Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources For October 04/13

Lebanon’s refugee problem from hell/By Michael Young The Daily Star/October 04/13
Israel channels October 1973 in opposing U.S.-Iranian detente/By David Ignatius/The Daily Star/October 04/13

America’s Regional Blunders/By: Eyad Abu Shakra/Asharq Alawsat/October 04/13

Preying on despair /The Daily Star/October 04/13

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources For October 04/13
Lebanese Related News

Lebanese parties mull resumption of Dialogue

Don't tie Dialogue to Hezbollah withdrawal from Syria: Sleiman

Hezbollah: Lebanon's oil wealth at risk of Israeli piracy

ISF personnel detained over negligence in death of Czech tourist
Lebanon’s refugee problem from hell

Lebanese Policeman arrested for smuggling chemical-filled sandwiches

Indonesia survivors to return next week

Spectrum begins onshore oil survey in Lebanon

Lebanon: Recycled hyperbole
Tripoli gangs seek to undermine security plan

MEA sees slight decline in profits

GS: Lebanese passport not among the ‘worst’

Hout: Hezbollah and resistance are not the same
Lebanon at mercy of worst winter in a century

Bassil: Some Lebanese don’t want to extract oil
Spectrum begins onshore oil survey in Lebanon

Miscellaneous Reports And News

Chemical experts start Syria work amid humanitarian crisis
Netanyahu says Iranian missiles could eventually reach U.S.

Saudi Arabia scrapped U.N. speech in protest over Syria and Israel

Kerry: 'Diplomatic malpractice' not to engage Iran

Over 100 dead, 200 missing as migrant boat sinks off Italy

Plane crash near Nigeria's Lagos airport kills 16

Netanyahu says he would 'consider' meeting with Rouhani

Netanyahu's UN speech: No shticks or tricks

Al-Qaeda-linked group advances on Syrian rebels

Rouhani defends charm offensive, says more to come

HRW: Thousands who protested peacefully languish in Syrian jails
Poll: Two-thirds of Israelis say Iran will build atomic bomb
UN officials: Recent escalation in Syrian civil war could delay work to disable chemical weapons
Egyptian general says entering Gaza is a political decision
US president: A leader of weak character

Foreign media: Demonization of IDF

Lebanon’s refugee problem from hell
October 03, 2013/By Michael Young The Daily Star
President Michel Sleiman has recently placed the fate of the Syrian refugees in Lebanon at the top of his list of priorities when meeting with foreign officials. This comes after a meeting in September that brought together the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the governments of Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey and Jordan. At the meeting, they promised to work together to expand international assistance to the region as it struggles with the ongoing influx of refugees. Lebanon, which hosts more than 1 million refugees, between those officially registered and those who are not, is especially vulnerable. Some 20 percent of the total population in the country is now made up of Syrians, many of them poor and competing for low-paying jobs and resources at a time of severe economic crisis. At a meeting in Geneva earlier this week, participants, including Syria’s neighbors, the United States and European states, appeared to shift the focus of refugee assistance from emergency aid to what the head of the UNHCR, Antonio Guterres, described as a more comprehensive and longer-term social and economic intervention. “Everything is being put in place for effective development-related programs,” Guterres said, adding that the next step would be presenting appeals to finance the programs. The shift in the nature of assistance stems from a realization that the Syrian refugee problem will not soon end. Regardless of Guterres’ optimism about the Geneva gathering, it will resolve none of Lebanon’s immediate problems.
The caretaker social affairs minister, Wael Abu Faour, suggested as much Tuesday, when he complained that the international community had done little to alleviate Lebanon’s refugee problem. He was angry that countries were not providing direct assistance to the state and suggested that Hezbollah’s participation in the government was an obstacle. “Continuing to block international support to the Lebanese government and the local Lebanese communities under the pretext of discouraging past experiences is not valid,” he said in Geneva.
Abu Faour is right that not enough outside assistance has come through, but he failed to mention that the nature of the refugee problem in Lebanon, the fact that refugees are not housed in camps, has made international donors resistant to feeding money into a country where no mechanisms of oversight are in place. There are many downsides to refugee camps, but they do allow for a more coordinated and transparent method of distributing aid, as compared to simply pouring money into the black hole of a corrupt Lebanese state in which there is no accountability. Sleiman’s recent proposal that Syrian refugees be placed in “safe zones” inside Syria territory showed the president’s legitimate worries of the long-term implications of their presence in Lebanon. Though his proposal is unrealistic without assurances that the safe zones can be protected, a condition that would require international guarantees, the president was really saying something else: Lebanon’s stability is threatened by the possibility of a permanent settlement of the refugees, and the president underscored this when he said the crisis was beginning to take on an “existential” dimension. But the Syrians are not Palestinians, some may protest, and will eventually go home. Perhaps, but the bulk of the refugees in Lebanon have come from the areas of Homs and Damascus, which are of strategic importance to the Syrian regime. Homs is a vital link between Alawite areas along the Syrian coast and Shiite districts in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley. If any settlement consolidates the existence of religious or ethnic enclaves, the refugees, most of whom are Sunni, may not have a place to which to return, or may not be allowed to return. No one likes to use terms such as ethnic cleansing when it comes to Syria. On both sides of the political divide there, the narrative is bathed in nationalistic language. And yet the impetus for carving out and protecting sectarian enclaves is high in a war that has taken on a religious-communal coloring, much as the war in the former Yugoslavia did during the 1990s. Sleiman is right to be concerned about this, and it’s time for the international community to do the same. One of the ironies of Lebanon’s situation is that any decision by the Syrian regime to prevent the return of Sunni refugees to areas of strategic importance may harm its allies in Lebanon. A significant de facto enlargement of the Sunni population in Lebanon, thanks to the refugees, would only threaten Hezbollah and Shiite interests. If this were to become a long-term phenomenon, the negative repercussions for Shiites could be multiplied not only demographically but also economically and geographically. That is why everyone in Lebanon has a stake in a resolution of the Syrian conflict that is fair, comprehensive and does not congeal wartime facts on the ground. Syrian villages have been destroyed, Syria’s infrastructure is in a shambles, and its economic situation is catastrophic. All these factors are obstacles to a return of the refugees. The international community knows this, which is why it is looking for solutions that can alleviate refugee hardship into the medium term. But the challenge will be avoiding new forms of dependency that only end up imposing on Lebanon another refugee crisis that may take decades to resolve, and that may carry the country into new cycles of infernal conflict.
Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR. He tweets @BeirutCalling.

