all Israeli and Arab nationals; whether Jews, Muslims, Christians or Druze. Here we must contemplate the following question: If all Washington's regional projects suffer from repeated failures, who will pay the price in the long run?

Syria: Free Syrian Army to Exchange with Hezbollah prisoners
By Yousef Diab
Beirut, Asharq Al-Awsat – There is conflicting information about a prospective prisoner exchange deal between the Free Syrian Army [FSA] and Hezbollah, after the FSA was able to capture a number of Hezbollah and al-Assad regime elements. This deal would see the FSA releasing its prisoners in return for Hezbollah releasing Syrian citizens being held in the Hermel border region.
The FSA also announced that “the bodies of two Hezbollah fighters arrived at the al-Batoul hospital in Hermel.” The FSA statement asserted that “at a time that the conflict in the border region is intensifying, Hezbollah and Syrian regime elements are continuing to besiege the border village of Jawsiya, preparing to storm the area after a mixed [Hezbollah – Syrian regime] brigade took control of the western route and prevented the village inhabitants from fleeing towards safety.”
Sources within the Syrian interior confirmed that this prisoner exchange deal is set to take place soon, without revealing further details; however a Hezbollah political source, speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat on the condition of anonymity, said that the issue did not deserve a “response or comment.”
For his part, FSA Deputy Chief of Staff Colonel Aref Hammoud told Asharq Al-Awsat “the FSA leadership has no information about this [prisoner exchange] process” adding “this may be being coordinated by some battalion commanders on the ground.”
He also confirmed that “FSA elements captured Hezbollah fighters who were fighting alongside the Syrian regime. They were involved in the killing of the Syrian people; however Hezbollah has not captured any FSA elements.” “Hezbollah is arresting Syrian workers who are working in Lebanon or refugees and saying they have captured [FSA] prisoners.” The FSA deputy commander added.
FSA Joint Command spokesman Fahd al-Masri told Asharq Al-Awsat that “we neither confirm nor deny any prisoner exchange deal.” He also asserted that “Hezbollah does not have any FSA prisoners; rather they have imprisoned Syrian citizens in Lebanon.” The FSA spokesman also revealed that “we have 13 Hezbollah prisoners and dozens of bodies of Hezbollah fighters killed within Syrian villages and towns, they were heavily armed and attacking Syrian citizens” adding “their fate is in the hands of the Hezbollah leadership.”
Al-Masri also told Asharq Al-Awsat that “Hezbollah is attacking us with artillery and rockets being launched from its bases in the mountainous region of Hermel. Syrian villages and towns are within the blast zone, whilst Hezbollah fighters are also present in 6 Syrian villages and attempting to attack and occupy the village of Jawsiya with the objective of taking control of it and surrounding [the town of] al-Qaseer.”He added “Hezbollah is attempting to drag Lebanon, the people of Lebanon and the Shiite community into the depths of the Syrian conflict.”
The FSA spokesman stressed that “we are telling the people in Lebanon, particularly those belonging to the honourable Shiite community that our battle is not with them but with the Hezbollah leadership. We are warning them of the consequences of aggression on Syrian territory and the killing of Syrian people. Our response will be painful and targeted against the Hezbollah leadership, not against anybody else in terms of the Lebanese people or Shiite community.” He also called on the UN Security Council and Arab League to hold an emergency meeting as soon as possible to discuss the dangerous developments in Syria, including Hezbollah suppressing the Syrian people on Syrian territory.
Al-Masri added “we call for the deployment of international forces along the border between Syria and Lebanon to serve as a deterrent against Hezbollah dragging Lebanon into a battle it is not a party of.”
The FSA Joint Command spokesman also stressed the importance of “Lebanese political leaders taking urgent action to work toward ensuring that Lebanon does not become, once more, an arena for external wars, particularly the wars of Bashar al-Assad, Hassan Nasrallah and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.”

Hezbollah part of Assad killing machine: U.S.
October 16, 2012/The Daily Star
NEW YORK: Hezbollah is working to bolster President Bashar Assad’s regime and its fighters are part of his “killing machine,” the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. said Monday.
“[Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hasan] Nasrallah’s fighters are now part of Assad’s killing machine and Hezbollah leaders continue to plot with Iran new measures to prop up a murderous and desperate dictator,” Susan Rice said during a U.N. Security Council debate on the situation in the Middle East.
Rice also warned of the possibility that the ongoing unrest in Syria will have negative repercussions on other countries, giving Lebanon as an example of a state that is feeling the effects of the conflict.
“No one can deny that Assad’s war against the Syrian people now poses real challenges to all of Syria’s neighbors, including Lebanon. From deadly Syrian regime attacks across the border to tens of thousands of refugees, Lebanon is already suffering the consequences of this conflict,” she said.
The ambassador also criticized Hezbollah for its use of the term “resistance” to describe itself, calling this deceptive: “Hezbollah’s active and growing support for Assad’s war exposes Hasan Nasrallah’s claims of promoting Lebanon’s national interest as nothing more than a deadly form of deception. The group’s leaders may try to change the subject by invoking hollow rhetoric about so-called resistance, but the truth is plain to see.”
Last week, Nasrallah denied reports that members of his group were fighting alongside Assad’s forces, but Rice called on the international community to dig deeper into Hezbollah’s involvement in the Syrian conflict. “We encourage the international community to counter Hezbollah’s terrorist activity and do more to expose Hezbollah’s deepening involvement in Assad’s war,” she said, adding that “we commend the Lebanese government – and the Lebanese Armed Forces in particular – for maintaining stability and law and order at this critical juncture.”
Rice said the U.S. welcomes the efforts of President Michel Sleiman and others to promote dialogue, “including with respect to the disarmament of illegal militias, as called for in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559, and we reiterate our firm commitment to a stable, sovereign and independent Lebanon.”
Jeffrey Feltman, U.N. undersecretary-general for political affairs and former U.S. ambassador to Lebanon, said that Lebanese areas near the border with Syria are still threatened by a possible spillover from Syria. Feltman told the Security Council that the Syrian conflict is spiraling beyond its border, affecting Lebanon, the [Israeli occupied] Golan Heights, and the Syrian-Turkish border. U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon has expressed his alarm at escalation on the border. Israel’s Ambassador to the U.N. Ron Prosor said that by providing Hezbollah with sophisticated arms, Iran is turning Lebanon into an “outpost for terror.”
“Iran has provided Hezbollah with the funds, training and advanced weapons to hijack the Lebanese state and transform it into an outpost for terror,” Prosor said.
Hezbollah claimed responsibility last week for the launch of an unmanned drone which Israel shot down earlier this month after it flew 55 km into its territory.
Nasrallah said the drone’s parts were made in Iran but assembled by Hezbollah, adding that the drone’s flight was “not the first time and will not be the last.”
Prosor said “one does not need any further evidence that Hezbollah is a direct proxy of the Iranian regime,” adding that its “continued provocations could have devastating consequences for the region.”
Tensions have increased in the Middle East with Israel threatening to bomb the nuclear sites of Hezbollah’s patron Iran. – with Reuters

Syrian opposition rejects Hezbollah statement
By Nazeer Rida
Beirut, Asharq Al-Awsat - Syrian opposition figures have rejected Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah's recent statement, in which he denied that elements from his group are involved in the fighting in Syria. According to members of the Syrian opposition, “The funerals of Hezbollah elements refute Nasrallah's claim that his men are not involved in the fighting in Syria, alongside the Syrian regime". They also stressed that the opposition has not issued threats to any Lebanese entity [as alleged by Nasrallah], and hoped that “the Lebanese will remain neutral".
George Sabra, spokesman for the Syrian National Council, explained that Hezbollah’s participation in the fighting "needs no further evidence since the party has held funerals for its men who have been killed in Syria". He asked: "Why were these men in Syria?" In response to Nasrallah's assertion that these were Lebanese nationals who had been living in Syria for many years, and who recently found themselves in the eye of the storm, Sabra told Asharq Al-Awsat that "this is a story [Nasrallah] is using to justify his involvement in the conflict alongside the Syrian regime". He pointed out that "even if Hezbollah denies its participation, it is implicated by virtue of Iran's involvement in the conflict, something Tehran has admitted. Needless to say any Iranian war is certainly Hezbollah’s war as well".
Sabra voiced his hope that the Lebanese "will continue to keep their distance from the ongoing conflict in Syria, maintain their neutrality, and not follow this thorny path." He stressed that "the revolution and its noble goals will liberate the Lebanese - along with the Syrians - from this bloodthirsty and security-driven regime, which has dominated Lebanese politics for decades."
There had been earlier reports that some Syrian opposition members had threatened to take the battle to [Beirut's] southern suburbs, to which Nasrallah responded that threats or intimidation would be of no use against Hezbollah, given its longstanding experience. However, Sabra rejected these threats "to the Lebanese or anyone else," stressing that "the Syrian people are not focusing on anything that could distract them from their main goal of overthrowing the Syrian regime and its President Bashar al-Assad". He said: "We want to spare the region from the language of threats, which security regimes have long endorsed, particularly al-Assad's regime." He said: "We do not seek to threaten anyone. Neither the revolutionaries nor any Free Syrian Army member would possibly threaten the Lebanese". He added: "The revolution shuns the language of threats and intimidation, which both the Lebanese and Syrians have experienced."
For his part, Bassam Jaarah, the official spokesman for the Syrian Revolution General Commission, said: "A ‘resistance’ party should never get involved in a dirty war waged by a regime against its own people". Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat via telephone, he went on to say that: "If Hezbollah persists in waging this war, as Nasrallah is threatening, then this will lead to severe repercussions for the party”. Furthermore, "it will be tantamount to a major catastrophe for the Lebanese, the Syrians, and the region. Everyone will perceive Hezbollah as a sectarian militia that kills Syrians".
Regarding Nasrallah's claim that Hezbollah is not participating in the conflict, Jaarah equated this to al-Assad’s denial that his army is killing children and committing crimes. He pointed out that "Hezbollah elements were seen fighting in rural Homs, and this is no secret. Lebanese Hezbollah members have fought alongside the Syrian regime in the villages adjacent to the Lebanese border". Addressing Nasrallah, Jaarah pointed out that: "The people of Al-Qaseer, who hosted their Lebanese brethren during the July 2006 war, do not deserve to be bombarded by Hezbollah and for it to participate against them in a dirty war."
Jaarah said that Hezbollah "did not make the decision to participate in the war alongside the Syrian regime". He said that this was up to the "Wali al-Faqih in Iran, and Hezbollah merely carried out its decision to fight alongside elements of the Revolutionary Guard, whose presence in Syria has already been revealed." He called on Nasrallah "not to get himself and his party embroiled in a battle that is not theirs". He stressed that Hezbollah’s continued participation in the conflict alongside the Syrian regime would "affect future relationships between Lebanon and Syria, and between the various sects that live in both countries". Jaarah sought to point out that "Bashar al-Assad's downfall will not mean the end of the resistance”, noting that "the Syrians have fought in Palestine since the 1930s".
Meanwhile, a leading source in the Syrian opposition said: "Our dealings with Hezbollah now depend on its political stance towards the Syrian crisis, a stance that currently supports the Syrian regime as it kills its own people".

Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea Slams Hizbullah over Drone, Says Only Govt. Must Respond to Israel Violations
إby Naharnet/ Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea on Monday described Hizbullah's sending of an Iranian-built drone over Israel as “a direct message from Iran to Israel and the Western countries as part of the tug of war in the region,” stressing that “taking such dangerous decisions must be the responsibility of the state, not any party, regardless of its position.”
“This is not the right way to respond to Israel, which must happen through a complete defense strategy that must be laid out by the government exclusively,” Geagea told reporters after a meeting for the LF parliamentary bloc in Maarab.
“Israel's violations of Lebanon's airspace do not justify for Hizbullah to act unilaterally, especially that the wounds of the July War have not healed until today, and Hizbullah's insistence on drawing the Israeli threat makes it fully responsible for any human casualties Lebanon might suffer as a result of putting it in the eye of the storm and dragging it into the inferno of regional conflicts,” Geagea added.
Geagea said the LF holds the government responsible “for the deterioration, in the absence of any clear social plan.”
He also called for keeping the judiciary away from “political interventions,” stressing that the factor of competency must be respected in any future administrative appointments.
He also called for “full coordination” among all the parties of the March 14 camp and for holding the 2013 parliamentary elections on time.
Geagea said the LF wants a new electoral law that is “in line with the Taef Accord and which ensures proper representation.”
“An electoral law based on small electorates would be the salvation of the Lebanese voter,” he noted.
“We hold the foreign minister and the government responsible for taking the necessary measures that enable the Lebanese who reside outside Lebanon of practicing their right to vote,” added Geagea.
Asked about his talks in Jeddah with ex-PM Saad Hariri on the issue of the elections, Geagea said: “I agreed with Hariri on a full strategy concerning the elections according to the small electorates proposal and the rest of the details will be announced later.”
Geagea voiced his rejection of the 1960 electoral law, describing it as “inappropriate” and noting that the LF will try to convince all parties of its proposal, which is based on dividing Lebanon into 50 electoral districts. “I call on (Free Partiotic Movement leader MP Michel) Aoun and the FPM to endorse this law, which has the support of 55 MPs and only needs the support of Aoun's bloc to gain the needed majority,” Geagea added.

Lebanon's Syrian Puppet FM, Mansour denies comments on Hezbollah's drone
October 16, 2012/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour denied a media report which quoted him as saying that the Ayyoub drone is not a violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, a statement by his press office said. An-Nahar daily published Sunday an interview with the minister, quoting him as saying the aerial vehicle sent by Hezbollah over the Israeli airspace does not violate the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 July war between Lebanon and Isarel. The daily also quoted Mansour as saying Lebanon would take responsibility for the dispatch of the drone, which was shot down by Israel on October 6. “The minister has not made such statements and the content of the interview was fully interpolated,” the statement said. Last week, Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah said that the drone was assembled by his group using parts supplied by Iran. According to an-Nahar, Mansour claimed that, since the U.N. adopted Resolution 1701, Israel has violated the country “tens of thousands of times.

March 14 Calls on Premier to Resign, Lashes Out at Iranian Defense Minister Statements
Naharnet/The March 14 alliance called on Prime Minister Najib Miqati to immediately resign over Hizbullah's drone that penetrated Israeli airspace over the weekend, considering it a “defiance of the Lebanese people's will,” al-Joumhouria newspaper reported on Monday. Leadership sources from the opposition held Miqati responsible for any new war between Lebanon and Israel, noting that Hizbullah insists on “usurping” the state's decision-making power and keeping Lebanon under the control of Iran. Sources told the newspaper that the statements by Iranian Defense Minister General Ahmad Vahidi on Sunday unveil his country's control over the Lebanese state.Vahidi scoffed at Israel's air defenses on Sunday as he confirmed that Tehran had provided Hizbullah with the sophisticated drone which overflew the Jewish state. "It is natural to use whatever we have at our disposal at the necessary time to defend the lands of the Islamic world," the general said. "This move shows that Hizbullah is fully prepared ... and will respond to the Zionist regime." Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's acknowledgment of the drone which Israel shot down on October 6 came shortly after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Hizbullah and vowed to defend his country against further "threats." The March 14 sources rejected the statements by Vahidi, pointing out the Lebanese state is the only authority that is entitled to determine if Hizbullah has the right to launch the drone from its territories. “This stance (by Iran) proves that Hizbullah is merely an Iranian tool,” the sources told the newspaper.
They considered that the Iranian description violates Lebanon's sovereignty.

Grand Mufti Sheikh Mohammed Rashid Qabbani Warns of 'Plot to Undermine Lebanon', Says Hizbullah Drone an 'Excellent, Strategic' Move
Naharnet/Grand Mufti Sheikh Mohammed Rashid Qabbani on Monday warned that the 2013 parliamentary elections might not happen “if the plot to undermine Lebanon succeeds.”
“Lebanon is going through a dangerous period and I believe that the changes in the region will come (to Lebanon) as a result of the plots, but God willing we are capable of foiling these plots,” Qabbani told a delegation from the Editors Syndicate. “There is a scheme to fragment the entire Arab region for the sake of Israel,” the mufti warned.
“Where is the state in Iraq today? People are tearing each other apart. They want to turn Lebanon and Syria into another Iraq,” Qabbani cautioned.
He noted that he was not referring to the regime in Damascus, but rather “speaking objectively.” “I'm not saying that the regimes must stay, but I'm saying that the creeping plot is seeking to fragment the Arab states into sectarian states and Israel is moving forward to create its grand state,” Qabbani added. Turning to the dispute with his one-time allies, al-Mustaqbal Movement, Qabbani said: “I do not accept to be controlled by anyone and this is the reason behind the dispute with Mustaqbal and March 14. My dispute with them was never over their policy, which is patriotic, but as individuals they are not competent.” Asked about Israel's threats and the reconnaissance drone sent by Hizbullah over the Jewish state, the mufti described the move as “an excellent, strategic action.”
“Let us speak realistically and objectively without taking into consideration those who approve this move and those who don't. The action itself, regardless of the side behind it, is an excellent, strategic action, but I would have liked to see it happening under the state's authority,” Qabbani said.
“No one can impose himself on all the Lebanese, even if he is capable and righteous,” he added.

Phalange: Hizbullah's Drone to Drag Lebanon into War, Serves Foreign Interests
Naharnet/The Phalange Party criticized on Monday Hizbullah's launching of an Iranian drone that crossed into Israeli airspace on October 6, calling on the Lebanese government to take a serious stand against this incident. In a statement released after its political bureau's weekly meeting, the party considered that Hizbullah is jeopardizing the country's stability and overthrowing the state's sovereignty to serve foreign interests. "This is an attempt to drag Lebanon into a state of war with Israel,” the statement said.
On October 6, the Israeli air force jets shot down the unarmed drone over southern Israel's Negev desert after it entered the country's airspace from the Mediterranean Sea. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pointed at Hizbullah and vowed to defend his country against further "threats." Hizbullah's Chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah acknowledged that the Iranian-made drone was launched by his party.
Regarding the escape of three prisoners from Roumieh prison, the Phalange considered this incident to be threatening the Lebanese state's authority, and it called for enhancing the situation of the prisoners, as well as reforming security and administrative bodies and procedures. "We demand serious investigation and penalization of all those who participated in the escape, and those that prove to be responsible for guarding the block's security,” the Phalange expressed. Three Fatah al-Islam inmates – a Palestinian, a Syrian and an Algerian – managed to escape from Roumieh prison around a month ago, media reports said on Friday. Several security officers in charge of the block where the escapees were held have been interrogated, reported An Nahar newspaper.
Roumieh, the oldest and largest of Lebanon's overcrowded prisons, has witnessed sporadic prison breaks in recent years and escalating riots over the past months as inmates living in poor conditions demand better treatment. The party also praised the formation of a parliamentary unit to conduct discussions about electoral law, expressing that it would take this issue out of political debates. The Phalange urged the cabinet and the Foreign Minister to reach a resolution concerning Lebanese expatriates' participation in the upcoming elections.

