Our next war crime By

Reports & Analysis compiled by LCCC
http://www.10452lccc.com
August 17/2010

1-Our next war crime/By: Eyal Megged/Israel Opinion
2-Obama and the mosque/By: Professor Eytan Gilboa//Israel Opinion
3-Underestimating our enemies/By DAVID HOROVITZ/J.Post
4-Hizbullah’s next target may be Lebanon/By MEIR JAVEDANFAR
5-A man with a matchbox/Smadar Peri /Israel Opinion
6-New Opinion: Holding our nerve/Michael Karam/Now Lebanon
7-Muslim Cleric Calls for Jihad, Coptic Christians Attacked in Egypt/aina
8-Oppose the Ground Zero Mosque/by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi/American Thinker
9-Et tu, Brute?/Ana Maria Luca/Now Lebanon
10-Hizbullah: Hating Israel and Palestinians/By MUDAR ZAHRAN/jpost.com
11-0Why Hezbollah Is Edging Closer to War/By Meir Javedanfar/Real Clear World
12-Lebanon and Nasrallah's Trinity/By Amir Taheri/Asharq Al-Awsat
13-Israel may unilaterally attack Iran's N-facilities: Report/zeenews
14-A House of Worship or a Symbol of Destruction/By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid/Asharq alawsat

Our next war crime
By: Eyal Megged
Op-ed: Failure to prevent next war with Syria is a crime; Israel must talk to Assad now
Eyal Megged Published: 08.16.10, 00:45 / Israel Opinion
The next war crime is taking place at this time already, even before the war started. This war crime is the very failure to prevent the war.
We are headed towards an inevitable war with Syria. Our life experience and history clearly show that when a diplomatic vacuum is not filled with peace moves, it is filled by war. It’s almost a natural law, just like in soccer: When you fail to take advantage of opportunities to score a goal, you can bet that eventually the other team will score.
Since 2003, Bashar Assad had been sending signals indicating that he is ready for peace, yet Israel turns him back empty-handed. At first the excuse was that he’s too weak so what’s the point. Ever since he grew stronger, the excuse had been replaced by another one: Assad’s intentions aren’t pure.
Governments here come and go, yet there’s no partner on the Israeli side. Seemingly, it’s unclear how Israel could afford to refuse this. After all, everything we ever dreamed of is happening: Assad is making it known at every opportunity that he aspires for “comprehensive peace” and declares his willingness to engage in negotiations “without any preconditions.” He keeps on lamenting that there’s no response on our part.
Did everything we insist on thus far was merely a deception? Were all the words uttered all these years a form of a gamble, as the Arabs will never be “ripe for peace” anyway?
Precious time had been wasted when the Americans prevented Sharon and Olmert from taking up this cause. Now, the opportunity is being wasted because policy-makers here do not believe in this peace. Does anyone remember that right before the Second Lebanon War catastrophe, Assad begged for peace? The bridges were burned by the fire of this needless, tragic war.
We only understand force
However, the main reason why the Israeli government does nothing at this time is that the Israeli public does not press it to accept Syria’s wooing attempts. Peace with Syria isn’t popular around here. Why? Because no missiles have hit us yet. As long the missiles don’t land here and no damage is done, why should we trade the Golan Heights and their guesthouses, wine, horses, and ski slopes for dubious peace? You will hear this answer not only from the Right, but also from the Left.
But you just wait. Once 1,000 missiles land here, the tune will change. Just like in the wake of the terror waves, when most of the public shunned Judea and Samaria and our attachment the land of our forefathers was forgotten at once, the public will also shun the Golan Heights. The question of “why do we need peace?” will be replaced by “Why do we need the Golan?” This is the way things work around here; we only understand force.
But forget about the spoiled, hedonistic public, which is increasingly turning into a mob taken out of a Shakespearean drama. The last person who has an interest in making peace with the Syrians is our prime minister – any prime minister, not only the current one. It’s easy to imagine the commotion that would ensue here if we only embark on talks with the Syria. It’s not hard to imagine the government coalition collapsing and the trouble at the Likud Central Committee.
Only a real leader and determined statesman can bring peace regardless of anything. And what about war? For a prime minister who lacks the aforementioned qualities, war is in fact a blessing, a golden age – the whole nation is united around you, Right, Left and Center. The problems start after the war, when we count the thousands of casualties and are forced to enter talks with the Syrians. At that point, everyone will be saying: What a pity. We could have finalized a deal on the same terms without all the destruction and bereavement.

