LCCC ENGLISH NEWS BULLETIN
October 07/06
Biblical Reading For today
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 10,13-16.
Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty deeds done in your midst had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would long ago have repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you. And as for you, Capernaum, 'Will you be exalted to heaven? You will go down to the netherworld.'"Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."
New Human Rights Report From SOLIDA
Lebanon's Ministry of Defense Definition Centre: A Major Obstacle to the prevention of torture/SOLIDA 07.10.06 (English-French)
SOLIDA: Press Conference about the report 07 October, 2006 (Arabic)
New OpinionsLebanon's 'dialogue' is devoid of any meaningful content-Daily Star 07.10.06
Lebanon's combustible mix-Washington Times 07.10.06A grocer's mind won't solve Arab problems -By Rami G. Khouri 07.10.06
Elusive unity-Al-Ahram Weekly - Lucy Fielder 07.10.06A Time to Speak Out-FrontPage magazine.com 07.10.06
Latest New from the Daily Star for October 07/06
ISF clashes with protesters in Dahiyeh
Berri says UNIFIL should confine itself to terms of UN Resolution 1701
Aoun vows to 'exhaust' Siniora into making way for unity government
ISF clashes with protesters in Dahiyeh
Army denies report that Turks will provide training for its soldiers
Rizk advances prosecution of Al-Akhbar journalists
Fadlallah warns public to beware of 'hidden plans'
UN envoy urges Lebanese to 'take ownership of 1701'
Berri included on US 'no-fly' list - American TV
Light at the end of the tunnel for displaced?
The Iranian nuclear stand-off casts an ominous shadow over Beirut
Azour: 'Big projects will take time'
Lebanese bank deposits grow against all oddsYouth labor builds a new Lebanon out of ideals
Invisible boundaries between extremes
Turkey and Europe: two trains about to collideRice, Barzani stress fair distribution of oil revenues as unifying factor for Iraqis
Lebanese bank deposits grow against all odds
Latest New from miscellaneous sources for October 07/06
Lebanon's combustible mix-Washington Times
Waiting for the next war-Waterloo Record
UN peacekeepers breathe life into Lebanon economy-Middle East Times
Israel mauled Hezbollah, says ex-Mossad chief-Australian Jewish News
Turkish frigate sets sail for Lebanon; Bulgaria to send frigate-Boston Herald, United States -
Italy's Prodi to travel to Lebanon next week-International Herald Tribune
Israeli Supreme Court deals blow to government investigation -International Herald Tribune
Muslim states reject UN Lebanon report-Jewish Telegraphic Agency
Left in Lebanon: A million bomblets-International Herald Tribune
UN Troops in Lebanon Rise in Strength-Washington Post
Bulgarian Parliament Approves Sending Naval Force to Lebanon-Naharnet, Lebanon
Lebanon's combustible mix
TODAY'S EDITORIAL-Washington Times
October 6, 2006
As Israel has withdrawn the last of its troops, the man who plunged Lebanon into war this summer, Hezbollah boss Hassan Nasrallah, has started to flex his muscles again. Sheikh Nasrallah, targeted for assassination by Israel, came out of hiding to address 350,000 people at a Sept. 22 rally in South Beirut, where he declared that the terrorist group possessed 20,000 rockets after the war with Israel. But the main focus of the Hezbollah leader's threats wasn't Israel; for now, his top priorities seem to be putting the Lebanese government in its place and intimidating the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon -- peacekeepers charged with preventing renewed conflict with Israel. In addition, there are reports that Hezbollah is stockpiling arms in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon (locations where the Lebanese army does not patrol) and that Iran and Syria continue poring arms in to Hezbollah forces.
The Hezbollah leader called for creation of a "serious" Lebanese national unity government -- in essence, a government in which groups sympathetic to Syria and hostile to the United States gain power. This would probably result in the ouster of the current Lebanese government headed by Fuad Siniora, a relatively moderate Sunni Muslim who has on occasion stood up to Damascus and its Lebanese mouthpiece, President Emile Lahoud, a Maronite Christian. Mr. Nasrallah said the Siniora government was not up to the task of reconstruction, and suggested that Hezbollah was prepared to assume the responsibility of "protecting" the country if Beirut is not up to the task. And, lest the U.N. peacekeepers get any ideas about trying to disarm Hezbollah, Mr. Nasrallah issued this threat: "Your clear mission [is to] support the Lebanese army ... not to spy on Hezbollah or disarm the Resistance." To avoid a "collision" with Hezbollah, he added, UNIFIL must refrain from getting involved in "internal" affairs such as Hezbollah's military buildup.
It would be a mistake to dismiss Mr. Nasrallah's comments as idle bluster. Last month, for example, Lebanese officials complained to reporters that Hezbollah was rebuilding its war bunkers inside Palestinian refugee camps with Iranian help. Olivier Guitta, a researcher who closely follows Hezbollah and Lebanese politics, says that the security situation in Lebanon is rapidly deteriorating. UNIFIL's blockade of Lebanon is proving to be a "joke," he told us yesterday. "Weapons come in from Syria without any problems."
He also said no one should be surprised if six months from now, Hezbollah and its backers in Iran trigger a war with Israel much larger than the one fought this summer. And Hezbollah finds itself being challenged by al Qaeda, which has in the past demonstrated the ability to fire missiles into Israel from Lebanon, and is strengthening its own forces in the Palestinian refugee camps.
In short, the jihadist forces with a vested interest in preventing Lebanon from governing itself and living in peace with its neighbors remain a clear and present danger.
Lebanon's 'dialogue' is devoid of any meaningful content
Saturday, October 07, 2006- Editorial-Daily Star
A void has opened up in the space where responsible Lebanese political figures should be conducting an official or unofficial dialogue. In its stead rages a storm of accusations, counter-accusations, empty slogans, and threats. All of this is getting in the way of the points the country's various parties and communities need to make to each other and to the outside world, making the need for genuine, substantive discussions even more urgent. Lebanon and the Lebanese face too many challenges to let this void fill up with invective until there is no longer any room left for intelligent people to communicate openly and meaningfully with one another.
Virtually no Lebanese party is without blame for this state of affairs. The list of topics that any useful dialogue must include is a long one, and yet the country's leading politicians have shied away from producing detailed suggestions on how to handle key issues. The resulting "conversation" is devoid of real content on such pressing matters as the enhancement and (full) implementation of the Taif Accord, the crafting of a fair electoral law, and far-reaching reform at all levels of government. Absent, too, is any mention of how the state will deal with its sky-high debt load if responses to its requests for international assistance fall short. Together, these and other failures of leadership are also helping to keep both foreign investors and Lebanon's own banking sector from putting their badly needed capital to work. A genuine dialogue would concentrate on carving out a new role for government that would inspire confidence in private citizens that the state is good for something other than soaking up their tax money, that it can and will work to improve education, healthcare and other essential services. An effective process would also more clearly define Lebanon's goals in its interactions with Syria and the rest of the Arab countries, and vigorously pursue a set of parameters to deal with the current and future implications of UN Security Council Resolution 1701. The March 14 Forces have been particularly errant. As the core party of the government and a grouping that claims to want change, one would expect its members to be at the fore of efforts to suggest how Lebanon might be transformed to the benefit of all its people. Failing that, one would expect at least some of its fabulously wealthy members to reach into their own deep pockets and commission consulting work on some of the challenges blocking the advent of effective statecraft in this country. It is admirable that some March 14 figures have been among those pledging to rebuild bridges destroyed during the war with Israel, but it would be far more helpful in the long term if they - and their counterparts in other parties - would also invest in the future of their shared country. Lebanon needs its leaders to understand that political maneuvering is no substitute for the careful thought, thorough preparation and hard work of fashioning a country worth keeping together.
ISF clashes with protesters in Dahiyeh
By Rym Ghazal -Daily Star staff
Saturday, October 07, 2006
BEIRUT: One person was killed and three others wounded Friday in a clash between Lebanese security forces and residents of Beirut's southern suburbs. The clash broke out at 2:30 p.m. on Friday as Internal Security Forces (ISF) personnel were working on eliminating illegally constructed homes on private properties in a neighborhood near the international airport. According to an official ISF statement, the incident occurred "on the second day of attempts to stop illegal construction near the Beirut airport." "After the ISF stopped two major violations and were in the process of removing the second one, they were attacked by the residents with stones and sticks and some residents started firing at the ISF," it added.
"The ISF was forced to fire back in the air in defense," said the statement. It added that one police officer was wounded, along with 11 policemen and three civilians. One civilian, 17-year-old Hassan Soueid, died from his wounds. Hospital officials said three others had been wounded, not two as reported by the ISF. The Hizbullah-run Al-Manar television channel said that one of its cameramen was also among the wounded. The ISF statement said that Soueid "was shot twice in the back by two different weapons from two meters away, and one of the bullets exploded in the body of the victim." "The type of weapons from which this bullet was released is not used by the ISF," it added.
But witnesses said that the ISF killed Soueid, pointing to the blood-stained floor near one of the illegally built houses where Soueid fell. Witnesses said a group of youths started a riot, burning tires, trash and wood, and damaging three police vehicles.