Don't tie Dialogue to Hezbollah withdrawal from Syria: Sleiman

October 03, 2013/The Daily Star /BEIRUT: President Michel Sleiman has urged the Future Movement-led March 14 coalition not to tie National Dialogue to Hezbollah’s military involvement in Syria. “It’s wrong for some to say that we will only sit down with Hezbollah after its return from Syria because Hezbollah is an essential component of the Lebanese fabric,” Sleiman said in remarks published Thursday by the local daily As-Safir. “[It is] true that we are against its [Hezbollah’s] involvement in Syria, but [we should] sit down with [Hezbollah] and tell them that you must come back from Syria,” he added. Sleiman stressed that the Baabda Declaration, which calls for keeping Lebanon at a distance from the Syria crisis, provides benefits for all “because it calls for keeping Lebanon neutral from conflicts.” “It is neither reasonable nor acceptable to shun the Baabda Declaration,” he said. “We discussed the Declaration in the presence of all members of the National Dialogue over a period of four hours and 15 minutes; and all that we discussed and agreed upon was mentioned in the statement.” Hezbollah is fighting alongside Syrian government troops against rebels demanding the ouster of President Bashar Assad. Sleiman recalled the circumstances before and during the Baabda Declaration, how he presented it to world leaders and how he paved the way to discuss the importance of abiding by such an agreement prior to his recent New York visit. The president said that he had highlighted the need for Lebanon to commit to the Baabda Declaration during talks with senior Iranian official Alaeddin Boroujerdi this summer. Iran has been the main backer of Hezbollah and Assad. “I had expressed regrets about the violations of this Declaration, which do not serve Lebanon,” Sleiman said.
But Boroujerdi raised concerns over the rise of Takfiri groups and the threat they pose to the region, Sleiman added. “I responded based on my military experience,” he said, citing three factors that contributed to the Lebanese Army’s victory over Fatah al-Islam in the 2007 war at the north Lebanon Palestinian refugee camp of Nahr al-Bared: Lebanese unity, gaining the Sunni sect’s full support and the fact that 80 percent of the soldiers killed in the battle were Sunnis. “I told him that fighting Takfiris in Syria as a number would be worthless because if you fight 1,000 they would bring 10,000,” he explained, adding that worse than that is when the fight takes on a sectarian tone. “Then they would come to you wherever you are, let alone the sympathy they would get considering that they are being targeted by a different sect,” Sleiman said of his response to Boroujerdi during talks at his summer residence in Beiteddine earlier this summer. “I told him that what is needed is to embrace the moderates of all sects so as not to foster a supportive environment for extremists.”Sleiman said Boroujerdi responded “positively” to his remarks. “He informed me that he will convey these good words to the Iranian leadership.”


