LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
June 6/2007

Bible Reading of the day
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Mark 12,13-17. They sent some Pharisees and Herodians to him to ensnare him in his speech. They came and said to him, "Teacher, we know that you are a truthful man and that you are not concerned with anyone's opinion. You do not regard a person's status but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it lawful to pay the census tax to Caesar or not? Should we pay or should we not pay?" Knowing their hypocrisy he said to them, "Why are you testing me? Bring me a denarius to look at." They brought one to him and he said to them, "Whose image and inscription is this?" They replied to him, "Caesar's." So Jesus said to them, "Repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.' They were utterly amazed at him.

Free Opinion
Global dimensions-By Walid Phares. Washingtom Times- June 6, 2007
The Six-Day War-FrontPage magazine.com. By: David Meir-Levi. June 6/07
40 years after 1967, Israel's options have never been clearer-Daily Star. June 6/07
Who deters whom?By Moshe Arens-Ha'aretz-June 6/07
Amid General Amnesia-By: Hillel Halkin-New York Sun. June 6/07
 

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for June 6/06/07
Fatah al-Islam's Fate Awaits Palestinian Decision and Lebanese Action-Naharnet
D'Alema Carries 'Encouraging' Signs from Damascus to Beirut-Naharnet
Syria Accepts International Investigation in Hariri Crime, but Not Trial-Naharnet
Copy of Ein Alaq Bombings Rocks Sad Boushriyeh, 10 Wounded-Naharnet
Lebanese Army Not in Hurry to Storm Nahr al-Bared-Naharnet
Islamist Disengagement Force to Prevent Clashes at Ein al-Hilweh-Naharnet
Bush Discusses Lebanon with Hariri as U.S. Mulls More Aid-Naharnet
Germany Allocates 500,000 Euros for Palestinian Refugees-Naharnet
Saudi Arabia Hopeful that Tribunal Will Stop Assassinations-Naharnet
Syria Marks 40th Anniversary of 1967 War With Defiance, Reserve-Bloomberg
LEBANON: MILITANT MASTERMIND 'FLEES TO SYRIA'-AKI
Italian FM to discuss Hariri tribunal, Mideast developments in Syria-International Herald Tribune
Syria MP confirms preparation for war with Israel-Jerusalem Post
The long and winding war-Courier Mail
40 years on - Shebaa's farmers still live in hope-Gulf Times
Israeli intelligence warns of Hezbollah rearming in south Lebanon ...People's Daily Online
Canadian woman's family offers reward to find daughter missing in ...Canada.com
Mofaz to discuss possible talks with Syria on US visit-Daily Star
PM's aides fear talks with Syria could harm relations with US-Ha'aretz
Lebanese Army tries to keep lid on dual crises-Daily Star
Italian foreign minister to meet with senior officials in Beirut-Daily Star
Akkar MP abandons March 14 Forces over 'widening gaps'-Daily Star
Qassem appeals for talks on unity cabinet-Daily Star
UN assessment team inspects border at Masnaa-Daily Star
Education minister confirms dates for official exams-Daily Star
Hariri meets Feltman, thanks Bush for help on court-Daily Star
Canada urges nationals to take precautions-Daily Star
Twin refugee crises tax capacity of relief agencies-Daily Star
'Lebanese of all stripes should support the army' - Harb-Daily Star
Reports outline details of alleged terror plot-Daily Star

LEBANON: MILITANT MASTERMIND 'FLEES TO SYRIA'
Damascus, 5 June (AKI) - A man Lebanese authorities believe to be the mastermind in a series of attacks allegedly carried out by the militant Palestinian group Fatah al-Islam has fled Lebanon and is now in Syria, according to to a Lond-based pan-Arab newspaper. Lebanese judicial sources cited by the daily al-Sharq al-Awsat said the man, described as a young Lebanese, but not identified by name, plotted several attacks on military and tourist targets. The sources also said they believe he received instructions from abroad. The man also planned the recent clashes between the Lebanese army and Fatah al-Islam fighters based in the Palestinian refugee camp of Nahr al-Bared in northern Lebanon, according to information provided by several Fatah al-Islam fighters captured in the fighting. According to al-Sharq al-Awsat, four Saudi Arabians allegedly linked to Fatah al-Islami were arrested in Lebanon where they were apparently involved in training the militants based there.

Copy of Ein Alaq Bombings Rocks Sad Boushriyeh, 10 Wounded
A powerful blast ripped through an empty bus parked at the entrance to a business center in Sad Boushriyeh northeast of Beirut Monday night, wounding at least ten people, security sources said. The explosion in the residential and industrial Boushriyeh suburb wrecked the bus as well as some 20 cars in the vicinity.
At least 10 shops were destroyed in the bomb near Abdel-Massih Center and Mar Takla church.
One source said the blast was similar to the one that targeted two commuting busses in the town of Ein Alaq on Feb. 13, killing and wounding at least 20 people.
The Ein Alaq twin bombings were blamed by the Lebanese government on the Fatah al-Islam terrorist network which is engaged in a fierce confrontation with the Lebanese army at the northern refugee camp of Nahr al-Bared. Ambulances and fire engines, their sirens wailing, rushed to the scene of the blast minutes after the 8:30 p.m. explosion echoed across the stricken area. Helmeted Lebanese troops set up checkpoints and searched the area for suspects as well as for more bombs.
Lebanon has been hit by a wave of bomb blasts blamed mainly on Fatah al-Islam terrorist network which Lebanese authorities say is affiliated with Syrian military intelligence. Beirut, 04 Jun 07, 21:04

Bush Discusses Lebanon with Hariri as U.S. Mulls More Aid
U.S. President George Bush spoke from Air Force One Monday with legislator Saad Hariri partly about the Lebanese army's showdown with Palestinian militants.
National security adviser Stephen Hadley, speaking to reporters as Bush was traveling to Prague, said that Hariri requested the conversation.
Hadley said Hariri expressed his appreciation for U.S. support for the international tribunal to prosecute suspects in the assassination of his father, former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. "He also expressed appreciation for the support the United States is providing to the Lebanese armed forces as they deal with the security challenge associated with the refugee camp where they are engaged with dealing with extremist forces around that camp," Hadley said.
The United States and allied Arab countries have airlifted ammunition and supplies to help the Lebanese army in its showdown with Fatah al-Islam group in the Palestinian refugee camp of Nahr al-Bared near Tripoli in northern Lebanon. Jund al-Sham militants at the southern refugee camp of Ain al-Hilweh have voiced support for Fatah al-Islam, which has threatened to take the battle outside northern Lebanon. Hadley did not directly answer a question as to whether Hariri had asked for any other help during the phone call. "There is ongoing cooperation between the United States and the Lebanese Armed Forces to identify additional requirements that they need," Hadley said. "Some of those have already been provided; some will be provided in the future." "There are some additional items that are already under consideration that we are talking about with the Lebanese forces," the senior-level Bush adviser said. Hadley gave no specifics but said the discussions were being handled by the Defense Department. He did not characterize Bush's side of the conversation. The call was shortly after Bush took off for Europe, where he will attend a summit meeting of the major industrialized countries later this week in Germany.(AP-Naharnet) Beirut, 05 Jun 07, 07:21

