LCCC ENGLISH DAILY
NEWS BULLETIN
October 01/2013
Bible Quotation
for today/unless a
grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains
by itself alone
Luke 12/24-26 Most certainly I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains by itself alone. But if it dies, it bears much fruit. He who loves his life will lose it. He who hates his life in this world will keep it to eternal life. If anyone serves me, let him follow me. Where I am, there will my servant also be. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him.
Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources For October 01/13
Address by Canada's Foreign Minister Baird to the
68th Session of the United Nations General
Assembly/October 01/13
Netanyahu can't hope to regain Israel’s voice in
headlong US-Russian-Iranian nuclear diplomacy/DEBKAfile/October
01/13
Sunk values/The Daily Star/October 01/13
My Dear Lebanon/By: Hussein Shobokshi/Asharq Alawsat/October
01/13
Bahrain Urges Blacklisting of Hizbullah due to its Role in
'Spreading Chaos'
Naharnet /Bahraini Foreign Minister Sheikh Khalid bin Ahmed
al-Khalifa demanded on Monday that Hizbullah be blacklisted as a terrorist group
due to its “terrorist actions” and its “fueling of instability.”
He said before the United Nations General Assembly: “Hizbullah should be
blacklisted as a terrorist group by the international community due to its role
in spreading chaos.”
Bahrain had already blacklisted Hizbullah “due to its meddling in the country's
internal affairs.”Ties between the party and Bahrain had witnessed tensions due
to the party's strong support of a popular uprising in the country that began in
2011.The Gulf Cooperation Council monarchies decided on June 10 to impose
sanctions on Hizbullah, targeting residency permits and its financial and
business activities in reprisal for the group's armed intervention in Syria.The
council comprises Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab
Emirates.
Netanyahu to Obama: Tighten sanctions if Iran defies West
By Matt Spetalnick and Dan Williams | Reuters – By Matt Spetalnick and Dan
Williams
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/israels-netanyahu-press-obama-no-let-iran-pressure-132750665.html
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu urged U.S.
President Barack Obama on Monday to step up sanctions on Iran if it pursues its
nuclear drive even as it exchanges overtures with Washington and restarts
negotiations with the West. Seeking to reassure Israel about the emerging U.S.
diplomatic engagement with Iran, Obama said Tehran must prove its sincerity with
actions, insisted that Washington would not ease sanctions prematurely and
reaffirmed U.S. readiness to resort to military action if all else fails.
Netanyahu visited the White House just three days after Obama and new Iranian
President Hassan Rouhani spoke by telephone in the highest-level contact between
the countries in more than three decades. The call fueled hopes for a resolution
of Iran's decade-old nuclear standoff with the West.
Signs of U.S.-Iranian rapprochement have rattled Israel, which accuses Iran of
trying to buy time and get out from under tough international sanctions while it
seeks to develop nuclear weapons. Iran denies it is working toward an atomic
bomb. Netanyahu, whose aides had said he would tell Obama in private not to
trust Rouhani's charm offensive, signaled grudging acquiescence to Obama's
outreach to Iran. But he appeared to demand that Tehran offer immediate
concessions by suspending sensitive nuclear projects or else face even greater
international pressure.
"It is Israel's firm belief that if Iran continues to advance its nuclear
program during negotiations, the sanctions should be strengthened," Netanyahu
said as he sat side by side with Obama.
Obama said he was entering negotiations with Iran "clear-eyed" and was ready to
test Rouhani's overtures. But he said: "Anything we do will require the highest
standards of verification in order for us to provide the sort of sanctions
relief that I think they are looking for."He stopped short, however, of agreeing
to Netanyahu's new call for tighter sanctions if Iran continues work on nuclear
weapons. Existing international sanctions have done serious damage to Iran's
economy, including its oil sector. Even as Netanyahu called for a "credible
military threat" to pressure Iran to comply, Obama insisted: "We take no options
off the table, including military options, in terms of making sure that we do
not have nuclear weapons in Iran." Israel has threatened unilateral strikes on
Iran's nuclear sites but appears unlikely to go ahead any time soon as
Washington, its chief ally, tests the diplomatic waters. Israel is believed to
be the Middle East's only nuclear-armed power. Though Obama and Netanyahu have
had strained relations in the past, they showed no signs of tension in their
latest Oval Office encounter. They appeared relatively comfortable with one
another, each following the other's words carefully and occasionally exchanging
smiles.
"SPOILING THE PARTY"
Before Monday's White House talks, a Netanyahu aide said he did not care that he
was perceived as "spoiling the party," referring to the optimism stirred up in
Washington over ending decades of estrangement between the United States and
Iran.Netanyahu wants the Obama administration to demand specific steps by Iran,
including shutting down its uranium enrichment and plutonium projects and
shipping out their fissile material.
The Obama administration has been vague on what concessions it wants from Iran.
Obama did not specify what would constitute verification of Iran's actions, but
he may have been referring to steps that would give the U.N. nuclear agency
wider inspection powers to ensure that Iran is not hiding nuclear
activities.Despite any differences behind closed doors, Obama and Netanyahu
sought publicly to stress common ground on Iran.
The Israeli leader went out of his way to praise Obama for applying economic and
military pressure that he said had brought Iran to the table. "I appreciate
deeply that you have made clear that you remain committed to this goal (of
preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons)," Netanyahu said. Netanyahu, who
said before his visit that he was coming to debunk Rouhani's "sweet talk," will
deliver a speech on Tuesday at the United Nations, where he will hammer home his
skepticism. Signaling Netanyahu's aim to counter Rouhani's public relations
blitz with one of his own, aides said the U.S.-educated Israeli leader would
extend his visit by a day to conduct a series of media interviews.Though Obama
has focused on Iran outreach in recent days, his attention has been divided by
the looming threat of a U.S. government shutdown just after midnight on Monday
if a stalemate with congressional Republicans is not resolved.
HISTORY OF STRAINED TIES
Obama and Netanyahu have a history of difficult encounters, including a blowup
in the Oval Office in 2011 when Netanyahu famously lectured the president on
Jewish history. Having secured a second term, Obama visited Israel in March,
where he eased the rift with Netanyahu and offered reassurances that he was
determined to deny Iran the means to make an atomic bomb. But different clocks
tick for the two allies. While they agree that Tehran could make its first
nuclear device in months if it were intent on doing so, Israel warned last week
this gap could shrink to weeks due to new Iranian uranium centrifuges. Israel
would prefer that the U.S. superpower take the military lead against Iran if
diplomacy fails. Yet Israelis watched worriedly as Obama stumbled in his bid to
muster domestic support for attacking Syria as reprisal for Damascus's suspected
use of chemical weapons on August 21. In the meantime, Obama's engagement with
Iran could be limited by the influence of the pro-Israel lobby in Washington and
lawmakers who share Netanyahu's suspicion of Rouhani, a moderate cleric who took
office in August and was the center of attention at the United Nations last
week. Netanyahu was due to meet supporters on Capitol Hill on Monday. Further
complicating matters is Obama's reinvigorated push for a peace deal between
Israel and the Palestinians in talks that restarted earlier this year. Though
Middle East diplomacy was overshadowed by Iran in Monday's meeting, Obama
thanked Netanyahu for entering into "good faith" negotiations but said there was
limited time to reach an accord. (Additional reporting by Jeff Mason, Mark
Felsenthal and Steve Holland; Writing by Matt Spetalnick; Editing by Claudia
Parsons)
Geagea Calls for Swift Formation of Cabinet, Warns of
Further Deterioration
Naharnet/Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea urged on Monday President Michel
Suleiman and Prime Minister-designate Tammam Salam to form the new cabinet
without any delay, warning that the situation will further deteriorate if the
process remained at a standstill. “It is time for the government to be formed
and the parliamentary blocs would have to assume their responsibilities
afterward,” Geagea said in an interview with al-Akhbar newspaper. Salam and
President Michel Suleiman are seeking to form a cabinet divided equally between
the Lebanese foes and the centrists and rejects to grant the veto power to any
party. However, Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has described the
so-called 8-8-8 formula as "unrealistic," saying "it is technically a 10-6-8
formula since the premier-designate is a member of the March 14 forces and the
minister he is supposed to name would abide by the same political agenda."
Geagea pointed out that the March 14 alliance is discussing its stance of the
ongoing stalemate, saying “the situation in the country is deteriorating... The
President and PM-designate should either form a cabinet or change their
standards.”The Christian leader called for the formation of a 14-member cabinet
in which the ministers wouldn't be affiliated in neither the March 8 nor the
March 14 coalitions.
He criticized the March 8 alliance for holding on to its stances regarding the
formation of the cabinet, pointing out that the March 14 camp continuously
voiced agreement for the formation of a non-political government.
“I don't guarantee that such a cabinet would have the parliament's confidence,
but the situation in the country would be better,” Geagea said.
Hezbollah retreats after deadly Baalbek clashes
September 30, 2013/By Rakan al-Fakih The Daily Star
BAALBEK, Lebanon: Hezbollah handed over two checkpoints in Baalbek to the
Lebanese Army Sunday as part of the military’s deployment to restore calm in the
eastern city following clashes that killed four people including two members of
the group. Gunbattles erupted Saturday morning between Hezbollah members and
members from the Sunni Shiyyah family after a dispute in Baalbek’s Al-Qalaa
marketplace, one of the city’s main shopping districts. The dispute escalated
into several hours of fighting that killed two Hezbollah members and two gunmen
and wounded five others, a security source told The Daily Star.