Two killed in factory fire south of Beirut
October 16, 2012/ By Mohammed Zaatari/ The Daily Star
JADRA, Lebanon: Two people were killed and another was injured Tuesday by a huge fire that ripped through a furniture factory in Jadra, in the Iqlim Kharroub region south of Beirut.
An official at the factory, who spoke to The Daily Star on condition of anonymity, said the charred body belonged to 37-year-old Hisham Hallal.
Mount Lebanon security sources said the identity of the second fatality has yet to be determined.
Hallal's colleague, who asked not to be identified, suffered smoke inhalation and minor burns to his back as he tried to look for missing co-workers.
"All the other workers are fine after we counted them," the factory official said.
Three other workers who were feared to have been missing were reported to be among the nearly 100 employees who managed to evacuate the facility shortly after the fire broke out at 10:45 a.m.
Civil Defense teams rushed to the scene before noon and firefighters were called in from south Lebanon and Beirut to help contain the fire, fearing that it might spread to a nearby residential complex.
Tenants from the 100-unit apartment complex were evacuated.
By midday, firefighters were able to put out most of the fire which reduced the factory to rubble. The body of the second fatality was found after the fire was put out.

Beirut: Fugitive Dead in Adonis Chase, 3 People Hurt in Bourj al-Barajneh Shooting
Naharnet /A fugitive was killed and several others were arrested on Monday during a chase with a patrol from the Anti-Drug Bureau of the Internal Security Forces in the Zouk Mosbeh-Adonis area, state-run National News Agency reported. “While chasing drug smugglers in the Zouk Mosbeh-Adonis area, the patrol opened fire at the fugitives' car, wounding one of them – A. Fahd – and arresting several others,” NNA said. “Fahd was rushed to the Our Lady of Lebanon Hospital but succumbed to his wounds soon after arriving,” NNA added.Separately, three people were wounded as a personal dispute erupted into gunfire in the Beirut southern suburb of Bourj al-Barajneh. The shooter fled in an unknown direction as the wounded were rushed to the Greatest Prophet Hospital for treatment, NNA reported.

Netanyahu’s security lite vs Khamenei’s $1 m UAV reward to Hizballah
DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis October 15, 2012, 10:14 PM (GMT+02:00) Tags: Binyamin Netanyahu elections UAV Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Hizballah Iran tests the Karrar bomber droneJust ten days after Israel strategists, intelligence and military were duped by an Iranian stealth UAV launched by Hizballah from Lebanon, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu unveiled his new security doctrine to the Knesset in a speech confirming a general election on Jan. 22, 2013.
Declaring proudly that in all his seven years as prime minister (in two non-consecutive terms), Israel had never gone to war because “the finger on the trigger” was never light although it was firm. This may be counted as his first campaign speech for reelection. It was designed to appeal to voters right, left and center by omitting to enumerate the strategic gains made by Israel’s enemies during those seven years of freedom from Israeli military deterrence.
debkafile fills in the blanks.
1. Iran’s nuclear bomb program forged ahead and accumulated enough fissile material to build five nuclear bombs without hindrance or fear of attack;
2. Iran is closer than ever before to conducting its first nuclear test in 2013;
3. Tehran has stationed the elite Al Qods Brigades of its Revolutionary Guards on two of Israel’s borders, Syria and Lebanon;
4. The Lebanese Shiite terrorists, Hizballah, have managed to stock up 60,000 assorted rockets which can reach every corner of Israel – a capacity they did not possess six years ago.
5. The Palestinian radical Hamas which rules the Gaza Strip and Iran’s pawn, the Jihad Islami, have accumulated tens of thousand of rockets whose range has been extended from neighboring Israeli locations and towns in SW Israel to Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Ben Gurion international airport. This happened in the absence of preventive action in the years after Israel unilaterally evacuated the Gaza Strip in 2005 under Netanyahu’s predecessor Ariel Sharon.
Under Netanyahu’s watch, the Palestinian terrorist movement spilled over from the Gaza Strip into Egyptian Sinai and hooked up with al Qaeda-linked Salafi cells;
6. As demonstrated 10 days ago, Iran has given Hizballah UAVs with stealth qualities capable of outwitting Israel’s faulty military defenses;
7. Iran and Hizballah have for months been waging an international war of terror against Israeli and Jewish targets without paying a price
8. Contrary to international and Israeli media claims that Bashar Assad is on his last legs against the Western-backed Arab effort to break up the Syrian-Iranian-Hizballah axis, that axis is in fact growing stronger day by day and from late September acquired the Palestinian Hamas and Jihad Islami as military partners;
Prime Minister Netanyahu’s assertion, “We have restored security to Israel’s inhabitants, taken firm action and abandoned the policy of restraint,” is therefore not borne out by these eight developments. Otherwise, how come that Iran and Hizballah continue to be on the offensive, risking even an overt act of belligerence such as sending a drone into Israeli airspace, without the slightest Israel response or counter-action?
In contrast, Iran and Hizballah have not stopped crowing over getting away with it.
Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has rewarded Hizballah richly for its feat in three ways:
a) He gave the go-ahead for a crash program to finish developing a drone capable of carrying a bomb across a distance of 2,000 kilometers and bring Israel within range. It has been given the name of "Hazem," meaning resourceful and wise and Hizballah’s Hassan Nasrallah was promised receipt within six months; b) Each of the Iranian designers and planners of the UAV was given a Porsche car; c) Nasrallah was handed a check for a million dollars to distribute to the crew working on its launch into Israel.
Iranian security sources reported Monday night that Hizballah will “very soon” publish detailed photographs of Israel’s nuclear reactor shot by the intruder drone.
In the 99 days up to the Israel election, Khamenei and Nasrallah may be expected to test the Israeli prime minister’s new military doctrine to the limit and see whether his finger on the trigger is capable of switching from light to firm.

Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri : Army to implement crackdown in Bekaa soon
October 16, 2012/By Hussein Dakroub/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri said Monday the Lebanese Army will deploy in eastern Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley region soon in an attempt to bolster security in an area notorious for kidnappings, drug cultivation and tribal vendettas. He also called for the permanent deployment of Army units in the Bekaa even if this required withdrawing troops from south Lebanon.
Berri’s call came ahead of a long-awaited security plan to be carried out by the Lebanese Army in the Bekaa to crack down on criminals and outlaws and arrest more than 30,000 wanted people according to police warrants.However, the Bekaa’s tribal leaders warned that implementation of the Army’s plan without the approval of a general amnesty draft law for wanted people would lead to an armed clash between security forces and the region’s residents. Addressing a delegation of heads of the Bekaa’s clans, notables and mukhtars as well as Baalbek’s MPs during a luncheon he hosted at his residence in Ain al-Tineh, Berri said he had consulted with President Michel Sleiman, Prime Minister Najib Mikati, Army Commander Gen. Jean Kahwagi and Hezbollah officials on the need for the Army to be deployed permanently in the Bekaa region. “The security plan to be implemented in the Bekaa should not be limited to a timeline. Security forces should be present in the region permanently even if that required withdrawing soldiers from the south,” Berri said.“The crime in the Bekaa and throughout Lebanon, particularly the organized crime, is a conspiracy against liberation,” Berri said. “Therefore, you will see in the near future Army units and security forces from your sons deploying in all parts of the Bekaa in order to consolidate security and strike with an iron fist against anyone who tries to consider the Bekaa beyond the state’s authority.”
Berri said the Army’s security plan in the Bekaa should be accompanied by the implementation of development projects and public services to the region which has for decades been neglected by the government.
The Army’s expected plan comes following a string of kidnappings in the Bekaa that have raised regional and international concerns of a deteriorating security situation in a country already suffering from the repercussions of the conflict in neighboring Syria.It also comes following a successful Army security dragnet in Beirut’s southern suburbs, a Hezbollah stronghold, that led to the arrest of the kidnappers of Syrian and Turkish citizens and the release of the kidnap victims last month.
Berri rejected labeling the Bekaa as a region for outlaws, kidnappings, vendetta crimes and drug dealing. He said the region’s residents along with residents of the northern district of Akkar constituted the backbone of the Lebanese Army and security forces. He added that the Bekaa’s residents also served as the backbone for the resistance against Israel.
“Why do we now only hear news about vendetta crimes, kidnappings and drug smuggling in the Bekaa? Why should we deprive the area of development projects?” Berri asked.
Berri said of the more than 32,000 arrest warrants to be pursued by the Army and security forces, 20,000 of these dealt with different offenses while the rest pertained to crimes of drug dealing, kidnappings and vendettas.
“We shouldn’t let the dark side of the region triumph over its bright side ... You are the ones that want the state, rather than being wanted by it,” Berri said.
Meanwhile, spokesmen for the delegation of clans and families in the Baalbek-Hermel region warned of the consequences of implementing the Army’s plan before Parliament approves a general amnesty draft law for wanted people in the Bekaa.
They said that the government’s decades-long neglect of the region, including the absence of development projects, were behind the state of insecurity.
Rashed Jaafar, of the clan chiefs who attended the meeting at Berri’s residence, said the speaker insisted on implementing the security plan in the Bekaa despite demands by tribal leaders to postpone it until an amnesty draft law has been approved by Parliament.
According to Jaafar, Berri said that a previous amnesty law did not prevent crimes in the Bekaa, noting that it was difficult to approve new legislation now because several political parties in Parliament oppose it. A number of clan chiefs and notables rejected Berri’s stance and warned that implementation of the Army’s plan without the approval of an amnesty draft law would lead to an armed clash between security forces and the region’s residents and probably to the death of people on both sides, Jaafar said.
The Army’s plan came a few months after security forces, backed by troops, launched a campaign to destroy the Bekaa’s cannabis fields, prompting clashes with farmers who opposed the measure. – Additional reporting by Rakan al-Fakih

