LCCC ENGLISH NEWS BULLETIN
October 31/06
Biblical Reading For today
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 13,10-17.
He was teaching in a synagogue on the sabbath. And a woman was there who for eighteen years had been crippled by a spirit; she was bent over, completely incapable of standing erect. When Jesus saw her, he called to her and said, "Woman, you are set free of your infirmity." He laid his hands on her, and she at once stood up straight and glorified God. But the leader of the synagogue, indignant that Jesus had cured on the sabbath, said to the crowd in reply, "There are six days when work should be done. Come on those days to be cured, not on the sabbath day." The Lord said to him in reply, "Hypocrites! Does not each one of you on the sabbath untie his ox or his ass from the manger and lead it out for watering? This daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has bound for eighteen years now, ought she not to have been set free on the sabbath day from this bondage?"When he said this, all his adversaries were humiliated; and the whole crowd rejoiced at all the splendid deeds done by him.
Elias Bejjani's General Michele Aoun's Questionable Sincerity editorial in foreign media 31.10.06*Global Politician *Canada Free Press *World Forum
Free Opinions & Studies
Trust is the Foundation of Consultations- By: Elias Harfouch 31.10.06Who Betrayed Lebanon?theOneRepublic -By: by Dan Gordon 31.10.06
Defining the Jihadist Threat-eTalkinghead.By: By Philip Mella 31.10.06
US military might is no substitute for coherent foreign policy-Daily Star 31.10.06
Talking turkey about Armenian history-By Christopher Atamian 30.10.06
Latest New from miscellaneous sources for October 31/06
Shebaa Farms to be demarcated, as UN meets to discuss Resolution 1559
Hizbullah warns of resignations, protests if demands for unity government not met
UNICEF spearheads polio vaccination drive
Israeli Supreme Court considerscommission to review war conduct
Israel sorry for 'misunderstandings' in shooting incidents with Germans
Basil Fuleihan institute celebrates 10th anniversary
Lahoud suggests changes to Hariri tribunal
Rights groups detail Israeli, Hizbullah legal violationsParis donor conference pushed back to end of January
National card tournament aims to build bridges
Army official visits Ain al-Hilweh in run-up to Taamir deployment
Tiny assassins: Cluster munitions keep on killing
US military might is no substitute for coherent foreign policy
Latest New from miscellaneous sources for October 31/06UN to map disputed Shaba farms area on Israel-Lebanon border-Ha'aretz
Syria, Iran highlight constant consultation on issues of common ...Xinhua - China
Israelis put nuclear bunkers in gardens-Times Online
Push for world pressure on Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran-Indianapolis Star
Shift in Lebanon's sectarian politics-BBC News
Germany confirms new Lebanon incident with Israel-Reuters
Patriarchs Blame Political Turmoil for Christian Exodus from ...The Universe
Shift in Lebanon's sectarian politics-BBC News
Ottawa paid $31M for part of Lebanon evacuation: CBC-CBC Nova Scotia
Hezbollah says to seek new govt by all legal means-Reuters
Lebanon president shuns court draft-United Press International
Al-Manar Slams March 14 Forces as 'Devils', Hizbullah Gives One-Week Deadline for Roundtable Talks
Naharnet: Hizbullah's television channel has ultimately stepped up its attacks on the March 14 Forces calling them "devils" and warning that the Shiite party will give roundtable talks a one-week deadline to drag Lebanon out of its political impasse. In its Sunday evening newscast, Al-Manar channel quoted leading sources in Hizbullah and the FPM as saying that they "will not accept other than the remaining week for consultations after it (dialogue) has been postponed for a week." Speaker Nabih Berri, who has put off roundtable talks on a national unity government for a week ostensibly because three key members of the political elite are abroad, has set a maximum 15-day consultation period. The new date was set for Monday Nov. 6 after Druze leader Walid Jumblat, former President Amin Gemayel and Parliament's majority leader Saad Hariri have apologized from attending the session that was first scheduled for Monday Oct. 30 for travel obligations.Berri told An Nahar on Sunday that he preferred the presence of "first rank" leaders rather than representatives because talks among "second rank" politicians would slow the consultation process on the national unity government and the reformation of the electoral law. Those two issues are key demands of pro-Syrian Hizbullah, which fought a summer war with Israel, and the FPM, the party's close political ally. Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and Aoun have been recently calling for the resignation of Premier Fouad Saniora's government. They were among the top 14 leaders who took part in reconciliation talks, launched early March.
Al-Manar accused the anti-Syrian March 14 Forces of "betting, for example, on regional developments that could lead to a possible American offensive against the Islamic Republic (of Iran)." Without directly naming Hizbullah and its allies, the television station said that the March 14 coalition was "terrified of popular anger."Al-Manar also quoted Hizbullah's executive chairman Sayyed Hisham Safieddine as saying that the national unity government was "on its way to being accomplished," adding that "there is no way that anyone could try to eradicate or run away from this reality."
In the meantime, Lebanon's influential Maronite patriarch Nasrallah Butors Sfeir has said that certain parties in the country are trying to bring Lebanon back to the era of Syrian tutelage. Without identifying them, Sfeir attacked pro-Syrian parties, saying: "What we are hearing nowadays is very worrisome. The Lebanese society is divided and there are those who are working toward returning the country to the age of tutelage." Syria withdrew from Lebanon in April 2005 following local and international pressure in the aftermath of ex-Premier Rafik Hariri's assassination.(Naharnet file photo shows Al-Manar newsroom) Beirut, 30 Oct 06, 10:36
Can Bush Bring Down Syrian Regime?
Sunday, October 29th, 2006
Jim Lobe once again has the best article summing up how "Bush Is Under Growing Pressure to Engage Syria" October 28, 2006. He maintains that the hawks centered in the National Security Council, particularly Elliot Abrams, and Vice President Dick Cheney's office, notably his national security adviser, John Hannah, and Middle East specialist, David Wurmser, have enough clout to fight back the growing tide of heavy-weights in the administration who want to engage Syria. They are the crowd that has been most adamant about bringing regime-change to Syria. The silent treatment that Syria is getting from the Bush administration is designed to keep the regime-change option open. The moment dialogue begins with Syria, the train will have left the station and the regime-change crowd will have to wave their hankies and wipe the tears from their eyes, as they watch Syria's Baathist regime ride out of the station into a future that will be brighter for it.
This small handful of hawks would not have the muscle to hold back the growing tide of logic suggesting the US engage Syria and if President Bush were not four square behind them. Bush gave a long and rambling press conference to a handful of conservative journalists this Wednesday in which he made it clear that he believes America is winning in Iraq and can stay the course. Dan Fromkin in the Washington Post does an excellent job of explaining "Why Bush Thinks We're Winning," in which he parses the president's words.So how does the NSC and Defense Department think they are going to further isolate Bashar al-Asad and bring down his regime?
Muslim Brotherhood:
One method is to open a dialogue with the Muslim Brotherhood and ex-Vice President Khaddam who combined forces a year ago to form the National Salvation Front or NSF. The Levant Institute in London, which is connected to the Muslim Brothers, has announced that Michael Doran of the National Security Council (He was hired by Elliott Abrams) "met with members of the National Salvation Front on Thursday October 26 and discussed possibilities of meeting with the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood leadership in the future."
Farid Ghadry in his most recent circulars has been rather upset by this news. He is no longer the preferred Syrian opposition member. Last week, Ghadry sent around a circular claiming that Ammar Abdulhamid was opening an office in Washington for the NSF. Ammar and the Brookings Institute, where Ammar is a non-resident fellow, denied it.