The incident forced many to flee the bustling streets of Baalbek as the clashes
extended to several neighborhoods in the city.
In response to the incident which raised concern of rising sectarian tensions in
the eastern region, President Michel Sleiman chaired a security meeting at
Baabda Palace that was followed by a deployment by one of the Army’s elite units
to the area. Hezbollah handed over two checkpoints to the military in the
Baalbek marketplace but maintained others it had erected in the region following
threats that party-controlled areas were at risk of car bombings, including the
one at which the fighting erupted. In a statement Saturday night, the Army said
it deployed in the city and took the necessary measures to restore stability
following the clashes.
The Army said it apprehended a number of suspects. It also said the military
would “firmly face” any gunmen regardless of the family or party they belonged
to, and asked Baalbek figures to adopt restraint and cooperate with the Army’s
measures to prevent further escalation. During the Baabda meeting attended by
caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati, caretaker Interior Minister Marwan
Charbel, Army commander Gen. Jean Kahwagi and a number of security chiefs,
officials gave security agencies orders to restore calm and preserve security
and civil peace.
The Tripoli-based Islamic National Gathering held a meeting at Future MP
Mohammad Kabbara residence to address the clashes in Baalbek, accusing Hezbollah
of seeking to eradicate the Sunni community from the city and eastern Bekaa
Valley by “killing them, attacking their residences, burning their properties
and kidnapping them.”
Sheikh Mohammad Yazbek, the head of Hezbollah’s Shariah Council,said the clashes
were unacceptable and that his group exerted efforts to prevent the incident
from taking a more serious turn and inflaming sectarian tensions.“What happened
in Baalbek is very painful and it is what we have been warning against and
asking the state to shoulder its responsibility,” Yazbek said. “The attack and
the killing brought us to a point which we do not accept as we are in need of
people to help prevent sectarian and confessional strife.”Prime
Minister-designate Tammam Salam said the Baalbek incident highlighted the
serious risks that threaten Lebanese areas as a result of “sectarian and
rhetoric overload and the proliferation of illegal arms which are used as means
to dominate the decision-making power of one group over the other.”
The state should reinforce its profile through its own security agencies and
lift political cover off of violators, his office quoted him as saying.
During the fighting, districts of Baalbek along the lines separating Sunni and
Shiite neighborhoods were transformed into battlefields, with gunfire and RPGs
exchanged by both sides from noon till dusk Saturday.
The city was emptied of civilians who were visiting local markets to buy school
supplies for their children at the beginning of the academic year, amid one of
the most violent confrontations in the city in recent memory caused by sectarian
tension between its Sunni and Shiite communities. Outreach efforts by local
political and clan leaders continued into Sunday morning amid talk of a renewal
of the confrontation between the two sides.
A source close to Hezbollah said the party would not allow anyone to fight a
battle of attrition against it in Baalbek, which represents a well of political,
military and popular support for the party.
The source said that while Hezbollah was avoiding being dragged into a
confrontation with Lebanon’s Sunnis, it would not be lenient and retained all
options to act in the aftermath of the clashes.
These options include tracking Syrian refugees in the city and their Sunni
Lebanese supporters, as well as deploying security checkpoints around the city
and carrying out arrests of refugees who allegedly fought alongside the Shiyyah
clan and may be linked to the Nusra Front, a Syria-based Al-Qaeda affiliate.
The source said the incident was isolated initially but escalated after the
Hezbollah checkpoint was fired upon, followed by gunfire from snipers in the
area. The battle was also joined by local clans, the source said, which could
complicate matters as Hezbollah does not have control over the actions of the
clans.
The source warned that such fighting could escalate beyond sectarian conflict
toward clan warfare and revenge killing.
Hezbollah retained control of other checkpoints, including the one that sparked
the incident in the city center, amid negotiations to hand over security
completely to the Lebanese Army and security forces.
Most local shops remained closed. Some schools that are open Sundays remained
closed amid fears that school closures might continue for several days.
Army units deployed at the entrances to the city and its center, and military
police units carried out a general survey of the areas where the fighting broke
out.
Municipal officials in Baalbek condemned the fighting, saying it contradicted
the city’s traditions of coexistence. “What happened is rejected and is now
behind us, and everyone has to work to prevent it from recurring,” said Hamad
Hasan, the head of the municipality, at a meeting of local authorities and
clerics.
The local Dar al-Fatwa spokesman, Sheikh Mohammad Jamal al-Shall, said the
clashes were “an attack on Baalbek.”
“We reaffirm that there are no terrorist organizations in the city,” he said.
“We in Baalbek are one faction and one body.”
Sheikh Adnan Farhat, a Hezbollah preacher who attended the meeting, said there
was “a decision and honest desire to reject and prevent strife,” adding that the
city’s tradition of coexistence and sacrifice would not be annulled.
Farhat said Hezbollah was not happy about retaining checkpoints in the city, but
that they were necessary to protect the city and its people.
Sleiman’s awaited visit to Saudi Arabia postponed
September 30, 2013/By Hussein Dakroub /The Daily Star
BEIRUT: President Michel Sleiman’s visit to Saudi Arabia has been postponed in a
development apparently linked to a high-level Saudi-Iranian meeting next month
and its positive impact on the Lebanese crisis, March 8 parliamentary sources
said Sunday. Sleiman was scheduled to visit Riyadh Tuesday for talks with Saudi
King Abdullah bin Abdel-Aziz and other senior Saudi officials on the political
crisis in Lebanon as well as security challenges facing the country as a result
of the repercussions of the 30-month war in Syria. A statement released by
Sleiman’s office said the president’s visit was postponed to a date to be
announced later. The terse statement did not give the reasons for the
postponement and sources at Baabda Palace refused to give further details. The
postponement came a day after Saudi Ambassador to Lebanon Ali Awad Assiri met
Sleiman at Baabda Palace to discuss details of the visit. A March 8
parliamentary source said the postponement of Sleiman’s visit came from the
Saudi side. “The postponement of the visit is linked to the expected
Saudi-Iranian rapprochement,” the source told The Daily Star. He cited Iranian
President Hassan Rouhani’s visit to Saudi Arabia next month to perform the hajj
(pilgrimage). During his visit, Rouhani is expected to meet with King Abdullah
for talks on regional issues and bilateral relations. Rouhani’s visit comes
against the backdrop of mounting tensions between Riyadh and Tehran over the
conflict in Syria, where the two regional heavyweights back opposing sides.
“The Saudi-Iranian rapprochement will have a positive impact on the situation in
Lebanon,” the March 8 source said.
In an interview with TeleLiban Friday, Sleiman said a Saudi-Iranian
understanding would reflect positively on Lebanon and the entire region. He said
Saudi Arabia and Iran, which wield great influence on rival Lebanese factions,
can help defuse tensions and encourage the parties to cooperate and uphold
national unity. Meanwhile, the six-month-old Cabinet crisis marked time with no
solution in sight as regional developments have apparently scuttled Prime
Minister-designate Tammam Salam’s proposal for a 24-member Cabinet lineup
equally shared by the rival parties and centrists. A member of Speaker Nabih
Berri’s parliamentary bloc said the 8-8-8 Cabinet formula has been dropped,
while a 9-9-6 proposal gained ground in the hope of resolving the crisis.“The
8-8-8 Cabinet formula has been buried after it was rejected [by Hezbollah and
its March 8 allies]. Other proposals, particularly the 9-9-6 formula, is up for
discussion,” MP Ali Khreis told The Daily Star. Asked whether Berri’s
parliamentary Development and Liberation bloc, which rejected the 8-8-8 Cabinet
lineup, would support the 9-9-6 proposal, Khreis said: “Our bloc does not object
to this proposal. We back any formula that can protect the country.” He added
that the 8-8-8 formula had been dropped in light of fast-moving changes and
developments in the region.
Khreis was referring to last week’s historic phone conversation between U.S.
President Barack Obama and Rouhani, in the first top-level contact between the
two countries since 1979, and a U.S.-Russian deal over Syria’s chemical weapons
stockpiles. The tense Saudi-Iranian relations are expected to witness a thaw
during Rouhani’s visit to Saudi Arabia next month.
Salam and the Future Movement oppose the 9-9-6 formula. “Prime
Minister-designate Salam, who opposes granting veto power to any party, will not
go with the 9-9-6 proposal,” a source close to Salam told The Daily Star.
A senior Future source said while the movement does not oppose the 8-8-8 Cabinet
proposal, it rejects a formula that will give veto power to any party. With his
attempts to form a new Cabinet having been stymied by conflicting conditions and
demands from the rival factions over the shape of the government, Salam has
proposed a 24-member lineup equally shared by March 8 and March 14 parties and
centrists, which refer to Sleiman, Salam and MP Walid Jumblatt. Hezbollah and
its March 8 allies have rejected this Cabinet proposal, which denies them veto
power and calls for key portfolios to be rotated among major blocs.
Instead, they were reported to have floated the 9-9-6 proposal, which would give
veto power to both the March 8 and March 14 camps. Jumblatt, who had previously
backed the 8-8-8 proposal, called for reconsidering this proposal, saying
Lebanon was in need of an all-embracing government to confront major issues.