Obama, Romney consumed by debate preparations
October 16, 2012 12/By Steven R. Hurst/Daily Star
WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney remain holed up with advisers Monday, the incumbent determined to bounce back in the coming debate from a poor performance in the first confrontation and the challenger honing his debating skills following the strong showing that curtailed the president’s steady advance in the polls.
Both men realize the outcome of the Nov. 6 election could turn on Tuesday’s town hall debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York, exactly three weeks before voters go to the polls in the exceedingly tight contest for the White House.
With early voting already under way in dozens of states, including some battleground states, the candidates will have little time to recover from any slipups. Through Monday, either absentee or in-person early voting had begun in 43 states of the 50 states.
The outcome in battleground states – those that do not reliably vote Republican or Democratic – are critically important in the U.S. system where the president is chosen not by a nationwide popular vote but in state-by-state contests.
Both campaigns were working feverishly in the nine most competitive states – Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin – to get their core supporters to vote early and persuade undecided voters to back their candidate. The Obama camp was releasing a new television ad in four of those states Monday focusing on the economy, the chief issue among voters in this year’s election. Obama has been pointing to lower unemployment – the rate having fallen to its lowest point since Obama took office – and improving consumer confidence.
But Obama’s re-election bid remains burdened by the slow economic recovery from the Great Recession and near meltdown of the U.S. financial system, both of which were ripping away at the economy when the president took office.
While Obama’s campaign seeks to rebound from a dismal first debate and promises a more energetic president will take the stage Tuesday night, Romney’s team aimed to build on his commanding first debate that gave the Republican new life in a White House race that had appeared to be slipping away from him.
Much of the pressure in the coming debate will be on Obama, who aides acknowledge showed up at the first faceoff with less practice – and far less energy – than they had wanted. The president and a team of advisers are seeking to regain focus with an intense, three-day “debate camp” at a golf resort in Williamsburg, Virginia.
“It is going great,” Obama said of his preparations Sunday, while taking a brief break to greet volunteers at a nearby campaign office.
Romney, who places a huge priority on the debates, was practicing Monday near his home in Massachusetts.
Romney’s advisers suggested the Republican nominee would continue to moderate his message – in tone, if not substance – as he did in the Oct. 3 meeting to help broaden his appeal to the narrow slice of undecided voters. In recent days, Romney has promised his tax plan would not benefit the wealthy, emphasized his work with Democrats as Massachusetts governor and downplayed plans to strengthen abortion laws.
He told an Iowa newspaper this week, for example, that he would not pursue abortion-related legislation if elected. That’s in direct conflict with last year’s pledge to the anti-abortion group, the Susan B. Anthony List, to cut federal funding from Planned Parenthood and support legislation to “protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.”
“I think Mitt Romney’s performance was, indeed, magical and theatrical. Magical and theatrical largely because for 90 minutes he walked away from a campaign he had been running for more than six years previous to that,” Obama senior campaign adviser Robert Gibbs said of the first debate.
Democrats were dismayed that Obama didn’t more aggressively call out Romney’s move to the middle during the first debate. Since then, the president has been more forceful in doing so on the campaign trail and in television ads.
During debate preparations, aides are working on tailoring that message to a debate format. And they’re working on balancing aggressive tactics with the debate’s town hall format, which often requires candidates to show a connection with questioners from the audience.
Romney aides suggested that the former Massachusetts governor would be prepared regardless of Obama’s adjustments. “The president can change his style,” Romney adviser Ed Gillespie said on “Fox News Sunday.” “He can change his tactics. He can’t change his record.”

Lebanon's PM, Mikati hints drone violated Resolution 1701
October 16, 2012 /By Hussein Abdallah, Hasan Lakkis/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: In his first reaction since Hezbollah claimed responsibility for sending a reconnaissance drone over Israel, Prime Minister Najib Mikati hinted Monday that the drone is a violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701.
“We are with the full implementation of 1701 without any violation,” Mikati said after returning from a visit to Qatar. “The government supports President Michel Sleiman’s position on the issue.”
The president has said that the drone incident underscores the need for a national defense strategy that makes use of the resistance’s arms while putting them under the exclusive control of the state.
Earlier Monday, the premier told Lebanese living in the Gulf emirate that Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani acknowledges their role in helping Qatar advance and wishes them to stay in the country. “I would like to reassure Lebanese living in Qatar that his highness is concerned with providing them with all the means for a safe and stable life in this country, which we consider to be a second home for all Lebanese expats here,” Mikati said.
“I was also told that Qatar is interested in making investments in Lebanon,” he added.
The emir told Mikati that Qatar hopes Lebanon remains safe from repercussions of the crisis in neighboring Syria, said a statement by the premier’s press office.
“I explained to his highness Lebanon’s dissociation policy on Syria and I made it clear that such policy has nothing to do with our position on providing humanitarian aid to Syrian refugees,” Mikati said.
In a joint news conference, Sheikh Hamad said Lebanon and Qatar are still discussing a possible lift of the Qatari travel ban that was imposed in May as a result of a spate of kidnappings in Lebanon.
“This [travel ban] was not targeted against Lebanon but was related to specific circumstances. We acknowledge the progress the Lebanese have made on the security front, and the issue is now being discussed between the two countries. We hope this will end very soon,” the emir said.
The two leaders signed six pending cooperation agreements and said that a joint meeting of the Lebanese-Qatari supreme committee would be held in Doha early next year.
The prime minister arrived in Qatar Monday for a one-day official visit, accompanied by a Lebanese delegation that included Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour, Social Affairs Minister Wael Abu Faour, Environment Minister Nazem al-Khoury, Economy Minister Nicolas Nahhas and State Minister Ahmad Karami.
Separately, Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea said Monday that he and former Prime Minister Saad Hariri were in agreement on an elections law that would divide Lebanon into 50 electoral districts as part of a strategy for the 2013 polls.
During a news conference at his residence in Maarab, the LF leader also slammed Hezbollah over its recent operation using a drone to penetrate Israeli airspace.
“I agreed with Hariri during my Jeddah visit on a complete vision regarding the coming elections, on the basis of the 50-district electoral law.”
The LF leader also stressed the need for the parliamentary elections to be held on time. “The Parliament should endorse a new electoral law by the end of the year, and we will not accept postponing the elections under any circumstances,” he said.
The March 14 coalition has put forward an elections law that would divide the country into 50 districts under a winner-takes-all system.
Turning to his rivals in the March 8 coalition, Geagea held Hezbollah responsible for any possible repercussions from the group’s recent Ayoub drone operation into Israel.
“The country still hasn’t healed from the wounds of the 2006 July war, and Hezbollah will be blamed for any losses the country might suffer due to sending the drone over Israel,” he said.
Last week, Hezbollah chief Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah confirmed that his group managed to breach Israeli airspace using an Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicle that was later shot down by the Jewish state.
Geagea said the drone operation, codenamed Ayoub, represented a direct Iranian message to Israel and the West.
“Making such dangerous decisions should be the responsibility of the state, not the responsibility of any party,” Geagea said. For his part, Sunni Mufti Sheikh Mohammad Rashid Qabbani described the Ayoub operation as “excellent and strategic,” but said it should ideally take place under the patronage of the Lebanese state.
Hezbollah MP Nawwaf al-Mousawi, meanwhile, criticized former Prime Minister Fouad Siniora’s position on the drone and accused him of providing Israel a pretext to attack Lebanon by describing the operation as a “provocation” and a “declaration of war.”
Separately, March 14 MP Butros Harb urged Lebanese expatriates to come home to vote in parliamentary elections to make changes that will shock the Hezbollah-led coalition, the National News Agency reported Monday.
“We [March 14 coalition] will continue to put pressure so that that you can participate in the elections wherever you are,” Harb said.