Hezbollah: Lebanon's oil wealth at risk of Israeli piracy
The Daily Star /BEIRUT: Hezbollah warned Thursday that Lebanon’s oil and gas wealth was at risk of Israeli piracy if the caretaker government fails to issue licenses for the country’s Exclusive Economic Zone.
“The oil and gas sector in Lebanon is becoming vulnerable to Israeli piracy, because of mistakes made by an incompetent government on one hand and the deliberate obstruction of issuing licenses, by some in power, on the other hand,” MP Hassan Fadlallah said, reading out the bloc’s statement. The statement added that Israel was “imposing facts and measures in international decision-making circles and institutions that impeded Lebanon's ability to invest in the sector, especially if... the right to issue licenses is delayed or neglected.” “Therefore, the caretaker government should convene a session to approve what needs to be approved,” it noted, saying this was the country’s highest priority.  The decrees, demarcating 10 maritime oil exploration blocks and establishing a revenue-sharing model, require Cabinet approval before oil and gas contracts can be awarded. The procedural delay is slowing down progress in the sector, Hezbollah argued. The Loyalty to the Resistance bloc also spoke about the rising number of Syrian refugees in Lebanon, criticizing some countries for exploiting the issue for political aid purposes. “The bloc holds the U.N. chief responsible for negligence and deliberately delaying necessary aid for [Syrian refugees].” The bloc also said that some countries could exploit humanitarian relief efforts and use it as a cover for Syrian rebels “with the aim of pressuring the Lebanese and interfering in their internal affairs,” he said. Earlier this week, caretaker Social Affairs Minister Wael Abu Faour criticized what he said were baseless pretexts placed by some countries to withhold direct aid to Lebanon to manage the refugees. Hezbollah’s participation in the government was one factor that discouraged countries from providing direct aid.
Lebanon is in dire need for international support to help cope with the presence of some 1.3 million refugees that has burdened the country’s economy and host communities.  The bloc also praised officials and local figures in the eastern town of Baalbek for their cooperation with Hezbollah and the Army to contain clashes that erupted last week, affirming its keenness to maintain coexistence in the city between all sects. The bloc rejected "cheap political attempts" to destabilize the area. Clashes between Hezbollah members and members from the Sunni Shiyyah family broke out last week over a personal dispute at a checkpoint set up by the resistance group. The fighting left four people killed and five others wounded

Lebanese Policeman arrested for smuggling chemical-filled sandwiches

October 03, 2013/The Daily Star /BEIRUT: Roumieh prison wardens arrested a Lebanese police officer Thursday for trying to smuggle sandwiches filled with a chemical substance destined for a Fatah al-Islam prisoner into the detention center. A security source told The Daily Star that the policeman, a member of a police unit in charge of Roumieh, was searched at Lebanon’s biggest prison north of Beirut after drawing suspicion. The source added that when the sandwiches were opened, the wardens were surprised to find a chemical substance which the source identified by its French name “carbure.”The police officer told investigators he was going to deliver the sandwiches to prisoner Charbel Shalitta, who faces the death penalty for killing a young Lebanese man in Halat, north of Beirut, last year. When summoned by investigators, Shalitta admitted he was smuggling the substance to a leader of Fatah al-Islam prisoners at Roumieh. But Shalitta claimed that he only carried out the leader’s order to protect himself given that he is a Christian imprisoned among the Islamists of Fatah al-Islam. The chemical Carbure is used in welding and sometimes as a fuel for heating homes. It may also be used as a component in making explosives.
 

Saudi Arabia scrapped U.N. speech in protest over Syria and Israel
By Angus McDowall | Reuters – RIYADH (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia's frustration at international inaction over Syria and the Palestinians led it to cancel its speech at the United Nations General Assembly for the first time ever this week, a diplomatic source said. Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal had been scheduled to deliver an address to the general assembly on Tuesday afternoon. By the standards of the world's top oil exporter and birthplace of Islam, which usually expresses diplomatic concerns only in private, the decision represented an unprecedented statement of discontent. "The Saudi decision... reflects the kingdom's dissatisfaction with the position of the U.N. on Arab and Islamic issues, particularly the issue of Palestine that the U.N. has not been able to solve in more than 60 years, as well as the Syrian crisis," said the source. The conservative Islamic kingdom is one of the main backers of rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in a civil war that has killed more than 100,000 people in two and a half years. It has repeatedly called for the international community to intervene on behalf of the rebels, whom it provides with weapons, and has said Assad must be toppled because Syrian government forces have bombarded civilian areas. Saudi Arabia had hoped that a chemical weapons attack on the edge of Damascus in August would lead its allies including the United States to bomb forces loyal to Assad, diplomats in the Gulf say. When Washington instead agreed to a Russian plan to avert military strikes by dismantling Syria's chemical weapons, Saudi Arabia said the move did not address the broader issue of civilian deaths in the war. Riyadh supports Palestinian independence and does not have diplomatic relations with Israel. In 2001 it pushed the idea of an Arab-Israeli peace plan in which Arab states would make peace with Israel if it retreated to pre-1967 borders. (Reporting By Angus McDowall; Editing by Mark Trevelyan)
 