Nevertheless, Ammar explained on Monday Oct. 23 to the audience at the Brookings Institute that although he is in no way officially connected to the NSF office that will be opened, he will be assisting the NSF in making contact with administration figures, which he has done in facilitating the meeting with Doran. The NSF is opening an office in Washington and will be doing the same in European capitals. If Washington is interested in democracy, it will have to turn to the Muslim Brotherhood, the most respected and deep-rooted Islamist party in Syria and throughout the Middle East.
Even if the Bush administration is merely interested in regime-change, it will have to turn to the MB if it hopes to have any chance of success. Even then, the Brotherhood is weak. Although it can tap into the broad and growing current of Islamist thought in Syria, the MB was destroyed institutionally by the regime during the crackdown that followed the Hama uprising of 1982. It has never really rebuilt itself within Syria, where belonging to the Party is punishable by death.
The Saudis are also reaching out to the NSF and Khaddam. UPI reported on Oct. 20 that the Saudi monarch and crown prince met Tuesday with Khaddam. UPI's source, who refused to elaborate on Khaddam's meeting in Saudi Arabia, said King Abdullah will hold a similar meeting with Rifaat Assad, Syrian President Bashar Assad's uncle who has been living in exile for several years after being evicted by the late President Hafez Assad in the late 1980s following a coup attempt.
Kurds
Another option the Bush administration is most likely pursuing is the training of Syrian Kurds in Iraq in military tactics and the art of subversion. I have no knowledge if US forces are training Syrian Kurds in Iraq. I do, however, have good information that the US is training Iranian Kurds to act as a cat's paw for US policy in Iran, which leads me to suspect that the same is being done with Syrian Kurds.
Asad Regime is Strong
Regime-change in Syria seems like an extremely remote possibility. Bashar al-Asad's regime is much stronger than the hawks in Washington believe. They are listening to Khaddam, who claims that the regime is on its last legs. WINEP's Robert Satloff has been arguing the same thing, claiming that "The Syrian regime is profoundly fragile." Of course this is not true. Interestingly, Denis Ross, Satloff's (boss?) at WINEP, contradicts Rob. He claims that "It's pretty clear to me that the regime is not on its last legs."
Satloff has gotten some of his best intelligence on Syria from Ammar Abdulhamid. He has frequently quoted Ammar's powerful quip several years ago questioning whether Bashar is Fredo or Michael Corleone - after the two brothers in the God Father film. Of course they always answer their own question by insisting that Bashar is Fredo. This got them lots of laughs a few years ago.
The only problem is bada da boom
Fredo seems to have taken up residence in the White House !^&*%
I used that line at Brookings on Monday as I sat next to Ammar. It got a few laughs from the hawkish crowd. It was a calculated risk. After all, one doesn't want to look disloyal or outrageously radical, but the point must be made that Bashar is looking increasingly prescient on a number of issues compared to Bush.
Several years ago, the pundits were saying that Asad just didn't get it and that he didn't realize how "9-11 had changed everything." But 9-11 didn't change everything. Bashar was right about Iraq, right about Hamas, and right about Hizbullah. He bet on the winner in each of these issues. Bush bet on losers: in Iraq he bet on pro-American secular forces winning and standing up democracy; in Palestine, he bet on the PLO over Hamas; in Lebanon, he bet on disarming Hizbullah.
Satloff still claims that "Assads record is dismal." and that Bashar chieved a stunning degree of incompetence,ť based on his opposition to America's invasion of Iraq and failure to understand America's commitment to the war on terror. I would argue that Bashar got both of these about right. He has survived to see both Bush policies become mired in the merde. Satloff is still shocked that Bashar could have "declared [that] Arab friendship with the United States was “more fatal than its hostility.
Syria Frightened of Democracy, Cling to Authoritarianism
Bashar owes what popularity he has in Syria and throughout the region to his anti-American stand. In the Washington Post, Ellen Knickmeyer explains in her article: "In Syria, Iraq's Fate Silences Rights Activists," how Syria's pro-democracy advocates have been silenced and marginalized by Washington's failure in Iraq. Syrians are clinging to their authoritarian leader like a ship-wrecked crew clings to driftwood. They are not eager to experiment with democracy and end up like the Iraqis. Knickmeyer writes:
"Since Iraq's descent into sectarian and ethnic war and after Israel's war with Hezbollah in Lebanon, even Syrian activists concede that the country's feeble rights movement is moribund. Advocates of democracy are equated now with supporters of America, even "traitors," said Maan Abdul Salam, 36, a Damascus publisher who has coordinated conferences on women's rights and similar topics.
Omar Amiralay, a movie maker and critic of the regime, is quoted saying,
"I think that people at the end said, 'Well, it is better to keep this government. We know them, and we don't want to go to this civil war, and to live this apocalyptic image of change, with civil war and sectarianism and blood.' "
If one needs anymore proof of the desperation of Iraqis in Syria, one only need read the excellent articles by Hugh Macleod on the latest wave of young Iraqi women to "fall prey to sex traffickers" in the Guardian. Of course Syrians witnessed some 200,000 Lebanese refugees come into their country this summer to help usher in what Condoleezza Rice described as America's effort to assist in the birth pangs of a new Middle East. That was an example of US democracy promotion at its most exiting. But it is the Iraq example that really gives democracy a bad name.
Ron Redmond, UNHCR chief spokesman, according to an IRIN news report, said some 40,000 Iraqis are now arriving in Syria each month. The condition of the 700,000 Iraqis already in Syria is deteriorating rapidly as they run out of money. They cannot hold work permits although they can send their kids to school in Syria and gain access to health care. The UNHCR says their budget for Iraqis has been slashed since 2003 because the country is supposed to be "liberated." In Syria the UNHCR office is funded with less than one dollar for each refugee a year.
Europe Wants Dialogue with Syria
A British parliamentarian, Richard Spring, the Conservative MP for West Suffolk, argues forcefully why Syria is not Iran and why "We must work with Syria to secure peace in the Middle East - only this can break the deadlock," he writes. Britain's conservatives are positioning themselves behind dialogue with Syria.
The European Union is asking for new incentives to Syria for peace. A report adopted by the European Parliament included this line: "Parliament requests the Council to consider additional incentives and benefits for Syria, going beyond those granted through the association agreement … to encourage Syria to review its current foreign policy …"
New Issue of Foreign Affairs on Syria-Lebanon
Even if President Bush doesn't get that his Middle East policy is in a shambles, the rest of the foreign policy crowd does. Richard Haass has an excellent lead article, "The New Middle East," in Foreign Affairs, November/December 2006. He argues that America's moment in the Middle East is over. Growing Islamism in the region and chaos in Iraq are undermining US authority.
Summary: The age of U.S. dominance in the Middle East has ended and a new era in the modern history of the region has begun. It will be shaped by new actors and new forces competing for influence, and to master it, Washington will have to rely more on diplomacy than on military might.
Volker Perthes, "The Syrian Solution," in the same issue is also excellent. A year ago, Perthes was predicting the end of the regime. Now he argues that Western powers must engage the Asad regime - a testament to how things have changed in a year.
Summary: Damascus did not commission Hezbollah's raid into Israel, but it did see the ensuing crisis as a chance to prove its importance. Western powers should realize that Syria is ready to be part of a regional solution — as long as its own interests are recognized.