Will Iran Weather the Economic Storm?
Patrick Clawson/Foreign Policy
Washington Institute
The depreciation of the rial is unlikely to change Iran's foreign-policy calculations.
The conventional wisdom that the collapse of the Iranian rial will have disastrous consequences for the Islamic Republic has it wrong: On the contrary, it could be the best thing that has happened to the Iranian economy in years.
Iran is a classic case of the resource curse. OPEC founder Juan Pablo Pérez Alfonso, who served as Venezuela's oil minister, called oil "the devil's excrement" for the pernicious impact petroleum revenues had on his country's economy. The same is true for Iran, which faces the challenge of becoming a country that produces goods, not merely consumes them. Unfortunately, the current Iranian government shows few indications it will meet this challenge. Rather, history suggests that Tehran will instead persist in its populist policies, including its confrontation with the international community about its nuclear program.
FROM MISTAKE TO MISTAKE
Iran's economy has historically been distorted and sluggish when oil prices have been high. The same is true this time around: Booming oil revenues have led to a rush of imports rather than higher domestic output. The IMF calculated that from 2005 to 2010 imports soared 50 percent -- from $43 billion to $67 billion -- while Iran's national output grew at the much more modest pace of 18 percent.
Iranian industry, meanwhile, has been hard hit by rising costs from domestic inflation, while competing imports were kept cheap by the government policy -- successful until late 2010 -- of keeping the rial steady. Propping up the rial may have fed national pride, and it certainly meant cheap consumer goods -- important factors for the populist Islamic Republic -- but it hurt domestic producers.
For years, the key factor that kept Iranian industry alive despite competition from cheap imports was the low cost of energy. With electricity and natural gas practically free, Iranian manufacturers had an important advantage over their foreign competitors. And many Iranian companies benefited from the low cost of shipping and travel -- byproducts of the low gasoline costs.
These advantages weren't cheap: The Iranian Central Bank concluded that, by 2007, the subsidies were costing Iran $88 billion a year, with Iran's energy costs at 10 percent or less of the international price. Using high oil revenues to subsidize energy was an expensive and inefficient way to help Iranians. A sounder policy would have been to invest in infrastructure, improve education, and make loans available for small businesses -- all policies followed by the Shah of Iran before the 1970s oil boom gave him grandiose ideas. As a result, Iran's economy in the 1960s grew as fast as China's has in the last decade.
As world oil prices rose after 2007, the burden of energy subsidies rose sharply. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, meanwhile, saw an opportunity to use these rising prices to his benefit. He made a shrewd political calculation: Rather than subsidizing gasoline and electricity used most heavily by the middle class, who detested him, he would raise energy prices to the global market price and use the money to send checks to the poor, who supported him.
That was his plan, but after the middle class rose in revolt after his contested 2009 reelection, he revised the scheme to send the checks to them too. And instead of phasing in the reform, he did it all at once in late 2010 by depositing rials in each household's bank account each month. To keep the cost of the subsidy reform within the bounds of what the government could afford, Ahmadinejad effectively jettisoned the substantial payments that were to have gone to industry to pay for shifting to more energy-efficient technology.
Iranian producers were now in a bind: The low energy prices that had been their competitive edge disappeared overnight. The government's response was a looser monetary policy, including providing easy credit to firms in no position to pay. According to Iran's Central Bank, the bank credit to the private sector went from 2.3 quadrillion rials in March 2010 (then worth about $250 billion) to 4 quadrillion in August 2012. Not entirely by coincidence, bank deposits (by far the biggest component of the money supply) rose over the same period from 2.1 quadrillion rials to 3.8 quadrillion. That was an 80 percent increase in bank deposits -- while over a similar period, the IMF says, real GDP rose 7 percent.
It does not take a genius to figure out what happens when 80 percent more money is chasing 7 percent more goods: price soar. The government reports that consumer prices rose 43 percent from March 2010 to April 2012; it has not published data for recent months, presumably because they show a further rise. If one accepts the official inflation figures, this means costs in Iran would have gotten ridiculously out of line with costs in competitor countries had the rial not lost value.
The rial's collapse means that Iranian firms may finally have a fighting chance against their foreign competitors. The wise policy would be to encourage the rial to fall even further, while tightening up on monetary policy to tamp down inflation. Of course, that would mean imposing pain on consumers, which goes against every instinct of the populists who run Iran's economic policy. Therefore, such a sound policy is unlikely. Indeed, there are no signs that the loose monetary policy is going to change. Even the ever optimistic IMF expects Iran's inflation to remain above 20 percent next year.
The irony is that the falling rial benefits the government more than anyone else. Most of Iran's exports are in the government's hands. With each dollar of exported oil now worth more rials, the government's rial revenue rises, offsetting at least in part the lower volume of exports. That extra revenue would put the authorities in a good position to help businesses invest in more energy-efficient technology and to create more jobs.
But that is not likely to happen. The government is much more likely to insist on selling dollars at an artificially low rate, on the theory that this keeps prices down. The real effect, however, is to generate high profits for the politically well-connected, who get access to foreign exchange at the preferential rates.
With low export volumes and an artificially low exchange rate, the government will face the worst of two worlds: low revenue and high costs. That could force budget cuts -- and those could have serious political consequences. On Oct. 9, Ahmadinejad spoke of cutting some items 25 percent and zeroing out others, and Chief of the Joint Staff Seyyed Hasan Firuzabadi warned that the military budget could be cut 10 percent. Soaring prices, rising unemployment, budget cutbacks, and rampant corruption are a recipe for popular anger, though the Islamic Republic's vigorous repressive apparatus may prevent it from translating into popular protest.
HISTORY SUGGESTS IRAN WILL LEARN THE WRONG LESSON
Iran's economic problems are made much worse by the public's worry that war is coming. Fear of war keeps investors from committing to new projects and leads consumers to seek safe havens for their assets, such as dollars. An obvious step to improve the economy would be to re-energize the negotiations over the nuclear impasse. And that may well happen. But history offers a word of caution.
Twice before, the Islamic Republic of Iran faced serious foreign exchange problems, arguably as bad as the current one. The first was when the price of oil collapsed in the mid-1980s. Iran's oil export earnings went from $21 billion in the 1983-1984 fiscal year to $6 billion in 1986-1987. Iran's response was to adopt draconian measures that cut imports from $18 billion to $11 billion. This was at a time when Iran was throwing waves of its own citizens at Iraqi forces in a vain effort to overrun that country -- we remember the Iraqi invasion of Iran in September 1980, but we often forget that Iraqi forces withdrew in June 1982 and Iran invaded Iraq the next month. Because war-related imports could not be cut, Iran appears to have taken the ax to civilian imports -- slashing them by more than 50 percent.
The loss of oil revenue was not enough to get Iran to accept a cease-fire. That came only later, when Iranian leaders feared the United States was joining the war and Iraq would fire chemical-tipped missiles at Iranian cities. In other words, difficult economic times did not bring a change in security policy -- the threat of much greater military force did.
The Islamic Republic faced its next severe economic challenge in the mid-1990s. After running up $14 billion in debts in a postwar burst from 1991 to 1994, Iran's bills were coming due just as U.S. President Bill Clinton's administration stepped up pressure on its allies not to lend to Iran, and then in 1995 it imposed comprehensive U.S. sanctions. Iran could have solved this problem by scaling back its support for terrorism and ending its vigorous efforts to undercut the then-vibrant Arab-Israeli peace talks. Instead, Tehran tightened its belt over the next three years to repay $8 billion in loans and leaned on Europe and Japan to reschedule $16 billion in loans coming due.
The austerity measures cut imports from $23 billion in the 1992-1993 fiscal year to $13 billion in 1994-1995, and they stayed at that level for the next fiscal year. In short, Iran preferred to cut imports almost in half rather than change its foreign policy.
Historical analogies are imperfect: Situations are different, the actors have changed, and so on. Nevertheless, the record suggests tempering one's optimism that economic pressure will bring Iran to change its populist policy stances -- either its pernicious domestic economic policy or its adventurist nuclear stance.
*Patrick Clawson is director of research at The Washington Insitute and heads its Iran Security Initiative.