Netanyahu says Iranian missiles could eventually reach U.S.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In his latest warning about Iran's nuclear ambitions, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Thursday that Iran was working on intercontinental ballistic missiles that could one day hit the United States. "They're not developing those ICBMs for us. They can reach us with what they have. It's for you," he told CBS News. "The American intelligence knows as well as we do that Iran is developing ICBMs not to reach Israel. They want to reach well beyond," he said on the network's "This Morning" program. The United States and other Western powers have shown an increased interest in engaging with Iran's new president, Hassan Rouhani, although Secretary of State John Kerry said on Thursday that Tehran must first prove it is willing to end the stand-off over its nuclear program. The ICBM issue first emerged after a 2011 blast at an Iranian military base that Israeli officials said was linked to efforts to build a missile that could travel 6,000 miles - far enough to reach the United States. Israeli officials in early 2012 said that it would be two to three years before Iran would have such long-range missiles that could hit the United States. One senior Israeli security official, asked about Netanyahu's comments Thursday, said the threat of Iranian ICBMs was still not imminent. "It will be a few years before Iran has ballistic missiles," said the official, who declined to be identified. Netanyahu told CBS that he was not worried that his warnings may sound too strident given the ongoing efforts by the United States and others to negotiate with Iran. "The policy should be ... not to let Iran wiggle away with a partial deal in which they make cosmetic concessions," he said. In another interview, Netanyahu also warned Iran's work on ICBMs was clearly aimed at delivering nuclear weapons. "Those ... long-range ballistic missiles have only one purpose in the world. Their sole purpose is to arm them with a nuclear payload," he told NBC's Andrea Mitchell in an interview set to air later on Thursday. (Reporting by Susan Heavey; additional reporting by Dan Williams in Jerusalem and Louis Charboneau in New York; Editing by Alistair Bell and David Storey)
 

Kerry: 'Diplomatic malpractice' not to engage Iran
October 03, 2013/By Matthew Lee / Daily Star/ TOKYO: U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Thursday it would be "diplomatic malpractice of the worst order" not to test Iran's willingness to comply with international demands over its nuclear program. In his first public comments since Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned the United States and the West not to trust Iran in an impassioned address to the United Nations, Kerry said they would not be played for "suckers" with a charm offensive from new Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. Kerry said the U.S. would not take any Iranian offer at face value and said Iran would have to prove it is not trying to develop a nuclear weapon. "We have an obligation," Kerry told reporters in Tokyo after he and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel met with the foreign and defense ministers of Japan. "It would be diplomatic malpractice of the worst order not to examine every possibility of whether or not you can achieve that before you ask people to take military action and do what you have to do to prevent it."
"You have to exhaust the remedies before you ratchet up to a next tier of remedies that may have more dramatic consequences," he said. However, Kerry stressed that Rouhani's apparent overtures would be looked at with an extremely critical eye. "There is nothing here that is going to be taken at face value and we have made that clear," he said. "It is not words that will make a difference, it's actions, and the actions clearly are going to have to be sufficient that the world will understand that not only will they not be on the road to get a weapon but there is no ability to suddenly break out and achieve that."
"I assure Prime Minister Netanyahu and the people of Israel that nothing that we do is going to be based on trust," Kerry said. "It's going to be based on a series of steps that guarantee to all of us that we have certainty about what is happening." Kerry's remarks came in a response to a question about Netanyahu's warning, which was delivered Tuesday, a day after the Israeli leader met in the White House with President Barack Obama. In his U.N. address, Netanyahu disparaged Rouhani as "a wolf in sheep's clothing" and suggested it would be foolhardy to put faith in anything he said.
Kerry, who also met with Netanyahu on Monday, said he did not believe Netanyahu was criticizing the U.S. effort to engage Iran, but rather warning of the possibility that Rouhani might not be serious. Kerry says the U.S. agrees with that assessment. "I did not interpret Prime Minister Netanyahu's comments as suggesting that we are being played, somehow, for suckers," he said. "I understood it to be a warning: Don't be played."
Israel is extremely concerned that Iran is stringing the West along with false offers to come clean about its nuclear program in order to buy time to actually reach a point where it can develop an atomic weapon.
Last week, Rouhani said Iran was willing to address international concerns about its nuclear intentions and spoke with Obama by phone in the first contact between the leaders of Iran and the United States in nearly three decades. Senior diplomats from the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany are preparing now to meet with top Iranian officials in mid-October in Geneva in the latest round of thus-far unsuccessful talks to get Iran to prove its nuclear program is peaceful.