Paul Salem's article on "The Future of Lebanon" is also important, as is Edward P. Djerejian's calling for a lasting and comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace settlement.
By Joshua Landis
Co-director, Center of Peace Studies
University of Oklahoma
Hezbollah says to seek new govt by all legal means
Mon Oct 30, 2006
International News
BEIRUT (Reuters) - Hezbollah will seek the formation of a new Lebanese government through all democratic means, including the resignation of its two ministers and street protests, the group's senior MP said on Monday.
Hezbollah and its allies have been demanding a new government since a 34-day war between Israel and the Shi'ite Muslim guerrillas ended in August.
The group, backed by Syria and Iran, has been a fierce critic of Western-backed Prime Minister Fouad Siniora whom it sees is keen to disarm its guerrillas."We are careful to practice all democratic and legitimate means to express our stand and our rejection of the continuation of this situation and to work toward forming a government of national unity," Mohammad Raad, head of Hezbollah's parliamentary bloc, told reporters.
"We will take all available democratic steps to achieve this goal including resigning from the government," he said.
Raad was speaking after holding separate talks with key opposition leaders Michel Aoun and Omar Karami.
Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri delayed on Sunday talks with Lebanon's feuding political leaders aimed at defusing a crisis threatening the country's stability after several anti-Syrian leaders said they could not attend because they would be out of the country this week.
Berri, a Shi'ite leader allied with Hezbollah, had asked politicians to hold talks for up to 15 days from Monday to discuss demands for a government change and a new election law. The talks will now start on November 6 and last only a week. They are widely seen as the last chance to avert a showdown that could spill into the streets and threaten Lebanon's stability. Anti-Syrian coalition members which dominate Siniora's government had dismissed the call for a national unity government, prompting Hezbollah and its allies to threaten street protests to force a change.
The coalition, which supports international calls for the disarming of Hezbollah, has a majority in parliament. But Siniora's 24-member cabinet also includes two ministers from Hezbollah and three from Berri's Amal group. Hezbollah wants more of its allies included, especially Christian opposition leader Aoun and pro-Syrian groups. Berri has hosted several "National Dialogue" meetings this year, but these have lapsed since war erupted on July 12 after Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid. © Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.
Lebanon president shuns court draft
BEIRUT, Lebanon, Oct. 30 (UPI) -- Lebanon's pro-Syrian president has expressed reservations on a draft for an international court to try suspects in ex-Prime Minister Rafik Hariri's slaying.
In a press statement Monday, President Emile Lahoud objected to the stipulation in the draft project to appoint more foreign judges than Lebanese.
"That will be a precedent in the international criminal law and we cannot make Lebanon an experiment field," Lahoud said. "Lebanese judges will be a minority in the court in the sense that they will not have any decisive role in running hearings or making decisions."
He also objected to the point that empowers the United Nations' secretary-general to appoint Lebanese judges from a list to be presented by the Lebanese government upon the suggestion of the Higher Judicial Council. "What criteria will the secretary-general adopt in choosing the Lebanese judges while he surely knows nothing about them?" Lahoud asked. He also criticized the fact that the judges themselves will draft the procedures of the court hearings once they have been appointed, saying the "minority Lebanese judges will be yielding to the decision of the majority foreign judges."
In addition, Lahoud objected to the expansion of the proposed court's mandate and mission to include trial of suspects in similar assassinations and attempts that occurred before and after Hariri's Feb. 14, 2005, slaying, notably between October 2004 and December 2005. On the clause which provides that the Lebanese government should pledge not to pardon any person convicted by the international court, Lahoud said "it contradicts the amnesty rules included in the constitution under which the president and parliament have the power to grant pardons."
Anti-Syria Lebanese leaders blame Damascus for Hariri's slaying as well as a spate of assassinations and attempts on journalists and politicians opposed to Syria.
Shift in Lebanon's sectarian politics
By Alex Klaushofer
Lebanon analyst, Beirut
In the aftermath of the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, new divisions are fracturing Lebanese society which cut across the usual sectarian boundaries. Hezbollah wants a unity government to replace Fouad Siniora's cabinet On the one side is the "14th March group", an alliance representing the country's political elite which pushed for the departure of Syrian forces from Lebanon. The coalition, which takes its name from the date of last year's anti-Syrian demonstration, comprises Sunni Muslims and some Christian and Druze groups. On the other side are Hezbollah and their allies, including the followers of the Christian leader, former general Michel Aoun, who has given the Shia party his political backing. We need to build a state but I cannot foresee it happening in the near future, with this very strong polarisation - I fear that we may go to war now Abdo Saad, Beirut Center for Research and Information In the weeks since the ceasefire, political tensions have risen as politicians argue about the direction the country should now take.
The Hezbollah alliance has been calling for a national unity government to replace Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's cabinet, a move likely to usher in pro-Syrian groups and electoral reforms giving Shia Muslims more power.
They accuse their political opponents of emasculating Lebanon by forging relationships with Western powers instead of uniting with Arab countries against Israel.
New battle lines
"This isn't a conflict across sectarian lines," says Abdo Saad, a pollster who runs the Beirut Center for Research and Information. "You have the axis of America and France, and you have the axis of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah. There are deep divisions."' The debate is running right through Lebanese society. Critics accuse Hezbollah of plunging Lebanon into an unnecessary crisis Hanadi Charaff Deen, a 20-year-old student from Tyre who fled her family home during the recent conflict, supports the Hezbollah alliance. "We so appreciate them. Without Hezbollah, we would be killed by Israel in a very terrible way," she says. Her sister Farah, 16, says that maintaining good relations with Syria is essential. "Syria defended us. We cannot forget this. She's our neighbour, one of the Arab countries. The 14th March coalition want to end the relationship, but that's not good for Lebanon. Instead of one enemy, we would have a lot of enemies."
Plunged into war
But those from the opposing viewpoint blame Hezbollah for plunging the country back into war with Israel and putting defence at the top of the national agenda. "They are so attached to the Arab-Israeli conflict," says Diana Bou Ghanem, a telecommunications expert from Beirut. "They are not focusing on the internal issues; they are focusing on the war with Israel." They always fight about silly things; every one of them loves Lebanon, but in his way - they could meet and decide what is best for Lebanon
She worries about the effects of conflict on the economy. "We have lost the trust of investors. They fear that in a few years we will have another war. What kind of market is that?" Experts differ as to the implications of the new divide for Lebanon's internal stability. "We need to build a state," says Mr Saad, the pollster. "But I cannot foresee it happening in the near future, with this very strong polarisation. I fear that we may go to war now."
Bickering
But Ridwan al-Sayyid, professor of Islamic studies at the Lebanese University, denies that the split will lead to a Sunni-Shia conflict in Lebanon.
"The Sunnis are of the opinion that the Shia are making wars with Israel and putting the whole country at risk," he says.
"The Shia say the Sunnis are working with the US and France, even in some cases with Israel, against Islamic goals. Both views are exaggerated."
"The Shia in Lebanon are genuine Lebanese; no-one can have a suspicion about their integrity. On the other side, the Sunnis were in modern history the people who allied themselves to the Palestinian resistance against Israel. So I don't think it will come to a civil war."
Meanwhile, most ordinary Lebanese are fed up with the bickering from the politicians. "They always fight about silly things," says Ms Deen.