Lebanese Army Not in Hurry to Storm Nahr al-Bared
The Lebanese army was not in a hurry to storm Nahr al-Bared to crush Fatah al-Islam terrorists holding out against the military in a one-square kilometer enclave inside the northern Palestinian refugee camp. The daily An Nahar said Tuesday the army command has urged the Cabinet not to demand an ending date to the military operation on Nahr al-Bared. The military said it was operating according to a "prudent plan" aimed at wiping out Fatah al-Islam militants and, at the same time, safeguarding Palestinian civilians trapped inside Nahr al-Bared, the paper said. Citing well-informed ministerial sources, An Nahar said Lebanese troops and security forces have committed themselves to crushing the Fatah al-Islam terrorist network. The sources said the army command has informed the Cabinet of its willpower to eradicate Fatah al-Islam, not by "invading" the camp, but rather by arresting the militants and handing them over to judicial custody.
A cabinet session late Monday to discuss the military ground offensive against Fatah al-Islam was attended by senior army and police officers.
An Nahar said the officers notified the cabinet ministers about the "military activities" recently observed along the Syrian-Lebanese border.
The sources said "armed members and weapons" that were seen entering the Lebanese territory likely belonged to the Syrian-backed Fatah-Uprising movement and Ahmed Jibril's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command.
Fatah al-Islam militants have been locked up in fierce gunbattles with Lebanese troops in the northern Palestinian refugee camp of Nahr al-Bared since May 20.
The army escalated its ground offensive on Friday after Fatah al-Islam guerrillas, who embrace al-Qaida-style militancy and doctrine, rejected government demands to surrender and vowed to fight to death.
In an apparent attempt to ease the military pressure on allied Fatah al-Islam gunmen, Jund al-Sham Islamic militants opened a new warfront at Ain al-Hilweh, Lebanon's largest refugee camp on the outskirts of the port city of Sidon.
Two Lebanese army soldiers and two Jund al-Sham extremists were killed and 11 people were wounded in the Ain al-Hilweh clashes late Sunday.
Fatah al-Islam deputy commander, Abu Hureira pledged to spread the battle with the Lebanese army to Ain al-Hilweh but said that Jund al-Sham's attacks were not related. Abu Hureira, a Lebanese whose real name is Shehab Qaddour, told the Associated Press his group had members in Ain al-Hilweh but refused to say how many. Palestinian factions, however, met on Monday to contain the Ain al-Hilweh fighting. Three Islamist Palestinian factions formed a joint disengagement force in Ein al-Hilweh to prevent Jund al-Sham from provoking clashes with the Lebanese army. There were no reports of renewed hostilities at the Ein al-Hilweh front.
But sporadic exchanges of machine gun fire and rocket-propelled grenades rattled over Nahr el-Bared on Tuesday. In a related incident, An Nahar said Lebanese troops have arrested a senior Fatah al-Islam leader. It said Bilal Ahmed Ismail, a Palestinian, was detained Monday afternoon as he drove out of Nahr al-Bared in an Palestinian Red Crescent ambulance. Also Tuesday, six Fatah al-Islam fighters surrendered themselves to the mainstream Fatah faction at Nahr al-Bared.

Saudi Arabia Hopeful that Tribunal Will Stop Assassinations
Saudi Arabia has said it hoped the U.N. vote to set up the international that would try ex-Premier Rafik Hariri's suspected assassins would achieve justice and stop further political killings. "The cabinet expressed its hopes that Security Council Resolution 1757... will achieve justice and stop criminal assassinations that have troubled Lebanon and the Lebanese over the past years," the official SPA news agency said following a weekly meeting of the Saudi cabinet.
The legally binding resolution, which was narrowly approved by the U.N. Security Council on May 30 despite five abstentions, sets a June 10 deadline for an agreement on the tribunal to come into force.Saudi Arabia has close ties with the government of Prime Minister Fouad Saniora and has recently significantly increased its diplomatic activity in the region. Ten of the Security Council's 15 members voted in favor of the resolution, with veto-wielding permanent members Russia and China abstaining, along with Indonesia, Qatar and South Africa.(AFP-Naharnet) Beirut, 05 Jun 07, 07:16

Germany Allocates 500,000 Euros for Palestinian Refugees
Germany has pledged 500,000 euros (675,000 dollars) in relief aid for Palestinian refugees caught up in the fighting between Lebanese troops and Fatah al-Islam militants in Lebanon. The move, announced by the German foreign ministry, was in response to a request from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which cares for Palestinian refugees in the area. UNRWA is seeking 12.7 million dollars to help those refugees caught up in the fighting that flared up between Lebanese troop and the Islamist group Fatah al-Islam at the Nahr al-Bared camp near the northern port city of Tripoli. The donation will go towards providing drinking water, medicine and hygiene products. An UNRWA statement said the immediate problem was how to clothe, house and feed the more than 27,000 displaced from Nahr al-Bared. (AFP) Beirut, 05 Jun 07, 12:51

Islamist Disengagement Force to Prevent Clashes at Ein al-Hilweh
Three Islamist Palestinian factions formed a joint disengagement force in south Lebanon's Palestinian refugee camp of Ein al-Hilweh Monday to prevent Jund al-Sham terrorists from provoking clashes with the Lebanese army. The joint force grouped fighters from Usbat al-Ansar, The Islamic Jihadists Movement and Ansar ullah. They deployed in the Taamir sector at the northern entrance to Ein al-Hilweh in the southern provincial capital of Sidon.Witnesses in the camp told Naharnet that Jund al-Sham militants were not seen in the vicinity of the Taamir area after the joint force deployed. The situation was calm after dusk at the camp, they said.
One source said the move was an apparent preemptive effort by Islamist factions to avoid threatening safety of the camp's population, estimated at nearly 90,000 people, and prevent Jund al-Sham from starting more clashes with the army to ease the pressure on allies of Fatah al-Islam in the northern Nahr al-Bared camp.
He said night time is "a major test. If the disengagement force succeeds in preventing renewed clashes, the camp would avoid a fate similar to Nahr al-Bared's."
Jund al-Sham militants fought Lebanese troops in the Taamir sector Sunday and before dawn Monday. The army lost two "martyrs" and two terrorists were killed in the firefight.(AP photo shows a Palestinian man passing by a damaged car as he leaves the Ein el-Hilweh Palestinian refugee camp) Beirut, 04 Jun 07, 20:34