Commenting on last week’s meeting between Berri and former Prime Minister Fouad
Siniora, the Future source said: “The two men are working on a positive
development aimed at breaking the Cabinet deadlock.” Khreis concurred. “The
meeting between Speaker Berri and Siniora was aimed at facilitating the Cabinet
formation, in addition to the resumption of National Dialogue.” A source close
to Berri said that discussions focused on the speaker’s initiative to break the
monthslong political stalemate in the country.
Berri last month proposed a five-day conclave of Dialogue sessions attended by
March 8 and March 14 leaders, in addition to Salam, to address divisive issues,
including the makeup and the policy statement of a new Cabinet, a national
defense strategy, means to end Lebanese intervention in Syria and talks on a new
electoral law. Some Future Movement and March 14 politicians have rejected
Berri’s proposal, arguing that it infringed on the prerogatives of the president
and the prime minister-designate who, according to the Constitution, are the two
people tasked with the Cabinet formation. Maronite Patriarch Beshara Rai,
speaking in Sunday’s sermon, said the tragedy of the Lebanese who died in a boat
accident in Indonesia last week should prompt those in power and rival
politicians “to do their national unity by forming a new Cabinet.” For its part,
Hezbollah reiterated its demand for a national unity government. “The only
solution in Lebanon is the formation of a national unity Cabinet in which all
the [political] components are represented in proportion to their weight and
size in Parliament,” said Hezbollah’s caretaker Minister of State for
Administrative Reform Mohammad Fneish. Caretaker Health Minister Ali Hasan
Khalil also called for the formation of an all-embracing national Cabinet
comprising all effective political parties “to meet challenges facing Lebanon
and the region.”
Sunk values
September 30, 2013/The Daily Star
Sadly, the death of 26 Lebanese – men, women and children – off the coast of
Indonesia last week should shock no one. After all, everyone is aware of the
endless tide of Lebanese abandoning all hope for a future in their homeland and
setting off in search of a better life. Untold thousands have taken similar
journeys, from those fleeing Ottoman oppression in the 19th century through to
the more recent émigrés fleeing the Civil War. Defeated in all attempts to make
a life in Lebanon, these emigrants have been boarding boats for two centuries,
setting off into the unknown. Imagine selling everything you own – even your
land, passed down through the generations and probably the only real asset your
family has – and trusting an unknown boat captain with your life, your
children’s lives, to head off for a completely new life. How desperate must such
people be, that the possibility – or probability – of death, deportation or
prison still seems worth risking in order to escape Lebanon? Who is to blame for
these deaths? Is it the fathers, who found their homeland so dehumanizing that
they finally fled? With so little hope for prosperity or even stability in
Lebanon’s future, it is hard to curse their desperate decision, no matter how
foolhardy. But where are the leaders when people are packing their bags and
selling their land? They know the risk; they know the inevitability of these
journeys. It’s common knowledge that Australia will not allow these immigrants
to stay even if they survive the journey – they are all now shipped to effective
prison camps on Papua New Guinea. The government has offered condolences and
transport for the bodies after this latest tragedy. You would think the state
has no idea this was happening. Where was the advice and education when the
people were setting out on this illegal trip? Last week, the village mayor was
talking to the Indonesian authorities while the Foreign Ministry was still
saying it would look into the incident. Has the government become so detached
from the Lebanese people that it does not know the levels of desperation they
are suffering? This lack of a proactive approach to the problem is emblematic of
the failure of this government. The very basis of a state is the idea that it
should protect and provide for the people. If the government is incapable of
providing hope for a brighter future, it should at least be wise enough to stop
citizens from entrusting their lives to these death boats. Is it so easy to
sneak out of Lebanon illegally that the security forces and Foreign Ministry
cannot help prevent these dead-end journeys? Perhaps this tragedy will be the
one that awakens the Grand Serail to the dire straits the lack of leadership has
left the Lebanese in. This incident shows that the people are desperate for a
captain to lead them to a better life – even one they should know better than to
trust.
My Dear Lebanon
By: Hussein Shobokshi/Asharq Alawsat
A Lebanese friend once asked me, “Why are the Gulf states pressuring us in this
manner?” Gazing at him in wonder and amazement, I answered, “Are you serious? Or
you are just joking.” He said: “Not at all. I am very serious.” I then told him
he could by no means be serious if he only looked at the surface of the problem
without digging further. The member-states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)
are cautious of their internal security being jeopardized by a terrorist faction
with an extensive global network: Hezbollah. Hijacking their native country
under the slogan of resistance, Hezbollah has turned into a mercenary militia
defending a foreign tyrant and his criminal regime, as well as spreading
terrorism across the world. It has become a scarecrow threatening tourism.
Through its heavily armed militants, Hezbollah is terrifying Lebanese citizens.
This is evidenced by the frosty “reception” granted to tourists at the
“occupied” airport, which does not represent the real Lebanon. Additionally, the
sights surrounding the airport are full of foreign flags and portraits of
foreign leaders. It feels like you are in Qom or Kandahar, not Lebanon.There are
no commemorative plaques or portraits in celebration of renowned Lebanese icons
such as Riad Al-Solh, Bishara Al-Khoury, Camille Chamoun, Rafik Hariri or
Hussein Al-Husseini.
Lebanon is occupied, and its people have accepted this occupation. The Lebanese
people turned a blind eye to Hezbollah’s practices until eventually they
established a state within a state in southern Lebanon. Hezbollah became
indifferent to the state, its security and military, its government, and its
official policy. It impedes the formation of the government and is unresponsive
to the instructions of the president or the prime minister regarding the
self-distancing policy, let alone other policies. All of this proves that
Hezbollah is “determined” to hijack Lebanon once and for all, and this is just
the tip of the iceberg. Consequently, Saudi Arabia should not be asked to be
more for Lebanon than the Lebanese can do for themselves. Saudi Arabia is
displeased with Lebanon’s reaction towards the Kingdom’s policies. In fact,
Saudi Arabia has historically supported Lebanese independence and dignity,
contributing to the ending of the Lebanese civil war by brokering the 1989 Ta’if
Agreement, which was signed on its soil. The Kingdom also adopted a policy aimed
at rehabilitating Lebanon in cooperation with late Lebanese prime minister Rafik
Hariri. Moreover, Riyadh contributed to forcing the Syrian army out of Lebanon
and brought about reconciliation between different Lebanese factions. It also
offered generous economic and political support. I believe it is time the
Lebanese paid some attention to their country. Their country deserves their
efforts in preventing this malignant cancer from spreading. Lebanon needs to
embrace its own people, rather than accept its role as a political arena for
achieving desired goals and objectives of others who would seek to intervene. If
the Lebanese people are willing to accept a country with no sovereignty, a
thwarted government, a threatened state, and abandoned policies , it would be a
catastrophe for both the country and its people. However, if they reject this
state of affairs, then they must act and do something. All I know is that
Lebanon cannot be nurtured by writing songs and adopting slogans. Madness must
not be a policy for governance. We are still waiting for the Lebanese citizens
to reconstruct their own country. Until then, the Gulf will remain highly
cautious of Lebanon and the prospects of it returning to its past.
Syrian FM: Syria formally confirms mission to restore 'Israeli-occupied' Golan
Heights
By JPOST.COM STAFF 09/30/2013/Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem said that
Syria formally confirms their mission to restore the Israeli-side of the Golan
Heights to Syrian rule and condemned Syrian rebels as terrorists, during a
speech to the UN in New York on Monday. "The Syrian Arab Republic confirm their
mission to restore the 'Israeli-occupied' Golan Heights to Syrian rule and
formally rejects all measures taken by Israel to change the Geo-political
landscape of the Golan Heights," al-Moualem said. In the last few months,
tensions along the Syrian-Israeli border have been particularly heightened as
fears that the Syrian Civil War will spillover into Israel. There have already
been cases of stray mortars falling in Israeli territory.Al-Moualem widened his
attack on Israel by slamming Israel's on-going refusal to sign the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, saying they are "handicapping the possibility of a
'free zone' from weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East." Beyond
discussing Syria's personal problems with Israel, he addressed the
Israeli-Palestinian conlict as well. "Syria reiterates its support of the
Palestinian people and their right of return to their land, to establish an
independent state with Jerusalem as its capital," he said.While he reserved the
brunt of his speech for Israel and the US, the Syrian foreign minister had some
strong words to direct towards the Syrian rebels fighting against President
Bashar Assad."In my country, ladies and gentlemen, there are murderers who
dismember people while they are still alive simply because they support a united
and secular Syria," al-Moualem said. The Syrian foreign minister said that it
was wrong to describe the conflict in Syria as a "civil war," rather it should
be called a "war on terrorism."
"We must confront this terrorism and I ask the international community, and the
UN Security Council in particular, to support Syria in fighting this war on
terror and to take all necessary actions against those nations that host
terrorists and their terror infrastructures," he said. "The people of New York
have witnessed the devastation of terrorism, and were burned with the fire of
extremism and bloodshed, the same way we are suffering now in Syria," Moualem
said, referring to the Sept. 11 attacks that brought down the World Trade Center
and damaged the Pentagon.
"How can some countries, hit by the same terrorism we are suffering now in
Syria, claim to fight terrorism in all parts of the world, while supporting it
in my country?" he said.