"Every one of them loves Lebanon, but in his way. They could meet and decide what is best for Lebanon, not to say "Hezbollah is not good", or "the 14th March is not good". We all love Lebanon."
Patriarchs Blame Political Turmoil for Christian Exodus from Middle East
Posted on October 30, 2006
By The Universe: Catholic patriarchs of the Middle East have said political instability across the region must be tackled if the current Christian exodus is to be stemmed. The negative impact of this instability on local economies and services, as well as on the psychology within communities, are key factors driving Christians away from the region, said the council of Catholic patriarchs. The council's 16th assembly closed last week in Bzommar, near Beirut, with a statement focusing on the dwindling presence of Christians in Lebanon, Israel and the Palestinian territories, Iraq and the wider region. The statement said that Eastern Christian churches acted as a bridge between Western Christianity and Islam, creating an avenue for dialogue between the faiths. The Christian leaders were adamant that this link should not be broken.
Despite this summer's 34-day war between Israel and Lebanon, the patriarchs said Lebanon "remains a source of hope" that "must play an effective role" in solidifying the coexistence of religions in the Middle East. Reinforcing this message during his homily at a Mass outside Beirut, Cardinal Nasrallah P Sfeir, Maronite patriarch, criticised Lebanon's political infrastructure for failing to pay sufficient attention to the role of the Lebanese family, which he said was a crucial factor in maintaining a unified society. "Especially in these difficult days, the Lebanese family needs the help of the state to be able to take on its economic, educational, cultural and social responsibilities, since many families have lost one or more members, have been forced to emigrate or have lost their homes and source of livelihood," he said. Emphasising the need to promote dialogue among religions across the region, the patriarchs expressed their "solidarity with the Islamic world in its efforts to consolidate peace and eradicate violence."Calling on Muslim organisations to "vigorously condemn terrorist actions committed, at times, in the name of the Muslim faith," the patriarchs added: "We know that the true Islam and the Quran are innocent of any violence. These actions do not only harm Islam, but they also destroy (the) coexistence that has been there for so many generations, especially in Iraq."
Germany confirms new Lebanon incident with Israel
Sun Oct 29, 2006
BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany said on Sunday its navy, which is patrolling the Lebanese coast as part of an international peacekeeping force, had been involved in a second incident involving Israeli fighter planes. The Defence Ministry said it occurred on Thursday and involved a German navy helicopter and Israeli F-16 fighters. "We are aware of the episode, but it was not menacing," the spokesman said, after the Bild am Sonntag newspaper reported the Israeli planes had "dangerously badgered" the helicopter. The spokesman said the area was used by the Israeli air force for training, adding: "Perhaps other standards apply for them than for us."On Wednesday, Israel denied a German newspaper report that two of its air force planes had fired twice as they flew over a German navy ship patrolling the Lebanon coast. But it did say jets had been scrambled when a helicopter took off from a German aircraft carrier without identifying itself. Germany confirmed at the time that that an incident had occurred, but gave no details. It subsequently received assurances from Israeli Defence Minister Amir Peretz that the air force would not carry out any hostile fire or manoeuvres around German vessels.
Germany assumed command of a U.N. naval force off Lebanon this month, and has sent eight ships and 1,000 service personnel to join the international peace operation in the region. The naval force is charged with preventing weapons smuggling and helping maintain a cease-fire between Israel and Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas.
Push for world pressure on Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran
I read with interest Katherine Gregory's letter of Oct. 19 accusing Israel of inadequate efforts on peacemaking and suggesting a prisoner exchange.
Both of her suggestions are noble ones, but perhaps she is not aware of all the facts. In 2000, Israel offered the Palestinians a state of their own in 95 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of Gaza and they rejected it with violence. In 2000, Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon unilaterally and in 2005, Israel withdrew from Gaza, again unilaterally. Despite each of these peace-engendering actions, Hezbollah and Hamas have continued to shell Israel with deadly bombs. With regard to prisoner exchanges, it is being reported in The Wall Street Journal that Iran is believed to have bribed Hamas not to engage in a prisoner exchange with Israel. Rather than bemoan the lack of U.S. pressure on Israel, perhaps Gregory should bemoan the lack of world pressure on Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah. Evan Morris
Israelis put nuclear bunkers in gardens
Uzi Mahnaimi, Tel Aviv
AMID mounting fears that Iran is planning to obliterate their country, wealthy Israelis are shelling out on underground nuclear shelters in the gardens of their luxury homes.
The shelters, which cost at least Ł60,000 for a bargain-basement version, are built to withstand radioactive fallout, have fortified walls and doors and generate their own electricity and decontaminated air. Defence experts estimate that hundreds of such bunkers, many fitted with all modern conveniences such as bedrooms, kitchens and bathrooms, have already been built in private homes across the country and demand is soaring.
Zaki Rakib, a wealthy businessman, built a shelter for himself and his family under his large villa overlooking the Mediterranean in Herzliya, an exclusive garden suburb north of Tel Aviv.
“The shelter looks like a regular flat,” he said. “It is 2,000 square feet, with a living room, two bedrooms, kitchen, self-powered electricity.”
Rakib’s post-nuclear pad, which can accommodate more than 25 people for two weeks, cost about Ł250,000. “The difference between an atomic shelter and a regular one is in the technical components: the thickness of the walls and a special system to block radioactive fallout,” he said.
Leading the stampede to the nuclear bunker is Shari Arison, the country’s wealthiest woman, estimated to be worth about Ł2.7 billion. The Israeli media have reported that she has already made preparations for Armageddon by building two sophisticated underground structures. One is at her home in Tel Aviv, the other in the garden of her holiday villa in Bnei Zion village.
Firms specialising in the manufacture of such shelters are booming. Ahim Torati is a company producing parts for atomic shelters. “We supply components for decontaminated air, fortified doors and walls,” said Menahem Torati, its owner.
“If in a regular shelter the door should withstand a five-ton blast, the door of an atomic shelter should absorb 250-270 tons.”
Seeking to allay public fears, the government insists that the population has little to fear. “We are aware of all these panicky people building atomic shelters. They’re wasting their money,” said a security source.
“Israel will not allow Iran to build an atomic bomb, and even if it did, the Iranians know very well that we’ll bomb them back to the Stone Age before they’ve launched a single missile.”
However, the government is quietly updating its preparations for a possible nuclear strike. Ephraim Sneh, the deputy defence minister, confirmed that a Ł300m nuclear shelter is being constructed in the Jerusalem hills for the Israeli war cabinet. “This will be a command and control centre that will be able to run the state of Israel during a war, even after a nuclear strike,” he said.
Israelis are used to coping with the threat of war, but until recently the civilian population has been largely unaffected by conflicts beyond the country’s borders. The 34-day invasion of Lebanon last summer, however, brought war closer to home. Up to 250 Hezbollah missiles rained down on Israel every day. Millions of terrified Israelis spent the hottest weeks of the summer in shelters.
Iran’s increasingly bellicose rhetoric is fuelling fears that the next war could bring even more devastation. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated that Israel should be “wiped off the map”. As well as developing nuclear technology, Tehran boasts long-range ballistic missiles capable of hitting any target in Israel.
Many Israelis no longer trust their government to protect them. One man building a Ł60,000 nuclear shelter in his Tel Aviv garden said: “After the Lebanon war, I concluded that I have to protect my family, as I’m not sure the state will be able to do it.”