The Christian Woman Abducted, Forcibly Converted to Islam in Pakistan
http://www.persecution.org/2012/10/15/pakistani-christian-girl-kidnapped-forcedly-converted-and-married-to-muslim-man/
Aidan Clay, Regional Manager for the Middle East
Washington, D.C. (October 16, 2012) - Shumaila Bibi had just finished her all-night shift at the Millat Textile Mill in Nishatabad, a district of Faisalabad, before her sudden disappearance. A 26-year-old Muslim man, Muhammad Javaid Iqbal, had long taken an interest in Shumaila. The young woman, however, was a devote Christian and repeatedly denied Iqbal's marriage proposals.
"Iqbal had helped Shumaila get the job at the factory and developed a friendship with her brothers," Shareef Masih, Shumaila's brother-in-law, told ICC. "Iqbal used to pay regular visits to Shumaila's house because he wanted her parents' permission to marry her. But she refused his proposal. She was faithful to her Christian beliefs and he was a Muslim man. Iqbal often teased and abused Shumaila because of her determination to follow Christianity."
Iqbal had been waiting for Shumaila during her walk home at dawn after another long night at the mill on September 24. Holding a gun to her head, Iqbal dragged Shumaila into a vehicle.
The next day, Shumaila was taken to see Muhammad Aslam, a Muslim lawyer, where she was told to sign documents that legalized her marriage to Iqbal and declared her a Muslim. Shumaila refused.
"When she didn't sign the papers, Shumaila was given some fluid in a cup of tea which made her unconscious," said Masih. "After, the lawyer was able to get her thumb imprints on the marriage and conversion documents. There was a group of around 30 people in the lawyer's office who supported Iqbal's 'noble' cause to convert Shumaila."
Shumaila was admitted to a madrassa by her Muslim 'in-laws' to study the Quran and learn Islamic prayers. "Everything was supervised by the family," explained Masih. For days Shumaila was "sexually abused, harassed and forced to study the Koran and the precepts of Islam," Asia News reported.
Shumaila eventually managed to escape the madrassa and return to her family on October 5. Iqbal reported Shumaila's disappearance to the local police station immediately after her flight, claiming that her family had "kidnapped" her and that she had chosen to convert to Islam "of her own free will."
Mansha Masih, Shumaila's father, now risks imprisonment for his daughter's abduction. The National Commission for Justice and Peace (NCJP) has vowed to defend Shumaila and her father in court, but Pakistan's judiciary often favors Muslims; there is grave concern that Shumaila will be returned to her kidnapper.
"We do our best to provide aid and assistance to victims like Shumaila," Father Nisar Barkat, the diocesan director of NCJP in Faisalabad, told Asia News. "But, we [must] be careful of the manipulation of religion in the name of justice."
Shumaila is only one among hundreds of Christian women and girls in Pakistan that have been abducted, forced to convert to Islam, and forced into marriage over the past several years. In another case, Rebecca Masih, a 22-year-old Christian nurse, was abducted on her way to work before being forcibly converted to Islam and married to a Muslim man on October 2, the Pakistan Christian Post reports. Kidnappings are often accompanied by acts of violence, including rape, beatings, and other forms of physical and mental abuse. Like Shumaila and Rebecca, Christian girls are given few legal rights if they are fortunate enough to escape. More often than not, however, their families never see them again.
"[I want to] live with my parents and practice the Christian faith," Shumaila told Asia News. "I refused [to marry Iqbal] several times. And for that he ruined my life."