Israel channels October 1973 in opposing U.S.-Iranian detente
October 03, 2013/By David Ignatius/The Daily Star
As U.S.-Iranian diplomacy heats up, and the Israeli prime minister expresses worry about the risks of negotiations, it’s fascinating to look back 40 years ago to the prelude to the 1973 Arab-Israeli war – when a hauntingly similar set of circumstances prevailed. For nearly a year before the war began on Oct. 6, 1973, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat had been engaged in secret negotiations with the United States on a deal that might have made peace between Egypt and Israel. A new Israeli study argues that the 1973 conflict might have been preventable if this diplomacy had been given a greater chance.
“Israeli elected leaders of the period, although well meaning, failed to understand realities and acted with arrogance, with overconfidence and political blindness,” Yigal Kipnis writes in his new book, “1973: The Road to War.” The book, based on recently revealed Israeli records, was published in Hebrew last year; an English translation is being released this month.
Israel has long been anxious about the U.S. negotiating deals with its adversaries. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made this worry clear in his address to the United Nations Tuesday, calling Iranian President Hassan Rouhani “a wolf in sheep’s clothing” and saying he doesn’t believe the Iranian leader’s offer to President Barack Obama last week to negotiate a deal on the nuclear issue.
A similar wariness toward negotiations dominated Israeli thinking in 1973. America’s secret diplomacy was led by Henry Kissinger, who was national security adviser to President Richard Nixon and then became his secretary of state.
Kissinger had begun a secret correspondence with Egypt in April 1972, and in March 1973, he took the next step by holding a secret meeting in Armonk, N.Y., with Sadat’s national security adviser, Hafez Ismail.
The Egyptians were then threatening publicly to attack Israel to regain territory lost in the 1967 war. But Ismail told Kissinger that Sadat preferred a peace initiative that would allow Egypt to regain most of the Sinai and decouple it from the larger Arab-Israeli dispute. That’s what actually was negotiated in the Camp David Accords – five years later, after thousands of lives had been lost.
According to Kipnis, Sadat was ready to begin formal negotiations in September 1973. “We think before the first of September we should have the preliminary phase agreed,” Ismail told Kissinger.
Kissinger successively briefed Yitzhak Rabin and Simcha Dinitz, the Israeli ambassadors to Washington in 1973, on the details of his secret conversations. These exchanges were so sensitive that the Israelis referred to Kissinger by the codename “Shaul” and to Nixon as “Robert.” Rabin informed his boss, Prime Minister Golda Meir, about a March 1973 phone conversation in which Kissinger laid out the elements of the Egyptian offer: “Shaul views ... a significantly important change” in Egyptian policy, including provisions that would protect Israeli security.
But Meir and other Israelis were wary. “With regard to politics, Meir was determined to prevent any negotiations. ... For her, Sadat was the enemy and not to be believed,” Kipnis writes.
By Oct. 6, Kissinger was frustrated. Kipnis explains: “More than eight months had passed since he had found out about Sadat’s aspiration to motivate a political process; he was aware of Sadat’s demand to reach an agreement by September. More than a few times during the last few months, Kissinger had urged Israel to let him launch his initiative – and he had been refused.”
Meir’s assessment of Egypt was shaped partly by a Mossad agent named Ashraf Marwan inside Sadat’s inner circle. Marwan warned incorrectly six times that Egypt was about to go to war. When he gave a final warning a day before hostilities began, it wasn’t taken seriously. Israelis now wonder if he was a double agent.
The 1973 story is painful because we know how it turned out. Egypt and Syria attacked Israel on Yom Kippur. Israeli political leaders may have mistrusted Sadat’s peace overtures, but Israeli military intelligence had also doubted his readiness for war. Israel, surprised and vulnerable, suffered more than 2,500 dead; Arab losses were far higher.
“I do not want to blame anyone, but over the course of 1973, the war could have been prevented,” Kissinger told Meir after it was over, according to Kipnis.
As Netanyahu thinks now about Iran, he faces a dilemma similar to what confronted Meir: Are peace offers from Israel’s adversaries serious or simply a cover for belligerent actions? One lesson of 1973 is that it’s worth testing through negotiations if the proposals are real.
*David Ignatius is published twice weekly by THE DAILY STAR.
 