Touching on the recent flare up with the West over the possession and use of
chemical weapons against their own people, al-Moualem attempted to redirect
attentions by going on the offensive with an attack on the US and the UK. "The
US and the UK have handicapped the UN missions to Syria," he said. "Instead of
searching Syria for humanitarian issues, they spent their whole time searching
for chemical weapons."
Reuters contributed to this report.
Netanyahu can't hope to regain Israel’s voice in headlong US-Russian-Iranian
nuclear diplomacy
DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis September 30, 2013/
Although a face to face between prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and President
Barack Obama is obviously worthwhile for both countries, the prime minister need
not expect to deflect the president from his pursuit of a nuclear deal with
Tehran when they meet Monday, Sept. 30. At best, he will come away with soothing
assurances that any new intelligence he presents will be seriously looked into.
But he can’t hope for real substance for two reasons:
1. Obama can no longer turn away from the path he has set himself, because he is
driven by the ambition to prove that international problems can be solved
without military force and solely by good will, negotiations and diplomacy.
2. After convincing Russian President Vladimir Putin that he means what he says
and is not planning to repeat his “mistaken” US military involvement in the 2011
Libyan civil war, Obama removed a major obstacle in the way of a US-Russian deal
on Syria’s chemical weapons.
It is now the turn for Washington, Moscow and Tehran to continue the process
with a parallel consensual deal on Iran’s nuclear program.
From Tehran, the US and Russia might be seen to be preparing to impose a nuclear
settlement on Iran in the same way as they did for Syrian President Bashar
Assad’s chemical weapons. However, if that is what is contemplated, Obama and
Putin will soon find Tehran is not Damascus, and the ayatollah in Tehran is a
completely different proposition from his Syrian ally.
The wily supreme leader Ali Khamenei in fact sees his chance of turning the
situation around to the Islamic Republic’s advantage. He grasps that the
American and Russian leaders are in a hurry to reap the results of the Obama
administration’s decision to forswear a military option for bringing Tehran
round. Their headlong quest for quick results gives Tehran the leverage for
extracting previously withheld concessions on its nuclear program, such as
extreme flexibility on its enriched uranium production and stocks.
Netanyahu may hear Obama promising to stand by his demand that Iran stop
enriching uranium and export the bulk of its stocks, or surrender it for
destruction like Syria’s chemical weapons. But he will also discover that Obama
and Putin are running ahead together at breakneck speed after dropping Israel by
the wayside. And the negotiations with Iran behind the scenes - and continuing
in Geneva on Oct. 15 with the five Security Council powers and Germany - are
more than likely to produce a compromise unacceptable to Israel.
Iran and Russia will have to make some concessions for a deal. But so too will
the United States, and the uranium enrichment issue will loom large in the way
of an agreement unless Washington gives way on that point. Obama has already
covered much of this ground in secret contacts with Tehran.
The tempo of the negotiations, dictated by Obama and Putin, will make it easy to
blur facts and the present minor concessions as major achievements.
Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov are
already smoothing the way for the understandings to come with messages that fit
neatly into world media headlines. Sunday, Kerry echoed President Rouhani’s of a
nuclear accord achievable in months. At the same time, mindful of the
Obama-Netanyahu meeting Monday, the US Secretary said in a TV interview, “A bad
deal is worse than no deal,” while US Ambassador Dan Shapiro assured Israelis in
a radio interview Monday morning “The US and Israel share the same goals –
preventing a nuclear-armed Iran.”
Meanwhile, last month’s buzz phrase for the Syrian accord, which called for “a
credible military option” to underpin the understanding, has been quietly
mothballed in both the Syrian and Iranian WMD context.
Israel's Netanyahu to press Obama for no let-up on Iran
pressure
By Dan Williams and Matt Spetalnick | Reuters –By Dan Williams
and Matt Spetalnick
NEW YORK/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will
warn President Barack Obama in White House talks on Monday that Iran's
diplomatic "sweet talk" cannot be trusted and will urge him to keep up the
pressure to prevent Tehran from being able to make a nuclear bomb. While Obama
will attempt to reassure Netanyahu that he will not act prematurely to ease
sanctions on Iran, growing signs of a U.S.-Iranian thaw have rattled Israel and
could make for a tense encounter between the two leaders, who have not always
seen eye-to-eye on the Iranian nuclear dispute. They will meet in Washington
three days after Obama and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani spoke by telephone
in the highest-level contact between the countries in more than three decades.
The call fueled hopes for a resolution of Iran's decade-old nuclear standoff
with the West.
"Netanyahu does not care that he is the only one ruining the party," an Israeli
official said.
Obama is expected to voice sympathy for Israel's skepticism about Iran, its
longtime enemy, but will make clear his determination to test Rouhani's
intentions and will press Netanyahu for time to do so, U.S. officials say.
For his part, Netanyahu will tell Obama that tough economic sanctions have
succeeded in forcing Iran back to the negotiating table and "they should not be
eased, quite the contrary, they should be tightened," a second Israeli official
said. Netanyahu will urge Obama to reject any concessions by the West and
instead demand specific steps by Iran, including shutting down its uranium
enrichment and plutonium projects and shipping out their fissile material. "He
will tell the president ‘better no deal than a bad deal,'" the official said.
The Obama administration has been vague on what concessions it wants from Iran,
and a source close to the White House said the president is expected to resist
Israeli pressure for a precise time limit for diplomacy to produce an agreement.
Despite their differences behind closed doors, Obama and Netanyahu are expected
to try to project unity. Talks begin in the Oval Office at 11:15 a.m. EDT/1515
GMT, ending with statements to a small pool of journalists, followed by a
working lunch.
Netanyahu spent Sunday holed up at his New York hotel working on a speech he
will deliver at the United Nations on Tuesday while his aides mostly stayed out
of the public eye.
"I will speak the truth. Facts must be stated in the face of the sweet talk and
the blitz of smiles," Netanyahu said at the airport in Tel Aviv before departing
for the United States.
Signaling Netanyahu's aim to counter Rouhani's charm offensive with one of his
own, aides said the U.S.-educated Israeli leader will extend his visit by a day
to conduct a series of media interviews.
HISTORY OF STRAINED TIES
Obama and Netanyahu have a history of difficult encounters, including a blowup
in the Oval Office in 2011 when Netanyahu famously lectured the president on
Jewish history.
Iran strategy has strained relations between them before, most notably last year
when Netanyahu pushed back against U.S. pressure on Israel not to launch its own
pre-emptive attack on Iran's nuclear sites.
Having secured a second term, Obama visited Israel in March, where he eased the
personal rift with Netanyahu and offered reassurances that he was determined to
deny Iran the means to make a bomb, something that Tehran denies it is seeking.
But different clocks tick for the two allies. While they agree that Tehran could
make its first nuclear device in months if it were intent on doing so, Israel
warned last week this gap could shrink to weeks due to new Iranian uranium
centrifuges. Limited in conventional military clout, Israel - believed to be the
Middle East's only nuclear-armed power - would prefer the U.S. superpower takes
lead against Iran if diplomacy fails.
Yet Israelis watched worriedly as Obama stumbled in his bid to muster domestic
support for attacking Syria in reprisal over Damascus's suspected use of
chemical weapons on August 21.
Netanyahu will look for proof of Obama's commitment to confront Tehran with a
"credible military threat." Obama insists he is not bluffing but has not been as
explicit as Israel wants.
However, neither does Netanyahu look any closer to launching a strike on Iran
alone, with Israeli public support lacking and questions about whether it would
be militarily effective.
In the meantime, Obama's engagement with Iran could be limited by the influence
of the pro-Israel lobby in Washington and lawmakers who share Netanyahu's
suspicion of Rouhani, a moderate cleric who took office in August and conducted
a public relations blitz at the United Nations last week.
Netanyahu could meet supporters on Capitol Hill on Monday.
Seeking to stress common ground, U.S. national security adviser Susan Rice told
CNN on Sunday the United States, Israel and other allies "have been largely
united in agreeing on the process going forward" with Iran. But she acknowledged
the path was unclear as negotiations with Iran were not yet under way.
Further complicating matters is Obama's reinvigorated push for a peace deal
between Israel and the Palestinians in talks that restarted earlier this year.
Middle East diplomacy is expected to figure more prominently in Monday's meeting
than originally thought, after Obama listed it as a top priority in his address
to the United Nations on Tuesday.
(Reporting By Matt Spetalnick; Editing by Alistair Bell, Stacey Joyce, Doina
Chiacu)
Baird warns of Iranian charm offensive in UN General
Assembly speech
By Mike Blanchfield, The Canadian Press | The Canadian Press –
OTTAWA - Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird is telling the United Nations
General Assembly not to be taken in by any Iranian charm offensives.
Baird restated that warning in his speech to the assembly today, evoking the
memory of the failed appeasement of Nazi Germany in the year before the Second
World War.
Baird also spoke of the need to end the human rights violations against girls
and women, branding forced marriage rape, and calling several times for the
"human family" to unite to end violence against women.
Baird addressed the apparent thaw in the three decades of strained relations
between the United States and Iran after President Barack Obama spoke by phone
with his Iranian counterpart Hassan Rouhani last week.