While the well-off are calling in the builders, nearly one third of the country’s population have no protection even against conventional weapons. “If Tel Aviv were attacked today, you can expect thousands of casualties,” predicted one security expert. AMID mounting fears that Iran is planning to obliterate their country, wealthy Israelis are shelling out on underground nuclear shelters in the gardens of their luxury homes.
The shelters, which cost at least Ł60,000 for a bargain-basement version, are built to withstand radioactive fallout, have fortified walls and doors and generate their own electricity and decontaminated air. Defence experts estimate that hundreds of such bunkers, many fitted with all modern conveniences such as bedrooms, kitchens and bathrooms, have already been built in private homes across the country and demand is soaring.
Zaki Rakib, a wealthy businessman, built a shelter for himself and his family under his large villa overlooking the Mediterranean in Herzliya, an exclusive garden suburb north of Tel Aviv.
“The shelter looks like a regular flat,” he said. “It is 2,000 square feet, with a living room, two bedrooms, kitchen, self-powered electricity.”
Rakib’s post-nuclear pad, which can accommodate more than 25 people for two weeks, cost about Ł250,000. “The difference between an atomic shelter and a regular one is in the technical components: the thickness of the walls and a special system to block radioactive fallout,” he said.
Leading the stampede to the nuclear bunker is Shari Arison, the country’s wealthiest woman, estimated to be worth about Ł2.7 billion. The Israeli media have reported that she has already made preparations for Armageddon by building two sophisticated underground structures. One is at her home in Tel Aviv, the other in the garden of her holiday villa in Bnei Zion village.
Firms specialising in the manufacture of such shelters are booming. Ahim Torati is a company producing parts for atomic shelters. “We supply components for decontaminated air, fortified doors and walls,” said Menahem Torati, its owner.
“If in a regular shelter the door should withstand a five-ton blast, the door of an atomic shelter should absorb 250-270 tons.”
Seeking to allay public fears, the government insists that the population has little to fear. “We are aware of all these panicky people building atomic shelters. They’re wasting their money,” said a security source.
“Israel will not allow Iran to build an atomic bomb, and even if it did, the Iranians know very well that we’ll bomb them back to the Stone Age before they’ve launched a single missile.”
However, the government is quietly updating its preparations for a possible nuclear strike. Ephraim Sneh, the deputy defence minister, confirmed that a Ł300m nuclear shelter is being constructed in the Jerusalem hills for the Israeli war cabinet. “This will be a command and control centre that will be able to run the state of Israel during a war, even after a nuclear strike,” he said.
Israelis are used to coping with the threat of war, but until recently the civilian population has been largely unaffected by conflicts beyond the country’s borders. The 34-day invasion of Lebanon last summer, however, brought war closer to home. Up to 250 Hezbollah missiles rained down on Israel every day. Millions of terrified Israelis spent the hottest weeks of the summer in shelters.
Iran’s increasingly bellicose rhetoric is fuelling fears that the next war could bring even more devastation. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated that Israel should be “wiped off the map”. As well as developing nuclear technology, Tehran boasts long-range ballistic missiles capable of hitting any target in Israel.
Many Israelis no longer trust their government to protect them. One man building a Ł60,000 nuclear shelter in his Tel Aviv garden said: “After the Lebanon war, I concluded that I have to protect my family, as I’m not sure the state will be able to do it.”
While the well-off are calling in the builders, nearly one third of the country’s population have no protection even against conventional weapons. “If Tel Aviv were attacked today, you can expect thousands of casualties,” predicted one security expert.
UN to map disputed Shaba farms area on Israel-Lebanon border
Last update - 12:11 30/10/2006
By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent
The United Nations will appoint a cartographer to map the precise location and area of the Shaba Farms, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni reported to the cabinet on Sunday. The status of the territory on the slopes of Mount Hermon is disputed by Lebanon, Syria and Israel and its boundaries have never been precisely defined.Livni said the cartographer would start working in mid-November from UN headquarters in New York, and not conduct surveying at the site itself at this stage. The move was decided on following the periodical report of UN envoy Terje Larsen about the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1559.Israel took over the area in 1967 and sees it as part of the Golan Heights. The UN accepted this position following the IDF's pullout from Lebanon in May 2000 but Hezbollah and Lebanon claim that this is Lebanese territory still under Israeli occupation.
During the recent war in Lebanon, Prime Minister Fouad Siniora said Israel should leave the Shaba Farms and place the area in UN custody until the sovereignty issue is settled. United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice tried to persuade Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to agree to discuss Shaba Farms, but he refused.
Syria, Iran highlight constant consultation on issues of common concern
www.chinaview.cn 2006-10-29 00:46:23
DAMASCUS, Oct. 29 (Xinhua) -- Syria and Iran emphasized on Sunday the significance of the constant consultation and coordination between the two countries on issues of common concern, the official SANA news agency reported. Syrian Prime Minister Mohammed Naji Otri and visiting Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki made the remarks in a meeting on Sunday, SANA said without giving further details. The two sides also discussed the strong cooperative relations between the two countries and prospects of developing such ties in the domains of economy, development and trade, said the report. Mottaki arrived here on Saturday for a visit which he said was part of the normal framework of the developed relations between the two countries for consultations on latest developments in the region. He delivered a letter from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on regional situations in a meeting on Saturday. Syria and Iran have maintained close ties since the 1980s when Damascus sided with Tehran in the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war.
Trust is the Foundation of Consultations
Elias Harfouch Al Hayat - 30/10/06//
The fact that the first sessions of the consultations, which Speaker Nabih Berry had called for holding today, have been postponed will give the Lebanese people a week of hope. That is, the hope that their leaders will put an end to the state of affinity and polarization and will return to something realistic and rational.
As the Speaker of the Parliament said when he called for these sessions, there is no alternative for the Lebanese leaders but to sit down together at the table of negotiations, rather than confronting each other on the streets. This is the same position expressed by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, who said: 'We are all sailing in the same boat; and whoever undermines it, does not harm the others, but only harms himself.'
However, are they really on the same boat? If that were true, the situation would not have deteriorated to this extent. This is essentially the result of sailing in different directions with the country's destiny, very often toward winds and storms, and without any consultation or coordination with the other passengers.
Mistrust has directly contributed to this deterioration. Now, because of that and in this climate dominated by mutual accusations of betrayal, it is difficult to say that Lebanese leaders wish to take part in a unified national leadership. Each team is accusing their opponents of deriving their stance from a foreign embassy or a regional force. After the July 12 operation, Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah answered the questions about why the party had refrained from discussing the kidnapping of the two soldiers with the other leaders. He thought that such a demand would not be logical, because this kind of discussion would have immediately been reported to foreign embassies! In turn, the March 14 Forces do not conceal their doubts that the current campaign to replace the government with a national unity one is aiming to achieve another goal, suggested by a foreign element that wants to disrupt the course of the international tribunal and to impose, through this campaign, its own conditions in the battle for the post of Head of State.
Another factor which has contributed to this deterioration is the violations of reciprocal obligations related to the national political process. Those who participated in the last parliamentary elections were supposed to accept the results, which would eventually lead to the formation of the current Chamber of Deputies, and, consequently, to the Siniora-led government. When Speaker Berry decided to set two conditions for these consultations - the national unity government and the election law - it seemed as if he wanted to raise doubts about these obligations. According to the concept of national harmony and the representation of as many trends as possible, the current government is quite close to the rule of national unity, in addition to the fact that its majority correctly reflects the parliamentary majority. This is an undisputable rule which is followed in every system that considers itself democratic.