Global dimensions
TODAY'S COLUMNIST
By Walid Phares
June 5, 2007
Washingtom Times
The announcement by U.S. authorities of the arrest of three men and the search for another man, all implicated (allegedly by legal perspective) in a plot to kill thousands of people in and around the JFK International Airport leaves us with at least seven quick lessons. Certainly, the court process and the defense tactics will provide us with further information to evaluate.
However, here areanalytical points to be made, some of which could be seen as very basic.
1) This is an operation (successful or not) that implicated at least three countries in three subcontinents: The United States (North America), Trinidad and Tobago (Caribbean) and Guyana (South America). It means that the terrorists (jihadi ideologically) have staged their activities out of three different countries (including the United States) to launch an attack against America. Hence, the first lesson to draw is that indeed the war with jihadism is a global war on terror, and thus this is an invitation to the U.S. congressional panel and the European Commission, which asked to drop the concept of "global war" with terrorism, to review theirstatement on the matter. For it has been clearly shown, before and after since September 11, that the jihadists, regimes, organizations and individuals are distributed inmultiple countries and are targeting many other countries, hence the global dimension of it.
2) The second lesson is that the Caribbean and South America have indeed became staging grounds for jihadi groups (al Qaeda, other Salafists and Iranian-led groups) to organize, recruit and act. Which necessitates a specific focus by Washingtonand other Latin American and Caribbean allies on jihadi activities in the southern part of the Western Hemisphere. The fact that members of the JFK International Airport plot were from and used Trinidad and Tobago and Guyana as areas of activities signals, along with the known activities in the region, Venezuela, the tri-border zone and other spots, the surge of a continental threat.
3) More specifically, attention must be placed on understanding the jihadi roots across the three states known as the Guyanas. Back in the 1980s, the Gadhafi regime of Libya has invested in networks in the area, particularly in Suriname with influences across the borders. In addition, the Wahhabi powers from Arabia have been funding institutions and groups also since the end of the 1980s. The growth of Salafism and linked radical groups is the direct result of oil-producing regimes' ideological thrust in these areas.
The root causes of potential terror acts in New York or Toronto in this decade have been triggered by a war of ideological indoctrination waged decades ago through this hemisphere. For example, JFK airport suspect Russell Defreitas -- a 63-year-old native of Georgetown, Guyana, a U.S. citizen and a former employee at JFK airport -- had began his jihadi activities decades ago, which is an indication as to the long-term results of a war of ideas triggered even as the Cold War was on. Also note, for example, that Jamaat-al-Muslimeen (JAM), a Trinidad and Tobago Islamic organization that was involved in a coup attempt in 1990 that resulted in the death of 19 persons, was formed years before the end of the Cold War and thus predated al Qaeda's launch. But what links all these activities from Guyana to the islands, all the way to America, is one single ideology: jihadism.
4) A fourth lesson is to realize that while this operation was thankfully thwarted by U.S. authorities, the projection is that other similar operations are theoretically either contemplated or underway by the jihadists. For a jihadi war against democracies (the United States in this case) should not be perceived as one separate act after the other, but dispersed acts connected by one ideology, hence the war-like dimension of the conflict.
The planned attacks against JFK are one form of jihadism, as other forms have been embodied by previously revealed plots, including the Fort Dix, N.J., cell, the Miami group, the Virginia paintball network, the Georgia youth, and many other cases. This lesson is important as it shows citizens, regardless of the elite's debate, the bigger picture in the conflict. It helps them realize that the jihadi motivation against the United States or other countries is older and deeper than all the arguments gathered against the principle of a world mobilization against terrorism.
5) A fifth lesson has to do with the layers of penetration of the systems in the United States and overseas. The various types of jihadi cells, individuals and other self declared groups on all levels of civil society and government is an indicator of the thrust. It also tells us that the counter-terrorism strategies, while spending time and energy on protecting the area under attack (buildings, trains, airports) must dedicate significant time and efforts on tracking the roots of indoctrination. We should not follow the terrorist threat but actually precede it.
6) The so-called link to al Qaeda should not be the measurement of counter-terrorism strategies. Al Qaeda is in the center of the jihadi war against the Free World but doesn't encompass the entire jihadi web. Hence, linked or not to Osama bin laden, the Salafi networks are on the offensive before and most likely after the transformation of al Qaeda. We have seen enough evidence of the growth and development of what some call "homegrown" terror entities. Their travel into the grapevine to reach al Qaeda or not isn't the essence of the campaign; it is the travel by the jihadi ideologues and monies to these elements that needs countering.
7) In this age of cyberspeed and globalization, the dominant assumption in tracking the link, is that efforts to communicate have already been spent between the "homegrown" and the "mothership." For if jihadists from all over the world meet in chat rooms and travel to each other's battlefields, the standing presumption is that an effort was made to establish the link, either from the top toward the bottom, or otherwise. But even if the link was not formalized, the action flows in the same direction. The JFK airport plot at least shows that direction.
8) The Trinidad member of parliament, Abdel Kadir, who is also involved in this operation, is an example of infiltration by the jihadists of governments abroad, and ultimately of governmental institutions at home. It shows the fact that terrorists aren't exclusively outsiders but could also be insiders to governments and their agencies. It further shows one of the jihadists' main goals that is to "place" their cadres inside the layers of government, legislative, executive and potentially judicial.
The limits for such tactics are literally the sky.
***Walid Phares is director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a visiting scholar at the European Foundation for Democracy.

Akkar MP abandons March 14 Forces over 'widening gaps'
Hussein says camp's objectives have changed 'drastically'
Daily Star staff
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
AKKAR: MP Mustafa Hussein, a Future Movement legislator from Akkar, announced on Monday that he was "renouncing" his membership in the ruling March 14 Forces camp. "I am not aligned with the March 14 coalition," Hussein said at a news conference held in his hometown of Tal Abbas in North Lebanon's Akkar region.
The Alawite MP said the objectives of the March 14 camp "differed drastically" from the goals set following the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005. "We were all enthusiastic to join the March 14 group when it was first formed, because it was fighting for reforms and the sovereignty of Lebanon rather than subjecting Lebanon to another form of foreign tutelage," Hussein added.
He described American hegemony over Lebanon as "dangerous," adding that foreign intervention in Lebanese domestic issues "only contributes to widening the gaps between the Lebanese." The March 14 parliamentary majority has lost a number of its MPs over the past two years; however, the previous deputies died - whether of natural causes or in assassinations - whereas Hussein's departure was the first deliberate one.
While Hussein did not say whether he would join the opposition, he did call for the creation of an independent parliamentary bloc to spur "legislative activity and to put an end to any incitement of sectarian bickering, which only serves our enemy Israel."In reaction to Hussein's move, other Future Movement MPs from Akkar said their colleague's decision was "reasonable," because he was under "very much pressure in the last few months."
"Our colleague is free to choose his own way," other Akkar MPs said in a statement on Monday. "He is also free to choose the best means to fight the pressure exerted upon him recently and to protect himself and his family." Deputies Mustafa Hashem, Hadi Hobeish, Riad Rahhal, Azzam Dandashi, Mahmoud Murad and Abdullah Hanna met Monday to discuss Hussein's decision. The legislators said the Akkar parliamentary group was still an "integral" part of the larger Future Movement parliamentary bloc, which is a leading member of the March 14 Forces. The March 14 coalition has 71 MPs in the 128-seat chamber.
The Akkar parliamentarians' statement said residents of the region were clearly aware of the true motives behind Hussein's move, "which were clearly absent from our colleague's news conference." - The Daily Star