It was the first conversation between the leaders of the two countries since the
1979 siege of the U.S. embassy in Tehran.
"Some observers see encouraging signs, but sound bites do not remove threats to
global security," Baird said.
"Kind words, a smile and a charm offensive are not a substitute for real
action."
Baird noted that the P5+1 — the five permanent members of the UN Security
Council plus Germany — has met five times with Iran in the past two years to
find an end to its nuclear standoff with the West.
"While everyone says the meetings have been 'productive,' the fact remains we
haven't seen any change in Iran's actions," Baird said. Canada will welcome
reform, but will judge the Iranian regime by whether it delivers results and
elevates the standard of living of its people, he said.
In the meantime, he said, tough sanctions must be maintained.
"Next year, nothing would make Canada more pleased than to see a change in
Iran's nuclear ambitions. A change to its terrible human rights record. And an
end to Iran's material support for terrorism, including Hezbollah." Canada
severed diplomatic relations with Iran one year ago, shuttering its embassy in
Tehran and expelling the regime's diplomats from Canada.
Baird also touted his government's creation of an Office of Religious Freedom,
and said it is necessary because religious persecution continues to flourish.
He cited numerous examples of attacks on Muslim, Buddhist and Christian places
of worship in numerous countries, including Pakistan, Tanzania, Egypt and Sri
Lanka.
Baird elaborated, at times passionately, on one of his signature initiatives:
the plight of young girls and women forced into marriage.
Last week, Baird co-hosted a panel on the issue during the UN meetings in New
York.
He told the panel the practice is "an appalling violation of human rights" and
said Canada is committed to putting a stop to it.
"Since I began these remarks, 100 children have been forced into marriage; 1,100
per hour; more than 26,000 per day," Baird told the General Assembly.
"Forced marriage is rape; it is violence against women. Early forced marriage is
child rape, violence against young girls. The practice is abhorrent,
indefensible and Canada condemns it."
Rouhani orders study of the possibility of direct Iran-US
flights after decades-old halt
By The Associated Press | The Canadian Press
TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's president is asking aviation authorities to study the
possibility of resuming direct flights between Iran and the United States for
the first time in more than three decades.
Hassan Rouhani's request reflects Iranian efforts to possibly build on the
groundbreaking exchanges with Washington that included a telephone chat last
week between the new Iranian president and President Barack Obama.
Iran's immediate goal is to resume talks over its nuclear program to seek easing
of Western sanctions. But Tehran also appears willing to explore expanded
contacts.
The semiofficial ISNA news agency quoted Akbar Torkan, a senior government
official, as saying on Monday that Rouhani wants to study the options of direct
flights.
More than 1 million Iranian-Americans live in California and elsewhere.
Direct flights halted after the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Differences between Obama and Netanyahu diminished
By HERB KEINON 09/30/2013/J.Post
http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Differences-between-Obama-and-Netanyahu-diminished-327439
After a six-month absence, stories about sharp differences between Prime
Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama have resurfaced in
light of the recent Syria crisis and US-Iran overtures.
These stories began reappearing after Obama balked on military action in Syria,
something the pundits determined Israel was pushing for.
They resurfaced last week after Obama said at the UN that his two primary goals
in the Middle East were stopping Iran’s nuclear arms development and finding a
solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And they reemerged over the
weekend following Obama’s 15-minute phone call with Iranian President Hassan
Rouhani. An Al Jazeera anchor asked an Israeli journalist Sunday how he expected
Monday’s meeting between the two leaders to go, given their stormy past. Reuters
placed the following headline on a curtain-raiser piece about the meeting: “Iran
is biggest test for Obama’s often rocky ties with Netanyahu.”
The narrative pushed in the Reuters piece, and in others like it, was that the
two men have huge differences, with a subtext being that they don’t much get
along. Many of the default phrases that were used during Obama’s and Netanyahu’s
previous terms in office to paint a dysfunctional relationship were trotted out
in this article.
“Behind closed doors, their differences over Iran may prove hard to bridge,” the
Reuters story read.
“Netanyahu will be in anything but a conciliatory mood;” “Obama and Netanyahu
have a track record of difficult encounters;” Netanyahu “famously lectured the
president on Jewish history;” Netanyahu “made no secret of his fondness for
Republican challenger Mitt Romney, who lost to Obama in last year’s presidential
election;” Netanyahu is a “sometimes abrasive Israeli premier.”
The mood created with these phrases and by such stories that have appeared over
the last month is that the two leaders are once more on a collision course – if
not over Egypt, then over Syria; if not over Syria, then over the Palestinians;
if not over the Palestinians, then at least over Iran. It’s as if large parts of
the media – both in Israel and abroad – cannot accept industrial quiet between
the two leaders.
However, since Obama’s visit to Jerusalem in March, the relationship – which
conventional wisdom predicted would be horrible this year as Obama would take
revenge on Netanyahu for allegedly supporting Romney – has indeed been marked by
industrial quiet. Obama’s visit to Israel in the spring, his own “charm
offensive,” changed the tone and dynamic of that relationship.
The “dysfunctional relationship” stories disappeared, and instead what was seen
was close coordination on everything from placing Hezbollah on the EU’s list of
terrorist organizations, to restarting talks with the Palestinians, to close
intelligence coordination during the Syrian crisis. Israel and the US, however,
are not the same country. Their interests are not identical, even though they do
intersect more often than not. Differences do exist, but so does intimate
cooperation. All that existed before Obama’s visit in March as well.
But what has changed fundamentally since then was that the differences are now
not aired in public. Megaphone diplomacy has been replaced with a quiet attempt
to resolve differences far from the glare of the cameras.
The Reuters story reported that Netanyahu was “unnerved” by the pace of the US
outreach to Iran. Maybe so, but Netanyahu has given no voice at all to that
sentiment, indeed directing his ministers not to speak about the
Iranian-American relationship and not saying a word himself – pro or con – about
the Obama- Rouhani call.
And that is a major difference.
Exactly a year ago Netanyahu, in a clear reference to Obama, said, “Those in the
international community, who refuse to put red lines in front of Iran, don’t
have a moral right to put a red light in front of Israel.”
And a year before that, in May 2011, when Netanyahu was on his way to a White
House meeting, Obama delivered his speech on the Arab Spring, mentioning for the
first time the 1967 lines as a baseline for talks. This was a 2011 equivalent of
the Obama- Rouhani conversation. Netanyahu’s response at the time was swift and
harsh; he sent out a scathing response to reporters even as he was on his way to
the airport for the flight to DC. This time, however, he was completely quiet,
saying not a word about the phone call, or the ties, beyond that he would “tell
the truth in the face of the sweet-talk and the onslaught of smiles.”
What he really thinks about that call and the pace of the US outreach to Iran he
will say privately on Monday to Obama.
Much of the media is looking for daylight between Obama and Netanyahu; that’s
sexy news. Daylight exists between them, obviously. But unlike the nine other
meetings that took place before Obama’s visit in March, this daylight will
likely not filter out from behind the closed White House doors. And that, from
Netanyahu’s point of view, is the most lasting achievement from when the two men
met last six months ago in Jerusalem.
Iranian foreign minister: Israel has an arsenal of 200
nuclear warheads
By JPOST.COM STAFF 09/29/2013/Iranian Foreign Minister Javad
Zarif accused Israel on Sunday of having an arsenal of 200 nuclear warheads, and
said it is the source of insecurity in the Middle East.
"Israel has 200 nuclear warheads. Israel is the source of insecurity in our
region. Israel is the source of aggression and violation of human rights of the
Palestinian people. It should not have the audacity to continue to lie to the
American people and to the world and mislead everybody," Zarif told ABC's This
Week in his first appearance on the show in 26 years Iranian Foreign Minister
Javad Zarif accused Israel on Sunday of having an arsenal of 200 nuclear
warheads, and said it is the source of insecurity in the Middle East. "Israel
has 200 nuclear warheads. Israel is the source of insecurity in our region.
Israel is the source of aggression and violation of human rights of the
Palestinian people. It should not have the audacity to continue to lie to the
American people and to the world and mislead everybody," Zarif told ABC's This
Week in his first appearance on the show in 26 years
Kerry hopeful of quick US-Iran nuclear agreement
By REUTERS 09/30/2013/WASHINGTON - US Secretary of State John Kerry said a deal
on Iran's nuclear weapons program could be reached relatively quickly, and it
would have the potential to dramatically improve the relationship between the
two countries. Kerry said intensifying diplomatic efforts to resolve the dispute
over Iran's nuclear program could produce an agreement within the three- to
six-month time frame that Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has called for."It's
possible to have a deal sooner than that depending on how forthcoming and clear
Iran is prepared to be," Kerry said in an interview aired on CBS's "60 Minutes"
on Sunday.
"If it is a peaceful program, and we can all see that - the whole world sees
that - the relationship with Iran can change dramatically for the better and it
can change fast," he said. Rouhani and US President Barack Obama spoke by
telephone on Friday in the highest-level contact between the two countries in
three decades, raising hopes of a breakthrough in Western efforts to prevent
Iran from building a nuclear bomb.The call was the culmination of a recent,
dramatic shift in tone between Iran and the United States, which cut diplomatic
relations a year after the 1979 Iranian revolution. Kerry said Iran could prove
its sincerity by immediately opening its nuclear facilities to inspections and
keeping its uranium enrichment efforts at lower grades that were not suitable
for military use. Iran has defended its right to enrich uranium as part of a
civilian nuclear energy and medicine program and denied that it aims to develop
atomic weapons, but the United States and its allies have sought an end to
higher-grade uranium enrichment that could be a step away from the production of
weapons-grade material. "Iran needs to take rapid steps, clear and convincing
steps, to live up to the international community's requirements regarding
nuclear programs, peaceful nuclear programs," Kerry said. "Words are not going
to replace actions," he said. "What we need are actions that prove that we and
our allies, our friends in the region, can never be threatened by this program."