"The illegal construction has been happening for years, why now?" shouted one woman as she held up a blood-stained T-shirt, which she said belonged to one of the wounded teenagers. The rioters blocked one of the two main roads leading to Beirut airport, but the main highway to the airport remained open. Security sources said the people involved in the clash did not belong to any political party, adding that Hizbullah officials intervened to calm the situation. When contacted by The Daily Star, Hizbullah officials said "they did not get involved in this particular clash," and would not elaborate any further. Soueid, along with Mohammad Hussein Naji, 14, Ali Al-Ouzyer, 7 and Khadar Ammar, 11, were rushed to Rasoul al-Azmaa Hospital located along the old airport road. "They have sustained serious wounds, and it is not clear if they will make it," Ahamd Talal, head of the hospital administration told The Daily Star. Family members were seen weeping for the dead and the wounded, with several youths holding up small guns and threatening to "take revenge." "People are angry because children who threw stones were shot at with guns," said Talal. Witnesses added that citizens cut the roads leading to the hospital to prevent security forces from checking on them. - With agencies
Aoun vows to 'exhaust' Siniora into making way for unity government
'I assure him lebanon will not rest until he is gone'
By Nada Bakri -Daily Star staff
Saturday, October 07, 2006
BEIRUT: In his strongest attack on Prime Minister Fouad Siniora yet, Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun said he is determined to make the premier resign soon. "I will exhaust Siniora of course, and I will not let him rest. And I assure him Lebanon will not rest until he is gone," Aoun said on Friday. The former army general, who allied with Hizbullah earlier this year, has repeatedly called for the formation of a national unity government in which his party will be represented. He is also calling for early parliamentary elections based on a new electoral law to redistribute electoral representation and participation in the decision-making process. In the last few months, Hizbullah and other pro-Syrian former officials and parties have entered the fray, calling upon the prime minister to resign, but Siniora, backed by the March 14 Forces, has insisted that he will stay in office for as long as he enjoys the Parliament's vote of confidence. The anti-Syrian forces have accused those who are demanding a national unity government of attempting to create a power vacuum in advance of the creation of the international tribunal to try suspects in the February 14 assassination of former Premier Rafik Hariri.
"I was personally the first to speak in favor of the internationally mixed tribunal ... but we don't know what law this court will adopt yet, to support it and it would be wrong to take positions based on speculations," Aoun said.
"We were hoping they would ask us and they can ask us. After all we are not Hizbullah or the Syrians ... we are the Reform and Change bloc," he added.
Last month, in his most recent public appearance, Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, speaking to hundred of thousands of supporters of Hizbullah's "victory" over Israel in the July-August war, said he will hold off on any attempts to change the government till the month Ramadan ends on October 23. Nasrallah "said Ramadan is a month for reflection and mediation for the government ... But it seems that day after day they are insisting on staying in office forever and I tell them they cannot," Aoun said. "Meanwhile we will watch them walk on a dead-end road, and then when they will fall in the valley we will watch them surprised," he added. Nasrallah's deputy Naim Qassem said in a statement released on Friday that the formation of a national unity government does not hinder the creation of the international tribunal but that it is necessary to face current challenges and to replace the national dialogue and implement its decisions. "What effect has the national unity government on the international court?" asked Qassem. "And why are they establishing this unrealistic link between them?""The only logical explanation we found to this link is instigating fury over the assassination of Hariri ... what is the point of pretending that national unity contradicts with uncovering the identity of the murderers?" Qassem said.
He said a national unity government is essential to build the future "with the hands of all the Lebanese and to replace the national dialogue and implement its decisions." "Let us discuss calmly your [March 14] remarks on this government ... we can agree on its formation and details before the resignation of this current government so to avoid a power vacuum," he added. Qassem called upon "our partners in the country" to seize this opportunity and benefit from it and to resist America pressures. Members of the March 14 Forces have started a counter-campaign to defy calls to change Siniora's Cabinet, visiting officials and religious figures and stressing their full support for the premier. "We delivered a clear message to Siniora mainly that his Cabinet enjoys a high level of national credibility after all it has done during the war and after the war," said Wael Bou Faour, speaking on behalf of the March 14 Forces on Friday following a visit to Siniora. "This Cabinet has stopped the war through its political and diplomatic efforts and at the same time it safeguarded the national unity and is now fulfilling its duties in the reconstruction process," he said. Bou Faour said any demand to replace this government in "a coup d'etat" way is unacceptable. "And to those voices we hear from time to time which are attempting to hinder this Cabinet, we tell them that this government is not an orphan ... it enjoys popular and political support," he said.
UN envoy urges Lebanese to 'take ownership of 1701'
By Iman Azzi -Daily Star staff
Saturday, October 07, 2006
BEIRUT: UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's personal representative to Lebanon defended Security Council Resolution 1701 on Thursday, telling an American University of Beirut (AUB) panel discussion that its terms favor this country Geir Pederson said the fact that the final resolution had been transformed into one that was more favorable to Lebanon than the first draft shows that "even the US realizes that the UN is bigger than the US."
Pederson urged the Lebanese "to take ownership of Resolution 1701 and not let anyone dictate to you what it is or is not ... There is a lot of it that is in favor of Lebanon."Pederson made the remarks in response to comments by AUB assistant professor of International Relations Karim Makdisi, who argued that 1701, which implemented the cessation of hostilities that ended the war, was biased against Lebanon.
The discussion was held at AUB's College and Hall and hosted by the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs (IFI) on "The UN and the rule of law in the Middle East: recent trends, opportunities and concerns." The event was moderated by Rami Khouri, director of the IFI and The Daily Star's editor-at-large, and attracted a healthy crowd of professors, students, journalists and diplomats, including a representative of the US Embassy.
Makdisi argued that the Security Council had chosen to breach its own mandate and sacrifice a defenseless UN member, namely Lebanon, in order to satisfy the geopolitical aims of a hegemonic state, the United States, and its client state, Israel. "Resolution 1701, it should be pointed out, puts the entire blame of the war on Hizbullah; and the entire burden of peace on Lebanon," he said. Makdisi said that while Hizbullah violated Israel's sovereignty and international law when it captured two Israeli soldiers in a raid on July 12 that sparked the war, the Jewish state's response was also illegal.
Once Israel realized that it could not retrieve its soldiers following the abduction, he argued, it should have resorted to the Security Council to call for a resolution that would compel Hizbullah and Lebanon to release the soldiers, at the risk of facing sanctions or other punitive measures. Since Israel decided to go to war without UN approval, Makdisi concluded, it was in violation of international laws of war.
Pederson reminded the audience that the Security Council includes member-states with veto power and that the reality is that politics enter the equation.
"International law is not just international law but also politics," he said. "[Resolutions] are based on votes. It's a reality that is based on part of the [UN] Charter."When asked what organizations and individuals could do "to get beyond simply criticizing policy and achieve the goal of a world ruled by law," Pederson stressed the grassroots."You can start in the community where you live," he said. "Work for one authority, one state and one law within Lebanon that reflects the wishes of the people."Makdisi answered: "As an academic, I push for education, awareness and critical thought. There is a lack of understanding of the UN and international law in Lebanon and the Arab world. Only through critical understanding can we help set the agenda and empower ourselves."
Berri included on US 'no-fly' list - American TV
Compiled by Daily Star staff -Saturday, October 07, 2006
A "no-fly" list meant to keep terrorists off airplanes contains the name of Speaker Nabih Berri, according to a report by a television news show. The story by CBS' "60 Minutes" builds on previous reports that detailed how young children and well-known Americans like Senator Edward M. Kennedy have been stopped at airports because their names match those on lists. Berri was listed along with Bolivian President Evo Morales, as well as several dead people, on a list hastily elaborated after September 11, 2001, CBS' "60 Minutes" program was to report Sunday, after obtaining the secret US government list of 44,000 names. However, "60 Minutes" said the names of potential terrorists were not included, such as the 11 Britons recently accused of planning to blow up plans headed for the US, although they had been under investigation for a year.Critics say the government does not provide enough information about the people on the lists, so innocent passengers can be caught up in the security sweep. - With agencies
Waiting for the next war
BRIDGET JOHNSON
ASSOCIATED PRESS
MIDEAST (Oct 6, 2006)
Israel has officially finished moving out of Lebanon, leaving a simmering kettle and the United Nations in charge of the burner.
Let's assess the situation: Israel Defence Forces soldiers Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev -- abducted in a cross-border Hezbollah raid on July 12, thus sparking 34 days of war -- are still missing. Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah, proving to be an adept party planner, is holding victory celebrations after Israel was driven out of southern Lebanon by a UN-brokered cease fire. The Lebanese government still has no handle on Hezbollah, which continues to get support from Syria and Iran and boasts of a stockpile of at least 20,000 more rockets and missiles. And they don't seem to want to grasp control over Hezbollah. This "see no evil, hear no evil" strategy has failed miserably before -- namely, on July 12. Only a third of the international peacekeepers promised for Lebanon's southern region have actually been deployed. Those peacekeepers are, essentially, doing nothing as Nasrallah bloviates and prepares for the glory days ahead. "In most ways, therefore, UN Security Council Resolution 1701 of Aug. 14 is a dead letter," writes terrorism and intelligence news site DEBKAfile. There is undoubtedly a grave plot behind the UN building where these lifeless resolutions end up -- those appeasement efforts disguised as action, that dumb strategy disguised as diplomacy. The UN, never geniuses at waging lasting peace, has spent so much energy making sure that Israel gets out of the Lebanese region -- lands from which rockets were being fired at Israeli civilians -- in an effort to please Arab states that they've never given too much thought to what was left behind. The rules of engagement for the UN's Lebanon force are, basically, don't engage. Not a shot is to be fired without the Lebanese government signing the permission slip. Imagine Hezbollah laughing with glee while moving stockpiles of weapons to strategic locations (which, considering its reprehensible behaviour in the last session of fighting, is likely to include lots of civilian neighbourhoods packed with children, good for sparking global outrage and harvesting support from retaliatory strikes). And what's left is the fertile breeding ground for the next, more violent conflict.
How long will Fouad Siniora's government last after the bombardment where he cried (literally) at Israel's actions, but left the combative, extremist parties within his borders in a situation to become only stronger? What kind of neighbour will Lebanon become with an unabashedly pro-Hezbollah, anti-Western leadership structure?The hearts and minds of ordinary Lebanese were effectively brainwashed by the "party of God" despite the destruction that Hezbollah's actions wreaked on their towns. "This is a great victory for the Lebanese in the south and for Hezbollah we will organize a great party," one border villager said, as reported by the UAE's Gulf News.And how can anyone dare threaten their new champion of jihad, the sheik himself? Arab media outlets have jumped all over Israeli Infrastructure Minister Binyamin Ben Eliezer for saying Saturday that, "We must liquidate Nasrallah at the first opportunity, because he is the embodiment of evil, not just for us but for Muslims and Christians too."A statement destined to raise blood pressures at the UN, basically because it makes too much sense.Mark Regev, speaking for the Israeli foreign affairs ministry, told Agence France Presse that "no one should expect Israel to honour the agreement unilaterally if the other party to the agreement fails in their commitment." That's more than fair. But at that point would Israel then, too, bow to international pressure to forge an unenforceable "peace" agreement, leaving the region in even greater limbo than before? Rosh Hashanah is the new year and Yom Kippur is about making a new start, but the pullout of the last Israeli soldier will simply mean new war. When and just how deadly is uncertain, but unholy alliances across the border threaten Israel's very survival -- and round one went to them.
