http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Rouhani-on-peace-process-Whatever-the-Palestinians-accept-Iran-will-accept-327260
By JPOST.COM STAFF 09/27/2013 Whatever peace agreement that Palestinian people accept, Iran will accept as well, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said on Thursday in New York. Asked about the peace process at a forum sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Asia Society, Rouhani stressed that "the decision makers about Palestine are the people of Palestine," according to an interpreter.When asked to clarify his stance on his views on the Holocaust, Rouhani provided a similar answer to the one he gave CNN's Christiane Amanpour, the translation of which was contested in Tehran We condemn the crimes [done] by [the] Nazis in World War Two and regrettably these crimes were committed against many groups, many people were killed - including a group of Jewish people," he said. "We condemn [the Nazis'] crimes in general. We condemn the murder and killing of innocent people always. It makes no difference to us whether this person... was Jewish or Christian or Muslim. There's just no difference in our eyes," he continued.Much like the CNN interview, Rouhani also asserted that "if the Nazis committed a crime, this does not mean that the price paid for it should be done by other people elsewhere," in a comment seemingly referring to the Palestinian people.
"This is not, and should not, be served as any justification to push out from their homes a group of people because of what the Nazis did," he said.

US appeasement of Iran drowns Israel’s military option against nuclear Iran or chemical Syria
http://www.debka.com/article/23314/US-appeasement-of-Iran-drowns-Israel’s-military-option-against-nuclear-Iran-or-chemical-Syria-
DEBKAfile Special Report September 27, 2013/Thursday, Sept.26, will go down in Israel’s history as the day it lost its freedom to use force either against the Iranian nuclear threat hanging over its head or Syria’s chemical capacity – at least, so long as Barack Obama is president of the United States. During that time, the Iranian-Syrian-Hizballah axis, backed by active weapons of mass destruction, is safe to grow and do its worst.
Ovations for the disarming strains of Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani’s serenade to the West and plaudits for the pragmatism of its Foreign Minister Mohammed Zarif flowed out of every window of UN Center in New York this week. Secretary of State John Kerry, who took part in the highest-level face to face encounter with an Iranian counterpart in more than 30 years, did say that sanctions would not be removed until Tehran produced a transparent and systematic plan for dismantling its nuclear program.
But then, in an interview to CBS TV, he backpedaled. Permission for international inspectors to visit the Fordo underground enrichment facility would suffice for the easing of sanctions starting in three months’ time.
By these words, the US pushed back Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s first demand to shutter Fordo and its equipment for enriching uranium to near-weapons grade, which he reiterated at this week’s Israeli cabinet meeting in Jerusalem. To Tehran, Kerry therefore held out the promise of a short deadline for starting to wind sanctions down - this coming December.
Tehran’s primary objective is therefore within reach, the easing for sanctions without having to rescind any part of its nuclear aspirations - called “nuclear rights” in Iranian parlance.
The foreign ministers of the five permanent Security Council members and Germany, meeting Thursday with Zarif, arranged to resume formal nuclear negotiations next month in Geneva.
In another chamber of the UN building, the Americans were busy climbing all the way down from the military threat Barack Obama briefly brandished against Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons eons ago – on August 31 – before he killed it by passing the decision to the US Congress.
Any suggestion of force against Assad was finally buried at the UN Security Council Thursday, when the United States accepted a formal motion requiring Syria to comply with the international ban on chemical weapons, while yielding to Moscow’s insistence on dropping the penalty for non-compliance incorporated in the original US-British-French draft.
The message relayed to Tehran from both wings of UN headquarters was that it was fully shielded henceforth by a Russian veto and US complaisance against the oft-vaunted “credible military option” waved by Washington. Iran and its close ally, the Syrian ruler Assad, were both now safe from military retribution – from the United States and Israel alike – and could develop or even use their weapons of mass destruction with impunity.
Israel’s Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz, who was on the spot, could do little but repeat his government’s demands of Tehran to anyone who would listen, shouted down by the flood of conciliation pouring out for the new Iranian president. There was no escaping the conclusion that the Netanyahu government’s policy – if that is what it could be called - for preventing a nuclear-armed Iran is in tatters.
Iran, instead of facing world pressure to disarm its nuclear program, managed to turn the spotlight on Israel, requiring the world to denuclearize the entire Middle East and force Israel to join the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty.
Given the atmosphere prevailing in the world body these days, it is not surprising that the speech delivered to the assembly by the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas was rated moderate – even when he called the establishment of the State of Israel a “historic, unprecedented injustice which has befallen the Palestinian people in al-Nakba of 1948” and demand redress.
This perversion of the UN's historic action to create a Jewish state could only go down as moderate in a climate given over wholly under John Kerry’s lead to appeasing the world’s most belligerent nations and forces, so long as they made the right diplomatic noises.

Dozens of Lebanese Illegal Migrants Drown, 18 Rescued while Trying to Sail from Indonesia to Australia
Naharnet/At least 60 Lebanese migrants drowned on Friday as they attempted to sail from Indonesia to Australia, reported Voice of Lebanon radio (93.3).It said that no more than ten people survived the trip between the two countries and the corpses of the victims began to wash ashore on one of the Indonesian islands. Later on Friday, Indonesian police said at least 22 people, mostly children, drowned and scores are missing after an Australia-bound boat carrying Middle Eastern asylum-seekers sank off Indonesia Friday in rough seas. Twenty-five people were plucked to safety but about 75 were unaccounted for after the boat carrying people from Lebanon, Jordan and Yemen went down off the main Indonesian island of Java, police said. Lebanese Charge d'Affaires in Indonesia Joanna Qazzi told LBCI television: “The ferry sank as a result of a malfunction and so far 15 bodies of victims from different nationalities have been recovered.” Qazzi later told caretaker Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour that, according to the Indonesian authorities, 18 Lebanese were among the 25 survivors.