On the contrary, saying that this majority is imaginary reflects a 'pretentious' mentality in dealing with the democratic game in which these opponents took part - based on that very election law that they are now criticizing. This kind of mentality supposes that, if a trend does not obtain one of the posts or does not win the majority of seats, the electoral process does not work properly. Therefore, this trend sees itself as the 'better' party and, as a consequence, the most apt to win. This is the only context in which the current Hezbollah-led oppositions to the government can be understood. When the party's leaders say, as Sheikh Naim Qasem did in his speech delivered on 'Jerusalem day', that they refuse any government except a national unity one, there is not much room left for 'consultations', when the results have already been decided! There is a final point that must be dealt with, and it has to do with the negotiators' commitments. Indeed, who will guarantee the implementation of any agreement that can be possibly reached through this process, when the dialogue sessions, whose decisions are supposed to be more binding, have failed to transfer what has been agreed on from a piece of paper… to the map?
Defining the Jihadist Threat
Monday, October 30, 2006
By Philip Mella
Retired Marine officer, current employee at the Department of Homeland Security, and friend of the editor, Bill Powell, submitted this unclassified testimony given to the House Subcommittee on Intelligence on September 20, 2006, by Professor Walid Phares, subtitled "Intercepting Radicalization at the Indoctrination Stage." It's this level of analytical exegesis that one rarely finds and it demonstrates the efficacy of the resources and capabilities that a resolute enemy such as the Islamic extremists enjoy in a free, pluralistic society. The assessment concludes by calling for a ...comprehensive strategy of containment of the Terror ideology within the framework of the civil and democratic rights of society. Beyond bringing into stark relief the full breadth and depth of this profound challenge, it also makes one ponder whether our political will is sufficiently intact degrade if not decimate this enemy. Given our belated response to attacks on the U.S., its interests and allies over the past two decades it's a legitimate question.
A key explanation for the checkered way in which we've prosecuted this war is its unprecedented nature, which belongs to a military genus that the United States has never faced and for which counter measures remain in their infancy. Indeed, the tenants of asymmetrical warfare exploit inherent force structure vulnerabilities while insidiously testing the myriad weaknesses that inform the very essence of our democratic society.
Those premises have forced us to fundamentally rethink every aspect of conventional warfare and to exempt no viable and legal alternative that might inhibit the Jihadists' capabilities to strike. It's ironic that those such as Mr. Powell, who have a deep understanding of this enemy as well as the unique manner in which our current political landscape a priori dismisses the most effective tools at our disposal, are those for whom the left has an abiding distrust. We segue to the great unfinished work, On War, by General Carl Von Clausewitz, which is a veritable compendium of theoretical and strategic battlefield wisdom that should be required reading for every American, beginning with our mainstream media and ending with our Potomac elites. It begins with the definition of war as
...an act of violence to compel our opponent fulfill our will.
Of course, our cultural Brahmins would excise the word "violence" from this definition, preferring the softer contours of the word "wishfulness" which implies the need for at least a decade of diplomacy, which is typically sufficient to gather the political momentum for appeasement.
From there it takes us on a tour of remarkably insightful and nuanced tutorials that at once convince the reader of their veracity and of the difficulty of applying them in our contemporary age when political correctness and the allure of antiseptic warfare encourage (read, mandate) a strategic diffidence that only assures that the conflict will be needlessly protracted with commensurately higher casualties.
As we watch our elected officials preen and posture in advance of the November elections we would do well to remember that the most effective strategy is that which redefines the terms of engagment to maximize our strategic advantage, which also provides unambiguous evidence of the resolute nature of our will. Anything short of that telegraphs the kind of weakness that this foe will exploit with a level of lethality that will dwarf the barbarism of 9/11. When reflecting on that formula for victory, one party leaps instantly to mind and it isn't the party of Pelosi, Kennedy, and Durbin, the left's practitioners of defeat. Therefore, cast your vote accordingly.
**Mella is Founder and Editor of ClearCommentary.com.
Who Betrayed Lebanon? And Who Watched it Happen?
by Dan Gordon [scriptwriter] 10/30/06
In the vision of certain members of the press, Israel is a colonialist mass murderer, and the word terrorist does not exist without quotation marks surrounding it. Israelis are aggressors. Islamist terrorists, be they Palestinians or Iranian backed Hezb’allah, are victims. These media types come to the Middle East with their narrative firmly in place. It is so because they believe it to be so.
I was an eyewitness to a classic example of this in Jenin, in 2002. Western journalists and United Nation envoys were in an uproar over an alleged Israeli massacre of a thousand Palestinians. There were grisly, supposed eyewitness, accounts of Israeli bulldozers shoveling hundreds of corpses of helpless Palestinian refugees into mass graves. There were stories of Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian children in front of their parents and then throwing their bodies into wells and sewage pits.
Contributor Dan Gordon
Dan Gordon is a scriptwriter whose credits include major motion pictures such as Passenger 57, The Hurricane, Wyatt Earp, Murder in the First, and The Assignment. He served as a reserve captain in the Israel Defense Forces during the recent campaign in Lebanon... [go to Gordon index]
Comparisons were made to ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, to Nazi war crimes and the term genocide was spoken with righteous indignation. The truth turned out to be somewhat less Baroque. There was a battle not a massacre.
In that battle some fifty Palestinian combatants were killed, as were twenty three Israeli soldiers. The battle was a ferocious one and in the Arab press there were glowing tales of the fifty Palestinian fighters who fell in glorious combat against the Zionist enemy they valiantly slaughtered. But to the majority of Western journalists the facts became a footnote on the inside pages, reported weeks after the front page banner line headlines screamed about the supposed massacre.
There was one journalist, Sheila McVicar of CNN, who was so openly hostile in her attitudes toward Israel that an Israeli Army medical officer, a gentle man who was head of pediatrics at Hadasa Hospital, inquired quietly as to the source of her anger at Israel. He tried to explain to her that Jenin was not the shelter of helpless refugees, rather it was exactly what its residents proclaimed it to be: the suicide bomber capital of the world. Hundreds of Israeli men, women and children, almost all of them civilians, had been murdered by the suicide bombers dispatched from Jenin. That is why a battle took place there. After close to thirty people were blown to bits at a Passover dinner in Israel, the Israeli military took action against those who dispatched the suicide bombers, trained them, armed them and sent them out to murder again and again.
“Maybe,” demanded Ms. McVicar, “You should ask yourself why they became terrorists.”
“I do,” said the good doctor. “It’s something I ask myself all the time. Why would someone from Jenin choose to come to Jerusalem or Hadera to commit suicide just so they could kill a few Jews along the way? Why would they choose death over life?”
“I can sum it up for you,” said Ms. McVicar defiantly, “I can sum it up in one word: occupation,” she said spitting the word out, as if it left a foul taste in her mouth.
“But my dear, Ms.McVicar,” the good doctor said, “Jenin hasn’t been occupied for nine years. In nine years there has not been the footprint of one Israeli soldier in Jenin. Jenin is ruled by the United Nations and the PLO.”
Ms. McVicar did not reply. She turned on her heel as if she had been spat upon and stormed off. How dare this man respond with facts? How dare he contradict the narrative to which she was so firmly committed?
The latest example of this journalistic attitude, but by no means the most egregious, can be seen in an article by one Robert Fisk. He adds a new twist. “We” by which he not only means Western Europe, but graciously includes Israel in this imperial “we”, “We” told the “Arabs” that we believed in “Democracy” then “We” betrayed them, one in all.