**Bridget Johnson is a columnist at the Los Angeles Daily News
A Time to Speak Out
By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 6, 2006
In this era of violent intimidation, it is crucial for the continued life of our free society that we speak out, and do so fearlessly.
Evidence of the urgency of this multiplies daily. Pope Benedict XVI called upon Muslims (and Christians) to forsake religious violence, but in the course of doing so quoted a statement by a fourteenth-century Byzantine emperor that offended some Muslims. In response, in Pakistan a thousand Islamic clerics and scholars have demanded that the Pope be “removed from his position immediately for encouraging war and fanning hostility between various faiths" and "making insulting remarks" against Islam. Just to make sure that we all understand that Islam is a religion of peace, they added: “If the West does not change its stance regarding Islam, it will face severe consequences."
Meanwhile, a new Palestinian jihad group announced: “Every place relevant to Christians will be a target until the cursed infidel – the Vatican – apologizes to Muslims.” Muslims in Gaza burned and vandalized seven Christian sites, including a 1,400-year-old church. Meanwhile, a nun in Somalia and two other Christians in Iraq were killed, and others threatened worldwide -- including, of course, the Pope himself.
Then French philosophy teacher Robert Redeker published an article in which he characterized the Muslim prophet Muhammad as “a merciless war chief, plunderer, slaughterer of Jews and a polygamist.” Quickly he was forced into hiding by death threats, despite the fact that many Muslims around the world seem to agree, unapologetically, that Muhammad was just those things, as I illustrated in a recent article.
In the face with violent intimidation, the worst thing anyone can do is acquiesce to being silenced. That would just send the message that violent intimidation works. On the contrary, it is all the more crucial in this politically correct age to stand and forthrightly speak the truth. That is one reason why I am so glad to see that a new America’s Truth Forum conference is coming in November: “The Radical Islamist Threat to World Peace and National Security,” sponsored by the America’s Truth Forum, in association with Basics Project. I will be participating in this symposium on November 10 and 11 in Las Vegas, along with Harvey Kushner, author of Holy War on the Home Front; former Palestinian Liberation Organization member Walid Shoebat; the courageous Wafa Sultan, whose fiery confrontation with an imam on Al-Jazeera (“no Jew has blown himself up in a German restaurant”) gained her international notoriety; Paul Williams, author of Al Qaeda Connection and Osama’s Revenge; veteran CIA agent Bruce Tefft; and more. The keynote speaker is Hamid Mir, the lone journalist to have met with both Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri since 9/11.
This is the second America’s Truth Forum conference. I also spoke at the first, which was held in the Washington area in April 2006. It was refreshing to hear speaker after speaker (including Andrew Bostom, editor of The Legacy of Jihad; Walid Phares, author of Future Jihad; and Kenneth Timmerman, author of Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran) tell truths about the reality and magnitude of the challenge the West faces today, without pulling their punches out of political correctness and fear. I am honored to be able to participate in a second such forum, and hope there will be many more. So many in the West have been willing, even eager, to acquiesce to jihadist intimidation -- witness the chastened reaction to the riots over cartoons of the Islamic prophet Muhammad in a newspaper in Denmark: after violent rioting around the world, Church officials, government leaders, journalists and others solemnly pontificated about the dangers of "insults to religious figures." But it wasn't really a question of blasphemy or insult at all. The Cartoon Rage riots, as well as the reaction to the Pope’s remarks and the death threats against Robert Redeker, are attempts to frighten the West into chastened silence about Islam, including Islamic jihad terrorism. Rather than being a question of sensitivity to the religious sensibilities of others, the challenge posed by these riots and threats revolves around the question of whether non-Muslims will submit to Muslim standards and restrictions on their speech, thought, and behavior.
If we are willing to do so, we can end the war on terror tomorrow, for Osama bin Laden will have obtained his goal.
The America’s Truth Forum conference in Las Vegas is one part of the larger attempt to keep that from happening. Tickets and reservations must be acquired by October 27. Don’t miss it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of six books, seven monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World’s Fastest Growing Faith and the New York Times Bestseller The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). His latest book is The Truth About Muhammad.
The Philosopher and the Fatwa
By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 2, 2006
It has happened again. On the heels of global Muslim rage against Pope Benedict XVI – which led to riots and three killings of Christians – a teacher in France has gone into hiding after receiving death threats. His offense? He published a column in the French newspaper Le Figaro in which he characterized the Muslim prophet Muhammad as “a merciless war chief, plunderer, slaughterer of Jews and a polygamist.”
Redeker said that one of the threats he received stated: “You will never feel secure on this earth. One billion, three hundred thousand Muslims are ready to kill you.” As the death threats poured in, everyone abandoned Redeker. The teacher himself noted that France’s education ministry “has not even contacted me, has not deigned to get in touch to see if I need any help.” The senior editor of Le Figaro, Pierre Rousselin, declared on Al-Jazeera that he had been mistaken to publish Redeker’s article, and hastened to assure the Islamic world that the article did not reflect the opinion of the paper.
It was unclear what exactly those who are threatening Redeker are upset about. Were they contending that he had lied about Muhammad? If so, they must contend with the fact that many Muslims around the world seem to agree, unapologetically, that Muhammad was “a merciless war chief, plunderer, slaughterer of Jews and a polygamist.” As I explain in my forthcoming book The Truth About Muhammad, mujahedin throughout the world see the Prophet of Islam as the personification of the qualities they are trying to embody. They have provided abundant evidence of this in recent years:
Merciless war chief: On September 5, 2003, Sheikh Ibrahim Mudeiris invoked one of Muhammad’s battles, an expedition against the Byzantine empire known as the Battle of Tabouk, when speaking of the Iraq war in a sermon broadcast by the Palestinian Authority: “If we go back in the time tunnel 1400 years, we will find that history repeats itself…. Byzantium represents America in the west…. America will collapse, as Byzantium collapsed in the west….The Prophet [Muhammad] could, by means of unbroken ranks, conquer Byzantium, the greatest power compared to today’s America -- and this without a single martyr falling from among the Muslims….The Prophet could, by means of the unity of the Muslim ranks and its awakening, defeat the America of that time….America is our No. 1 enemy, and we see it as our No. 1 enemy as long as we learn from the lessons of the Battle of Tabouk [which took place in October 630 AD]: ‘Make ready for them whatever you can of armed strength and of mounted pickets’ [Koran 8:60]. We are prepared and ready, but victory is from Allah….”[i]
On November 21, 2003, Muslims poured out of the Maiduguri Road Central Mosque after Friday prayers in the Nigerian city of Kaduna, demanding the implementation of Sharia law and distributing flyers stating: “The only solution is Jihad, the type of jihad put into practise by Prophet Muhammed and exemplified by Shehu Usman Dan Fodio and the late Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran. We Muslims should unite and embrace this concept of jihad that will undoubtedly empower us to destroy oppression and oppressors, and in its place establish Islam.”[ii]
In October 2004, Sheikh Aamer Bin Abdallah Al-Aamer wrote this in the Al-Qaeda online journal Sawt al-Jihad: “Perform the Jihad against your enemies with your [own two] hands, sacrifice your souls and your property in fighting your enemy, as an imitation of [the acts of] your Prophet [Muhammad] in the month of Ramadan [and in order to] enrage your enemies.”[iii]
Fawwaz bin Muhammad Al-Nashami, the commander of the jihad group that killed twenty-two people in a jihad attack in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, on May 29, 2004, said that he acted in accord with Muhammad’s wishes for Arabia: “We are Mujahideen, and we want the Americans. We have not come to aim a weapon at the Muslims, but to purge the Arabian Peninsula, according to the will of our Prophet Muhammad, of the infidels and the polytheists who are killing our brothers in Afghanistan and Iraq….We began to comb the site looking for infidels. We found Filipino Christians. We cut their throats and dedicated them to our brothers the Mujahideen in the Philippines. [Likewise], we found Hindu engineers and we cut their throats too, Allah be praised. That same day, we purged Muhammad’s land of many Christians and polytheists.”[iv]
In the run-up to the 2004 American presidential election, a Muslim preacher invoked Muhammad to denounce democracy: “Our Prophet did not run for office in any election….He did not win any political debate. [Instead] he won the war against the infidel.”[v]
In a January 2005 article in Arab News, columnist Adil Salahi reminded his readers that Muhammad never made war on a people without first inviting them to convert to Islam: “During the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) lifetime the Muslim community had to fight many battles, because there were several sources of danger and many opponents who were keen to suppress the rising voice of the Islamic message. The Prophet made sure that in none of these battles the Muslims would exceed the limits of what is lawful in Islam….[H]e would not launch an attack without alerting the enemy and calling on them to accept Islam and live in peace with the Muslim state.”[vi]
London Muslim leader Hani Al-Sibaai in February 2005 justified the slaughters being perpetrated by Al-Zarqawi’s mujahedin in Iraq: “Do these people base themselves on Islamic law or not? They claim that they do, and to support it, they say that slaughtering appeared in a hadith by the Prophet, which was pronounces authentic by Sheik Ahmad Shaker. The Prophet told the Quraysh tribe: ‘I have brought slaughter upon you,’ making this gesture. But these are religious issues that may be disputed….[T]he Prophet drove nails into and gouged out the eyes of people from the ‘Urayna Tribe. They were merely a group of thieves who stole from sheep herders, and the Prophet drove nails into them and threw them into the Al-Hrara area, and left them there to die. He blinded them and cut off their opposite legs and arms. This is what the Prophet did on a trifling matter – let alone in war.”[vii]
Plunderer: On March 28, 2003, the Palestinian Sheikh Muhammad Abu Al-Hunud warned in another sermon broadcast over Palestinian Authority television against those who would attempt to “mess with Allah’s book, to Americanize the region, Americanize the religion, Americanize the Koran, Americanize Muhammad’s message….” Any doubt that he meant by this that the Qur’an and Muhammad’s message would be stripped of their violent components were dispelled when he prayed about the Americans in Iraq: “Allah, make their possessions a booty for the Muslims, Allah, annihilate them and their weapons, Allah, make their children orphans and their women widows….”[viii]
As late as November 2003, the website of the Islamic Affairs Department (IAD) of the Saudi Arabian embassy in Washington, D.C. contained exhortations to Muslims to wage violent jihad in emulation of Muhammad, and quoted Muhammad’s words about plunder: “Whoever of My slaves comes out to fight in My way seeking My pleasure, I guarantee him that I will compensate his suffering with reward and booty (during his lifetime) and if he dies, I would forgive him, have mercy on him and let him enter Paradise.”[ix]
Slaughterer of Jews: A jihadist explaining that the Israeli/Palestinian struggle was more than just a nationalist conflict over land declared: “But all of these people don’t realize that our struggle with the Jews goes way back, ever since the first Islamic state was established in Madeenah with Muhammad (SAWS) the Messenger sent to all of mankind, as its leader. Allaah has related to us in the Qur’ân, the reality of the Jews’ malice and hatred for the ummah of Islaam and Tawheed, as he says: ‘You will surely find that the people with the most enmity towards the believers are the Jews and the polytheists.’ (Surah Al-Maa’idah: 82) [Qur’an 5:82].[x]
In July 2006 a writer on a British Muslim Internet forum declared: “I’m so fed up with these dirty, filthy Israeli dogs. May Allah curse them and destroy them all, and may they face the same fate as Banu Qurayzah!”[xi] This was an Arabian Jewish tribe that was massacred on Muhammad’s orders, and with his participation, after he came to believe that they had betrayed him. Muhammad’s first biographer, Ibn Ishaq, puts the number of those killed at “600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900.”[xii]
Polygamist. It is not disputed by anyone that Muhammad had many wives. Muslim apologetic websites do not deny the fact, but celebrate it: Islam Online says of Muhammad’s wives that “they gave advice to their husband when he needed it, went with him to battle to nurse the wounded, accompanied him on his travels. They preserved the memory of intimate details of their married life in order to educate succeeding generations in the rules of purification and relations between spouses.”