Obama and the mosque
By: Professor Eytan Gilboa
Op-ed: President's endorsement of Ground Zero mosque unwise but consistent with his worldview
Eytan Gilboa Published: 08.17.10, 12:31 / Israel Opinion
Barack Obama's endorsement of the construction of a Muslim community center, including a mosque, two streets away from Ground Zero is commensurate with the president's worldview and his strategy for fighting Islamic terror.
Obama's worldview espouses historic reconciliation between the United States and the Muslims and Arab world; his strategy distinguishes between moderate Islam, which can be engaged in dialogue, and radical and violent Islam, which should be fought.
Ground Zero
In order to realize this strategy, Obama delivered reconciliation speeches in Cairo and in Ankara at the beginning of his presidential term; he frequently talks about the need to avoid generalizations that position all Muslims in one anti-American camp.
The plan to establish the Muslim center ignited an emotional controversy. On the one hand we have the Muslims who seek to realize their right for freedom of religion and Jewish Mayor Michael Bloomberg who backed their request; on the other hand we have the victims' families and an overwhelming majority of New Yorkers who object to establishing the center so close to Ground Zero, where radical Muslims demolished the Twin Towers and killed about 3,000 civilians.
At a dinner on the occasion of Ramadan, Obama used the opportunity to take a position and endorsed the plan. After sustaining criticism from all directions he took a step back and attempted to argue that he merely intended to endorse freedom of religion, rather than the specific plan. Yet this clarification is deceptive.
We are not dealing with religious freedom here. Nobody prevents Muslims from building mosques in the US. The problem pertains to the establishment of a Muslim center close to Ground Zero. The families of victims argue that building the mosque would hurt their feelings while most New Yorkers feel the plan rubs salt on their wounds. Had the Muslims offered to build the center in another area of New York, nobody would disapprove.
Obama's strategy utter failure
The war over the mosque erupted a few weeks ahead of the elections for Congress. Obama's Republican rivals were quick to exploit the opportunity and slammed him harshly. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich compared the building of a mosque near Ground Zero to the placement of a Nazi swastika near the Holocaust museum.
Democratic politicians also disapproved of Obama's statements. Why did he step into a confrontation that was local in nature thus far, making a statement that may prompt more voters to shun his party?
The answer has to do with ideological and strategic devotion. This is what Obama thinks, and he usually says what he thinks. His supporters argue that establishing the center in Ground Zero would contribute to the war on Islamic terrorists and al-Qaeda by bringing moderate Muslims closer. Obama's rivals respond that the plan will be interpreted by the radicals and those sitting on the fence as yet another victory in undermining the US. Thus far, Obama's strategy of wooing the world's Muslims has been an utter failure. Despite the prominent dispute vis-à-vis Israel, the reconciliation speeches, and the warm embrace for America's Muslims community, recent polls in Muslim states showed that hostility towards the US and doubts towards Obama are back to pre-election rates.
In light of the above, the argument that building a mosque near Ground Zero would contribute to the war against al-Qaeda seems unfounded. While the harm to victims' families and New Yorkers is substantial and immediate, the expected strategic outcome is rather questionable. It would have been better for all parties involved to come up with another site that would grant Muslim freedom of worship while being endorsed by the families and New York residents.
**Professor Eytan Gilboa is an expert on US affairs and serves as director of Bar-Ilan University's Center for International Communication