Warsono, a police official in Cianjur district on Java, said the bodies were discovered floating in an estuary on Friday morning.
"We have now found 22 dead bodies, most of them are children as they cannot swim," he said. "The dead bodies were swept ashore by big waves." The official, who like many Indonesians goes by one name, said it was dangerous for rescue boats due to "big waves" and the boat had been "broken into several pieces."
A spokesman for the Indonesian search and rescue agency said that four of its boats, along with fishing boats, had earlier been searching for the missing.
The search had been called off when it got dark and would resume again on Saturday, he said. Warsono said that the boat was believed to have been carrying 120 people when it went down and had been heading for the Australian territory of Christmas Island. They had departed from the fishing town of Pelabuhan Ratu, in the district of Sukabumi, on the south coast of western Java, he said.
President Michel Suleiman carried out a number of contacts over the sinking upon his return to Lebanon from New York where he took part in the United Nations General Assembly.
Caretaker Prime Minister Najib Miqati later contacted the general secretary of the Foreign Ministry Ambassador Wafiq Ruhaimi, urging him to carry out the necessary diplomatic contacts over the sinking.
He stressed the need for the Indonesian authorities to uncover the causes of the sinking and the fate of the migrants.
Miqati later asked Charge d'Affaires Qazzi to head to the port from which the boat had departed in order to follow up on the rescue operations, assist the Lebanese survivors and facilitate the transfer of the bodies to Beirut. VDL revealed that the victims had tasked a person, known as Abu Saleh, to ensure their safe passage to Australia in exchange for about $10,000 per person. Their ferry sank however as it attempted to sail to Australia. Abu Saleh has since been arrested. The National News Agency reported Friday that the majority of the victims hail from the northern region of Akkar, particularly the town of Qabeit.
It said that some 15 Lebanese families were on board the vessel that sank as it was sailing to Australia. It added that the families of the migrants had been frantically contacting loved ones abroad in order to determine the fate of those on board. They have also urged the Foreign Ministry to contact Lebanese embassies in Malaysia, Indonesia, and Australia to verify the sinking. NNA added that a number of Lebanese migrants had been resorting to sailing to Australia from Indonesia. Abu Ali, one of the survivors later told LBCI: “Some 73 people were on board the ferry, the majority of whom were Lebanese.”
“There are only 17 survivors,” he revealed. One Lebanese man escaped from the sinking boat by swimming to an island -- but he believes his eight children and pregnant wife were killed, according to a Lebanese mayor.
Hussein Khodr called people in his home village of Qabeit "and told them that the boat sank at dawn, when waves destabilized the vessel," said Ahmed Darwish, the head of Qabeit's municipality.
Darwish said it was not the first time that people from the poor region had sought to reach Australia by boarding rickety asylum-seeker boats in Indonesia. “I learned of the disaster from a resident of the (Akkar) town of Fnaydeq, whose son was rescued after the sinking of the boat,” Darwish said, adding that the man's fiancee Sarab Abdul Hayy was killed in the incident.
“Two families from the town (of Qabeit) were on the boat when it started its journey on Monday: the family of Hussein Ahmed Khodr, whose nine members drowned except for the father, and the 5-member family of Asaad Ali Asaad who all drowned in the tragedy, in addition to Manal Ali Ahmed, Toufic Hamze, Mohammed Khodr Shdid, Bassam Khodr Othman and Ibtisam Khodr Othman – who are all uncounted for,” Darwish declared, noting that “the fate of everyone has not been determined in a decisive and final manner.”In the wake of the tragedy, caretaker FM Mansour telephoned the ministry's Director General of Emigrants Haitham Jomaa and tasked him to launch contacts to follow up on the situation. He also asked Charge d'Affaires Qazzi to communicate with the Indonesian authorities. The Lebanese envoy informed him that she will head Saturday to the accident's site to follow up closely on the developments. Hundreds of asylum-seekers from around the world have died in recent years trying to make the treacherous sea crossing from Indonesia to Australia on rickety, wooden boats. They normally pay people-smugglers huge sums to make the crossings, and almost always head for Christmas Island, which is far closer to Indonesia than it is to the Australian mainland.
Source/Agence France PresseNaharnet.