The Failure of the American Jewish Left
by David Brog/Middle East Quarterly/Winter 2013
http://www.meforum.org/3358/american-jewish-left
In early September 2012, many in the pro-Israel camp were disturbed by a series of events at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte. First, the committee drafting the party platform eliminated traditional language recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Next, the party elders chose to restore the language and called for a pro forma voice vote from the delegates in support of this amendment. Instead, what looked and sounded like an angry majority of the delegates voted against recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
This hostility should not have come as a surprise. For many years, the liberal base of the Democratic Party has been steadily turning against the Jewish state. So much so that for the first time since 1948, one of America's two major parties has begun to abandon its commitment to Israel. This trend has less to do with the behavior of President Obama or other national party leaders than with the far more troubling phenomenon of changing opinions at the grassroots. The Jerusalem flap at the Democratic convention was not a warning sign. It was the final bell.
The Democratic Decline
Freeze the frame right now, and you could still imagine that all is well. True, President Obama seems to identify with Israel less passionately than the Republican who preceded him, George W. Bush. But then again, Republican George H.W. Bush also seemed to lack the warmth toward Israel of his Republican predecessor, Ronald Reagan. And even if one believes that Obama has erred in ways that have endangered Israel, this alone is not evidence of a more permanent grassroots shift.
When one moves from the White House down the street to Congress, the support for Israel only grows stronger. The bipartisan nature of this support was clearly displayed in May 2011 when Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress and received repeated standing ovations from both sides of the aisle. Outspoken defenders of Israel on Capitol Hill still come from both parties. Pro-Israel resolutions continue to pass by overwhelming bipartisan majorities.
Yet the signs of a shift are evident. And they are too clear—and too alarming—to ignore. While Congress is still overwhelmingly pro-Israel, the list of those who dissent from this consensus is growing. And these dissenters are overwhelmingly Democrats. To cite just a few recent examples:
In November 2009, the House of Representatives passed U.S. House res. 867 criticizing the U.N.'s Goldstone report, which accused Israel of war crimes in Gaza (and which was later criticized by Goldstone himself). The resolution passed the House by a vote of 344 to 36, with 52 abstentions. Of the 36 who voted against the resolution, 33 were Democrats. Of the 52 who abstained, 43 were Democrats.[1]
On January 26, 2010, 54 congressmen sent a letter to President Obama urging him to pressure Israel to lift its blockade of Gaza. All were Democrats.[2] A U.N. investigation has since concluded that the blockade is legal under international law.
In March 2010, the administration was outraged when Israel advanced an East Jerusalem building project during a visit by Vice President Biden. In response, 333 members of the House signed the Hoyer-Cantor letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reaffirming the U.S.-Israel alliance. Only 7 Republicans declined to sign this letter. But a full 91 Democrats—more than one third of the entire Democratic caucus—refused to sign.[3]
Even more troubling than this shift in Washington is the shift at the grassroots. On Capitol Hill, at least, most Democratic congressmen still stand with Israel. Out in the grassroots, only a minority of Democrats continue to do so.
Over the years, a series of polls has asked variations of the following question: "With whom do you sympathize more, the Israelis or the Palestinians?" The results increasingly indicate a broad partisan divide with only a minority of Democrats siding with Israel. For example:
A March 2006 Gallup poll found that 72 percent of Republicans and only 47 percent of Democrats sympathized more with the Israelis than the Palestinians.[4]
A July 2006 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that 81 percent of Republicans and only 43 percent of Democrats sympathized more with Israel than the Arab nations.[5]
A February 2010 Gallup poll found that 85 percent of Republicans and only 48 percent of Democrats sympathized more with the Israelis than the Palestinians.[6]
An October 2011 Quinnipiac poll found that 69 percent of Republicans and only 36 percent of Democrats sympathized more with the Israelis than the Palestinians.[7]
Other measures of support demonstrate an even greater disparity. A March 2010 Zogby International poll, for example, found that 92 percent of Republicans—and only 42 percent of Democrats— had a favorable opinion of Israel.[8]
As Gallup summed up the situation in 2011, "Over the past decade, Republicans have consistently shown greater support than Democrats for Israel; however, the partisan gap has widened."[9]
For decades, historian Daniel Pipes has been carefully monitoring these trends on the basis of ideology—conservatives vs. liberals—rather than party. In 1984, he concluded that there was no ideological divide, stressing that "conservatism does not predispose an American to favor one side, nor does liberalism."[10] Writing almost twenty years later in 2003, Pipes recalled his earlier observation and wrote, "Today all that has changed. The Middle East has replaced the Soviet Union as the touchstone of politics and ideology. With increasing clarity, conservatives stand on one side of its issues and liberals on the other."[11]
As the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg observed in April 2011, "Particularly among liberals, Israel's reputation is waning dramatically."[12]
The Flight of the Left
The response of most pro-Israel liberals to the erosion of support for Israel among the Democratic base has been to surrender. With limited exceptions, there has been no effort to make the case for Israel on the merits. As the Jewish state stands accused of the worst of crimes, many have waved the white flag at best and joined in the attacks at worst.
Pro-Israel liberals are not cowards. On the contrary, many are failing to defend Israel because they believe that it is guilty as charged. Like Israel's critics, they blame it for the failure to achieve peace through a two-state solution. Like Israel's detractors, they see it as a flawed democracy on the verge of apartheid. They are unashamed to state that they—Jewish liberals living in America—will save Israel by dispensing tough love to Israeli Jews who have lost their way. But their tenuous grasp of Middle Eastern reality makes a mockery of their messianism. A prerequisite to saving Israel is that one knows at least as much as most Israelis.
To the extent that pro-Israel liberals have identified villains outside of Israel, they are the pro-Israel conservatives here in the United States. Liberals have sought to scapegoat those who have worked to ensure that America's conservatives stand with Israel. Rather than emulate these efforts, they prefer to blame conservatives for their own failures. Instead of doing the hard work of ensuring that the progressive movement remains solidly within the pro-Israel camp, they prefer to expel conservatives from that camp.
There are certainly exceptions to this sorry state of affairs. Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz is a proud progressive who does not shrink from defending Israel. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) remains staunchly bi-partisan and effectively makes the case for Israel to both sides of the aisle. Liberal members of Congress such as Harry Reid, Robert Menendez, Shelly Berkley, and Elliott Engel remain among Israel's most outspoken defenders on Capitol Hill.
But the real problem is not with current party leaders or the current Congress. The problem is with the rising generation of liberal leaders—the people who will fill these roles in the coming decades. And the self-appointed leaders of this new generation have been quick to condemn Dershowitz and AIPAC as part of the pro-Israel establishment they seek to replace.
The Kids Are Not All Right
The problem is best exemplified by the two most high-profile spokesmen for the disaffected Jewish Left, Peter Beinart and Jeremy Ben Ami. Both men have received enormous attention within the American Jewish community. Both men care deeply about Israel. And both have led the retreat from reality that has enabled the collapse of left-wing support for Israel.
In the summer of 2010, The New York Review of Books published an article by Peter Beinart entitled "The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment."[13] The article stirred a whirlwind of debate that turned Beinart into a mini-celebrity in Jewish circles—he is now invited to address the very Jewish establishment he disdains. He has since released a book—The Crisis of Zionism—expanding upon the article's themes.
The article in particular focuses on Jewish youth. Beinart suggests that the rising generation of Jews is increasingly apathetic towards Israel. He then concludes—with sparse supporting evidence—that since most Jewish youngsters are liberal, this alienation must be the result of Israel's abandonment of liberal ideals.
Beinart has done a great service by sounding an alarm about the declining passion of young Jews.[14] But while Beinart's descriptions may be valuable, his prescriptions are disastrous. When confronted with these negative attitudes toward Israel, Beinart does not seek to correct them; he fetishizes them. Beinart hangs the feelings of Jewish students as his moral north star.
Speaking of these alienated Jewish youth, Beinart writes, "The only kind of Zionism they found attractive was a Zionism that recognized Palestinians as deserving dignity and capable of peace, and they were quite willing to condemn an Israeli government that did not share those beliefs."[15]
Note the divorce from reality explicit in these words. Jewish youth purportedly want a Zionism that recognizes Palestinians as "capable of peace." But what if the facts of the conflict cast doubt on this capability? What if Israelis have come to the conclusion—through repeated trial and error—that Palestinian leaders are not currently interested in peace? Beinart presumes that Jewish students are simply not interested in such details.
Another prominent exponent of this view is Jeremy Ben Ami, the president of J Street. In his 2011 book, A New Voice for Israel, Ben Ami makes clear that he is likewise prepared to bow down before the altar of student sensibilities. He states, "The problem is that the policies of the State of Israel and the behavior of parts of the Jewish community in Israel are simply tremendously disturbing to large numbers of students and even to their professors. A response grounded in denial that there is anything wrong with the ongoing occupation of the West Bank simply deepens the anger rather than alleviating it."[16]
But what if Israel has tried repeatedly to end this "occupation?" What if Israeli troops left almost all Arab population centers in the West Bank only to be forced back in to stop a new wave of suicide bombers?
The elevation of emotion in political discourse is the abandonment of reason. And it also sells America's students short. One should not be surprised that so many students blame Israel for the lack of peace in the Middle East. Few people are telling them otherwise. College campuses are increasingly hostile places where myths about Israel are spread by both faculty and students. America's students have a lot to learn, and most are actually quite hungry to do so. The Arab-Israeli conflict is far more complex than either Israel's leading detractors or critics like Beinart and Ben Ami care to concede. There is history—much of it very recent—that casts serious doubt on their one-sided claims.
Reality Check
Intellectually speaking, Beinart and Ben Ami are frozen in 1999. They express perfectly the views that most American Jews and most Israelis held at the close of the twentieth century. Jews not only supported a two-state solution in the abstract but believed that the time was right to aggressively pursue it. Simply give the Palestinians a state of their own in the West Bank and Gaza, it was argued, and there will be peace in the Middle East.
The consensus of that hour was best expressed by the man who embodied it: Israel's prime minister, Ehud Barak. In a 1999 meeting with Barak, then-senator Arlen Specter (Rep.-Pa.) asked him why he was pursuing a two-state solution so aggressively when there were so many causes for concern with his Palestinian partner, Yasser Arafat. Barak replied, "We all know what the ultimate two-state solution will look like. So we have two choices. We either sit down and negotiate this deal now, or we fail. If we fail, there will be a war. And after that war we will bury our dead and return to the very same table to discuss the very same deal."[17]
Barak was right. There is a general consensus on where most of the borders of a two-state solution should be drawn. And when Arafat rejected Barak's proposal of these borders at the Camp David summit in July 2000, and his even more generous offer at Taba in 2001, there was another war—the so-called second intifada. And after the war was over, each side buried its dead and returned to the same table to discuss the same deal.
Barak was only wrong about one thing. He overestimated Arafat's desire and ability to end the conflict. Arafat was not moved by Barak's powerful logic. Instead, he was motivated by an alternative logic that reminded him that if he agreed to this deal he would have to end the conflict with Israel and give up the Palestinian "right of return." And the Palestinian leader who made these concessions would likely not live very long.
Barak made a mistake about his partner for peace. But to his credit, he learned from this mistake, recognized the reality, and changed his policy accordingly. And most Israelis learned along with him. After 2000, even the Israeli Left—a robust band of progressives—largely recognized that a two-state solution would have to await a real partner.
Those who hoped that Arafat's successor—Mahmoud Abbas—was such a partner have since been disappointed. In 2008, Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert offered Abbas an even better deal than Barak had offered Arafat at Taba.[18] Abbas's response was to turn the offer down. He made no counter offer. And he has since abandoned negotiations altogether and instead asked the United Nations to recognize unilaterally a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.[19] Such recognition would give Abbas all of the benefits he seeks without requiring him to make those dangerous concessions regarding ending the conflict and relinquishing the right of return.
These events changed the views of most Israelis and American Jews. While many of Israel's supporters might continue to believe in a two-state solution in the abstract, they cannot blame Israel for the failure to achieve it on the ground. While they might not like the presence of Israeli troops near Arab population centers, they remember what happened the last time they were withdrawn in the name of peace. And they realize that they have a duty to inject this historical reality and polemical nuance into a debate dominated by the black-and-white assertions that Israel alone is to blame.