Reports outline details of alleged terror plot
'Operation 577' called for large bombings, assassinations of key political and religious figures
Daily Star staff
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
BEIRUT: Fatah al-Islam militants were planning a string of terrorist attacks throughout Lebanon, including attacks on UN offices, large-scale bombings and assassinations, in a plot known as "Operation 577" which was revealed during interrogations of arrested Fatah al-Islam members, London-based Arabic daily Al-Hayat said on Monday.
Citing Lebanese security sources, Al-Hayat said the goal of the plot was to lay the foundation for an "all-Sunni emirate in North Lebanon."
Sources told the newspaper that Al-Qaeda fighters from Iraq made their way to Lebanon through Syria and vowed to conduct a series of terrorist attacks across Lebanon, while Fatah al-Islam leader Shaker Youssef al-Abssi pursued his expansion plans in the North.
The army on Monday continued the offensive against Fatah al-Islam militants hiding in Nahr al-Bared and struck deeper inside the camp.
Also on Monday, the Fatah al-Islam militant group vowed to battle "to the death" and shattered hopes that the siege could be settled politically.
The pan-Arab daily said while Abssi counted on Al-Qaeda mercenaries to join the fight on his side, those same members "let down" Abssi, "because they did not show any sort of cooperation during the continuing fighting between the army and Fatah al-Islam."
Al-Hayat added testimonies of arrested Fatah al-Islam fighters revealed Abssi's intention to launch more attacks against the army which would have a "larger and more violent scope." Testimonies of fighters made available to Al-Hayat showed that Abssi's plan was "doomed to failure because of several factors on the Lebanese as well as Palestinian levels." The same testimonies said groups such as Hizbullah and Amal, in addition to secular Palestinian factions such as Fatah and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, "would not tolerate movements such as Fatah al-Islam expanding and invading their territories."
Local daily Al-Mustaqbal, which is owned by the Hariri family, said Operation 577 aimed "in its preliminary stages" to hit Christian targets.
The group has been blamed for twin bus bombings in Ain Alaq in February which killed three people and wounded more than 20 others.
The operation also plotted the assassinations of Christian political and religious figures such as Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir, MP Butros Harb - a candidate for the presidency - and March 14 Forces MP Hadi Hobeish, Al-Mustaqbal said.
The plot also included attacks on the UN headquarters in Beirut, as well as on the defense and interior ministries and the Phoenicia InterContinental Hotel, the daily said. Al-Mustaqbal also said that the Islamist group "planned to launch attacks on the Chekka tunnel linking Beirut to Tripoli, with the aim of cutting off the North and proclaiming an Islamic state there."
Later on Monday, judiciary sources told The Daily Star that Military Investigative Magistrate Judge Rasheed Mezher questioned 11 Fatah al-Islam suspects Monday after having interviewed nine last week. During preliminary investigations, suspects said the "mastermind" of the terror operation was a Lebanese citizen who fled to Syria after the Nahr al-Bared clashes erupted. The Central News Agency reported Monday that various diplomatic missions in Lebanon "likely to constitute easy targets for terrorist attacks," such as Western embassies and UN centers, "have doubled security measures in their surroundings." - The Daily Star

'Lebanese of all stripes should support the army' - Harb
Tuesday, June 05, 2007-Daily Star
BEIRUT: Reactions to ongoing fighting between the Lebanese Army and Fatah al-Islam militants at the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp continued to flow into the country Monday, after new clashes erupted in another refugee camp one day earlier. Leaders on both sides of Lebanon's political divide expressed unanimous support for the country's armed forces, while many began paying more attention to the conditions of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon.
March 14 Forces MP Boutros Harb said Monday that Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri was willing to work "seriously" on finding ways to bring the Lebanese people together amid such "dangerous" circumstances. After meeting with Berri at his residence in Ain al-Tineh, Harb said the speaker expressed a "positive" stand to collaborate with all parties to tone down "pointed" political statements.
"Lebanese people of all stripes should support the Lebanese Army so it settles the ongoing fighting definitively," he said. "The conspiracy which the army is defying targets all Lebanese parties, sects and regions."
Progressive Socialist Party (PSP) leader Walid Jumblatt said security developments at the Ain al-Hilweh Palestinian refugee camp near Sidon were a bid to confuse the military and sow chaos throughout Lebanon. In his weekly interview with PSP's Al-Anbaa newspaper, Jumblatt said the Lebanese Army "will continue to protect the country," calling for standing united behind it regardless of deep "political discord."
"Perplexing the army by waging battles on several fronts aims to bringing Lebanon into chaos to achieve the goals of some regional regimes," Jumblatt said.
Clashes erupted between the Lebanese Army and the Jund al-Sham militant group in Ain al-Hilweh Sunday, raising fears among residents of the camp that such clashes might develop into continued gunbattles similar to those in Nahr al-Bared.
Jumblatt praised Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) representative in Lebanon Abbas Zaki for calling on officials to address Lebanese-Palestinian relations.
"Reorganizing relations between Lebanese and Palestinian parties promotes our common rejection of settling the Palestinians and improving their social conditions," Jumblatt said. Meanwhile, Zaki said Monday the PLO had taken certain measures to "isolate" what he described as the Fatah al-Islam "phenomenon," while expressing support for the steps taken by the Lebanese government. Separately, Premier Fouad Siniora met with a delegation from Al-Jamaa al-Islamiyya at the Grand Serail on Monday. Ali Sheikh Ammar, head of the group's politburo, said there was a Lebanese-Palestinian consensus that all officials assume responsibility for guaranteeing the Ain al-Hilweh clashes would not occur again. The delegation also met with Future Movement leader MP Saad Hariri.
"Al-Jamaa al-Islamiyya will try to settle the situation in Palestinian camps by holding talks with all Lebanese parties," Ammar said. Meanwhile, Fatah commander in Lebanon Sultan Abu al-Aynayn said "we do not accept that our camps to become a base or passage for attacks on civil peace in a country embracing our Palestinian people." Speaking after meeting with Hizbullah commander in the South Sheikh Nabil Qaouk, Abu al-Aynayn said: "We are looking forward to restoring security to Nahr al-Bared and all Palestinian camps. We do not want our camps to constitute a burden on civil peace in Lebanon."
Former President Amin Gemayel urged Palestinian factions to translate their "positive" stands into measures to be taken in collaboration with the Lebanese government.
"A dialogue ought to be launched between the government and Palestinian Authority to guarantee the interests of both parties while preserving Lebanon's security," Gemayel said. Reform and Change parliamentary bloc MP Farid Khazen expressed support for the Lebanese Army in its battle against Fatah al-Islam militants, saying it had "fully" accomplished its missions. "The army deserves full support," Khazen told Voice of Lebanon radio on Monday. "It does not need political and
verbal support only - we need to provide it with the neces-sary equipment."Khazen said clashes in Ain al-Hilweh "confirm that the other party is in a state of defeat, because it has tried to wage a battle on another front."