In a separate interview, Iran's foreign minister said the country's right to
peaceful nuclear enrichment was not negotiable but it did not need to enrich
uranium to military-grade levels.
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said Iran was willing to open its
nuclear facilities to international inspections as part of a nuclear deal as
long as the United States ended painful economic sanctions."Negotiations are on
the table to discuss various aspects of Iran's enrichment program. Our right to
enrich is non-negotiable," Zarif told ABC's "This Week" program.
"We do not need military-grade uranium. That's a certainty and we will not move
in that direction," Zarif said. "Having an Iran that does not have nuclear
weapons, is not just your goal, it's first and foremost our goal." Zarif said
Iran was willing to have its facilities visited by international inspectors to
prove it was not seeking a nuclear bomb. "If the United States is ready to
recognize Iran's rights, to respect Iran's rights and move from that
perspective, then we have a real chance," Zarif said."We are willing to engage
in negotiations. The United States also needs to do things very rapidly. One is
to dismantle its illegal sanctions against Iran," he said.
Kerry said the sanctions could be lifted after an agreement was in place that
ensured Iran's nuclear program was peaceful. "The United States is not going to
lift the sanctions until it is clear that a very verifiable, accountable,
transparent process is in place, whereby we know exactly what Iran is going to
be doing with its program," he said.
Israel says it caught Iranian spy with photos of U.S.
embassy
Reuters – JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel disclosed on Sunday the
arrest of an Iranian-Belgian citizen on suspicion of spying for Iran, saying he
had photographed the U.S. embassy and intended to establish business ties in the
Jewish state as a cover for espionage. Israel and Iran are bitter adversaries.
Israel, widely believed to be the Middle East's only nuclear power, says Iran is
covertly seeking to develop atomic weapons. Iran says it is enriching uranium
solely for peaceful purposes. Ali Mansouri, in his mid-50s, was arrested on
September 11 at Tel Aviv's Ben-Gurion Airport, the Shin Bet intelligence service
said in a statement. It coincided with the start of a visit by Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu to the United States where Iran's nuclear program will top
his agenda.
The Shin Bet said the Iranian-born Mansouri had legally changed his name in
Belgium to Alex Mans and used his Belgian passport to enter Israel. It said he
was recruited as a spy by Iran's Revolutionary Guards and had visited Israel
twice before his arrest. Photographs which the Shin Bet said Mansouri had in his
possession, and which it released along with the statement, included one taken
of the rooftop of the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv from a nearby high-rise
balcony.The statement said Mansouri planned to establish commercial ties with
Israeli businesses as a cover for intelligence-gathering and "terrorist
activities".
The Shin Bet said Mansouri was being held under a court order and that he would
be brought before a judge on Monday for a hearing on extending his period of
detention. No formal charges have been announced.
Netanyahu was due to meet President Barack Obama on Monday and address the U.N.
General Assembly the next day, to try to counter what the Israeli leader called
"sweet talk" by Iran's new president, Hassan Rouhani, on reaching a pact with
the West to settle the nuclear issue.
(Writing by Ori Lewis; Editing by Jeffrey Heller/Mark Heinrich)
Suspected Islamic extremists kill at
least 44 students in attack on Nigerian college
By Adamu Adamu And Michelle Faul, The Associated Press | The
Canadian Press –
POTISKUM, Nigeria - Suspected Islamic extremists attacked an agricultural
college in the dead of night, gunning down dozens of students as they slept in
dormitories and torching classrooms, the school's provost said — the latest
violence in northeastern Nigeria's ongoing Islamic uprising.
The attack, blamed on the Boko Haram extremist group, came despite a 4
1/2-month-old state of emergency covering three states and one-sixth of the
country. It and other recent violence have led many to doubt assurances from the
government and the military that they are winning Nigeria's war on the
extremists.
Provost Molima Idi Mato of Yobe State College of Agriculture told The Associated
Press that there were no security forces protecting the college. Two weeks ago,
the state commissioner for education had begged schools and colleges to reopen
and promised they would be guarded by soldiers and police. Idi Mato said as many
as 50 students may have been killed in the assault that began at about 1 a.m.
Sunday in rural Gujba. "They attacked our students while they were sleeping in
their hostels. They opened fire at them," he said, adding that most victims were
aged between 18 and 22.
Soldiers recovered 42 bodies and transported 18 wounded students to Damaturu
Specialist Hospital, 40 kilometres (25) miles north, said a military
intelligence official who insisted on anonymity because he was not authorized to
speak to the press. Two of the wounded later died, said Adamu Usman, a survivor
from Gujba who was helping at the hospital.
President Goodluck Jonathan condemned the attack in a televised "chat with the
media" Sunday night, and questioned the motives of Boko Haram, which wants to
impose Islamic law across Nigeria. He said he wondered whether the victims were
Muslim or Christian. Usman said almost all those killed were Muslims, as is the
majority of the college's student body.
Jonathan likened the assault to that on Nairobi's premier shopping mall last
week, where Islamic extremists from Somalia's al-Shabab movement killed 67
civilians — but only after allowing many Muslims to leave. Boko Haram has said
some of its fighters trained with al-Shabab in Somalia. Boko Haram leader
Abubakar Shekau has said in video addresses that his group wants to end
democracy in Nigeria and allow education only in Islamic schools. Boko Haram
means "Western education is forbidden."
Its uprising poses the biggest security challenge in years to this country.
Nigeria is Africa's biggest oil producer and its most populous nation with more
than 160 million people — almost equal numbers of which are Muslims and
Christians.
Boko Haram militants have killed more than 1,700 people since 2010.
"Sometimes you need courage" to confront such challenges, Jonathan said,
accusing the extremists of choosing soft targets to embarrass his government.
Gov. Ibrahim Gaidam of Yobe state, where the killings occurred, indicated that
the military crackdown is ineffective.
"Although there is (an) increase in troop movement and military hardware
deployment in the northeast, people are yet to see the kind of action on the
ground that effectively nips criminal and terrorist activities in the bud," he
said in a statement.
The extremists rode into the college in two double-cabin pickup all-terrain
vehicles and on motorcycles, some dressed in Nigerian military uniforms, a
surviving student, Ibrahim Mohammed, told the AP. He said they appeared to know
the layout of the college, attacking the four male hostels but avoiding the one
hostel reserved for women.
"We ran into the bush, nobody is left in the school now," Mohammed said.
Wailing relatives gathered outside the hospital morgue, where workers laid out
bloody bodies in an orderly row on the lawn for family members to identify loved
ones.
One body had its fists clenched to the chest in a protective gesture. Another
had hands clasped under the chin, as if in prayer. A third had arms raised in
surrender.
Provost Idi Mato confirmed the school's other 1,000 enrolled students have fled
the college.
Most schools in the area closed after militants on July 6 killed 29 pupils and a
teacher, burning some alive in their hostels, at Mamudo outside Damaturu.
U.S. President Barack Obama on Tuesday described Boko Haram as one of the most
vicious terrorist organizations in the world, speaking at a meeting with
Jonathan at which both reaffirmed their commitment to fight terrorism.
The Islamic extremists have killed at least 30 other civilians in the past week,
including a pastor and his son. And the military said it killed more than 100
militants and lost 16 soldiers in an attack on an extremist stronghold Sept.
21-22. Human rights groups have accused Nigeria's military of summary killings
of civilians in reprisal attacks and no one knows the fate of hundreds of people
detained as suspected militants.
Meanwhile, farmers and government officials are fleeing threats of imminent
attacks from Boko Haram in the area of the Gwoza Hills, a mountainous region
with caves that shelter the militants despite repeated aerial bombardments by
the military. A local government official said there had been a series of
attacks in recent weeks. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity
because he feared for his life, said Gwoza town was deserted when he visited it
briefly under heavy security escort on Thursday. He said militants had chased
medical officers from the government hospital in Gwoza, which had been treating
some victims of attacks, and torched three public schools. More than 30,000
people have fled to neighbouring Cameroon and Chad and the uprising combined
with the military emergency has forced farmers from their fields and vendors
from the markets.
The attacks come as Nigeria prepares to celebrate 53 years of independence from
Britain on Tuesday and amid political jockeying in the run up to presidential
elections next year. Many northern Muslim politicians say they do not want
another term for Jonathan, who is from the predominantly Christian south.
**Faul reported from Lagos, Nigeria. Associated Press writer Haruna Umar in
Maiduguri, Nigeria, contributed to this report.
Address by Canada's Foreign Minister Baird to the 68th
Session of the United Nations General Assembly
September 30, 2013 - New York City, New York
As we gather near Ground Zero, site of the World Trade Center mass murder, I
wish first to honour the victims of terrorism:
I honour all victims, everywhere, including those killed and wounded at the
Westgate Shopping Mall in Nairobi.