These are not the slanders of “Islamophobes.” These are the statements of people who consider themselves to be pious and knowledgeable Muslims, who wouldn’t dream of insulting Muhammad. It is noteworthy also that at least those who spoke in televised sermons seemed to assume that their Muslim audience would also know and accept that Muhammad behaved the way they say he did. Nor were there any protests raised against these or similar statements by other Muslims anywhere in the Islamic world. So why is Robert Redeker in fear for his life after threats for saying, in effect, what many Muslims around the world themselves say?
It would appear that his chief crime was in saying these things as a non-Muslim, and in a disapproving way. Those Muslims who have issued threats to Redeker seem to be attempting to extend the traditional Islamic legal tenet forbidding non-Muslims in the Islamic state to insult Allah or Muhammad, or to hold any critical discussion of Muhammad by non-Muslims. It seems to be acceptable for non-Muslims to speak about Muhammad only if they speak as if they were believers, or with the sensibilities of believers paramount in their considerations. Even the noted moderate Muslim spokesman Akbar Ahmed of American University recommends something like this when speaking of the rage against Pope Benedict XVI. Ahmed hedges his support for free speech with an appeal to be sensitive to the consequences of speaking out: “Although I totally support free speech and freedom of expression, and have been saying so publicly, all of us need to be sensitive to the culture and traditions of other faiths. I am not talking of a purely academic or idealistic discussion but the possibility of people losing their lives as a result of some perceived attack on faith made across the world. I believe that the lives lost and the properties destroyed—including mosques and churches—after the Danish cartoons controversy erupted could have been avoided had there been people of greater wisdom and compassion at the start of the crisis.” (Ahmed’s “mosques and churches” statement is curious, since those who were angered by the Pope’s statement destroyed churches in Gaza, the West Bank, and Nigeria. They destroyed no mosques.)
Ahmed seems to be saying in effect that non-Muslims should tread lightly about Islamic topics simply because violence might ensue. But if someone reacts violently to another’s words, particularly if those words would be inoffensive coming from someone else, the fault lies with the one who is reacting, not with the speaker. The threats to Redeker, following so closely on the global outrage at the Pope, are yet another example of the jihadist attempt to frighten and intimidate the West into chastened silence.
That makes it all the more crucial, in these perilous times, for free people to speak out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[i] Steven Stalinsky, “Palestinian Authority Sermons 2000-2003,” Middle East Media Research Institute, Special Report No. 24, December 26, 2003.
[ii] Adeyeye Joseph and Agaju Madugba, “Bomb Scare in Lagos,” This Day, November 22, 2003.
[iii] “Al-Qa’ida Internet Magazine Sawt Al-Jihad Calls to Intensify Fighting During Ramadan -- ‘the Month of Jihad,’” Middle East Media Research Institute, Special Dispatch No. 804, October 22, 2004.
[iv] “Commander of the Khobar Terrorist Squad Tells the Story of the Operation,” Middle East Media Research Institute Special Dispatch Series No. 731, June 15, 2004.
[v] Amir Taheri, “Kerry Wins The Arab Vote,” New York Post, August 18, 2004.
[vi] Adil Salahi, “No Fighting Before Explaining Islam,” Arab News, January 31, 2005.
[vii] “London Islamist Dr. Hani Al-Sibaai Justifies Slaughters in Iraq: The Prophet Muhammad Used to Slaughter As Well,” Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) Clip No. 576, February 22, 2005.
[viii] Steven Stalinsky, “Palestinian Authority Sermons 2000-2003,” Middle East Media Research Institute, Special Report No. 24, December 26, 2003.
[ix] Steven Stalinsky, “The ‘Islamic Affairs Department’ of the Saudi Embassy in Washington, D.C.,” Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) Special Dispatch No. 23, November 26, 2003.
[x] “Our Struggle with the Jews is a Struggle for Existence, Not a Struggle for Land,” Al-Asaalah Magazine, Issue 30. http://www.allaahuakbar.net/jew/our_struggle_with_the_jews_is_a_struggle_for_existence.htm.
[xi] Yaakov Lappin, “UK Islamists: Make Jihad on Israel,” YNet News, July 2, 2006.
[xii] Ibn Ishaq, 464.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of six books, seven monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World’s Fastest Growing Faith and the New York Times Bestseller The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). His latest book is The Truth About Muhammad.
Saudi Arabia Woos China and India
by Harsh V. Pant
Middle East Quarterly
Fall 2006
http://www.meforum.org/article/1019
In January 2006, Saudi king Abdullah bin Abdul-Aziz al-Saud visited China and India, a trip some commentators labeled "a strategic shift" in Saudi foreign policy and reflective of "a new era" for the kingdom.[1] It was King Abdullah's first trip outside the Middle East since taking the throne in August 2005, and it was also the first trip by a Saudi ruler to China since the two countries established diplomatic relations in 1990.
Abdullah's travel was significant. His reception suggested both Chinese and Indian recognition of the House of Saud's role in regulating global oil prices and the impact that Saudi oil policy has not only on Western economies but on the Chinese and Indian economies as well. Riyadh's relations with Beijing and Delhi are not shaped by energy alone, however. There is a major political component to Saudi strategic thinking. The royal family wishes to engage China and India in order to create a political alternative to its relationship with the United States. Saudi thinkers may believe that an Asian alternative will make the kingdom less susceptible to Western pressure on such issues as democratization and terror financing. While Saudi outreach toward the Asian giants will accelerate in coming years, it will not provide Riyadh with a panacea but rather will still require all parties to confront difficult foreign policy choices they may wish to avoid.
Sino-Saudi Relations: Broad-Based Engagement
Many Saudi officials, annoyed with U.S. pressure to cease funding Islamist and terrorist groups, find Beijing's no-questions-asked policies attractive. Beijing and Riyadh are in one key way alike, in that both seek to take advantage of economic globalization without endangering their political status quo.
That Beijing was the first stop on King Abdullah's Asian tour symbolized China's growing profile. The Chinese government has worked hard to improve its relations with Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil exporter.[2] In 2004, the two countries inaugurated a series of regular political consultations. That same year, China's state oil company, Sinopec, signed a deal to explore gas in Saudi Arabia's vast Empty Quarter (Rub al-Khali). Then, in December 2005, Beijing held its first formal talks with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).
Reflective of the growing breadth of Sino-Saudi relations, Abdullah used his visit not only to sign a pact on energy cooperation and joint investment in oil, natural gas, and mineral deposits but also to conclude broader economic, trade, taxation, and technical accords, a vocational training agreement, and to finalize a Saudi Arabian Development Bank urban development loan for the historic Muslim Chinese city of Aksu in the western province of Xinjiang.[3]
Still, energy is the backbone of the relationship. Until 1993, China was a net oil exporter,[4] but it has since become the second-greatest oil consumer after the United States. More than half of Chinese oil imports originate in the Persian Gulf with 15 percent in Saudi Arabia. Total Saudi-Chinese trade grew 59 percent in 2005 to US$14 billion and may reach $40 billion in the next four to five years.[5] By 2010, the Middle East might account for 95 percent of China's imported oil.[6]
Saudi Arabia has also emerged as a major investor in Chinese refineries. In 1999, Saudi Arabia's Aramco Overseas Company provided a $750 million investment—25 percent of the total project—in a petrochemical complex in Fujian capable of processing 8 million tons of Saudi crude oil per annum. Saudi Arabia, in cooperation with several members of OPEC, intends to build a new refinery in Guangzhou involving a total investment of $8 billion.[7]
Sino-Saudi trade and investment will only increase. During his trip, Abdullah invited Chinese businessmen to invest in Saudi Arabia and take advantage of the kingdom's economic reforms and privatization of some state-owned firms. Beijing and Riyadh plan to expand bilateral investments with emphasis on energy, infrastructure, and telecommunications.[8] The Saudi government may seek Chinese assistance as it works towards diversifying its economy.