“And remember our promise to honor the fledgling Democracy of Lebanon…which brought the retreat of the Syrian Army. Lebanon was then held up to be a future model for the Arab world. But once Hezb’allah crossed the frontier and seized two Israeli soldiers killing three others on July 12th, we stood back and watched the Lebanese suffer.”
At the risk of subjecting Mr. Fisk to the same insult of perspective, fact and logic which was inflicted upon Ms. McVicker, one is compelled to place his truly twisted assertion into the historical context of which it is a part.
At the urging of the International Community (both Europe and the United Nations) as well as the government of Lebanon, Israel withdrew from quite literally every centimeter of land it had occupied in almost two decades of fighting with Hezb’allah. In order to provide Israel with guarantees for its security in return for withdrawing from Lebanon, both the United Nations and the government of Lebanon undertook certain obligations in UN Resolution 1559. Paramount amongst those obligations was the disarming of militias, chief amongst them Hezb’allah. In addition the government of Lebanon was to reassert its sovereignty over Southern Lebanon by having its army take up the positions which Israel handed over.
That Israel lived up to its end of the bargain is beyond debate. The United Nations, using GPS tracking mechanisms, reestablished every inch of the International Border. North of it was Lebanon, south of it was Israel. The launching by either side of attacks against each other in violation of that border was a violation of International Law.
On the other hand there also can be no debate about the fact that neither the government of Lebanon nor the United Nations lived up to its commitments. The Lebanese army was never dispatched to Southern Lebanon. Lebanese sovereignty was never established there. The UN took no actions either to help them do so, nor hinder Iran’s terrorist army proxy from occupying Southern Lebanon.
If one wishes to talk about occupied territories, there can be no clearer example of same than Hezb’allah’s occupation of Lebanon between the Litani River and Israel’s border and in the area of Southern Beirut where Hezb’allah established its capital within a capital, within its state within a state. Instead of ordering its army to take over the positions which Israel abandoned, the Lebanese government allowed an Iranian backed militia to transform itself into a terrorist army which built a Siegfried line like array of fortresses in bands three deep stretching all along Israel’s border.
It similarly turned a blind eye as that terrorist army was armed, in contravention of the guarantees both it and the UN had given to Israel, with tens of thousands of offensive rockets and a like number of anti-tank missiles, all of them aimed at Israel. Hezb’allah provided the lame excuse that all this was necessary to protect Lebanon from an Israeli invasion.
Then after six years of planning and preparation for its offensive on July 12th, 2006, Hezb’allah did not “cross the frontier” with Israel, they launched a totally unprovoked attack against a routine patrol clearly inside Israeli territory which offered no threat whatsoever. For a reporter, Mister Fisk ought to get his facts straight. They did not seize two Israeli soldiers and kill two others, they attacked two humvees with anti-tank missiles and automatic weapons, killing eight soldiers and then kidnapping two. They did so, not because they had nothing else to do that morning and thought it might be fun. They did so in order to provoke exactly the invasion which they proclaimed to the Lebanese people they were there to prevent.
What they had hoped for was a massive armored charge across the border to try and retrieve the two kidnapped soldiers. How do we know this to be true? We know it to be true by their actions. They hit one humvee and then lay in wait for the second one which came to rescue their comrades. Then they hit it as well. In other words, they had set an ambush. The ambush however was not restricted in its purpose to simply the two humvees. Again we know this because of Hezb’allah’s actions.
One will remember that it took Israel some weeks to get its reserves in position to be able to enter the fight. When it did so numbers of things were found to be lacking. Things like ammunition, food, and water. That is because Israel was caught with its pants down.
Hezb’allah, on the other hand, was fully prepared, all of its weapons had already been deployed to its forward positions, all of its fighters were already on alert, in position, manning the ambushes for the armored charge which they had hoped to provoke. The IED’s which have taken such a toll on American forces in Iraq, were laced along all the entrance routes into Southern Lebanon. “Tank Hunter” squads were in position and waiting to tear to pieces the expected Israeli armored advance.
This was to be a replay of what the Egyptians had done to the Israeli armor corps in the Sinai Desert in 1973. There, infantrymen equipped with masses of anti-tank weapons decimated entire Israeli armored brigades. In order to ensure this armored charge, Hezb’allah began raining down upon Israel’s northern communities what would be over four thousand rockets falling almost exclusively at Israel’s civilian population. The thinking most assuredly was that given those attacks upon Israel’s civilians, Israel would have to respond with the same kind of armored advance they had launched against PLO terrorists in Lebanon in 1980.
Like so many other military planners, Hezb’allah’s leadership was refighting the last war. Aside from that it was, in fact, a good plan.
Unfortunately for Hezb’allah it failed.
Israel did not take the bait. Instead of an armored charge, as Hezb’allah had hoped for, Israel responded by taking out bridges hoping to cut off Hezb’allah’s ability to spirit away the kidnapped soldiers. In addition, Israel struck by air at Hezb’allah’s command and control center in Southern Beirut.
Contrary to Mr. Fisk’s convoluted logic, Lebanon did not suffer because “we” betrayed its fledgling Democracy. Lebanon suffered because both Lebanon and the United Nations failed to live up to their obligations under UN Resolution 1559 and allowed Iran’s terrorist army proxy to occupy Southern Lebanon, and from those occupied territories launch an attack that was meant to drag both Israel and Lebanon into a war which neither wanted.
Witnessing what Hezb’allah was doing, in its six years of occupation and preparation for its offensive, Mr. Fisk and his ilk did indeed stand back and wait for both Lebanon and Israel to suffer.
Fisk goes on to state,
“Had Bush – indeed Blair – denounced Israel’s claim that it held the Lebanese government responsible for the kidnapping and killing of its soldiers and demanded an immediate cease fire, then the disaster that is destroying Lebanon’s Democracy would not have happened.”
Tisk, tisk, Mr. Fisk. Can one imagine a scenario in which one country allows a terrorist army to equip itself with tens of thousands of rockets which it then rains down on a neighboring country, and yet that country does not hold the country from which those rockets were launched accountable? Is there any country in the world which would, in fact, just shine it on? Especially in light of the fact that this same Hezb’allah which killed and kidnapped Israeli soldiers and launched over four thousand rockets against Israel’s civilians, was part of the Lebanese government!
Moreover, Fisk conveniently overlooks the fact that so long as Hezb’allah thought it was wining, it did not want a cease fire. Fisk talks about dead children in Tyre. Unfortunately no one needs to instruct me about the tragedy of the death of one’s child. I know it only too well. And my heart grieves with any parent who has suffered that horrific fate. But then, Fisk incredibly states that those children
“Would have been alive if even Blair and Margaret Beckett had demanded a cease fire. But they are dead. And Blair, and Beckett and Bush should have this on their consciences.”
No Fisk, you’ve got it wrong. The same Hezb’allah which pulled children’s bodies from the wreckage of the carnage which they themselves provoked, only to rebury those poor children’s bodies, and dig them up again for the next news crew; the same Hezb’allah which in the most cynical fashion launched, from within the Lebanese civilian population, their attacks against Israel’s civilian population in order to achieve maximum casualties of both, should have it on their consciences. So should their journalist appeasers and apologists, who enabled them and continue to cover up their crimes.
That Fisk is one such appeaser and apologist becomes clear when he almost gleefully states
“The Israeli Army were (was) soundly thrashed when they crossed the border to fight the Hezb’allah losing forty men in thirty six hours.”