UN assessment team inspects border at Masnaa
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
The UN's Lebanon Independent Border Assessment Team toured the border at Masnaa on Monday and met with security officials there as part of its mission to evaluate border-monitoring capacities along the Lebanese-Syrian border. The Central News Agency quoted a security source as saying the team compared border markers between Lebanon and Syria to maps which the group had in a bid to detect any violations of those markers. The team might set up modern surveillance cameras to monitor sneaking and arms-smuggling operations, the source said. The team also visited the Customs Authority's Bekaa regional office in Chtaura.

40 years on – Shebaa’s farmers still live in hope
Published: Tuesday, 5 June, 2007, 02:02 AM Doha Time
By Weedah Hamzah
SHEBAA FARMS, Lebanon: Abu Ahmed Hashem hopes that he will see the land he inherited from his grandfathers before he dies. The 87-year-old lives in the disputed area of Shebaa at the border between Lebanon and Israel, north of the Golan Heights.
He refuses to show his land on the map, but insists we walk with him to what he describes “the Israeli gate” of Shebaa.
Walking with his cane, Abu Ahmed proudly points through the fence towards a piece of land at the Israeli side and says, “This is my land. It has been under occupation since 1967, forty years ago.”
“Look at that piece of land where you see green grass: this is my land. I inherited this from my grandfathers,” he adds. “My only wish is that the Israelis would allow me to touch its soil with my hands again.”
Despite the hot summer sun, Abu Ahmed stands pointing at the Israeli post which overlooks his land.
“They are (Israelis), they’re watching us now. They know me very well by now, I come here at every chance I have to gaze at my land from a distance.”
Abu Ahmed and other farmers his age insist that their land has been Lebanese for generations. After the 1950s, taxes collected in the area had been paid to the Lebanese government, and a large amount of documentary evidence dating back to the 1930s places the farms under Lebanese jurisdiction.
The evidence includes bills of sale and title deeds, which Abu Ahmed shows every journalist who approaches him.
“I showed these documents to the UN inspecting team and they asked for copies,” he says.
Yehia Zakaria, a teacher from Shebaa who lives in Beirut, is responsible for gathering such information and presenting it to United Nations officials who come to the area. “Those documents are not fake and they show that the land is Lebanese,” he said.
Shebaa Farms has been held by Israel since the end of the 1967 Six Day War. The Israelis claim they occupied the farms from Syria and that its fate should be discussed in future peace talks between the Israeli government and Damascus.
“The internationally-recognised border between Lebanon and Israel is based on the boundary line between Palestine, Syria and Lebanon surveyed by Britain and France in 1923,” said Yehia.
This same border was established as the Armistice Demarcation Line (ADL) by the Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement signed on March 23, 1949. Until 1978, neither Lebanon nor Israel occupied any territory in violation of this demarcation line.
When Israeli forces invaded southern Lebanon in 1978, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 425, which called upon Israel to “withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory” and established the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil) “for the purpose of confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces.”
The official position of the UN has always been that Resolution 425 required Israeli forces to withdraw to the pre-1978 line of separation, that is, to the 1949 ADL.
But in late 1999, Lebanon, under pressure from Syria, the country’s then powerbroker, began to make territorial claims to villages in the Shebaa Frams area.
When UN surveyors marked the Blue Line between Lebanon and Israel in the summer of 2000 after the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon, they determined that the Shebaa Farms villages were on the Israeli side.
This position prompted Lebanon’s Shia Hezbollah organisation to announce they would continue their fight against Israeli soldiers, citing Israel’s failure to fulfil UN resolution 425, and leave the area of Shebaa in 2000.
Today the Western-backed government of Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora is working with the UN to find a settlement which will place Shebaa under UN control, thus paving a way toward deciding on the fate of Hezbollah weapons.
“There is an international concern toward solving the issue of the Shebaa Farms; political preparations are underway in this direction to meet Lebanon’s demand,” a source close to Siniora said in an interview.
Siniora said last month that Lebanon wants to place Shebaa Farms under UN jurisdiction since Syria had refused to co-operate on the issue.
In June 2006, former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan sent a letter to Siniora saying that in order to transfer the sovereignty of Shebaa Farms to Lebanon there should be a border delineation agreement between Lebanon and Syria. However, Syrian President Bashar Assad has refused to do so until Israeli troops withdraw.
According to observers in Shebaa, ending the Shebaa Farms’ dispute would leave “the door wide open toward finalising the fate of Hezbollah arms.”
Resolution 1701, which led to the August 14, 2006 truce that ended a month of warfare between Israel and Hezbollah, calls for the disarmament of all groups in Lebanon. However, Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah has said on several occasions, “we will not lay down our arms if a piece of land inside Lebanon is still under Israeli occupation.” But despite the obstacles facing the Shebaa issue, Abu Ahmed and other farmers are hopeful that they will be able to visit their long-lost land before they die. “I will stay hopeful that God will reward me before I die to visit my land,” says Abu Ahmed as he looks onto to the land.
“At the end, whether anyone considers the territory Lebanese or Syrian, the Israelis know they have no sovereignty over it, so either way Israel should withdraw and return it to us,” he adds. – DPA