Lebanon: Recycled hyperbole
October 03, 2013/The Daily Star
The saga of Lebanon’s quest to discover natural resource wealth took another step forward Wednesday, as onshore exploration for oil and gas in the north kicked off. Ironically, when it comes to this promising 21st-century field that combines technology, energy and the environment, Lebanon’s “recycling” industry deserves special attention. When officials announced the launch of the latest oil and gas endeavor, they recycled the same old statements about the government having to do its part by passing needed decrees, or the legislature to do its part, by passing the needed legislation. They also recycled the approach of appointing a minister with strong partisan affiliations to a vitally important portfolio. They have recycled the time-honored method of engaging in verbal gymnastics about who should receive credit for pushing the issue forward, at a time when Lebanon is only running in place. In the several years since the oil and gas exploration initiative gained steam, Lebanese politicians and officials have been recycling the same old talk, featuring the word “should” – as in the country should do this or that if it wants to benefit from gas and oil. In contrast, countries such as Israel, Turkey and Cyprus have been moving steadily forward with their exploration and other activities in the Mediterranean Basin. As a result, they are now growing closer to their long-range plans and projects, based on their achievements of recent years. For example, there is talk of a pipeline to link Turkey and Israel, via Cyprus, to facilitate the movement of newly discovered natural resources. In Lebanon, officials continue to talk about getting the paperwork done, or bicker about the prerogatives of this or that minister, this or that “independent body,” or how to ensure that the Cabinet won’t collapse if the issue of gas and oil is put on the table. While it’s certainly essential to move ahead on the oil and gas front, it’s equally necessary to adopt a radical new approach to the energy sector. Issuing decrees, proposing legislation and awarding licenses shouldn’t be left to the same old system of politics as usual, with a government minister anxious about defending his prerogatives and public image running the show.
Instead, a truly independent and competent body insulated from politics should play the leading role. This would mean moving away from the traditional method of setting up such “independent committees” by giving each first-rank politician a piece or two of the pie, and wrapping the process in legislation that contains booby-trapped problems, which explode at a later date. An openly partisan figure has no place overseeing Lebanon’s future natural resource wealth; the sector is simply too important to be left to such gambling. But Lebanon’s entire political class should share the blame on the oil and gas front, as they watch other countries move resolutely forward, and offer nothing tangible to help Lebanon even try to keep pace.