Tragically, we lost two Canadians, including a Canadian diplomat.
There is no more fitting venue to honour the life of Annemarie Desloges and her
service than right here, in front of these United Nations.
The crime of terror is an assault on all people.
And, in its wake, the human family is one.
One in pain. One in mourning. One in our resolve that evil will never triumph.
At this moment of grief, the oneness of humankind is the theme of my remarks
today.
Allow me to begin with an observation drawn from the Canadian experience.
The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador was the last province to join Canada,
but it is the site of the earliest known European settlement in the New World.
L’Anse aux Meadows is more than a thousand years old.
We consider the province’s capital city, St. John’s, to be the oldest English
settlement in North America, dating back to 1497.
The early Newfoundland settlements are the subject of significant archeological
activity. Among the artifacts commonly found is a three-handled drinking mug,
known as a “tyg.”
The three handles are designed for sharing. During the 17th century, it was
common to share eating and drinking utensils.
Further research reveals the tyg mug is not unique to Canadian and English
history. On the contrary, cups with three or more handles are common to many of
the world’s cultures. Indeed, nearly three millennia ago, Homer wrote in the
Iliad of a multi-handled mug.
The tyg and its many counterparts around the world are tangible reminders not
just that eating and drinking are social activities but that, as long as human
beings have inhabited this planet, sustenance and the necessaries of life have
been community endeavours.
Human beings share from necessity. We cooperate to survive. We form communities
because that is our natural state.
As Cicero observed, “We were born to unite with our fellow men, and to join in
community with the human race.”
Animated by the same spirit of community, the Charter of the United Nations
declares that our goals include “to live together,” to be “neighbours,” and “to
unite.”
The very first words of the UN Charter make clear that this organization is a
body of, by and for human beings.
It begins, “We the peoples of the United Nations.”
Not “We the countries.”
Or “We the governments.”
Not “We the political leaders.”
“We the peoples.”
An important reminder of why and on whose behalf we are here.
Here at the UN, Canada targets its efforts on securing tangible results for the
human family. It is much more important to consider what the United Nations is
achieving than how the UN arranges its affairs.
Canada’s government doesn’t seek to have our values or our principled foreign
policy validated by elites who would rather “go along to get along.”
The billions who are hungry, or lack access to clean water, or are displaced or
cannot read and write do not care how many members sit on the Security Council.
But they do need to know that their brothers and sisters in humankind will walk
with them through the darkness.
Peace, prosperity and freedom—these are indeed the conditions that have been
sought by human communities from the beginning of recorded time: To live in
peace. To live in prosperity. To live in freedom.
Of these priorities, peace is the foremost objective of the United Nations.
It is no surprise that the UN Charter mentions the word “peace” four dozen
times.
Sadly, “peace” the word is easier to locate than “peace” the condition.
Since the moment this organization was created, not a day has passed without the
human family being pained by war somewhere on this planet.
Almost always, the suffering is felt by the most vulnerable among us.
And, far too often, this involves women and violence.
In the context of war, rape and serious sexual violence are war crimes. I have
met girls who were victims of this very war crime, and their stories are
horrific. The war criminals involved must be identified, pursued, prosecuted and
punished.
Earlier this year, Canada and other G-8 nations agreed to treat sexual violence
in conflict as a violation of the Geneva Conventions. I applaud the United
Kingdom and U.K. Foreign Secretary William Hague for their work in this area.
But he would be the first to acknowledge that the fight to eradicate this crime
has been led by women, including Special Representative [of the UN
Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict] Zainab Hawa Bangura.
Every year, millions of girls, some as young as age nine, are forced into
marriage.
Since I began these remarks, 100 children have been forced into marriage; 1,100
per hour; more than 26,000 per day.
The effects of early forced marriage are documented and beyond dispute. Early
forced marriage harms health, halts education, destroys opportunity and enslaves
young women in a life of poverty.
A young woman once recounted her wedding date. She remembered, “It was the day I
left school.”
No country is immune from this scourge.
This is a global problem. A problem for humanity.
Forced marriage is rape; it is violence against women. Early forced marriage is
child rape, violence against young girls. The practice is abhorrent and
indefensible.
We condemn it.
Even though some might prefer that we kept quiet.
The discomfort of the audience is of small concern, particularly in the context
of a crime that calls to heaven for justice.
If this body does not act to protect young girls, who will?
Another way to protect the vulnerable is to improve the health of mothers,
newborns and children so that we can reduce the number of deaths.
I am proud that our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, has led a global effort—the
Muskoka Initiative—to reduce maternal and infant mortality and to improve the
health of mothers and children in the world’s poorest countries. It’s about half
of the world’s population; all of its potential.
While these efforts—to eradicate sexual violence in conflict, to eliminate early
forced marriage and to improve maternal and newborn health—are essential, we
must do more than react to crises.
We must invest in opportunities for women and girls.
We must ensure that women participate fully in all parts of our society and in
all the countries of these United Nations. This will help us build a stronger,
more secure, more prosperous and more peaceful world.
It is in every nation’s self-interest to ensure every young girl realizes her
full potential.
And it is from the perspective of the human family, one family, that we must
address other threats to peace and security.
Among the most urgent crises remains the violence in Syria.
Canada’s position is clear. We support the Syrian people, the innocent people
caught up in this senseless violence, and those who work on their behalf. We
will never support a brutal and illegitimate regime that has unleashed weapons
of mass destruction on its own people. Nor will we tolerate extremism and
terrorism as alternatives to Assad’s tyranny.
The people of Canada have been generous in helping those most in need.
When success is achieved, it is important to recognize it. The near-impossible
work of the UN World Food Programme must be applauded, and Canada has responded
by being the second-largest single-country donor in the world. Their work in
Syria is paramount and has not gone unnoticed. I also commend the work of the
UNHCR [United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees] in providing assistance to
the refugees fleeing this terrible conflict, and the generosity of Syria’s
neighbours in providing safe haven.
Canada joins the entire world in seeking a political resolution to the conflict.
Canada supports a peaceful, democratic and pluralistic Syria that protects the
rights of all communities.
But let us not confuse a peaceful, negotiated outcome with equivocation or moral
uncertainty. There can be no moral ambiguity about the use of chemical weapons
on civilians.
Today, September 30, is a dark reminder of the price of accommodation with evil.
It is the 75th anniversary of the Munich Agreement, by which Czechoslovakia’s
freedom was sacrificed to appease the Nazi regime. The appeasers claimed they
had won “peace for our time.” In fact, their abandoning of principle was a
calamity for the world.
Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor who was imprisoned in
Auschwitz, has been even more blunt:
“Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the
tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives
are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and
sensitivities become irrelevant.”
Just as we are not neutral or silent on the crimes being committed against the
Syrian people, neither is Canada neutral on Israel’s right to exist and to
defend itself.
There can be no bargaining over Israel’s existence. While dialogue is a virtue,
there can be no virtuous discussion with anyone wedded to Israel’s destruction.
Today, the Jewish people are masters of their own fate, like other nations, in
their own sovereign Jewish state. Like other nations, Israel has the right to
defend itself, by itself.
Canada fundamentally believes peace is achievable. That Palestinians and
Israelis and their neighbours can live side by side, in peace and security.
We, like many nations, wish to see a prosperous Palestinian state living in
peace with its Jewish neighbour.
That’s why, although we sometimes have fundamental differences on how statehood
is achieved, Canada is providing significant assistance to build the
institutions that are vital to the establishment of a viable future state. In
the West Bank, Canada is contributing greatly to economic, security and justice
initiatives.
Recent developments in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority
are encouraging. I salute the leadership and courage of the Israeli Prime
Minister [Benjamin Netanyahu] and the Palestinian Authority’s President [Mahmoud
Abbas].
I commend U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry for his leadership in this area,
and we must all commit ourselves to this cause, united by the prospect of peace.
I look forward to the day when Israeli and Palestinian children can live side by
side in peace and security in a Jewish and a Palestinian state.
Ladies and gentlemen, dialogue is important, yes. But our dialogue must be a
prelude to action. And action must mean achieving results and making a
difference.
Take the recent statements coming from the regime in Iran.
Some observers see encouraging signs, but sound bites do not remove threats to
global security. Kind words, a smile and a charm offensive are not a substitute
for real action.
We will welcome and acknowledge reform, if and when it comes.
By this we will know when genuine reform has occurred: Has there been real,
measurable, material improvement in the lives of the Iranian people and in the
security of the world?
Not yet!
We will judge the regime on the basis of its action and results.
The P5+1 [the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany] has
had five rounds of formal negotiations with Iran in the past two years. While
everyone says the meetings have been “productive,” the fact remains we haven’t
seen any change in Iran’s actions.
Next year, nothing would make Canada more pleased than to see a change in Iran’s
nuclear ambitions. A change to its terrible human rights record. And an end to
Iran’s material support for terrorism.
Now is the time for the global community to maintain tough sanctions against
Iran in order that it take a different path on its nuclear program.
The Iranian people want peace. And the Iranian people are suffering great
hardship because of their government.
Canada wants the Iranian people to be able to access a life of freedom and
prosperity for themselves.
And how do we as a human family achieve and maintain prosperity?
Through free trade among open societies operating under transparent, consistent
and fair rules.