Amid General Amnesia
By HILLEL HALKIN
June 5, 2007
Today is the 40th anniversary of the Six Day War, which broke out on June 5, 1967 and ended less than a week later with a spectacular Israeli victory over the combined forces of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan that changed the map of the Middle East. And yet it's a curious thing: Although the map that was changed had been in existence for less than 20 years, starting with Israel's war of independence between 1948 and 1949, and more than twice as many years have gone by since then, it continues to be regarded by the world as the "right" map while the map that replaced it is considered a temporary aberration that needs to be canceled or reversed.
The same holds true for many Israelis' view of their own country. Particularly on the Israeli Left, one still hears pre-1967 Israel spoken of as the "real" Israel that should be longed for and returned to — an Israel of supposed democratic values, humanistic principles, and equal rights as opposed to the occupying power of the past four decades. Yet only those who have had 40 years in which to forget could romanticize the past in this way
Although it was not in occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, or the Golan Heights, the Israel of the years before 1967 was in many ways, not a more, but a less democratic society than it is today. There was far less economic freedom, less freedom of speech, and less freedom of religion; military censorship of the press still existed. Israel's Arab citizens, in some ways, were treated no better than how the Palestinians of the occupied territories are today.
Not many people may remember it, but from 1948 until shortly before the Six Day War, most of Israel's Arabs, though they had the right to vote, were subject to military rule and could not even travel freely from place to place without a permit.
Similarly, the world has forgotten what the pre-1967 map was really like. Far from being demarcated by clear and accepted borders, it showed Israel separated from Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon by mere armistice lines, frontiers created by the ceasefire that ended the 1948-1949 war and considered temporary by all Arab countries, not one of which recognized Israel and all of which looked forward openly to its destruction — an easily imaginable eventuality in view of the fact that these frontiers narrowed to a few miles' width along the Mediterranean coastal plain where Israel's population was most concentrated.
In the meantime, Israel's Arab neighbors sealed them off as if they were not borders but prison walls, refusing to let Israelis cross them for any purpose while letting armed fedayeen foray into Israel to kill and commit acts of terror.
Nor did the rest of the world necessarily consider these frontiers permanent, either. In the early 1950s, for example, the foreign minister of Britain, Anthony Eden, hatched a plan, seriously weighed by the U.S. secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, according to which Israel would cede a large part of its southern Negev — territory entirely within the 1948 armistice lines — to Egypt in order to give the latter territorial contiguity with Jordan and the eastern half of the Arab world.
Such were the "good old days" before the Six Day War broke out — a war, today widely considered to be the root of all the evil in today's Middle East, that the weak of memory now assume must have been Israel's fault, since who can believe that the Arabs chose to provoke an armed conflict in which they were routed from tens of thousands of square kilometers of territory within a few days?
Who? Well, for starters, anyone who was actually alive in 1967 and hasn't joined in, or been brainwashed by, the rewriting of history that has taken place since then.
You don't have to have total recall to recollect that the 1967 crisis began when Egypt sent its troops into what was supposed to be a demilitarized Sinai, out of which it booted a U.N. policing force, and imposed a naval blockade on the Israeli port of Eilat; that as the crisis escalated, Arab mobs took to the streets everywhere, screaming for Israel's immediate annihilation; that Israel's political leadership, desperate to avoid a war it didn't want, begged the international community to find a solution while refusing to heed its generals' demand for a preventive strike; and that even after this strike took place in the form of the demolition of Egypt's air force and the blitzkrieg in Sinai, the war spread to Israel's eastern and northern fronts only after Jordan and Syria opened fire on Israel first.
It is amazing how little of this is now remembered, just as it is no longer remembered that immediately after the June 1967 war, Israel was ready to return nearly all of the land conquered by it in return for peace and was answered by a monolithic Arab refusal to negotiate, accompanied by a partial recommencement of hostilities by Egypt in the so-called 1968-1970 "War of Attrition" — a war that has also disappeared from the world's consciousness amid the general amnesia.
History, it is said, is written by the winners, but the history of the 1967 war and what came before it has been so successfully written by the losers that the winners' account is scoffed at incredulously today even by supposedly knowledgeable people. Forty years after it took place, the world has gone steadily backwards in its understanding of how and why it did.
***Mr. Halkin is a contributing editor of The New York Sun.

Who deters whom?
By Moshe Arens
Haaretz June 05/07
In the early years of its existence Israel was unable to deter its enemies from launching attacks against it - they perceived it as too weak and consequently the state became the victim of successive Arab attacks. In their view, the balance of power between Israel and the Arab world made it appear possible that Arab strength was sufficient to decisively defeat Israel in a military confrontation and thereby put an end to its existence. They felt that if they were not successful the first time round, they had good reason to try again. This was still the case after Israel's dramatic victory in the 1967 Six-Day War, the third round of Arab-Israel military confrontation, which was followed by the three "nos" of the Arab League meeting in Khartoum and by the Egyptian war of attrition, launched shortly after the country was defeated by Israel.
It was only after its victory in the Yom Kippur War that Israel attained a substantial deterrent power. Having attacked Israel under seemingly optimal conditions, simultaneously from north and south, and catching it by surprise, the Arab states were surprised to find the Israel Defense Forces 101 kilometers from Cairo and within artillery range of Damascus after three weeks of fighting. This victory was proof enough that the Arab armies did not have the capability to defeat Israel on the battlefield. "Victory" celebrations, held in Egypt after the war, sufficed for public relations purposes, and even today visitors are still taken to Cairo's "victory museum." But the truth had impacted where it mattered the most - at the decision-making level. Israel's deterrent power, the result of the IDF's 1973 victory, lasted almost 35 years. It began to lose some of its effectiveness only after the Second Lebanon War, as demonstrated by the recent Syrian rhetoric - the type of which has not been heard since the end of the Yom Kippur War - concerning the possibility of war with Israel if peace is not achieved.
But during the last few years, far more than Israel's deterrent power against possible aggression by Arab armies has been called into question. Whereas Israel has never been able to deter terrorist organizations from attacking Israeli civilians, for the simple reason that terrorists, by their nature, cannot be deterred, during recent years, Israel itself has been deterred from acting, fearing the terrorist response to Israeli anti-terrorist moves. Have the tables been turned? Is Israel now the one being deterred from taking actions against its enemies in defense of its interests, and in particular, in defense of its civilian population, rather than succeeding in deterring its enemies, as was the case in the past?
Terrorists cannot be deterred. Their specific location is usually unknown, and punitive blows directed at the public that supports them tend to be counterproductive by creating additional support and sympathy for the terrorists throughout the world. Terrorists have to be fought. Contrary to the oft-repeated, inane slogan that terrorism cannot be defeated by force, in the period between 2002-2005, the IDF and Israel's security services illustrated that terrorists can be fought effectively and can even be defeated. As Israel's experience in Judea and Samaria has shown during those years, it requires the presence of forces on the ground - it cannot be accomplished by remote control.
The situation is exactly the reverse when the fight against the terrorists is conducted from a distance, as was the case with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon after the unilateral Israeli retreat from the security zone in 2000, and as is currently the case in the Gaza Strip after the disengagement. But worse yet, in the absence of forces on the ground, the terrorists are able to amass an arsenal of rockets capable of hitting civilian targets in Israel, while they themselves hunker down in bunkers and fortifications that are likely to make a return to these areas by the IDF both difficult and costly. In other words, the terrorists have now achieved a deterrent capability, and the anti-terrorist forces are wary of tangling with them. Thus, Israel was deterred from going after Hezbollah after the withdrawal from southern Lebanon, despite the dire warnings issued by Ehud Barak concerning the reprisals that would follow any Hezbollah provocations. In the same manner, Hamas now deters Israel from going after its fighters in Gaza, despite the daily rocketing of Sderot. A sovereign country cannot permit this kind of imbalance to maintain for any amount of time without suffering severe damage