Nawwaf Salam: Lebanon Must Commit to U.N. Meeting on Syrian Refugees
Naharnet /Lebanon must take advantage of the International Support Group for Lebanon meeting that was held on the margins of the United Nations General Assembly, stressed Lebanese Ambassador to the U.N. Nawwaf Salam. He told As Safir newspaper on Friday: “Lebanon must commit to the meeting and the pledges on the humanitarian, economic, and security levels.”“The conference marked the beginning of a series of others to come that will tackle in detail the discussions made during Wednesday's meet,” he explained. “The meeting was not aimed at bolstering Lebanon financially, but it was aimed at paving the way for the series of meetings that will devise practical mechanisms to implement the conference's findings,” he added. “Lebanon presented its needs before the International Support Group for Lebanon and the world recognized that the country's stability is important, as is its policy of disassociation from regional developments,” Salam continued. “Bolstering security cannot take place without supporting the army,” he noted.On the flow of Syrian refugees into Lebanon, the ambassador said that the international community should help it support this burden. “It is in no one's interest to make light of this meeting or its purpose,” he added. “The conference will only take on significance once Lebanon meets its commitments towards it,” he explained. The United Nations gave a grim warning Wednesday that Lebanon faces an explosion of social tensions unless the international community helps to handle hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees. President Michel Suleiman told foreign ministers from the world's leading nations that his country faces an "existential crisis" because of the influx fleeing the war between President Bashar Assad and opposition rebels. He told the International Support Group for Lebanon that major financing was needed to pay for the refugees, reinforce public services because of the burden and bolster the army. The Syria conflict will cost Lebanon $7.5 billion from 2012 to 2014, according to an estimate given by World Bank President Jim Yong Kim to the meeting held on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly. The U.N. says there are already 760,000 Syrians registered in Lebanon and there will be one million by the end of the year. Lebanon's government estimates there are already 1.2 million with many not bothering to register. U.S. President Barack Obama announced $74 million dollars of extra humanitarian assistance for Lebanon in a meeting with Suleiman on Tuesday. The U.S. administration is negotiating with Congress to find another $30 million.

Suleiman Says Lebanese Sides Will Withdraw from Syria 'Soon'
Naharnet/President Michel Suleiman said on Friday that all Lebanese sides began the process of retreating from battles in the neighboring country Syria.
“All parties are in the process of withdrawing their fighters from Syria,” Suleiman said in an interview with BBC Arabic-language service. He called on all sides to allow the security forces to carry out their tasks and prevent any military infiltration into the country and vice-versa. Suleiman voiced hope that Hizbullah would also withdraw its fighters from Syria immediately as per the Baabda declaration that calls for disassociating Lebanon from regional conflicts, and to maintain Lebanon's best interest. “It's in the best interest of all sides to end their involvement in the ongoing conflict in Syria,” the president said. The president hailed the recent security deployment in the Beirut's southern suburbs, pointing out that it came in light of the latest bombing in the area and to prevent any security chaos. “Security fears prompted the residents of the area to surveillance the situation in the area so we had to form a force to replace them,” Suleiman added. Around 1,000 army troops and security forces deployed Monday in Dahieh where Hizbullah normally keeps a tight grip on security. The security points were established after car bombings in the area killed 27 people on August 15 and wounded more than 50 on July 9. Following the bombings, Hizbullah turned the southern suburbs into a fortress with guards in civilian clothes policing the streets, stopping and searching cars, and asking motorists for their identity cards.

Suleiman: Everyone Must Put Their Confidence in President, PM-designate to Form Cabinet without Stalling over Shares
Naharnet /President Michel Suleiman on Friday called on the rival political parties to put their confidence in him and in Prime Minister-designate Tammam Salam in order to form an “inclusive cabinet,” urging the Lebanese to abide by the Baabda Declaration and to “withdraw from Syria.”“We cannot say that certain parties have rejected dialogue, since until now no one has rejected it, but each party is announcing a different approach and we can reconcile these approaches, especially that several resolutions were reached in the past, such as the Baabda Declaration,” Suleiman said in an interview with Tele Liban, which was recorded in New York.
“When the dialogue committee convenes, we can engage in dialogue over any issue related to the implementation of the Baabda Declaration or the details of its stipulations, as well as over any issue related to the national defense strategy, which is the only topic that is still on the agenda of national dialogue,” he added. The president said “withdrawal from Syria must be the result of implementing the Baabda Declaration,” urging “those implicated in Syria to put Lebanon's interest before any other interest.” “Lebanon's interest lies in neutralizing it and keeping it away from interference in Syria and I call on everyone to abide by this and by the Baabda Declaration and to withdraw from Syria,” Suleiman added. Turning to the issue of the cabinet formation process, the president said “the formation of cabinets is based on constitutional norms and we cannot speak of a Policy Statement before forming the cabinet.” Salam “was named PM-designate following (binding) consultations” with the parliamentary blocs and the new government must be formed “as soon as possible,” Suleiman said, noting that “afterwards, the ministerial Policy Statement would be discussed and sent to parliament, where it might or might not win a vote of confidence.”“We must follow the constitutional norms and the constitutional sequence in addressing these issues, as jumping over the sequence of the constitutional mechanism would impede the discussions,” Suleiman went on to say. “Yes, the parties are demanding certain shares, since we live in a democratic, constitutional system, which is an asset for Lebanon if it is properly implemented, and a curse for the constitutional and administrative process if we barricaded behind this system to raise the ceiling of our demands,” the president noted.
“Everyone must respond and place their confidence in the president and the PM-designate in order to form an inclusive cabinet, as I have repeated several times, without stalling over shares, as the cabinet must be formed by the PM-designate and the president following the consultations” with the parliamentary blocs, Suleiman went on to say. Asked whether his upcoming trip to Saudi Arabia had anything to do with the cabinet formation process, given that it comes on the eve of the Iranian president's visit to the kingdom, Suleiman said: “Of course this (Saudi-Iranian) rapprochement would reflect positively on the situation in Lebanon and the entire Middle East, but the president's role is bigger than discussing the formation of the cabinet with any state, regardless of its good relations with Lebanon.”Asked whether Lebanon will take part in a possible Syria peace conference in Geneva after Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Syria's neighbors would be invited to the meeting, Suleiman said: "He mentioned that and we don't mind to take part, but we would study the form of our participation in due time."