America’s Regional Blunders
By: Eyad Abu Shakra/Asharq Alawsat
“Cynicism may be a sign of wisdom,” says a well-known Arab saying. With that in mind, it may be advisable at this point to seriously contemplate US strategic priorities in the Arab world during the era of Barack Obama.
The features of America’s strategy in this regard have become clear to everyone except those addicted to optimism, not to mention the huddle of those convinced that the US is constantly preoccupied in thinking up ways of strengthen its relations with the Arabs. Unfortunately, what happened during the past few weeks demonstrates the fact that the future of the Arabs is at the bottom of Washington’s list of priorities, while the sovereignty of Arab states barely occupies a higher position.
The Syrian ordeal has been a significant challenge that demonstrates a painful aspect of this truth. Yet the Syrian crisis remains merely a part of a whole. It goes without saying that Washington’s strategy to resolve the Palestinian file continues to be congruent with the Israeli vision. Furthermore, from the way the US recently dealt with Egypt, it has become clear that Washington has adopted a hesitant approach based on reactions, rather than a long-term strategy commensurate with Egypt’s political and demographic position in the region. Last but not least, Obama’s recent “openness” with Iran proves the passivity and the serious structural defects in Washington’s current Middle Eastern policy.
As pertains to the Palestinian–Israeli conflict, Obama was defeated in the battle of wills with Tel Aviv after he moved away from any serious endeavors to secure a settlement freeze or rescue the two-state solution that would supposedly lead to the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. It is well known that the collapse of the Soviet Union and the receding tide of left-wing, secular politics weakened the Palestinian Left. Thus, the Palestinian people have found themselves increasingly pushed towards accepting and adopting “political Islam.”
However, it should be remembered that the Afghanistan war—a crucial factor in the acceleration of the collapse of the Soviet Union—would have never been resolved without “political Islam,” and more specifically its “jihadist” face—something that Washington nurtured before abandoning it in the wake of its victory against the Soviet Union. Following this, the US found itself in a state of conflict with the same “political Islam” and its “jihadist” currents, before finding itself in a state of open war with it following the 9/11 attacks. What I mean here is that Washington, at one stage, was not opposed to “political Islam”; rather, it benefited from it in its global war against Moscow.
A few years ago, Obama inherited the White House from George W. Bush, capitalizing on his anti-war election slogans, particularly since Bush’s aggressive course had inflicted human and material losses on the US. This was echoed by millions of Americans who voted for the Democratic candidate in the fall of 2008. After receiving the Nobel Peace Prize during the early days of his first term in office, Obama found himself in a “gilded cage,” thus becoming keen to avoid wars and foreign adventures amid a growing economic crisis.
Another thing that has distinguished Obama’s policy from his predecessor is his “Liberalism,” which prevents him from committing himself to any value system or ideological principles. In contrast, Bush served as the façade of a hardline, right-wing trend that holds consistently extreme views on all levels, whether we are talking religious, social, economic or military.
Due to the difference between these two schools of thought—one liberal and free from any commitments and the other extremist basing its views on a binary system of enemy/friend, black/white—we, as Arabs and Muslims, are paying the price. This is no different to the price we paid when the Bush administration adopted the point of view of the “Likudnik neocons” regarding the Middle East.
Obama today has reduced the Palestinian Cause to the issue of defending Israel’s security without seriously touching the subject of settlement or contemplating the risks of the organic link between Israel’s political and military institutions and the Jewish “biblical” pro-settlement groups. In fact, Washington’s policy today is based on neglect of the political solution based on the two-state solution as long as the Likud refuses it on the pretext of the threat of radical Islam.
Regarding Syria, Obama reduces the entire Syrian ordeal to the use of chemical weapons by Bashar Al-Assad’s regime. Washington’s main preoccupation has become ridding Assad of weapons he was not supposed to stockpile in the first place, never mind use against civilians. After reaching a deal with Moscow to dismantle Syria’s chemical arsenal, the US has turned a blind eye to all of the other issues, including the regime’s war on its own people, resulting in the deaths of more than 150,000 people by its use of conventional weapons. Now Obama feels that he has done enough by solely concentrating on the chemical massacre, particularly since he does not intend to confront Russia or challenge Iran. Furthermore, let us remember that the Damascus regime serves as an Iranian–Israeli “mailbox” par excellence, with Israel also desirous of Syria becoming a battlefield of a regional sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shi’ites.
As for Iran, the US president has chosen to exclusively pin Washington’s relation with Tehran on the issue of its development of nuclear weapons. This means that neither the US nor the Israeli administration mind working out a formula to share influence in the region with Iran, providing it refrains from developing nuclear weapons. By looking at the geopolitical status quo, this hoped-for formula will not be hard to achieve: Iraq, Syria and Lebanon have indeed become Iranian protectorates.
Based on the above, it is now possible to define the Middle East policy of Obama’s Washington as follows:
◘ Total disregard of the issues Arabs are losing sleep over, whether we are talking about Palestine or the Arab Spring states, against the backdrop of growing despair and the failure of the rule of political Islam, whether securing power through peaceful or violent means.
◘ Agreeing to Syria remaining a fiefdom of the Assad clan and its partners and sponsors in exchange for Damascus giving up its chemical weapons, which Washington and Tel Aviv worry may fall into the wrong hands—as opposed to the hands of the regime that has kept the Golan Heights completely calm for four decades.
◘ Last but not least, Washington accepting Iran as a partner in the project of hegemony in the Middle East, including its full control over Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, as well as respecting Tehran’s interests in the region, in exchange for Iran’s developing its nuclear capabilities for peaceful purposes only, rather than production of nuclear weapons.
This reading of Washington’s vision may appear pessimistic, but it is realistic all the same. It is high time we dealt with Washington’s policy as it is, rather than falling prey to delusions.