Canadian woman's family offers reward to find daughter missing in Syria
Lorrayne Anthony,Canadian Press
Published: Monday, June 04, 2007
TORONTO (CP) - More than two months after a Vancouver woman went missing in the Middle East, her family is offering a 1-million Syrian pound reward for any information that may lead to finding her. While the money - about $25,000 Cdn - isn't a fortune in Syria, it may lead to some information on Nicole Vienneau's whereabouts. "Essentially, enough money so that if someone has to snitch on their neighbour, they can get out of the country," said Nicole's brother, Matthew Vienneau, in Toronto. Her mother, Kathryn Murray, is hopeful, and said the reward may be the way to get information that has so far eluded officials in Syria.
"At this point we are looking for leads and anything that helps us get a lead, you know, whether somebody has seen her backpack, or her camera, or sunglasses, or hat, or knows somebody that knows something," said Murray. "Any way we can get at it is important now." Matthew Vienneau and his girlfriend met up with Nicole, 29, in Cairo in February and the three travelled through Egypt for three weeks. The couple returned to their home in Toronto while Nicole continued her Middle East trek.
Nicole, a world traveller, has kept in touch with family and friends though e-mails every two weeks during her past treks. In fact, it was a rule her parents imposed when she went on her first adventure shortly after high school.
On her jaunt through Jakarta - before the Internet was so widely available - Nicole failed to call her mom after a two-week period, so Murray called the embassy.
Turns out she was on an island where there were no telephones. "We told her 'Well you knew what the rule was. You will now be stopped at every border check for the rest of your holiday because your passport is on alert. . . the rest of her trip was hell," Murray said. After that incident, Murray said she never missed the two-week rule even if she only had two seconds to say: "I'm alive. I have to go." But e-mail made keeping contact with her daughter a lot easier.
So when an Easter greeting e-mail went unanswered, Murray was concerned. The minute she didn't make the two-week check-in, her mother called the embassy.
Since then, Nicole's travelling gear and journal were found at the hotel in Syria where she was staying. Vienneau travelled to Syria with Nicole's longtime partner, Gary Schweitzer, to see what information they could find. In Syria, the two men contacted officials in Damascus and spoke with foreign affairs in Ottawa and with the RCMP. After weeks of asking questions and trying to retrace Nicole's steps, they learned she left a hotel north of Damascus on March 31 to embark on a day trip to examine ruins about 60 kilometres away. Both Vienneau and Schweitzer returned to Canada without a clear picture of why she never came back from the day trip.
Vienneau said the family just wants to know what has happened to her.
"We honestly hope she's alive and available and can be found and she'll be okay," he said. "The reality of 65 days make it increasingly unlikely . . . On the other hand, I mean, we don't have a body yet." In addition to the reward posters, Vienneau has a blog with daily entries to update the public on Nicole's case. But other than well wishes from strangers, the blog has yielded nothing to locate his sister. He is contemplating making her journal entries available online, hoping to tweak memories of any travellers who may have seen her. Not satisfied to leave it in cyberspace, Nicole's mother is planning to travel to Damascus to make a plea to the Syrian people.
"We want to keep it in the forefront of people's minds," said said. "We've talked with the embassy and they think it's a good idea if the parents show up," she said.
Murray has heard that parents are held in high esteem in the Middle East. She's hoping her visit will carry more weight with the Syrian people.
"They have found absolutely nothing, which suggests that there is a very good chance she still is alive," she said. "If she was not alive then they would have possibly recovered a body. "We will keep searching till we find her."
© The Canadian Press 2007