On Monday, Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah 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 Demands A Technocrat Cabinet, Says Any Government Formed by Suleiman, Salam Is Legitimate
Naharnet/Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea stressed on Friday that any cabinet formed by the president and the premier-designate is “legitimate and not a de facto government,” calling for the formation of a technocrat council of ministers. "Many are using the expression de facto to describe a cabinet formed by President Michel Suleiman and Prime Minister-designate Tammam Salam,” Geagea said at a press conference he held in Maarab.
He added: “But such a cabinet would be legitimate, legal and constitutional and we reject calling it a de facto cabinet. It is in the constitutional rights of Suleiman and Salam to form a cabinet.”Geagea remarked that political factions opposed to such a cabinet can protest its formation through refraining from giving it the vote of confidence at the parliament. "But any other form of protesting is rejected,” he stressed. The LF leader also slammed as "constitutional heresy" talks about representing parliamentary blocs at the cabinet.He explained: “The cabinet is not a council where political factions are represented but it is an executive power.”“We must agree on a cabinet that can at least solve basic issues in the country. But trying to discuss the problems we face at the parliament in the cabinet will not lead anywhere,” he added.Geagea called for forming a technocrat cabinet that does not include any representatives of either the March 8 or the March 14 coalitions, urging Suleiman and Salam to “use their constitutional powers and form the new government.”“We want a cabinet formed of known, trustworthy and qualified figures,” he remarked. Geagea also praised Salam's proposal on rotation of power inside the cabinet, saying that it would prevent the “monopoly of some factions over certain ministries.” On national dialogue, the Christian leader reiterated that previous talks “did not give any positive results.”“The requirements necessary for dialogue are not available at the moment.”

Obama Telephones Rouhani, Tells Him 'Comprehensive' Solution Possible
Naharnet/U.S. President Barack Obama and Iranian president Hassan Rouhani spoke by phone on Friday in the historic first direct communication between leaders of the two nations since the Islamic revolution in 1979.
"Just now, I spoke on the phone with President Rouhani of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The two of us discussed our ongoing efforts to reach an agreement over Iran's nuclear program," Obama said.
The Iranian presidency also confirmed the phone call. Source/Agence France Presse.

U.N. Vote on Syria Chemical Weapons Late Friday, Obama Says Resolution 'Huge Victory'
Naharnet/The U.N. Security Council will meet at 8:00 pm (0000 GMT) on Friday for a vote on a U.S.-Russian resolution on destroying Syria's chemical weapons, the U.N. confirmed.The meeting, which will follow adoption of a Russia-U.S. disarmament plan for Syria, was confirmed by Australia, president of the Security Council for September. Meanwhile, U.S. President Barack Obama hailed later on Friday the U.N. Syria resolution as "a huge victory" for the world.But Obama acknowledged legitimate concerns over the dismantling of Syria's chemical weapons arsenal and whether the regime of President Bashar Assad would live up to its commitments. The U.N. Security Council was to meet at 8:00 pm (0000 GMT) on Friday to vote on the resolution, which will follow a Russia-U.S. plan on the disarmament of Syria's chemical weapons. "This is something that we have long sought," Obama told reporters as he met Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in the Oval Office. Obama hailed the resolution and disarmament plans as a "legally binding" and "verifiable" initiative which threatens consequences if Syria did not adhere to conditions."I think it is a potentially huge victory for the international community," Obama said. "Realistically, it is doubtful we would have arrived at this point had it not been for a credible threat of U.S. action in the aftermath of the horrific tragedy that took place on August 21," Obama said, referring to a chemical weapons attack on a Damascus suburb. Obama said he was hopeful about what the accord could achieve but added that he understood there were concerns about how to implement it. "Rightly, people have been concerned about whether Syria would follow through on commitments."I think there are legitimate concerns as to how technically we are going to be getting those chemical weapons while there is still fighting going on around."The president also expressed satisfaction that the world had come together to act on Syria, after betraying open exasperation at the gridlock in the United Nations after the chemical weapons attack. "This represents essentially a significant step forward and I think indicates what I had hoped for when I spoke at the United Nations just this week, that we have an international community that is not just gathering to talk but also is able to take concerted action on behalf of enforcing international norms and preserving everybody's security."
SourceAgence France Presse.Middle EastPoliticsU.n. Security Council

Iran's Rouhani Warns of Syria Talibanization
Naharnet/Iranian President Hassan Rouhani warned Thursday that Syria could become an extremist haven like Taliban-era Afghanistan as he called for cooperation to end the country's civil war. Iran considers Syrian President Bashar Assad its closest regional ally and has not accepted U.S. intelligence that the regime killed some 1,400 people in a chemical weapons attack last month. "My government strongly condemns the use of chemical weapons in Syria," Rouhani told a New York think tank forum, without assigning blame. "I am also concerned about the breeding ground created in parts of Syrian territory for extremist ideology and a rally point for terrorists, which is reminiscent of another region adjacent to our eastern borders in the 1990s," he said. "This is an issue of concern not only to us but also to many other countries, which requires cooperation and joint efforts aimed at finding a durable, inter-Syrian political solution." Iran, led by a Shiite theocracy, opposed the 1996-2001 rule in Afghanistan of the Taliban, who welcomed al-Qaida militants and enforced an austere brand of Sunni Islam.
The secular-minded Assad belongs to the heterodox Alawite community and is battling rebels who include Sunni hardliners. In an earlier false start of better ties, Iran and the United States briefly cooperated in 2001 when a U.S.-led campaign ousted the Taliban. Rouhani welcomed a U.S.-Russian agreement for Assad to give up chemical weapons, which halted a push for a military strike on Syria by U.S. President Barack Obama.