Rouhani defends charm offensive, says more to come
London, Asharq Al-Awsat—During a press conference on Wednesday, Iranian president Hassan Rouhani strongly defended his charm offensive at the UN, adding that he is set to undertake even greater initiatives in the coming months. During the post-cabinet meeting briefing, Rouhani summarized his government’s foreign policy track record since he took office, outlining the significance of his election in redefining Iran’s approach towards the international community. The unprecedented phone conversation that took place between the Iranian and US presidents on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly stunned many rival principalists in Iran, who heavily criticized Rouhani for weakening Tehran’s position. Rouhani also said that the problems created over the past 8 years cannot be resolved in a matter of weeks and will certainly require more time.
Following Rouhani and Obama’s phone conversation last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjammin Netanyahu met with the US president on Monday and received reassurances that the US will not allow a nuclear Iran and that all options remain on the table. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif had reacted angrily to Obama’s comments; however Rouhani’s statement on Wednesday demonstrated that Tehran is committed to following a constructive approach with the West. Speaking following a cabinet meeting, Rouhani said that the Israeli government’s “anger” over Iran restoring its international stance and credibility was “understandable,” adding that “we should not pay attention to their dismay.” “Iran has clarified its position on the holocaust and the world must know that the Iranian nation strive for peace and humanity,” Rouhani added.
Commenting on domestic criticism to his charm offensive at the UN, in particular towards Washington, Rouhani said: “Criticizing the government is allowed [in Iran] and we are proud to allow anyone to express protest in any tone, nevertheless we would prefer them to conduct their protest politely and within the rules of the game.”
Rouhani robustly defended his foreign policy initiatives at the UN, saying: “That was a small step; expect greater steps in the coming month”.
This statement will likely be read with great interest by foreign observers and officials as a reaffirmation of Rouhani’s intention to reach a solution on Iran’s nuclear program at the forthcoming P5+1 negotiation.
This statement could also indicate Rouhani’s plan to address other issues affecting Iran’s regional foreign policy. For now, Rouhani appears keen to re-brand Iranian foreign policy, distinguishing it from the previous approach followed by former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In another surprising development, Rouhani engaged with a tweet by Jack Dorsey, chief executive and one of the founders of social network Twitter.
Dorsey tweeted: “Good evening, President. Are citizens of Iran able to read your tweets?”A few hours later, Rouhani replied: Evening, @Jack. As I told @camanpour [Christian Amounpour of CCN], my efforts geared to ensure my people will comfortably be able to access all info globally as is their right.”The Iranian president’s tweet was re-tweeted more than 1,800 times at the time this article went to press.
Twitter remains blocked in Iran although the Supreme Leader, president, and foreign minister have active tweeter accounts
 

Preying on despair
Editorial/The Daily Star
Thursday’s migrant boat tragedy off the coast of Italy, which has left at least 200 dead and hundreds missing, should serve as an urgent wake up call to the world.
Coming only a week after Lebanon itself learned the awful reality of such disasters, when dozens of north Lebanon natives were killed when a boat carrying migrants from Indonesia to Australia capsized, it is clear that this modern trade in people, which takes advantage of the most needy and desperate individuals, must be curtailed. The local mayor described the scene as, “horrific, like a cemetery,” with bodies upon bodies piling up. In his first trip outside of Rome, Pope Francis in July visited the island of Lampedusa, which is one of the most common landing sites for boats leaving North Africa. He described the deaths of those striving for a better life across the seas as “a thorn in the heart.” Last year, around 15,000 migrants reached Italy and Malta, with boats swelling due to the Syrian civil war. But for all those who do arrive in one piece, there are all those who don’t. Many don’t know how to swim, or, weakened by days at sea with little food or water, are unable to save themselves when the cheap and inadequate boats fail to contend with the strong seas.
With U.N. agencies for seemingly every major issues facing humans today – from displacement to the environment – is it not time there was a dedicated agency for this specific issue? For there are myriad issues involved, and it is not as simple as a refugee problem. First, there are the push factors, those circumstances which drive people to take such a drastic and dangerous measure. Here, as is the case with north Lebanon, local poverty and education rates must be examined. Are people capable of accessing equal rights to employment and to a basic standard of living?
In other cases, people are fleeing from persecution or war. Fearing for their lives in many cases, these people should not be forced to seek asylum at the cost of putting their lives in further danger: Other options must be made available to these desperate people. Then there are the pull factors. In the case of Australia, the new government of Tony Abbot is seemingly doing all it can to dissuade migrants from attempting to reach its shores. But it is important than any attempts to curb immigration levels must be done in tandem with measures which do not put lives in jeopardy.
Lastly it is also imperative that the people smugglers are dealt with in the strictest terms. For there are gangs who are actually profiting from this dark trade, these desperate journeys which families are forced to take, those with nothing, who hand over all their savings with little guarantee that they will ever see dry land again. Home and recipient countries, along with international agencies, must work together to ensure that these opportunistic people are no longer allowed to prey on the desperation of others, and to see an end to this people smuggling, which robs so many of their dreams of a new life.