Already, Saudi Arabia is China's biggest trading partner in the greater Middle East, and China is Saudi Arabia's fourth-largest importer and fifth largest exporter while Saudi Arabia is China's tenth-largest importer and largest crude oil supplier.[9] Chinese industrial goods are increasingly displacing Western products in the Saudi markets, affecting Saudi attitudes towards the relative importance of the United States and China. Such a trend may accelerate if Chinese government plans to sign a free trade agreement with the Gulf Cooperation Council come to fruition.[10] In the last two years, growing bilateral trade has led to three rounds of free trade area negotiations, most recently in January 2006.
The new economic symbiosis is having an increasing impact on Saudi Arabia's military and political posture. Riyadh once relied on Washington for its defense.[11] But while Washington was a major military supplier, it was not the only one. Between 1990 and 1994, the Saudi Defense and Aviation Ministry spent $50 billion purchasing military hardware, not only from the United States but also Great Britain, France, and China.[12]
In the 1980s, the kingdom sought to tap the Chinese arms market. In 1985, the Saudi government risked Washington's ire to import Chinese CSS-2 nuclear-capable, intermediate-range ballistic missiles with a 3,000-kilometer range. With the CSS-2 becoming obsolete, Riyadh is considering purchase of the upgraded, solid-fuelled CSS-5 and CSS-6 with a range of 1800 and 600 kilometers respectively.[13]
It is not just the Saudi government that is happy to find an alternative to its traditional dependence on Washington. Chinese authorities are happy to provide a political and diplomatic alternative for states such as Saudi Arabia that are upset with U.S. pressure to curtail support for terrorism and perceived U.S. interference in domestic affairs. After all, Beijing and many Arab governments share suspicions of U.S. policy.[14] China's president, Hu Jintao, visited Riyadh in April 2006 and addressed the Shura, the consultative council that advises the king. It is an honor that has been granted to only a select few foreign leaders. The latest U.S. National Security Strategy declares the White House's belief that "the fundamental character of regimes matters as much as the distribution of power among the states" and reiterated Washington's goal "to help create a world of democratic, well-governed states that can meet the needs of citizens and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system."[15] Such objectives threaten equally the Chinese government and that of Saudi Arabia, which is—with Libya and Syria—among the most autocratic and arbitrary regimes in the Arab Middle East.[16] Many Arab governments also see Beijing's U.N. Security Council veto as an important counterbalance to U.S. hyper-power.[17]
Saudi-Indian Relations: Mutual Interests?
From China, King Abdullah flew to India, Asia's other emerging giant, where he was a guest of honor at India's national Republic Day celebrations. It was the first visit of a Saudi monarch to India since King Saud's brief visit to the subcontinent in 1955. Relations subsequently froze, as Riyadh sided with Washington during the Cold War, and New Delhi drifted closer to Moscow. Saudi-Indian ties strained further after the Indian government failed to condemn the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan while the Saudi government helped bankroll the opposition Afghan mujahideen.[18] However, with the Cold War over, such impediments to Saudi-Indian relations evaporated.
The two countries have significant interests beyond oil. While India is not a Muslim-majority country, it still hosts the second-largest Muslim population in the world,[19] a constituency that remains interested in Saudi Arabia as the site of the holy shrines at Mecca and Medina. There is already significant cultural interchange. Approximately 1.5 million Indian workers constitute the largest expatriate community in the kingdom.[20]
Riyadh, for its part, has agreed to support New Delhi's petition for observer status in the Organization of Islamic Conference. It has also been supportive of Indian moves to reduce tension in Kashmir and has tried to move beyond its traditional approach of looking at India through a Pakistani prism.
New Delhi has also cultivated Riyadh for strategic reasons. To Indian strategists, any ally that can act as a counterweight to Pakistan in the Islamic world is significant. Initially, New Delhi sought to cultivate Tehran, but such efforts stumbled in recent years as the Islamic Republic has adopted an increasingly aggressive anti-Western posture.[21] Saudi Arabia now fills that gap. Indeed, Iranian nuclear ambitions have helped draw New Delhi and Riyadh closer.
The Saudi government has its own reasons for cultivating Indian ties. Saudi Arabia and Iran have long competed for power and influence in the Persian Gulf.[22] The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran added a new edge to the rivalry, as Iranian ayatollahs sought increasingly to challenge the Saudi officials on religious matters, such as the rules and regulations surrounding the hajj or pilgrimage to Mecca. The fact that about 40 percent of Saudi Arabia's oil-producing eastern province is Shi‘ite and resents Wahhabi rule worries Riyadh.[23] The anxiety is mutual. In 1994, the Iranian intelligence ministry designated Salafi terrorism as the primary threat to Iranian national security.[24] Tehran's nuclear drive, Iranian interference in neighboring Iraq, and Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's aggressive rhetoric further raise Saudi anxiety of a resurgent Iran, and all were subjects of discussion during the king's meeting with the Indian prime minister.[25]
Still, the relationship is not all rosy. The Indian military has been fighting separatist groups in its northern state of Kashmir for several years now. Thousands of lives have been lost because of Islamist terrorism or the associated crackdown. Saudi financiers bankroll many of the Pakistani and Kashmiri groups that conduct the terrorism.[26] The Indian government would like its Saudi counterparts to manage the funds transferred to India better, a substantial portion of which ends in Islamist pockets. The Indian prime minister and Saudi king used their New Delhi meeting to sign a memorandum of understanding dealing with terrorism, transnational crime, and underworld operations.[27] Both governments agreed to cooperate toward the conclusion of a comprehensive convention on international terrorism before the U.N. General Assembly and to establish an international counterterrorism center as called for by the International Conference on Counter-Terrorism held in Riyadh in February 2005.[28]
While the Indian government would like political reforms to take hold in Saudi Arabia to mitigate the Islamist threat,[29] energy is now the driving force in Saudi-Indian relations. Riyadh is the chief supplier of oil to India's booming economy, and India is now the fourth largest recipient of Saudi oil after China, the United States, and Japan.[30] India's crude oil imports from the Saudi kingdom will likely double in the next twenty years.[31] During his visit to India, the Saudi king emphasized his country's commitment to uninterrupted supplies to a friendly country such as India regardless of global price trends.[32]
As with Saudi Arabia and China, energy infrastructure investment is a major component in the development of Saudi-Indian relations. During the state visit, King Abdullah and Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh signed an Indo-Saudi "Delhi Declaration" calling for a wide-ranging strategic partnership, putting energy and economic cooperation on overdrive, and committing to cooperate against terrorism.[33] According to some reports, the king waived off Saudi bureaucratic concerns about precedents the declaration might create with regard to its relations with India's neighbors, especially Pakistan, by calling India a "special case." [34]
The private Indian energy firm Reliance will invest in a refinery and petrochemicals project in Saudi Arabia, and India's state-owned energy firm, Oil and Energy Gas Corporation, will also engage Saudi Arabia as its equity partner for a refinery project in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh.[35] The Iranian government's decision to renege on some oil supply commitments in the aftermath of India's vote against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has also spurred New Delhi to diversify suppliers. There are more than 100 Indian joint ventures in Saudi Arabia and about half that number of Saudi joint ventures in India.[36] As the king visited New Delhi, close to eighty top Saudi businessmen participated in the first "Saudi Arabia in India" business exhibition. A new Saudi-India Joint Business Council will provide an institutional framework to expand bilateral economic ties. Saudi authorities hope that such a channel can tap Indian expertise and help it diversify its economy in fields ranging from information technology and biotechnology to education and small business development.
Geopolitical Impediments
While Riyadh might welcome its upgraded relations with both Beijing and New Delhi, constraints might limit future expansion of their ties. Sino-Indian energy competition may force an unpalatable choice upon Saudi officials. And once Washington is thrown into the mix, the picture becomes more complicated. With the United States viewing China as its greatest future challenge[37] and Washington working actively to bolster U.S.-Indian ties,[38] joint pressures upon Riyadh will only build. U.S. officials are already concerned that Beijing's outreach to the Middle East has undercut nonproliferation efforts and challenged U.S. standing.[39]
Riyadh's close relationship to Islamabad will also constrain its relations with India. Pakistan not only receives oil from Saudi Arabia at discounted rates, but there remains speculation that Saudi interests underwrote Pakistan's nuclear program and missile purchases,[40] presumably to allow Saudi Arabia ready access to nuclear and ballistic missile technology if the need arose. Pressure has increased on Saudi Arabia to open its nuclear facilities as the IAEA suspects that Pakistani nuclear cooperation has advanced Saudi Arabia's program to a level warranting international safeguards.[41] Washington also wants Riyadh to provide unhindered access to its nuclear facilities. The Saudis argue that they would do so only if other states—Israel—do the same.[42]
Saudi authorities may also be uncomfortable with improvements in Chinese and Indian relations with Israel.[43] Neither Beijing nor New Delhi may accept Saudi pressure to downgrade their relationship to Jerusalem; unwillingness to compromise on their antagonism toward the Jewish state may pose a quandary for hard-line Saudi officials. Nor will Riyadh enjoy a monopoly over outreach to the two Asian giants. Despite recent tension in Indo-Iranian relations, Indian officials insist that the 1,625-mile, $4.16-billion pipeline project to transport gas from Iran through Pakistan to India remains on track.[44] Chinese firms have also increased their investment in Iran.[45]
A more significant impediment, especially with regard to India, is the proliferation of Saudi-funded religious schools in the country. The Salafi movement has taken advantage of India's liberal environment and Muslim unease with resurgent Hindu nationalism to preach radicalism to India's 130-million strong Muslim populace.