"We are pleased that diplomacy... and sober judgment prevailed over saber-rattling," Rouhani said. Iran itself was a victim of chemical weapons used by Iraq, a history acknowledged by Obama in his address to the United Nations earlier this week.Western powers largely supported Iraqi president Saddam Hussein in his 1980-88 war against Iran. Rouhani, elected in June on a platform of moderation, is on a visit to the United Nations aimed largely at easing tensions with Western powers over Iran's contested nuclear program. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry held a brief but historic meeting Thursday with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who said that he agreed with major powers to seek a deal within a year to resolve concerns over Tehran's nuclear program. But despite the upbeat tone, the United States was cool to letting Iran participate in a peace conference in Geneva on ending Syria's civil war, the next step after a U.N. Security Council resolution enforcing the U.S.-Russian chemical weapons agreement. A senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that Iran first had to commit to the declaration of the first Geneva conference last year that called for a political transition in which Assad would leave. "Anyone who wants to participate has to, at the very least, sign up to the Geneva communique and Iran has not explicitly done so," the official said.Source/Agence France Presse.

The Mistakes Of The Resistance
Jihad el-Khazen/Al Hayat
Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah are national liberation movements fighting against Israeli occupation, and the accusation of terrorism cannot apply to them, but to the occupation power that kills, destroys, and steals, that is, Israel.I have stated the above each time I wrote about the occupation and resistance, which is a duty on everyone, not just on a select few, and I state it again today and shall state it again going forward. I support Arab liberation movements in London, and I am ready to confront Israel’s supporters in the courts. Meanwhile, supporters in the Arab countries only express their support verbally and they rarely face the kind of pressure we face as Arab expatriates in the West. I write today criticizing the positions of Hamas and Hezbollah, yet without having hope that either faction will accept criticism. Indeed, I discovered years ago that parties with a religious base have a direct line to God, and therefore, all those who disagree with them are accused…and then they talk about democracy.
Hamas made a mistake in seceding and retreating to an emirate in Gaza, and is now making an even bigger mistake by supporting the Muslim Brotherhood against the majority of the people in Egypt and their armed forces.
The Egyptians protested by the millions against the Muslim Brotherhood-led administration, and the army intervened to prevent civil war. Now, there is an interim administration that will produce a new constitution, a president, and a parliament. Hamas is ignoring the will of the Egyptian people, supporting the Brotherhood although the Brotherhood has been ousted and will not return.
This support is incomprehensible. It has no foundation whatsoever, except religion, because Hosni Mubarak’s regime did not demolish tunnels with Gaza, claiming that he could not find them, while the Muslim Brotherhood went on to flood some tunnels and demolish others to appease America and Israel. Indeed, the Muslim Brotherhood was willing to pay any price to remain in power, even if that price was Al-Aqsa Mosque and all of Jerusalem
Hamas’s current position harms Palestine and the Gaza Strip, and harms a cause that all Egyptians support, and which all Egyptians have paid a price in blood for, more than anyone else. I know from Hamas’s leaders the members of the politburo abroad, and I respect the head of the politburo Khaled Meshaal a great deal. I worked with him and with President Mahmoud Abbas to reach the truce that was declared on June 29, 2003, and which lasted more than six weeks, so I claim to have had a role in sparing Palestinian and Israeli lives during the truce.
Meshaal is moderate and smart, and I believe it likely that he holds different views than those of the Hamas leadership in Gaza. There is undeclared political competition between the two, and the leadership in Gaza, like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, prefers to rule over the ruins in Gaza rather than seek a way out to protect people’s lives and the cause.
I admit I have never imagined that Hamas would make this many mistakes in such a short time, and I never imagined that Hezbollah under the leadership of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah would become embroiled in the Syrian civil war, preferring Iranian support over all Arab countries and the rest of the world – despite international sanctions in response to this support – and sacrificing its fighters who took up arms to fight Israeli aggression, not to fight in a Syria’s civil war, with the result being that Europe has now designated Hezbollah’s military wing as a terrorist organization.
I thought that Nasrallah was too cautious to get implicated in something that he would not be able to emerge from easily, but he did. While some of his claims about extremist fundamentalists who declare Shiites apostates are true, this does not reflect the known and declared stance of Al-Azhar Al-Sharif. I also recall the declaration by Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh, the Mufti of Saudi Arabia and President of the Saudi Council of Senior Scholars, who warned against the “danger of takfir [declaring others as apostates] and the assault on innocent lives that this could lead to,” stressing the “sanctity of Muslim blood and the blood of others who have been protected by Islamic law.” In all cases, intervention in Syria is a mistake. When Syria intervened in Lebanon, a majority of the Lebanese protested against the abolition of the border, which is exactly what Hezbollah has done by sending troops to Syria. Perhaps we will see a day when a Syrian Sunni cleric will send fighters to Hermel and the Bekaa, using the precedent of Hezbollah’s intervention in his country as a pretext. Hezbollah’s actions have also prompted Gulf countries to initiate measures against Hezbollah leaders, which could harm the interests of Shiites who have families in the Gulf even without being engaged in partisan activity of any kind.
I have no personal stake behind the above, except that I want Hamas to remain strong against Israel and not Egypt, and for Hezbollah to remain a weapon against Israel not in the streets of Beirut or the Syrian cities. The leaders of the two factions can mend things, and undoing a mistake is a virtue.