Canada continues to diversify its markets because it is a trading nation.
We are aggressively pursuing free trade agreements with other nations.
Bounded by three oceans, with the second-largest land mass in the world, Canada
literally is open to the world.
We are both deepening existing economic relationships and building new ones.
Whether with China, now Canada’s second-largest trading partner, or the ASEAN
[Association of Southeast Asian Nations] countries, where Canadian trade and
investment ties are dramatically increasing, or the Pacific Alliance, which
provides new and exciting opportunities, or the European Union, where we are
negotiating a comprehensive free trade agreement, Canada and Canadians are
supporting market liberalization. In the process, ordinary lives are becoming
enriched, and entire societies are becoming stronger.
But the quest for prosperity must never come at the expense of our commitment to
freedom.
Prosperity is also inextricably linked to peace. After all, those who lack
security usually lack the means to provide for themselves and their families.
With economic opportunity, a fruit vendor in Tunisia may not have felt compelled
to end his life seeking the dignity to provide for his family.
A young man in Afghanistan may never feel compelled to join terrorist elements
simply to raise his children—to ensure their lives are better than the one he
lived.
I will always remember the seven-year old girl I met at Zaatari refugee camp in
Jordan. Her parents had made the difficult decision to leave their home and to
seek refuge in another country—braving hardship because they were motivated,
like all parents, by the desire to keep their family safe.
I asked how she was doing. With tears in her eyes, she said, simply, “I don’t
like it here. I want to go home.”
Heart-wrenching.
And millions of people are in the same tragic position—millions of members of
the human family who cannot even begin to contemplate prosperity until a more
basic need, their need for security, is addressed.
The global family will never achieve the prosperity that is our full potential
unless we address the peace and security concerns that shackle human
opportunity.
Everyone has an interest in contributing to the solution, because peace and
security ultimately ensure the freedom of the individual. That’s why we need the
people of these United Nations gathered here to promote this freedom.
For the people of these United Nations, no minority is more sacred than the
individual, and the freedom of the individual.
Freedom from oppression. Freedom from discrimination. Freedom to worship, to
think, to speak, to love, to believe. Freedom to be.
Human freedom can be exercised, and sadly limited, in countless ways.
Religious persecution continues in too many places.
Since we gathered here last year, the world has witnessed:
•bombings of mosques in Iraq and Pakistan and a Catholic church in Tanzania;
•attacks against Hindu, Buddhist and Muslim places of worship in Burma and
Bangladesh;
•the bloody persecution of Christians in Syria;
•attacks on Coptic Christian churches in Egypt;
•attacks on a mosque and on a Catholic church in Sri Lanka;
•the detention of Sri Lankan Muslim leader Azad Sally;
•the murders of Catholic worshippers in Nigeria; and
•the Iranian regime’s ongoing persecution of the Bahá’í.
Canada just this year opened an Office of Religious Freedom. Its mandate: to
promote freedom of religion and belief as a foreign policy priority. To combat
the enslavement into fear, by those who seek to intimidate and undermine the
right to worship freely. In peace—and in harmony.
We reject the pernicious notion that human dignity can be sliced up,
compartmentalized or compromised.
In a pluralistic society it is impossible to protect some human rights and
freedoms while infringing others.
All freedoms are rooted in the inherent dignity of human beings.
Whether the issue is religious freedom, sexual freedom, political freedom or any
other freedom, some people ask:
What business is it of ours? What interest do we have in events outside our
borders?
Our business is a shared humanity. Our interest is the dignity of humankind.
Many assaults on human dignity have common roots. I refer to neo-fascist
ideology, masquerading in different forms, and the threat that it poses to
individual freedom.
I spoke earlier of the anniversary of the Munich Agreement.
What the signatories claimed as a triumph of practical politics was in fact a
craven capitulation that betrayed human dignity and bankrupted the peace it
purported to secure.
It was wrong then to underestimate and to appease fascism, just as it is now to
underestimate its modern incarnation.
Extremism that subjugates human dignity and crushes individual freedom beneath
rigid ideology must be opposed for what it is.
One year ago today, the world lost the great Somali poet known as Gaarriye.
Though his pen has been silenced, the inspiring lyrics remain.
It was Gaarriye who wrote:
“And tell them this: our purpose is peace; our password ‘Freedom’;
Our aim, equality;
Our way the way of light.”
In other words: Peace. Prosperity. Freedom. Three universal human priorities.
Like three handles of a mug from which we all drink. Three values that all
humanity shares.
As I close, I cannot help but reflect on three young girls, and my heart breaks
for them:
The child bride: “It was the day I left school.”
The girl who was a victim of rape and sexual violence.
The refugee: “I want to go home.”
We are not here to achieve results for governments or political leaders.
We are here to protect and defend these three girls and seven billion other
members of the human family. Let us remember this as we embark on discussions to
shape a new global agenda, focusing on those most in need.
I am confident that everyone here feels the overwhelming honour and privilege it
is to serve our people. It is not without great challenge and responsibility.
But we all must stand up and deliver on this unique mandate for the people, for
it is the people who expect nothing less.
Thank you.
Saudi cleric, Sheikh Saleh bin Saad al-Lohaidan says women
who drive risk damaging their ovaries
Reuters – RIYADH (Reuters) - A conservative Saudi Arabian cleric
has said women who drive risk damaging their ovaries and bearing children with
clinical problems, countering activists who are trying to end the Islamic
kingdom's male-only driving rules. A campaign calling for women to defy the ban
in a protest drive on October 26 has spread rapidly online over the past week
and gained support from some prominent women activists. On Sunday, the
campaign's website was blocked inside the kingdom. In an interview published on
Friday on the website sabq.org, Sheikh Saleh bin Saad al-Lohaidan said women
aiming to overturn the ban on driving should put "reason ahead of their hearts,
emotions and passions". Reuters earlier wrongly identified him as Sheikh Saleh
bin Mohammed al-Lohaidan, a member of the Senior Council of Scholars, one of the
top religious bodies in the birthplace of Islam. By contrast, Sheikh Saleh bin
Saad al-Lohaidan, the person quoted in the sabq.org report, is a judicial
adviser to an association of Gulf psychologists.
His comments reflect the extent of opposition to women driving among some
conservatives in Saudi Arabia. "If a woman drives a car, not out of pure
necessity, that could have negative physiological impacts as functional and
physiological medical studies show that it automatically affects the ovaries and
pushes the pelvis upwards," he told Sabq. "That is why we find those who
regularly drive have children with clinical problems of varying degrees," he
said. He did not cite specific medical studies to support his arguments. The ban
on women driving is not backed by a specific law, but only men are granted
driving licences. Women can be fined for driving without a licence but have also
been detained and put on trial in the past on charges of political protest.
Sheikh Abdulatif Al al-Sheikh, the head of the morality police, told Reuters a
week ago that there was no text in the documents making up sharia, or Islamic
law, that barred women from driving.
Egypt: Salafists, Azhar at odds over wording of Article 2
Cairo, Asharq Al-Awsat—A heated debate raged among the members of the 50-member
constitutional committee over the wording of article 2 with the Salafist Al-Nour
Party demanding that the word “principles” in the article be replaced with
“rulings.”A representative of the Al-Nour Party in the constitutional committee
Dr. Mohamed Ibrahim Mansour said that if the committee insists on omitting
article 219, it must drop the word “principle” off article 2, replace it with
the word “rulings” or “sources,” or agree on a new interpretation for article
219.
Mansour’s main objection is that the current wording of article 219 is open to
interpretation.
For his part, Bishop Antonius Aziz the representative of the Catholic Church
said the “elimination of the word ‘principle’ poses a risk to society … and that
the [three] main churches in Egypt are in favor of keeping article 2 as it
is.”He told Asharq Al-Awsat that the principles of Sharia law can be applied and
are indisputable, adding, “Everyone agreed to reject article 219 because it does
not express Islam and have been added [to the constitution] in a suspicious way
and infringes on the rights of Muslims more than Christians.”
For his part, an Al-Azhar official source who spoke on the condition of
anonymity said that article 2 is approved by all of the country’s political
forces, and that the “Imam of Al-Azhar Sheikh Ahmed El-Tayeb had already asked
the ones in charge to keep [article 2] as it was written in 2012 constitution
because it represents the ideology of the Umma and is the most important source
of its identity and principles.”
When asked whether the Al-Azhar and the Salafist trend will be at odds over the
wording of article 2, the source said: “Some parties have their views regarding
the amendment of the article, but we insist on keeping it without any
changes.”Regarding the linguistic difference between the words “principles and
“rulings,” the Azhar source maintained that “principles” mean the foundational
rules and the grounds of the Islamic Sharia law, stressing that it is more
suitable than “rulings.”It is worth mentioning that Al-Nour Party’s former
representative Bassam El-Zarq withdrew from the constitutional committee on
September 17 in protest against the committee’s neglect of remarks he made
regarding article 2. Egypt’s interim president issued a decree appointing
Mansour in place of Zarqa.
In related news, the same source said that the first session of the legal
committee tasked with discussing the legality of drafting a new constitution
failed to reach a final solution. It was reported that Amr Moussa sought the
help of a number of advisors from the Constitutional Court to help break the
deadlock among the members of the committee. The committee was given a deadline
until Monday to decide on the issue