Not that one is keeping score, but simply as a way of illustrating how fast and loose is Fisk with facts, in the first thirty six hours of the war Israel in fact lost 12 soldiers killed and four civilians. When one takes into account that eight of those twelve soldiers were killed in the initial attack, what those figures tell us is that in the first thirty-six hours of the conflict Israel lost as many civilians as soldiers, four of each.
As to Fisk’s assertion that Israel was “soundly thrashed” one is again forced to resort to facts as opposed to the fanciful narrative Fisk has created, in which Hezb’allah is somehow simultaneously the helpless victim and the sound thrasher. So here are the facts: at the end of the conflict all of Hezb’allah’s three-band-deep, Siegfried line-like system of fortresses, bunkers, tunnels and armed caches were destroyed or abandoned or in the control of the Israeli Army. Some six hundred of Hezb’allah’s elite fighters were killed, an unknown number (unknown because Hezb’allah has yet to release the figures) were wounded.
In contrast to this, Israel suffered one hundred and nineteen soldiers killed. That number, while tragic, represents the lightest casualties ever suffered by the Israeli army in major combat in its history. In 1948 in its war of liberation Israel suffered six thousand killed. In the Six Day War, arguably Israel’s greatest victory, the IDF suffered almost seven hundred killed. In the 1973 Yom Kippur War it suffered two thousand seven hundred killed in action.
In the first week alone of the first Lebanon War the IDF had one hundred and seventy six killed. Of the four hundred tanks deployed by the IDF in combat against Hezb’allah, a total of five tanks were destroyed. Hezb’allah on the other hand has been forced to abandon all its strongholds. Its terrorist capital, and infrastructure are in ruins and the positions it once manned are now finally taken up by the Lebanese Army and fifteen thousand man strong United Nations force.
Had those forces been in place on July 11th, as both Lebanon and the United Nations assured Israel after its withdrawal would be the case, none of the children Fisk and I both mourn would have died. None of them. Not one.
“When I sit on my sea front balcony today, I am waiting for the next explosion to come,” writes Fisk.
That at least is true; just as Fisk sat on his balcony refusing to cover the story that lead to the tragedy he now bemoans. That story was how Iran’s terrorist army proxy, not Israel, occupied Southern Lebanon, and then used those occupied territories to drag Israel and Lebanon both into its totally preventable war.
Through it all Fisk sits on his sea front balcony writing his next narrative which will no doubt enable, and apologize for, terrorist atrocities yet to come. CRO
**Dan Gordon is a scriptwriter whose credits include major motion pictures such as Passenger 57, The Hurricane, Wyatt Earp, Murder in the First, and The Assignment. He served as a captain in the reserves in the Israel Defense Forces during the recent campaign in Lebanon.
copyright 2006 Dan Gordon
Letter to May Chidiacby Carla Faissal Sabbagh
Dearest May,
It is with a lot of disappointment and anger that I find my-self writing to you this letter; but I guess things are getting beyond what is humanly and ethically accepted.I have been watching your program on LBC almost every week. I had my concerns and personal opinion but still, I could understand your biased position towards some political views although I strongly believe that professional talk shows should be unbiased by nature), and chose not to watch it as I personally do not agree with such a direction. But what really pushed me to write this letter is the last interview you had with the French magazine Paris Match. I truly understand your concern regarding the infrastructure in Lebanon that resulted from the last war on Lebanon in July 2006. I also understand your anger regarding all the destruction.I can also admit that Hezbollah did a calculation mistake regarding the operation done on July 12. However, what I cannot understand, what I totally refuse and get ashamed of as a Lebanese citizen, is that you gave comments that could fill 2 full pages in a magazine, criticizing a Lebanese party from our country which was in fact initially enhanced and supported by our own government. You expressed your anger towards Hezbollah, which is understandable in a democratic country.But not ONE word concerning the atrocities committed by Israel against our country? Not one word on more than 1000 citizens dying in what can be easily called a genocide?.Not one finger pointed against a country who massacred innocent children in the South, or any word regarding illegal gas bombs used on our people?.I haven't seen one concern regarding the pollution that the Israeli boats deliberately caused to our Mediterranean Sea. Not one thought regarding the villages that were encircled and blocked to make the Lebanese people starve from scarcity of food and basic needs. Not one line to express regret concerning babies who had to survive without milk, and mothers who were feeding them with water and sugar or the old women who were gathering leaves from the trees to make food out of them for their families.What do you think of Human Rights? Did it occur to you that this is more important to mention then criticizing people resisting? I completely understand the fact that you could be against Hezbollah's political views, but the idea of insulting a Lebanese party in a French magazine and disregarding all the crimes against humanity caused by Israel is not only unacceptable, it is revolting!
On top of all that, you mention St Charbel and your devotion to Christianity. Well I am a Christian too and I know what Christianity stands for.It is by all means Love, Loyalty, Compassion and Forgiveness. Do you feel you are an example of any of those values in this interview? Do you think Lebanese Christians are proud to read this article? How would you feel if you were in those people's shoes? You had your share of violence and tragedy. Don't you think you among all others could understand better? Who is the enemy here? Hezbollah or Israel? Why don't we say it out loud?
Why don't we tell the world what Israel did to us? All you mention is that the country is destroyed and nag about a couple of bridges.Who destroyed the country? Was it Hezbollah? Who conducted war on our soil? You are asking what Hezbollah is trying to prove. Why not ask what is Israel trying to prove? Why do we have to always behave like traitors? Why do we always stand against each other instead of standing against the intruder?
And who defended our dignity and raison d'etre? Why should it be Hezbollah?
Why can't it be the Christian media people like yourself? Why should I be ashamed to be a Christian in a country where Christians became nothing but followers? Why is it so hard to grasp that any foreign offence against ANY particular party, is an offence against our Nation? Why did it take some of us 30 years to finally consider Syria an enemy?Is History repeating itself?
I am sorry to say this, but we are fed up with media propaganda. Your article is an insult to the Lebanese people, specially the Christians. We are fed up with showing the world a Lebanon that is never united. Where is our national dignity? What is the real problem here: that Hezbollah initiated all this (like you said in PM), or that Israel is attacking our fellow citizens and children?
Why showing to the outside world your personal unconcern with other Lebanese people's resistance instead of shouting out loud that Israel has been attacking them for more than 35 years? Why don't you mention that your own government did nothing to build a powerful and solid Army during decades instead of raising taxes and fulfilling personal interests of men in power at the expense of a poor immigrating population?
I hope that your TV Show "Bi Kil Jerka", can be really daring by exposing ALL points of view without taking any sides, and at least not the LF side, which does NOT represent the Christians' point of view, at least not the majority. You have to be sure of that. Your article in Paris Match is a shame as it presents Hezbollah as the main enemy of Lebanon, while the real enemy has destroyed the infrastructure and children of the nation you say you adore.I would like to finish this letter by reminding you, Mrs Chidiac that when tragedy hit you, all these people that you are denying, stood by you, supported you and prayed for you. It is terribly sad to realize that when evil hit them, you disregarded them. You didn't even mentioned them, as if they are not human beings; as if they are not Lebanese; because believe it or not Hezbollah members are Lebanese; as if Lebanon should only be a place for Machiavellic corruption, personal interests, and where the law of the jungle is the only one prevailing. I don't think St Charbel is very happy with that