Iran Makes Headway but the Bargain has not yet Matured
Raghida Dergham/Al Hayat
Neither has the bargain matured nor are conditions ripe for a handshake between US President Barack Obama and Iranian President Hassan Rohani. We are still in a phase of complete disproportion between what decision-makers in Tehran have sought and what has been suggested by those carrying Iran’s message in New York. The Revolutionary Guard (Pasdaran) has made it clear to the Iranian presidency that there were certain set principles that could not be leapt over, and this has been one of the reasons preventing even a mere handshake between Obama and Rohani at the United Nations. Some have considered this to represent yet another blow to the US President, who seems to some leaders to be prone to or tolerant of blows. Others have considered the Iranian stance to be quite natural and ordinary, and well within the Iranian political tradition, based on the principle of “take what you’re given then ask for more.” The Iranian President has disappointed those who had wagered on a qualitative shift in American-Iranian relations, via the symbolic gesture of a passing meeting or handshake – most of them being quite superficial and in a rush to close the chapter of the fundamental dispute between the United States and Iran, and in fact quite prepared to leap over the points of disagreement. The US President has actually given the Islamic Republic of Iran in his speech at the United Nations some of the most important points it had insisted on strategically for years: first, recognition of the Iranian regime’s legitimacy and a public pledge not to change it or support a coup against it; second, recognition of Tehran’s regional role in the Arab World, while expressing willingness to negotiate with it over the fate of Syria, considering Iran to represent a main gateway for the future of Syria in terms of the regime and the President; and third, leaving the door open to further Western concessions to Tehran on the nuclear issue, through a ministerial meeting between Iran and the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany. Such concession will not only be technical, but will also most likely meet the foremost demand of the new Iranian government, namely, reducing or repealing the economic sanctions imposed on it. What now of the overlapping of Iran’s nuclear-economic negotiations with attempts to resolve the Syrian crisis, which has resulted in the death of over a hundred thousand people, with over seven million Syrians displaced and refugees, terrible destruction, and perhaps the partitioning of one of the most pivotal Arab countries?
President Obama dedicated his speech before the UN General Assembly this week to say that the two main pillars of his second term in office in the Middle East are the Iranian nuclear issue and achieving peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Neither of the two is within reach, and in fact, both issues represent an opportunity for flexible diplomacy and a long process that would not require immediate measures calling for swift and decisive decision-making. He said that the United States was not inclined towards isolationism, but President Obama also said very clearly that America under his presidency seeks partnership in taking the initiative, and that it would not take any initiatives on its own unless the matter concerns the core of what has been deemed to represent its national interest. He then clarified that Syria represented an example of Washington – under his presidency – not resolving to take the initiative.
In effect, Obama addressed Russia and Iran when he spoke of the features of resolving the Syrian crisis, recognizing – as a de facto situation –that he had entrusted them with working to reach a political settlement. Some view such a stance as making light of Arab countries, which should have a say in Syria, the latter being an Arab country first and foremost, not a country owned by Iran or Russia. Others consider that Obama has found in Tehran and Moscow a gateway to present his view of what would in his opinion represent the features of a political settlement.
The features of such a settlement, according to the US President’s speech, are for Russia and Iran to agree to give up on President Bashar Al-Assad, instead of clinging to him at the beginning and at the end of the process of political transition in Syria; and in exchange, for the Syrian opposition and those supporting it, in particular Arab Gulf countries alongside the United States, to agree to maintaining the Syrian regime, modified and immunized by the integration of the Free Syrian Army (FSA). In other words, the American discourse, as articulated by the President, focuses on separating the Syrian President from the Syrian regime in a gradual process over several months. This has come through his appealing to Russia and Iran to abandon Bashar al-Assad because he “cannot regain [his] legitimacy,” and through calling on the Syrian opposition and those who support it to preserve state institutions and a role to play for the Alawite community.
This is what the US President has put forward publicly, but not – so far – what Russia or Iran has accepted publicly. In fact, there is not yet any indication that they might have accepted it secretly, although this would not be unlikely. In other words, President Obama may well have given publicly what would, within Russia and Iran’s considerations, fall under the principle of “take and ask for more.”
What everyone agrees on now is the language of a “political solution.” Everyone – with very few exceptions – is now discussing only a political solution, not speaking the language of balance of military power on the battlefield between regime and opposition forces. Even when the discussion falls under strengthening the moderate armed opposition in the face of the extremist opposition that has stormed the battlefield in Syria, there is no agreed strategy among those who support the Syrian opposition.
There is clearly some retreat in the stances taken by Arab countries that had once represented pillars of support for the Syrian opposition, either because they have reached the conclusion that the Arab strategy had failed before the triumph of the strategy of the Russian-Iranian-Chinese axis, which also includes Hezbollah alongside the Syrian regime; or because they have reached the conclusion that the United States, along with Britain, France, and the other Western countries, has decided that its own interests requires handing the issue of Syria over to Iran, for reasons that fall under the considerations of negotiations over the nuclear issue.
It is too early to say that such a Grand Bargain has already matured, because those who are party to it – Russia and Iran – are still demanding more. They consider that there is a great deal of space to obtain more from the West, and in particular from President Obama, who really wants to reach bargains of understanding whatever it costs him, in terms of backing down and submitting to one “insult” after another. Indeed, the notion directing Russia and Iran’s strategy is that Barack Obama wants to be rescued from getting implicated in Syria and to be saved from having to carry out his pledges of carrying out a military strike against Syria and of preventing Iran militarily from obtaining nuclear weapons.