A madrasa (Islamic school) education in India has long been a part of many Muslim children's lives. Madrasas in India number between 8,000 and 40,000.[46] But concerns have been rising in India about the dated and, with Saudi financing, increasingly radical curricula. In 2001, a report of the Group of Ministers on "Reforming the National Security System" recommended the need to modernize madrasa education.[47]
Saudi financial assistance has gone to a range of Indian-Islamic organizations resulting in the establishment of mosques, madrasas, and publishing houses inculcating the Saudi worldview.[48] Riyadh also provides scholarships to Indian students to study religion in its universities. These Saudi-educated imams often return and preach Salafi ideology to unemployed and susceptible Indian Muslims.[49] Some of the returning Indians also transfer funds to local Islamic institutions, often through the hawala system in which no records of individual transactions are produced.[50]
The Ahle-Hadith (People of the Tradition of the Prophet), a Sunni Islamic sect with ties to the Saudi state dating back to the 1920s, has arguably been the biggest beneficiary of Saudi monetary assistance contributing to internecine rivalries among various Indian Muslim sects.[51] Several Indian madrasas that follow the Ahle-Hadith tradition have begun to emphasize their closeness with the Saudi Salafis. While the early Ahle-Hadith was in many ways progressive, it has now altered into an intolerant, literalist strand.
Several Indian Islamic jurists and scholars seem to have gravitated towards this Saudi-sanctioned, radical interpretation of Islam and to a conspiratorial version of global politics. Instructive in this context is a claim made by a Muslim jurist from the Deoband sect in India that "should it be proved that Osama was the mastermind behind the attacks of September 11, he would not be punished under Islamic law since his actions were the result of an independent, legal opinion issued by top jurists."[52] Another Islamic scholar from a prominent seminary in north India has argued that "a worldwide anti-Muslim alliance has been formed and is headed by the U.S. It runs in an arc from Hindu fundamentalist India, through China and Russia, and ends with Europe and the U.S. in the west. The effect is to encircle and choke the Islamic world."[53]
Terrorism will brake Saudi relations with both Asian powers. New Delhi and Riyadh differ over the definition of terrorism. Most Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, argue in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that liberation struggles justify acts of terror; the Indian government categorically opposes terrorist attacks on civilians. The two states had intended to sign a mutual legal assistance treaty on criminal matters during the king's visit. Such a treaty usually serves as a precursor to an extradition treaty. But, unable to break the impasse, the two sides' diplomats could only agree to a watered-down memorandum of understanding on combating crime.[54] New Delhi is especially sensitive given Saudi links to jihadi groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba, which have staged attacks within India.[55] The group has tried to recruit Indian Muslims—so far with only limited success—for its radical causes from the Indian diaspora in Saudi Arabia and other states in the Persian Gulf. It has been claimed that, despite the best efforts of Lashkar, it has not been very successful in wooing Muslim youth in India.[56]
The Chinese government's autocratic character has retarded the spread of Salafism in China, relative to the traction extremists have found in the more permissive Indian society.[57] There are approximately twenty million Muslims in China and more than 40,000 Islamic places of worship, at least half of which are in the northwestern province of Xinjiang[58] where Chinese repression is severe. Not only does the state censor sermons, but Chinese officials also ask imams to focus on the damage caused to Islam by terrorism in the name of religion.[59] Chinese authorities often charge practicing Muslims there with incitement, separatism, and Islamic extremism. There has been some evidence of small numbers of Chinese-Muslim Uighurs fighting with Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan with a few even incarcerated at Guantanamo.[60] But even if Chinese authorities conflate religion with Uighur separatism, they still acknowledge that separatist activities have decreased in recent years.[61]
Nevertheless, Chinese oppression of eight million ethnic Uighur Sunnis not to mention other Chinese Muslims may complicate its future relationship with Saudi officials. Uighur grievances are unlikely to dissipate.[62] As Sino-Saudi ties expand, Saudi religious activists may draw parallels between Xinjiang and the West Bank, Gaza, and Kashmir.
Conclusion
It is simplistic to assume that Saudi Arabia is fashioning its foreign policy only in opposition to that of the United States. Nevertheless, the 9-11 terrorist attacks and the U.S.-led war on terror caused both Riyadh and Washington to reevaluate their "special relationship." It is in this context that Riyadh has begun courting an Asian alternative. Riyadh's relations with Beijing and New Delhi are on an upward swing as a consequence of shifting global political and economic realities and are unlikely to alter as a result of a change in Saudi leadership.
The prospects for a tight Sino-Saudi relationship, however, are rosier than a future Indo-Saudi relationship. Simply put, the threat of Islamism and friction between autocratic Saudi Arabia and democratic India are too great. This may create complications in the long-term but in the near-term, Saudi Arabia's "look east" policy is firmly on track, and the United States will have to configure its foreign policy accordingly.
Harsh V. Pant is a lecturer in the defense studies department at King's College, London.
[1] International Herald Tribune, Jan. 26, 2006.
[2] Jin Liangxiang, "Energy First: China and the Middle East," Middle East Quarterly, Spring 2005, pp. 3-10.
[3] "China, Saudi Arabia Forge Closer Relationship," China Daily (Beijing), Jan. 24, 2006.
[4] Matthew Forney, "China's Quest for Oil," Time, Oct. 25, 2004.
[5] Associated Press, Jan. 23, 2006.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Financial Times (London), Jan. 24, 2006.
[8] Hindustan Times (New Delhi), Jan. 24, 2005.
[9] The New York Times, Apr. 23, 2006.
[10] China Daily, July 7, 2004.
[11] Rachel Bronson, Thicker than Oil: America's Uneasy Partnership with Saudi Arabia (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 56-60.
[12] Ibid., p. 207.
[13] Dan Blumenthal, "Providing Arms: China and the Middle East," Middle East Quarterly, Spring 2005, pp. 11-9.
[14] Arab News (Jeddah), May 2, 2006.
[15] The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, White House, Mar. 2006, p. 1.
[16] Saliba Sarsar, "Democracy in the Middle East: Quantifying Arab Democracy," Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2006, pp. 21-8.
[17] Arab News (Jeddah), May 2, 2006.
[18] P.R. Mudiam, India and the Middle East (London: British Academic Press, 1994), pp. 85-97.
[19] Detailed statistics can be found at "Census of India," Table 1: Total Population, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs.
[20] Divya Pakkiasamy, "Saudi Arabia's Plan for Changing Its Workforce," Migration Information Service, Nov. 1, 2004.
[21] See Harsh V. Pant, "India and Iran: An ‘Axis' in the Making," Asian Survey, May/June 2004, pp. 369-83.
[22] R.K. Ramazani, Revolutionary Iran: Challenge and Response in the Middle East (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986), pp. 8-11.
[23] Anthony H. Cordesman, Saudi Arabia Enters the Twenty-First Century: The Political, Foreign Policy, and Energy Dimensions (London: Praeger, 2003), p. 206.
[24] Mahan Abedin, "The Iranian Intelligence Services and the War on Terror," Terrorism Monitor, Jamestown Foundation, May 20, 2004.
[25] Indian Express (New Delhi), Jan. 24, 2006.
[26] Husain Haqqani, "The Ideologies of South Asian Jihadi Groups," Current Trends in Islamist Ideology, vol. 1, pp. 23-4; J. Millard Burr and Robert O. Collins, Alms for Jihad (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 26-50.
[27] The Hindu (Chennai, Madras), Jan. 26, 2006.
[28] "Final Report of the Counter-Terrorism International Conference," Riyadh, Feb. 5-8, 2005.
[29] The Indian Express (New Delhi), Jan. 24, 2006.
[30] The Hindu Business Line (Chennai), Mar. 29, 2005.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Hindustan Times, Jan. 25, 2006.
[33] "Delhi Declaration," Joint Declarations and Statements, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, India, Jan. 27, 2006.
[34] The Tribune (New Delhi), Jan. 27, 2006.
[35] Arab News, Jan. 6, 2005.
[36] Press Trust of India news agency, Jan. 21, 2006.
[37] "Quadrennial Defense Review Report 2006," U.S. Department of Defense, Feb. 6, 2006, pp. 29-30; Richard R. Russell, "Oil for Missiles," The Wall Street Journal, Jan. 25, 2006.
[38] "President Discusses Strong U.S.-India Partnership in New Delhi, India," White House news release, Mar. 3, 2006.
[39] Blumenthal, "Providing Arms: China and the Middle East."
[40] Thomas Woodrow, "The Sino-Saudi Connection," China Brief, Jamestown Foundation, Oct. 24, 2002.
[41] Paul Kerr, "IAEA Board Seeks Strengthened Safeguards," Arms Control Today, July/Aug. 2005.
[42] Ibid.
[43] On Sino-Israeli ties, see P.R. Kumaraswamy, "At What Cost Israel-China Ties?" Middle East Quarterly, Spring 2006, pp. 37-44; Dan Blumenthal, "Providing Arms: China and the Middle East," Middle East Quarterly, Spring 2005, pp. 11-9. On India-Israel ties, see Harsh V. Pant, "India-Israel Partnership: Convergence and Constraints," Middle East Review of International Affairs, Dec. 2004, pp. 60-73.
[44] Associated Foreign Press, Feb. 24, 2006.
[45] Financial Times, Jan. 4, 2006.
[46] Amir Ullah Khan, Mohammad Sadiq and Zafar H. Anjum, "To Kill the Mockingbird," India China Economic and Cultural Centre, New Delhi, accessed June 28, 2006.
[47] "Reforming the National Security System—Recommendations of the Group of Ministers," Feb. 19, 2001.
[48] Yoginder Sikand, "Intra-Muslim Rivalries in India and the Saudi Connection," Jamia Hamdard University, accessed June 28, 2006.
[49] Pakkiasamy, "Saudi Arabia's Plan for Changing Its Workforce."
[50] Haqqani, "The Ideologies of South Asian Jihadi Groups."
[51] Sikand, "Intra-Muslim Rivalries in India and the Saudi Connection."
[52] Quoted in Bernard Haykel, "The Silence of Moderate Muslims," The Dawn (Karachi), Dec. 5, 2002.