Remembering The Six-Day War
By David Meir-Levi
FrontPageMagazine.com | June 5, 2007
By late 1949, Israel’s willingness to accept the UN partition plan, to establish peace with its neighbors, and to repatriate refugees were all for naught. The Arab world, and especially the five confrontation states -- Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq -- insisted that although they had lost ‘round one,’ there would be another, and if need be, another, and another, until the Zionist entity was destroyed.
So Israel set about building itself into a 20th century, democratic, technologically advanced Western state with a strong army. It absorbed more than 800,000 Jewish refugees who were forcibly expelled, penniless, from their ancestral habitations in Arab countries. It focused on developing its economy, creating an infrastructure that rivaled western states, establishing 5 world-class universities, and extending a broad network of social services to all of its citizenry, Jewish, Christian, and Moslem. As the population swelled, settlements in the Negev and Galilee grew in size and number. The port of Eilat at Israel’s southernmost tip opened trade via the Red Sea with the Far East.
But the Arab states were not joking when they promised “round 2.” Unable as yet to mount another hot war, Egypt perpetrated a legal act of war (casus beli) by closing the Straits of Tiran, thus denying Israel any access to the Far East from Eilat. Egypt also supported the fedayyin (‘redeemers’, ‘freedom fighters’), a terrorist movement in the Arab refugee camps of the Gaza strip. These terrorists perpetrated almost 9,000 attacks against Israel between 1949 and 1956, concentrating primarily on civilian targets. Hundreds of Israelis died, and thousands were injured. Israel’s policy was to retaliate by mounting ‘pin point’ attacks against Egypt’s military emplacements, rather than against the refugee camps in which the terrorists hid. Without actually adumbrating it, Israel presaged President Bush’s doctrine of 9/11/01: any country that harbors and abets terrorism is itself a terrorist country and, thus, a legitimate target in the war against terrorism. By attacking military targets (and avoiding countless civilian deaths), Israel tried to force the Egyptian government to dismantle the terrorist fedayyin. It didn’t work.
In 1956, France and England induced Israel to join them in a war against Egypt. These two European powers wanted control of the Suez canal; and they had their own foreign policy reasons for desiring the overthrow of Egyptian President Nasser. Israel was to handle the ground war, and thus end the fedayyen threat, while England and France would offer air support. Israel’s Suez war was a brilliant military success. The whole of the Sinai was captured in a few days. But under pressure from US President Eisenhower, France and England withdrew their air support. Due to foreign policy and Cold War considerations, Eisenhower and the USSR threatened Israel with an invasion unless it withdrew from the Sinai. Within a few weeks, Israel had retreated, and the Sinai was unilaterally returned to Egypt, without any negotiations or peace agreements. But Nasser did agree to have a UN peacekeeping force in the Sinai, to keep the Straits of Tiran open and to refrain from any military build-up at Israel’s western border. It took less than ten years for this arrangement to unravel.
Inter-Arab rivalries during these ten years pitted Egypt against Syria, and Egyptian military interference with domestic troubles in Yemen (including the use of poison gas against civilians) had Egypt at odds with Saudi Arabia. Soon, in the context of these tensions, a number of Arab states accused Egypt of “hiding behind the skirts of the UN” instead of preparing for ‘round 3’ against Israel. As a result, Nasser began a major military build-up, with the assistance of the USSR, including the illegal construction of ground-to-ground missiles in the Sinai.
In April, 1967, the Soviets in the UN accused Israel of mounting a massive military build-up on the Syrian border. Israel denied the accusation and invited the USSR to send observers to verify the truth. The USSR refused. But the UN, under Secretary General U-Thant of Burma, sent a commission to investigate. It quickly ascertained that the Soviets were lying. There was no Israeli military massing at Syria’s gates. The reason for the Soviet deception is a matter of speculation. Most historians assume that the USSR wanted to spark a war that they were sure the Arabs would win, thanks to the armaments that the USSR had provided them. Such an outcome would cement Soviet relationships with the Arab world and push the US onto the sidelines in the Middle East.
The Arab states used the Soviet ploy as an opportunity to regroup for ‘round 3’. First, in mid-May, Egypt, Syria and Jordan formed a mutual defense pact against Israel. Then Egypt closed the straits of Tiran and expelled the UN peacekeeping forces. U-Thant very surprisingly removed the UN troops within a few days, leaving the field open to Nasser and his war machine. For that, U-Thant earned the sobriquet "bungling Burmese." Then Egypt engaged in illegal violation of Israel’s air space with aerial spying by means of fly-overs in the area of Dimona where Israel had its nuclear reactor. Finally, Egypt mobilized its troops and massed armored brigades on the Israeli border. By June 1, the stage was set for war; and Nasser began announcing to the world that it was finally time for the Zionist stain on Arab honor to be expunged with Jewish blood.
With missiles only minutes away from major Israeli cities, troops and armor and air force of hostile nations primed for attack on three separate fronts; the Straits of Tiran closed; the Arab world clamored for the destruction of Israel and the butchery of its Jewish inhabitants, while Israel approached the UN, USA, France and UK in search of diplomatic solutions. Israel’s President made a groveling speech at the UN in which he implored the Arab states, especially Egypt, to pull back from the brink of war.
It is important to understand that at this point Egypt had perpetrated six specific actions which, in international law, qualify as casus belli, legal justification for war.
Conspiring with other belligerent countries (in this case, Syria and Jordan) for a coordinated attack.
Closing Israel’s access to international waterways (the straits of Tiran).
Violating the terms of the 1956 armistice by re-militarizing the Sinai.
Expelling the UN and USA peace-keeping troops form the Sinai.
Perpetrating illegal spy-plane fly-overs to reconnoiter Israeli sensitive areas.
Massing troops and tanks on Israel’s borders.
Israel could have legally launched a defensive war after any one of these casus belli. It chose, instead, to try diplomacy, which not only failed to resolve the problem, but gave Egypt and Syria time to accelerate their own preparations for invasion.
Finally, in the early morning of June 5, when Israeli intelligence indicated that Egypt was about to attack, Israel launched its pre-emptive strike. In doing so, it applied the Kennedy doctrine developed during the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962): no state need wait until attacked before taking defensive action. The Soviet missiles in Cuba were adequate provocation for the US blockade. The Arabs’ massive build-up and threats of annihilation were adequate provocation for Israel’s attack.
On 6/5/1967, in a pre-dawn raid, Israeli jets destroyed almost all the fighter planes of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq before their pilots could get them off the ground. With most of their air forces a smoldering wreck, the Arabs had lost the war almost as soon as it had begun. Arab armor without air cover was destroyed by Israeli planes; and Arab infantry without armor was no match for the Israeli land forces. In six days, Israel re-gained the Sinai, drove the Jordan Legion from the West Bank, and took control of the Golan Heights within artillery range of Damascus. Suddenly there was a new order in the Middle East.
Israel had done much more than is generally acknowledged to avoid this war. It struck only after working for weeks under threat of annihilation to exhaust all reasonable diplomatic channels, and after begging the Arab states to honor their cease-fire agreements. But even more compelling, unnoticed by many but thoroughly documented in diplomatic archives is the communication between the Israeli government and King Hussein of Jordan. On Tuesday, June 5, several hours AFTER the Jordan Legion had begun its bombardment of Jerusalem and Petakh Tikvah, Israel sent a message via the Rumanian Embassy to King Hussein. The message was short and clear: stop the bombardment now and we will not invade the West Bank.
But King Hussein had already received a phone call from Nasser. This call was monitored by the Israeli Secret Service. Even though he knew that his air force was in ruins, Nasser told Hussein that Egyptian planes were over Tel Aviv and his armor was advancing on Israeli positions. Hussein believed him, and disregarded Israel’s plea. Had Hussein listened to Israel, the West Bank would still be in Jordanian hands. Instead, he sent his troops into the Israeli section of Jerusalem. Only AFTER its territorial integrity in Jerusalem was violated did Israel mount an assault on the Jordanian West Bank.
A few days after the UN cease fire of 6/11/67, Abba Eban, Israel’s representative at the UN, made his famous speech. He held out the olive branch to the Arab world, inviting Arab states to join Israel at the peace table, and informing them in unequivocal language that everything but Jerusalem was negotiable. Territories taken in the war could be returned in exchange for formal recognition, bi-lateral negotiations, and peace.
Israel wanted peace. Israel offered land in exchange for peace. As Lord Carendon, the UK representative at the UN, noted with considerable surprise after Abba Eban’s speech, never in the history of warfare did the victor sue for peace -- and the vanquished refuse.
Twice within a few weeks of the war’s end, the USSR and the Arab Bloc floated motions in the UN General Assembly declaring that Israel was the aggressor. Both motions were roundly defeated. At that time, the world knew that the Arabs were the aggressors, and that Israel, victim of aggression, had sued for peace both before the war and after their amazing victory.
Unable to brand Israel the aggressor, and in disarray following Israel’s public request for peace and reconciliation, The Arab world faced what for it was a difficult choice. Recognize Israel, negotiate for the return of conquered territories, and make peace…or not.
Rather than respond to Israel’s invitation, the Arab states met in Khartoum, Sudan, for a conference in August, 1967. They unanimously decided in favor of the now famous three Khartoum “NO’s”: No recognition, No negotiation, No peace. This was only round 3. The Arab world could suffer many more defeats before its ultimate victory. Israel could suffer only one defeat. Better that Israel hold on to the territories taken in the war. Better that the refugees continue languishing in their squalor and misery. Better that the Arab states re-arm for round 4…than to recognize Israel’s right to exist or negotiate toward a peaceful settlement of the conflict.
With the Khartoum “NO’s”, the Arab world forced Israel to unwillingly assume control over the approximately million Arabs living in the West Bank, Golan Heights, Sinai and Gaza Strip.
**David Meir-Levi lectures in English, Hebrew, and Spanish and is a contributor to Frontpagemag.com.