Russia is very much at ease with its return to wielding influence in the Middle East through the American gateway, instead of through confrontation or competition with the United States. This is why it has agreed to return the Syrian issue to the Security Council, a move which has come under Russian conditions and within a Russian strategy, not out of submission to American demands. Russia today has proven that it was capable of imposing its dictates in the Arab region through its alliance with Iran, through the strategy of defying the United States, and through clearly informing Western countries that they remain an auxiliary to the relationship between Russia and the United States, and that they have not become a driving force. This certainly requires Arab countries to return to the strategy-drawing board to decide who they are and what the perspectives are of their contribution to forging the future of Arab-Russian relations, Arab-American relations, and Arab-Iranian relations.
The overall climate at the United Nations during the session of the General Assembly this week has fallen between, on the one hand, the desire to put a stop to the bloodshed in Syria within any kind of bargain, and on the other, anger at the bargains being discussed at the expense of the principle of holding to account those who have contributed to creating this tragedy. There is a new kind of realism that has exposed the West’s negligence and its failure to cling to the principles it had claimed to hold. There is also, on the other hand, harsh criticism of the strategies adopted by the Arabs, which have resulted in failure with regard to the suffering of the Syrian people, as well as of the opposite strategies that have supported Damascus, in particular those of Russia and Iran.
Syria has imposed itself on the priorities of the current session of the General Assembly, and yet the discussions that have taken place have not brought Syria and neighboring countries any reassuring decisions or news. A survey of the prevalent climate indicates that a decisive outcome, politically or militarily, remains distant, and that, although small bargains are ongoing, the Grand Bargain has not yet matured. The Security Council will be issuing a resolution on the chemical issue, but it will not be under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which would automatically authorize military action. Russia would have thereby hijacked the US President’s decision to direct a military strike if he saw fit to do so and wished it to have the blessing of the UN. But the US President – if he wished to do so and truly sought to exercise his authority – can resort to a military strike whenever he wants. The fact of the matter is that he never did and does not want to. But the question is: what will he do with his declaration from the rostrum of the UN General Assembly that the Syrian President cannot regain his legitimacy and that it will not be possible to restore the situation to what it had been before the war erupted in Syria?
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, in an interview to Al-Hayat (published on Thursday), expressed his belief that the agreement on chemical disarmament represents mere “relief that everyone needs,” that everyone is in a “crisis,” that the West wants to reach a settlement with Iran “under any circumstances,” and that the Iranian nuclear issue has been as important as the Syrian crisis in discussions between nations in New York – and this is no coincidence. He also said that he expects the crisis in Syria to go on for years of fierce fighting and suffering, while the parties concerned engage in “crisis management” instead of putting forward solutions. And what he said has been repeated by many of those who have followed international talks on the Syrian crisis.
Indeed, the handshake that did not deserve to keep us distracted for weeks and the bargain that has not yet matured will take many months to be achieved. The outcome of the matter is that the truce-seeking relationship between the United States and Iran passes across a torn-up Syria just as does the relationship between the United States and Russia. Indeed, Syria has become an open arena for forging bilateral relations between world powers and regional powers, in a terrifying diminution of and disregard for the Syrian people, who are paying an exorbitant price.

Rohani's Caution and Obama's About-Face
Walid Choucair/Al Hayat
The opening of the United Nations General Assembly this year was of considerable importance in terms of defining the policies of players on the international scene, more so than previous years, when monotony was often the order of the day. To the same extent, the speeches and stances from the world’s leading forum demonstrated that the big issues being dealt with by these players will not see quick solutions, even though the language of diplomacy and openness prevailed, instead of military solutions.The Middle East dominated the opening of the session, because of the Syrian crisis and its repercussions, and the Iranian nuclear program and the role of Iran. The speeches by the two presidents which caught people’s attention, Barack Obama and Hassan Rohani, indicated how difficult it will be to arrive at solutions and how slow this process will be, if the political movement to translate these solutions into reality is launched after these two speeches.Obama did not hide this, after he spoke about the positives in the Iranian position that could be built on. He said these would lead to negotiations that will require time to overcome the decades of hostility, noting that “the hard work of forging democracy and freedom (in the region) is a task of a generation.”
For his part, the Iranian president was not in a big rush to act, in contrast to the hints from his statements prior to his speech and the considerable activity that preceded his trip to New York by months, undertaken by a large Iranian team with huge experience in public relations. They formed an active lobbying operation between Washington and the UN headquarters in New York, along with leading think tanks. This was in order to invite people with influence over US decision-making to benefit from Rohani’s openness and find solutions for the hostility between the two countries. Rohani issued an invitation to arrive at a formula for managing disputes based on mutual respect and called for peace to win out over war. He also affirmed that he supported negotiations to remove doubts (over Tehran’s intentions to possess nuclear weapons) and was against compromising on the uranium enrichment issue. By doing so, he wanted to confirm to the United States and the west that their policies “deprive regional players of their natural domain of action.” This hinted at a hard-line stance vis-à-vis the influence Iran has gained in the region. All of this was at odds with the charm and magic that was used by Rohani’s team and his foreign minister Mohammad Zarif, in the public relations campaign that they undertook in the media, and in think tanks.Despite the “new method” that Washington believes Rohani seeks to rely on, he preferred caution in choosing his words and phrases denoting openness. He preferred to abandon the “coincidence” of meeting with Obama in the halls of the UN, which had been worked on by Rohani’s team. This would avoid angering the hard-liners in his country, after the Revolutionary Guard warned the Iranian president about trusting in US policy, one day before he traveled to New York. Rohani also failed to hide his caution during some of his closed-door meetings when it came to the difficulty of arriving at agreements over pending issues on the regional scene, from Bahrain to the Gulf, and Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere, when he undertakes his expected trip to Saudi Arabia in the middle of October. This visit is expected to lead to a ratcheting down of hostility between the two countries.