Given this painful reality, one becomes quite interested to see what Beinart and Ben Ami might have to say on the topic. These are bright men. So upon what insights do they base their conviction that the Palestinians are now ready to accept the deal they have repeatedly rejected?
Anyone looking for such insights from these sources will be disappointed. Beinart blames Israel's ongoing presence in the West Bank—and a host of other sins—on a flawed Zionism that is so blinded by past Jewish traumas that it is incapable of moral behavior today. But he never mentions Arafat's rejection of Barak's offer, the Aqsa intifada that followed it, or Abbas's rejection of Olmert's offer.
Even worse, Beinart slips the bounds of intellectual honesty to portray Netanyahu as an opponent of a two-state solution. In his article, Beinart quotes from Netanyahu's 1993 book, A Place among the Nations,[20] in which the future leader expressed his opposition to a Palestinian state.[21] But Beinart completely ignores Netanyahu's 2009 Bar Ilan University speech, in which he called for the creation of a Palestinian state,[22] and his frequent reiteration of this position since then.
The fact is that a significant transformation has taken place in the Israeli body politic. The two-state solution that had once been the policy preference of the far Left became the policy of the center Left and has now even been embraced by the center Right. But Beinart prefers to quote opinions from almost twenty years ago in his effort to portray Israel as the problem.
Ben Ami does no better. Earlier this year, he issued his manifesto entitled A New Voice for Israel.[23] Yet the reader will search the 240 pages of this volume in vain to find anything that is new. Ben Ami's core thesis is one that has already been voiced by Israeli prime ministers and embraced by a majority of the Israel public: Israel should accept a two-state solution with the Palestinians to avoid presumed disasters of demography and democracy. There is nothing new at all about stressing the desirability of this solution in theory.
What is new is that unlike most Israelis, Ben Ami ignores Israel's experience with the two-state solution over the course of the past two decades. He blithely dismisses Arafat's rejection of Barak's far reaching offer at the Taba summit by claiming that the "clock simply ran out on the Clinton effort before the negotiators could push the deal to the finish line."[24] Sprinting from the false to the ridiculous, he adds: "Let's remember that Arafat himself has been dead since 2004. To the extent that failure was related to his personal failings or flaws as a leader, it's time to move on."[25]
Ben Ami does not mention Arafat's flat rejection of Barak's offer. Nor does he mention Arafat's bloody counteroffer: competing with Hamas to see who could blow up more Israelis. Nor does he mention Olmert's more recent and more generous offer to Abbas and its summary rejection. When dreams confront reality, it seems, reality must bend.
Henry Wallace Lives
This is hardly the first time that some in the American Left have been slow to recognize troubling realities from abroad. Luckily, a prior generation of liberals rose to the challenge far more effectively and responsibly than the current one.
After World War II, many on the American Left felt a deep kinship with the Soviet Union. The Soviets had been a U.S. ally in the war against Nazi Germany. They had suffered enormous losses and were thus entitled to obsess over their security. And the Soviets were ostensibly dedicated to the same general principles as our progressives: helping the working class and creating a more equitable society. Yet in the months and years following the war, evidence began to mount that the Soviet communists were fundamentally different from American liberals. At home, the Soviets were totalitarian. Soviet premier Joseph Stalin was interning and murdering his people by the millions. Abroad, the Soviets were imperialistic. They were subverting democracy in their sphere of influence while simultaneously seeking to expand that sphere by exporting revolution.
What was a reasonable position toward the Soviets during the war and in its immediate aftermath became increasingly untenable with the passage of time. In March 1946, the U.K.'s Winston Churchill presciently alerted the West to the Soviet threat in his famous Iron Curtain speech. A year later, President Harry Truman changed U.S. policy to contain this threat when he promulgated the Truman doctrine.[26]
Yet a core of the Democratic base found this mounting evidence too troubling to internalize. They continued to ignore the facts and blame Soviet aggression on insufficient U.S. will for peace. Blaming Washington would mean that the West did not face a long twilight struggle with a determined ideological foe. Blaming the United States—like blaming Israel—held out the possibility of "peace in our time."
Former vice president Henry Wallace emerged as the leader of this fantasy movement. He persisted in the view that if U.S. officials only understood the Soviets and addressed their legitimate concerns, they could maintain the World War II alliance and avoid conflict. As the record of Soviet abuses and atrocities mounted, Wallace's search for excuses and scapegoats grew more desperate.
Wallace went so far as to challenge Truman for the presidency in 1948 as a third-party candidate. He kicked off his campaign by warning that Truman's "reactionary war policy" would make "inevitable the day when American soldiers will be lying in their Arctic suits in the Russian snow."[27] Asked about the 1948 coup in which Soviet-backed communists seized control of the Czechoslovakian government, Wallace blamed the Truman doctrine and U.S. foreign policy.
The same scenario is playing out again. Yasser Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas, and the Palestinian Authority have not lived up to the hopes and dreams of Israel's supporters. Thus most have abandoned these dreams and begun to face the grim prospect of a longer struggle for Israel's survival. But there are many who refuse to let this reality percolate into their politics.
In 2006, an up-and-coming liberal intellectual framed this tendency to flee from reality as follows: "From Henry Wallace in the late 1940s to Michael Moore after September 11th, some liberals have preferred inaction to the tragic reality that America must shed its moral innocence to act meaningfully in the world."[28]
This intellectual was none other than Peter Beinart. Wisdom often comes more easily in hindsight.
The Conservative Triumph
The fact that the Democratic Party is the one distancing itself from Israel is still surprising to those who remember a different era. There was a time when the Democratic Party was solidly pro-Israel. Indeed, the party's base—young activists, academics, and unionists—were among Israel's most passionate supporters in America.
The Republicans, on the other hand, were cold toward the Jewish state. In Israel's early years, the party still had a strong isolationist wing. The party was populated by business Republicans who seemed willing to sell Israel for access to Arab oil. And predominant in the party were the Cold War pragmatists who appeared ready to sacrifice Israel for strategic gains in the far more populous Muslim world.
This "pragmatic" wing of the Republican Party produced President Eisenhower, and later President George H. W. Bush, Secretary of State James Baker, national security advisor Brent Scowcroft, and Pat Buchanan. With the exception of Buchanan, these men were not inimical to Israel. But they lacked an ideological commitment to the Jewish state. And when decisions come down to dollars and numbers instead of ideals, Israel has rarely fared well.
Facing this establishment discomfort with Israel, pro-Israel conservatives blamed neither Israel nor Israel's liberal supporters. Instead, they began the hard work of making the case for Israel on the merits. To security hawks, pro-Israel conservatives stressed that the Jewish state was a Cold War ally. To fiscal conservatives, they demonstrated the true bargain that is U.S. aid to Israel. And to social conservatives, they highlighted that supporting Israel was a religious and moral imperative.
The current generation of pro-Israel conservatives has continued this work. Most are well aware of Israel's shortcomings. But they are not so myopic that Israel's faults blind them to the overwhelming justice of its struggle for survival. Nor do these conservatives presume to be saviors of Israel's soul. They instead focus on the job they are best suited to perform—ensuring that the conservative base knows the truth about Israel.
In the process, pro-Israel conservatives have welcomed key friends and core constituencies into the pro-Israel coalition. When Christian conservatives began to emerge as a powerful pro-Israel voice in the 1980s, many liberals sought to bar them from the pro-Israel camp by spreading myths about their motives. Instead, conservatives made the effort to know them and, in the process, came to understand them, their theology, and ideology. Today, men like Pastor John Hagee and Gary Bauer, and groups like Christians United for Israel, play a prominent role in the pro-Israel coalition.
Over the summer of 2011, the same tactics of vilification were brought to bear against a new entrant into the pro-Israel camp: media giant Glenn Beck. On the flimsiest of evidence, Beck was accused of being an anti-Semite. Pro-Israel conservatives made the effort to know Beck and to experience firsthand his deep love for Israel and the Jewish people. He has now taken his rightful place within the pro-Israel camp.
Pro-Israel conservatives have not only welcomed friends but have taken on opponents within their own house. A non-Jew, William F. Buckley, led the successful effort to excommunicate Pat Buchanan from the conservative movement for his anti-Semitism. When Jesse Helms emerged as a last stalwart of old-school Republican opposition to Israel in the 1980s, pro-Israel conservatives brought him to Israel and challenged his assumptions. He returned as one of Israel's greatest friends in the U.S. Senate.
Today, the few remaining conservative opponents of Israel reside in the libertarian wing of the party and look to Ron Paul and Rand Paul for leadership. Thus pro-Israel conservatives are taking on these two opponents. Christians United for Israel has generated tens of thousands of emails to each of them stressing that the conservative base wants them to stand with Israel. Citing his "misguided and extreme views,"[29] the Republican Jewish Coalition refused to invite Ron Paul to a presidential candidate forum featuring all of the other major contenders.
Go and Do Likewise
Israel must never become a partisan issue like abortion or the Department of Education. The Jewish state's supporters must do everything in their power to avoid a situation where the U.S.-Israel relationship is alternatively strong when one party is in power, then abandoned when the other party rises. In such a world, Israel's enemies will simply build their bombs, stockpile their missiles, and await the inevitable swing of the U.S political pendulum.
At this dangerous juncture, pro-Israel liberals have an opportunity and a responsibility. Of everyone in the pro-Israel camp, it is Israel's liberal supporters who are best positioned to fight this battle. They are the ones who can most effectively defend Israel by invoking progressive principles to their progressive colleagues. But they are largely shrinking from the fight and are offering up the weakest of excuses for their failure. In the process, they are doing severe, possibly irreparable, damage to the U.S.-Israel relationship.
This failure is tragic. Now is not the time to abandon the battle of ideas. Nor is this the time to seek to purge from the pro-Israel camp those with different views on other, unrelated issues. America's pro-Israel activists must instead redouble their efforts to expand the pro-Israel coalition and ensure that all major streams of American political thought have a home there.
If Israel ultimately becomes a partisan election issue, it will not be Israel's fault. And it will not be the fault of Israel's conservative friends in America. It will be the result of a Left that has focused on the wrong fight in the wrong context at the wrong time. This failure will be the result of an American Jewish liberalism which, to quote liberal theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, "would renounce the responsibilities of power for the sake of preserving the purity of our soul."[30]
**David Brog, the executive director of Christians United for Israel, is the author of In Defense of Faith: The Judeo-Christian Idea and the Struggle for Humanity (Encounter, 2010).
[1] Library of Congress, "Bill Summary & Status, 111th Congress (2009-2010) H. res. 867, "All Information," Nov. 3, 2009.
[2] New Jersey Jewish News (Whippany), Feb. 3, 2010.
[3] Jeff Jacoby, "Support for Israel Runs on Party Lines," The Boston Globe, Apr. 11, 2010.
[4] FrontPage Magazine, Jan. 20, 2009.
[5] Ibid.
[6] "Americans Maintain Broad Support for Israel," Gallup, Inc., Feb. 28, 2011.
[7] "National [U.S.] Poll," Quinnipiac University, Oct. 6, 2011.
[8] Forbes.com, June 2, 2010.
[9] "Americans Maintain Broad Support for Israel," Gallup, Inc.
[10] Daniel Pipes, "Breaking All the Rules: The Middle East in U.S. Policy," International Security, Fall 1984.
[11] Daniel Pipes, "Who Supports Israel, Conservatives or Liberals?" The New York Post, Sept. 3, 2003.
[12] Jeffrey Goldberg, "Friends Forever?" Foreign Policy, Apr. 25, 2011.
[13] June 10, 2010.
[14] For a dissenting view, see Shmuel Rosner and Inbal Hakman, "The Challenge of Peoplehood: Strengthening the Attachment of Young American Jews to Israel in the Time of the Distancing Discourse," The Jewish People Policy Institute, Jerusalem, 2012.
[15] Peter Beinart, "The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment," The New York Review of Books, June 10, 2010.
[16] Jeremy Ben-Ami, A New Voice for Israel: Fighting for the Survival of the Jewish Nation (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2011), p. 123.
[17] The author participated in this meeting as part of Arlen Specter's staff.
[18] Ha'aretz (Tel Aviv), Feb. 14, 2010.
[19] The Washington Post, Sept. 16, 2011.
[20] Binyamin Netanyahu, A Place among the Nations: Israel and the World (New York: Bantam Books, 1993).
[21] Beinart, "The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment."
[22] Ha'aretz, June 14, 2009.
[23] New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
[24] Ben Ami, A New Voice for Israel, p. 200.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Harry S. Truman, address before a joint session of Congress, Mar. 12, 1947.
[27] Henry Wallace, "I Shall Run in 1948," Mutual Broadcasting System (Chicago), Dec. 29, 1947.
[28] Peter Beinart, The Good Fight (New York: Harper Collins, 2006), p. xi.
[29] Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Dec. 1, 2011.
[30] Rienhold Niebuhr, The Irony of American History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952), p. 5.