[53] Ibid.
[54] "What's Terror? India, Saudi Differ," Hindustan Times, Jan. 27, 2006.
[55] G. Parthasarthy, "Saudi-Pakistani Nexus on Terrorism," The Tribune, Sept. 25, 2003; Husain Haqqani, "India's Islamist Groups," Current Trends in Islamist Ideology, vol. 3, pp. 10-23.
[56] B. Raman, "Al-Qaeda, the IIF and Indian Muslims," International Terrorism Monitor, South Asia Analysis Group, paper no.1743 (34), Mar. 20, 2006.
[57] "Devastating Blows: Religious Repression of Uighurs in Xinjiang," Human Rights Watch, Apr. 2005, p. 12.
[58] "China (includes Tibet, Hong Kong, and Macau)," International Religious Freedom Report 2005, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. State Department, Nov. 8, 2005.
[59] Ibid.
[60] Ibid, p. 8.; Paul Wiseman, "China Equates Muslim Rebels with Terrorists," USA Today, June 20, 2002; The Washington Post, Dec. 15, 2005.
[61] "China," International Religious Freedom Report 2005.
[62] Igor Rotar, "The Growing Problem of Uighur Separatism," China Brief, Jamestown Foundation, Apr. 15, 2004.
Harper's veto
Jerusalem Post 6/10/06At a summit of 53 Francophone countries last week, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper showed what it means to be a great power.
Standing alone on principle, Canada forced the conference to introduce a modicum of balance into a lopsidedly anti-Israel statement on the recent war in Lebanon.
At the end of the summit on Friday, Egypt proposed an amendment, as a Lebanese minister put it, to "condemn the war because it was deplorable … Everyone agreed accept Canada."
In a press conference scheduled just before the last-minute crisis had been resolved, Harper explained Canada's veto: "The [Egyptian] amendment wants to recognize and deplore the war and recognize the victims of Lebanon. We are able to deplore the war, we are able to recognize the victims, but on both sides. … The Francophonie cannot recognize victims according to their nationality. Recognize the victims of Lebanon and the victims of Israel.'"
Harper added that his goal in opposing the Egyptian amendment was to shape the resolution so as to "avoid a similar attack on Israel in the future, a similar response and a similar result."
About an hour later, a compromise proposed by France was accepted unanimously. The adopted resolution stated: "In deploring the tragedy in Lebanon and its dramatic consequences for all of the civilian populations, we call for a total cessation of hostilities and a return to calm in Lebanon."
Note that the improved resolution is far from a fair reflection of reality, let alone "pro-Israel." It did not blame Hizbullah for starting the war on July 12 with its initial cross-border bombardment, kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers and killing of eight other soldiers, nor did it call for the soldiers' unconditional release, as did UN Security Council Resolution 1701.
But the rejected Egyptian amendment had nothing to do with being fair, constructive, or promoting peace; it was a pure, old-fashioned power play led by Arab states. These states expected the attending democracies to meekly go along with yet another rewriting of history, largely unnoticed among the heaps of other such resolutions that are routinely passed.
France's reaction to Canada's principled stance reflected exactly such cynical complacency. French President Jacques Chirac said that Harper's position flew in the face of "the great majority" of countries at the summit. Chirac did not say that Harper was wrong and - by proposing a compromise that did grudgingly imply recognition of Israeli civilian suffering - admitted that Harper was right.
Harper's veto was the latest reflection of a positive shift in Canadian foreign policy toward Israel. An ambassador, Yvon Charbonneau, who had been appointed by a previous government despite a long history of animus toward Israel, was removed from his post at UNESCO. In July, Canada voted against a resolution condemning Israeli actions against Palestinians, arguing that it was biased.
This is a refreshing change in Canadian policy that seems to have accelerated under the new conservative government, formed in February. In 2003, for example, out of 18 UN General Assembly resolutions that were unbalanced against Israel, Canada voted for 13 and abstained on 5 resolutions. In 2005, Canada voted for "only" 11 anti-Israel resolutions, voted with Israel four times, and abstained twice.
We hope this tally, kept by the Canadian Coalition for Democracies, will improve dramatically in the UN session that has just begun. Though some critics of Canada's emerging stance warn that Ottawa is losing its moral voice and stance as an "honest broker," the opposite is the case.
As the voting records show, Canada is still voting against more often than it votes with Israel. If such a record is deemed "pro-Israel," it is clearly so only in relation to the extremely unfair treatment Israel receives in international bodies. But even if Canada voted with Israel on every biased UN resolution, this would not make Canada blindly pro-Israel; it would only mean that Canada had decided to courageously support basic principles of fairness and constructiveness that every democracy should proudly uphold.
In the meantime, Canadians should be proud of their government's leadership, which put France, the titular head of the Francophone summit, to shame. France revealed that it could not stand up to the "great majority" when that majority was clearly in the wrong. Canada has proved that it could, giving hope not only for Canada, but for free nations the world over.
Elusive unity
Al Ahram/ 6/10/06: An age-old dilemma is at the heart of the debate on Hizbullah's weapons, reports Lucy Fielder from Beirut
Mohamed Kreyem's electrical parts shop is a stone's throw from the Koreitem Palace of the late Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Al-Hariri, western Beirut. The former prime minister, whose assassination last year many Lebanese blamed on Hizbullah's Syrian backers, gazes sternly from a poster in the window.
So does Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah, just above him. "Hizbullah is the only group working for the benefit of the country, and to rebuild the country. Nasrallah is a believer, he's working in the right way, an Arab way, whatever his relations with Iran and Syria," Kreyem says.
Hariri, the father, wanted Lebanon to be strong, he says, so there was no contradiction in displaying the two pictures. "But I don't much like his son Saad's politics. The international forces they brought in are to protect Israel, not us, even though we're the ones always being hit by Israel." As a boy, Kreyem said he had fled successive Israeli invasions of his native south.
Othman Itani, who owns a nearby parking lot, believes only the government should have weapons. "Nasrallah says they have 20,000 rockets -- who do you think you are scaring? Israel has two air forces. It will destroy Lebanon and go home. You are frightening the Lebanese, only," he says. His booth is plastered with pictures of the Hariris -- senior and junior.
"Since 1948 we've been fighting Israel," Itani says. "Other Arab countries have peace with Israel, so why is it only us fighting? Peace with Israel would open up everything for us. No one is thinking about how much this is all costing us."
Although both men are Sunni, they sum up two opposing camps in Lebanon's polarised society. How should Lebanon protect itself, given the weakness of its army? By maintaining a military deterrence of sorts through Hizbullah's weapons, though that may risk another attack by an Israel? Or through Western allegiances, perhaps peace with Israel, and the supposed international protection they would bring?
"There's a tendency among Lebanese politicians, including 14 March, which says, 'We don't want a strong Lebanese army' and a wish that Lebanon would never be involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict," says analyst Fawwaz Traboulsi, who helped lead Palestinian and leftist resistance to Israel's 1982 invasion. "To my mind, we paid the price more than we would have if we had taken seriously that we are part of that conflict."
With Israel on one side and Syria on the other, and a population split between looking east and west for its alliances, staying out of it all has proved wishful thinking. Traboulsi advocates persuading Iranian-backed Hizbullah to allow its seasoned fighters to become an elite unit under central army command in return for a greater say in national defence.
Where the Sunnis lie in all this is an enigma. Traditionally the backbone of Lebanon's urban, merchant class, the sect, which forms 25 per cent of the population, has typically shunned politics and played little role in the 1975-90 civil war. But after Hariri's assassination, Sunnis took to the streets and became leaders of the US-supported 14 March anti-Syrian movement. Saad Hariri's Future Movement commands the parliamentary majority, allied with Druze chieftain Walid Jumblatt and Christian leader Samir Geagea. Hariri ally Fouad Al-Seniora heads the government, always a Sunni post under the sectarian political system.
But for many ordinary Sunnis, the government's US-backing sits uncomfortably with their traditional support for the Palestinians and Arab causes, especially after the US-backed Israeli bombing of Lebanon. Their broad support for the government as tensions rise cannot be taken for granted.
At his "Divine Victory" rally on 22 September, Nasrallah hinted at coming battles. Accusing the leadership of being unable to protect Lebanon, he said working towards a national unity government would be Hizbullah's "new project". Bringing in allied Maronite Christian leader Michel Aoun is seen as Hizbullah's main aim. By adding Aoun-backed cabinet ministers to Hizbullah's two, the allies hope for a blocking one- third minority in government. Nasrallah said Hizbullah's weapons could only be relinquished if the state was strong.
Nasrallah commands the loyalty of nearly all Shia, Lebanon's largest sect at just under 40 per cent. And a survey released this week by respected pollster Abdo Saad showed Aoun was clear favourite to be president, who has to be Christian Maronite. Forty-five per cent of Lebanese across the sects chose him; among Christians he scored 39 per cent. No one else came close.
Any support Aoun lost among his Christian support-base -- which appears to be between five and 10 per cent -- for allying with Hizbullah despite his anti-Syrian past, he has gained in Shia and other support. "Aoun can afford to lose a few per cent. He's now got Shia support and apart from Nasrallah he's more popular than any other leader," analyst Amal Saad- Ghorayeb says.
Nasrallah's rally, which mustered anywhere between 800,000 to a million people, could presage a bitter campaign ahead, said Saad-Ghorayeb, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment's new Middle East Centre in Beirut. The poll showed 70 per cent of Lebanese supported a national unity government, including a surprising 71 per cent of Christians and, more predictably, more than 90 per cent of Shia.
"Christians and Shia clearly don't see that they're politically represented," she said. "There's been a lot of political pressure mounting (for a national unity government) and this war of words has escalated. Now with these results you find that the public shares that view and that these groups could unleash their publics on the street," she said.
Oussama Safa, head of the Lebanese Centre for Policy Studies also predicted things would heat up. "I think Ramadan will be quiet, but after that Hizbullah and its supporters will try to change the government," he said.