Rohani was not alone in addressing his own public, whether with his cautious speech or behavior. Obama himself did the same thing, when he addressed the world’s leaders in the General Assembly hall. He responded to the criticism of some that America is weak, because it has retreated from the wars it waged in Iran and Afghanistan. Obama strongly defended his return to threatening the use of force after the Syrian regime used chemical weapons on 21 August. Obama also tried to dispel the image that he is hesitant and weak-willed, which is hurting his popularity at home. Obama partly turned his back on the Middle East because of his country’s failures in Iraq and as it prepares to withdraw from Afghanistan, in order to pay attention to the domestic economic situation and prepare for a strategic change toward Asia and the Pacific over the next decade, because this is where his country’s interests lie. The Syrian chemical weapons issue has forced Obama to turn back once again to the Middle East, even if for a period of time, from now until the end of his term in 2016. However, his return to paying attention to the region, as he has said, has limits. “We are not alone,” he said, because he prefers to act along with other influential countries. This principle is in contradiction to the policy of George W Bush and his “preventive wars.”
Nabil Fahmy, the Egyptian foreign minister, summed up the prospects for diplomatic solutions on the occasion of the General Assembly, where the Syrian crisis was the central topic. On Tuesday, he told Al-Hayat, “I see no quick solution for the crisis in Syria, because the solution requires a grand bargain, and this will take time.”
 

Chemical weapons watchdog wants Syria inspections by Oct. 1
By Mike Corder, The Associated Press | The Canadian Press –THE HAGUE, Netherlands - The global chemical weapons watchdog is calling for inspections of Syria's chemical arsenal to begin by Tuesday.
The draft decision of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons obtained by The Associated Press also authorizes the body to inspect "any other site identified by a State Party as having been involved in the Syrian chemical weapons program, unless deemed unwarranted by the Director-General."That goes beyond usual practice as the organization only inspects sites that have been declared by member states.
The draft, being discussed by the organization's executive council Friday night, calls for the destruction of all Syria's chemical weapons and equipment to be completed by "the first half of 2014."

Canada Strongly Condemns Terrorist Attack in India
September 26, 2013 - The Honourable Lynne Yelich, Minister of State (Foreign Affairs and Consular), today issued the following statement on the terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir:
“Canada strongly condemns the terrorist attack that took place today outside a police station in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, India.
“This violent extremism is vile and a glaring reminder of the grave threat that terrorism poses to the people of India and the region. We expect that the perpetrators of this horrendous attack will be brought to justice.
“On behalf of all Canadians, I extend my deepest sympathies to the victims’ families and friends, and I wish a swift recovery to the injured.”
- 30 -
For further information, media representatives may contact:
Adria Minsky
Director of Communications
Office of the Minister of State (Foreign Affairs and Consular)
613-944-1291
Adria.Minsky@international.gc.ca
Media Relations Office
Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada
613-995-1874
media@international.gc.ca
Follow us on Twitter: @DFATDCanada

Talk is cheap
The Daily Star /28.09.13
Speaking at the U.N. General Assembly, President Michel Sleiman ticked all the right boxes, pledging Lebanon’s commitment to the Baabda Declaration, disassociation and the various U.N. resolutions. Subsequently, the U.S., France and others vowed to stand by the country, and helped protect its sovereignty and borders.
But what does any of this really mean for a country without a government or a valid Parliament? If all the richest governments in the world suddenly pledged money to help Lebanon, who would be responsible for allocating these funds correctly? Could anyone trust that a combination of a caretaker government and endemic corruption wouldn’t lead to huge losses? It smacks of putting the cart before the horse.
For the last five months we have had a seemingly countless number of suggestions, from every different political side, on how to form a Cabinet, each with its set of debilitating conditions. And this paralysis impacts not upon the politicians themselves, whose workload has considerably lightened, but on the Lebanese people on every level, from security to the societal. The economy is almost on the brink, with tourism and industry suffering acutely.
So everything said and pledged in New York this week is completely meaningless, unless these declarations of support and assistance are coupled with the creation of a government. Otherwise we are back to square one. Each of the statements, whether it be from France or the U.S., are not even new – their representative envoys in Lebanon have already made similar points.
When the country is in such a limbo as it is now, attending such conferences as the U.N. General Assembly is a luxury. It does little more than give an illusion that Lebanon is a normal, functioning state, when anyone with experience closer to home realizes that couldn’t be further from the truth.
However, if there is any progress made on an international level – vis-a-vis relations between Iran and the U.S., or Iran and Saudi Arabia – this could help. It might have the necessary knock-on effect on parties on the ground in Lebanon, possibly even to such an extent that an atmosphere is created here in which a new government could be formed.
This is the only way that Lebanon has a chance of moving forward and out of this current dangerous situation, being pulled here and there by various regional and international manipulators. Yet it will also prove once and for all that Lebanon cannot make any claims to be an independent and sovereign state.
Once again it is being used as a pawn in an international game of chess. It would also underline that as much as foreign actors may claim to be interested in protecting Lebanon and its security, for them it is never about anything more than safeguarding their own priorities.