Hariri hit back at Nasrallah's demands last week at a Ramadan Iftar meal. "We reject any calls for a change of government by undemocratic and unconstitutional means," he said. He called Nasrallah's address to the rally an "unacceptable local translation of (Syrian President) Bashar Al-Assad's speech".
Safa said Hariri is preparing for a push against his government. "So we're seeing an increase in the rhetoric. And there is genuine impatience. There's no opportunity in the offing for disarming Hizbullah". The government's war-time performance is viewed as poor. It disowned and implicitly blamed the "resistance" for sparking the war by seizing two Israeli soldiers, which cost it some popularity. Hariri was derided for being abroad for the whole conflict, and corruption and mismanagement characterise government aid efforts for the displaced even in much of the pro-government media. "14th March as a movement has pretty much fizzled out," Safa said.
"Most of the Sunnis are with Hariri, but there are pockets of dissidents," Safa said. Those are mainly in the north (Tripoli's outskirts and Akkar), and the west, namely parts of the Bekaa and Hermel. It is unlikely to be coincidence that these are poorer areas, where the Future Movement's business orientation is of little use, but pan-Arab views strike a chord.
Is Condi Rice being drug tested
by Ahmed Amr
(Friday October 06 2006)
"The very first day of Israeli air strikes cost the lives of sixty Lebanese civilians. Their blood was presumably shed to gain the release of two Israeli soldiers. By the time Condi finally relented and agreed to a UN resolution, over a thousand more Lebanese lives were wasted."
The setting was an editorial board meeting with the war mongering Likudniks who operate the New York Post – a rag owned by Rupert Murdoch, the media mogul most responsible for the Iraq war. In attendance was none other than Murdoch himself – playing the role of chief interrogator.
The part assigned to the American Secretary of State was to answer leading questions for a choreographed pre-election media farce. Condoleezza Rice knew she was in friendly territory and correctly assumed that no serious analyst would bother to pick up a copy of the Post – a neo-conservative daily propaganda bulletin. Fortunately for Condi, the interview went unnoticed – except by the horde of know-nothings that actually pay to read the thoughts of Chairman MU – as in MUrdoch.
What was extraordinary about the interview was Rice’s confession of her role in orchestrating the murderous 34-day Israeli assault on Lebanon. For the sake of keeping the historical record straight, the exact words of the American Secretary of Stated deserve close scrutiny. Responding to a question about Lebanon, she stated that “very early on we did have a discussion with the Israelis about not going to war against Lebanon, going to war against Hizbullah.”
Very early on? How early on? Consider the verifiable timelines of the recent conflict. Hizbullah captured the two Israeli soldiers on July 12th. The very next morning, Israel started indiscriminately bombing Lebanon to rubble. The airport was attacked along with bridges, roads, fuel depots and power plants – not to mention southern towns, villages and civilian convoys escaping to the relative safety of the mountains and Beirut. All were considered fair game.
Very early on? How can a phrase like ‘very early on’ possibly be squeezed in a twenty-four hour time period? How long does it take to develop a coherent but diabolical policy to target Hizbullah and spare the pro-western government in Beirut? How many brainstorming sessions are necessary to design a strategy to subvert a United Nations resolution that could have put an early end to the carnage?
The very first day of Israeli air strikes cost the lives of sixty Lebanese civilians. Their blood was presumably shed to gain the release of two Israeli soldiers. By the time Condi finally relented and agreed to a UN resolution, over a thousand more Lebanese lives were wasted.
While pulverizing Lebanon, the Israelis never forgot to attend to their daily chores in Gaza. To date, they have already murdered 250 Palestinians, conducted a devastating campaign to systematically destroy vital infrastructure, arrested members of the Palestinian cabinet and enforced a crippling siege to starve the inhabitants of the largest open air penitentiary in the world. While holding thousands of Palestinians in open-ended confinement, the Israelis justify their monstrous behavior as a legitimate response to the capture of a single Israeli soldier.
The simple idea of negotiating prisoner exchanges in both Gaza and Lebanon never even occurred to the spinster from Birmingham – who very early on started having birth pangs about a ‘New Middle East.’
Very early on? Indeed. “We felt that Israel had to try to do whatever it could to suppress the capability of Hezbollah to launch against Israel.” Now, Rice must have known that not a single Hezbollah rocket had been fired against Israel since the forced withdrawal of IDF occupation troops from Lebanon in 2000. For six long years, Hezbollah missiles only targeted Israeli military aircraft intruding into Lebanese air space – a serious violation of Lebanese sovereignty. One has to assume that she was well informed about Israel’s daily violations of the Blue Line agreement. If only because the Lebanese government had repeatedly bought the matter to the attention of both the United Nations and the United States.
Very early on? For once, it’s worth taking Condi at her word. Very early on, Rice and the Bush administration decided to give Israel an open permit to launch a ‘shock and awe’ campaign against Lebanon to force Hezbollah to disarm. Why? Because a Security Council resolution said so and both Washington and Israel couldn’t resist an opportunity to launch a preemptive proxy war against Iran. All of a sudden, United Nations edicts matter so much that Washington has decided to enlist Israel as an enforcer of the will of the international community.
It doesn’t seem to matter that Israel holds the undisputed record for violating international law and has shown more contempt for the United Nations than any country on the planet. Barely a month after acting as an enforcer of UN resolutions, Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations dismissed the Security Council as just another forum. Dan Gillerman refused to even attend a council meeting to address a conciliatory Arab initiative to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict because – in his words - “such forums were not always helpful.” Unless, of course, Tel Aviv needs an excuse to bomb Lebanon back to the stone ages.
America’s record isn’t much better. If the letter and spirit of international law were to be applied – Rice, Rumsfeld and Bush would all be sharing bunks in The Hague. In fact, many of the international laws they have intentionally and consistently violated are part and parcel of ratified treaties. As such, the provisions of these treaties are enforceable as American law and offenders can readily be held to account before federal courts. The only reason justice has been delayed and denied is that Congress is too partisan and spineless to even bring up the matter.
But back to Rice’s confessions in the Post interview. Consider her policy to make a distinction between a war on Hezbollah and a war on Lebanon. Sounds familiar? It should. Because it’s an echo of what Ehud Olmert kept saying. The Israeli Prime Minister kept assuring the world that “Beirut was not the target. What is a target and will remain one – is a single neighborhood, Hezbollah’s. We are not fighting the government of Lebanon.”
Apparently, the Lebanese government thought otherwise. Maybe it had something to do with the devastating destruction of basic infrastructure including power plants, every major bridge and every major highway – north and south. Or maybe it was because Israel’s air force also attacked Lebanese army bases. Or perhaps Beirut took exception to the death of 1,200 Lebanese citizens – including hundreds of innocent women and children.
Maybe there are good reasons why Prime Minister Fouad Siniora told Rice to take a hike. She hasn’t been seen in Beirut since and Lebanon is not a scheduled stop on her current Middle East tour. If she thinks Tony Blair got a poor reception, she is well advised not to push her luck.
The indiscriminate Israeli assaults on the civilian population were no accidents. They are, in fact, a long-standing Israeli military tradition. Like Haim Ramon, other Israeli decision-makers subscribe to the view that “Everyone in southern Lebanon is a terrorist and is connected to Hezbollah.” Here again, Rice was very sympathetic to Israel’s strategic decision to inflict ‘collateral damage’ at will.
In yet another confession, the ‘birth pang’ spinster from Alabama parroted Israel’s rationale for slaughtering innocents. “It’s difficult when a country or when a terrorist group uses human shields, which they did, embeds itself in the population, uses the infrastructure to its own advantage. It’s hard to make the separation.” So hard, in fact, that Israel dropped over a million cluster bombs in the space of one month. So hard, that refugee convoys were attacked after abandoning their villages under explicit orders from the IDF. So difficult, even though Hezbollah was launching its missiles from tunnel systems that had been secretly built far away from the prying eyes of the civilian population.
The ‘human shield’ defense is like the Twinkie defense. It’s the standard Israeli excuse for shooting up civilians to turn them against the resistance. Look up Tel Aviv’s record. The IDF has deliberately slaughtered civilians since the day the state of Israel was established. Inflicting ‘collateral damage’ and using collective punishment has always been an integral part of Israeli military doctrine. Tel Aviv calls it ‘deterrence.’ But the law books use a different term – war crimes.
There was yet another admission in the Post interview regarding the time limit imposed by Washington on Israel to ‘get the job done.’ Rice wasn’t specific. But it’s fair enough to conclude it was about a month. What went unsaid was that Condi made the commitment to delay a United Nations resolution as long as possible to allow Olmert the space to complete his assigned duties. Some Israelis are even starting to grumble that it was the United States that pressured Tel Aviv to extend the slaughter – long after it became apparent that the goals set by the American/Israeli plot were beyond achievement.
Very early on? How many other Israeli/American plots did Condi sign off on - very early on? Need we mention the secret ‘Condi/Weisglass’ accords to freeze the Israeli/Palestinian peace process and make the Apartheid wall Israel’s final borders. How ‘early on’ was that decision?
If Condi wasn’t a chronic liar, she would tell you it was a done deal back in 2004. That’s precisely why the Bush administration blocks any new initiatives to restart negotiations. Because as far as Condi is concerned, a final solution to the Palestinian ‘problem’ has already been negotiated between Israel and Washington. Condi and the Israelis reached common ground on virtually every issue – including the war on Iraq – very early on.
Any way you cut it, Rice is a degenerate accessory to mass murder and is as accountable for the carnage in Lebanon and Gaza as Ehud Olmert. It’s one of the reasons she won’t be showing her face in Beirut any time soon.
The most despised woman in the Middle East returned to the scene of the crime this week. Condi showed up in Cairo with a pitch to sell the latest neo-con plot - a ‘moderate’ Arab coalition aligned with Israel against the ‘radicals’ in Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. She got no takers from the ranks of the assembled audience of seven autocratic absolute monarchs and one Egyptian dictator – all fine examples of democratic progress in the Middle East.
Apparently, birth pangs aren’t Condi’s only delusions. Which begs the question. Do they still do drug testing Foggy Bottom? Because The State Department should start with Rice.