Underestimating our enemies
By DAVID HOROVITZ
08/13/2010 15:25
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=184614
To ridicule and dismiss Hassan Nasrallah’s public bragging this week is hubris.
Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah is feeling the heat.
The UN tribunal investigating the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri is, by all accounts, about to point an unerring finger of blame in Hizbullah’s direction.
Lebanon is on tenderhooks. The potential for explosive unrest, in a country beset by internal divisions, is acute. The killing itself set off a near-revolution five years ago. Now Hariri’s own son, the current prime minister Saad, is so afraid of the incendiary impact of an indictment of Hizbullah that he is reportedly pleading behind the scenes for the tribunal to postpone its fateful announcement.
In Israel, it is emphatically believed that Nasrallah was indeed behind the fatal Beirut car-bombing.
“He knows exactly who was to blame,” said Maj.-Gen. (res.) Ya’acov Amidror, the former head of IDF Research and Assessment, of Nasrallah on Tuesday. “He dispatched them.”
And thus, on this side of the border, Nasrallah’s Israel-bashing TV appearance on Monday night was generally interpreted as a rather desperate diversionary tactic. The sheikh’s protracted effort to assert that Israel carried out the killing of the tycoon-politician who was rebuilding Lebanon was instantly dismissed as “ridiculous” by officials in Jerusalem… who may have missed the point: Nasrallah was primarily bent on sowing doubt among the Lebanese – and he likely succeeded – and on prodding the Lebanese government into halting all cooperation with the tribunal.
RATHER MORE attention was devoted here to Nasrallah’s bragging on the subject of 1997’s Shayetet 13 disaster, when naval commandos on an operation in Lebanon triggered explosive devices that had been laid by Hizbullah, with the ultimate loss of no fewer than 12 of their 16-strong team.
The deaths of so many elite commandos in that one incident, at the hands of Hizbullah, has been characterized by some analysts, with no little justification, as the beginning of the end of Israel’s deployment in the south Lebanon security zone – the catalyst for the zone’s dismantlement, and the unilateral withdrawal to the international border, that followed three years later.
Nasrallah claimed Monday that this bloody interception represented a glorious intelligence and operational success for his organization, further proof of its heroism and its savvy. Plainly, his motivation in returning to the incident – which involved him reviving claims that had already been made several years ago by his deputy Naim Kassem – was to demonstrate Hizbullah’s purportedly peerless capacity to harm those Zionist enemies to the south, and thus to underline its value to Lebanon and the need to safeguard it from the harmful repercussions of the Hariri affair.
Nasrallah, as ever, was also taking aim at the Israeli psyche, hoping that the reopening of this 13-year-old wound would prompt a new bout of debilitating recrimination, perhaps involving the bereaved parents and certainly senior IDF officers, past and present. And, to some extent, he has been successful: The question of what exactly Hizbullah knew of the Shayetet operation ahead of time, and how exactly it knew it, did indeed return to the public agenda this week.
Hours before Nasrallah’s TV appearance, Gabi Ofir, the reserve general who chaired an IDF investigation into the catastrophe, was still insisting that the commandos had not fallen victim to an intelligence “leak,” and that the Hizbullah interception was “purely coincidental.”
But Nasrallah’s performance, which featured footage allegedly obtained from unmanned IDF drones that were scouting out the commandos’ route, further vindicated the already widespread belief that the operation had indeed been compromised. Hizbullah, it is now largely accepted, may have managed to view the unencrypted footage from the drone – simply by identifying the relevant broadcast frequency.
Prompted by Nasrallah to reexamine the terrible incident once again, generals, parents and analysts have been discussing why it was that the drones’ footage was not encoded. Amidror, who was military secretary to defense minister Yitzhak Mordechai at the time, has been arguing that the capacity for such encoding was quite new, and was being tested initially in drones being used by another elite IDF outfit, Sayeret Matkal – the General Staff’s commando unit. The author and journalist Amir Rappaport has countered that there was no good reason that this latest technology should not have been available to the Shayetet, and called the failure scandalous.
Arguments have also raged as to how obvious the specifics of the operation would have been to Hizbullah once it had got its hands on the footage – and thus how easy for Hizbullah to thwart the commandos.
And there has been much renewed discussion of what exactly happened in the terrible moments after the commandos first inadvertently detonated those explosive devices that Hizbullah had placed on their route.
Nasrallah boasted about an ambush, featuring fighters who were lying in wait for the hapless IDF troops. “Our men waited there for weeks,” he claimed. The IDF narrative, by contrast, is that Hizbullah personnel were not hiding in the field night after night for the commandos to come and that, rather, the Shayetet fatalities were the victims, first of the hidden Hizbullah bombs, and second, of the consequent detonation of the explosives they were themselves carrying.
NASRALLAH IS feeling the heat over Hariri.
Nasrallah is emphasizing Hizbullah’s bravery, determination and importance. Nasrallah is seeking to chivvy away at Israel’s perceived weaknesses. All of this is obvious here, south of the border. Our analysts are highly skilled in assessing Hizbullah’s motivations, and our officials are adept in dismissing the more risible of his claims.
What seems to have been under-discussed this week, however, is the original sin. And it’s the same original sin that left an Israeli naval vessel defenseless in the face of a Hizbullah strike in the Second Lebanon War – the INS Hanit, hit off the coast of Beirut in July 2006 by a shore-toship missile, with the loss of four lives.
It’s the same original sin that, a month earlier, at Kerem Shalom on our southern border, saw Gilad Schalit’s Armored Corps unit vulnerable to Hamas’s tunneling and attack.
It’s the same original sin that rendered the Shayetet 13 commandos, again, inadequately prepared to grapple with the core of violent thugs who jumped on them when they boarded the Gaza-bound Mavi Marmara on May 31.
The same original sin, breeding a welter of immensely compromising and problematic repercussions.
And which sin is that? The cardinal sin of underestimating the enemy.
CHIEF OF staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi acknowledged to the Turkel Commission on Wednesday that the IDF didn’t know enough about the extremists on board the Mavi Marmara and the IHH organization that had assembled them.
The IHH “was not on our list of priorities,” he said – although it had been recognized by the security establishment, and even characterized by Defense Minister Ehud Barak, as a pro-Hamas, proterror entity. The ill-equipped commandos were expecting to be met by “10 or 15 people,” said Ashkenazi, and the assumption was “that if we threw stun grenades, they would move away.”
Neither, self-evidently, was the army sufficiently braced for the kind of brazen Hamas incursion that saw the abduction of Schalit and the killings of Hanan Barak and Pavel Slutsker early on June 25, 2006, even though the Shin Bet said it had conveyed precise intelligence information highlighting the danger. “The incident in Kerem Shalom caught us unprepared,” said Ashkenazi’s predecessor, Dan Halutz, that day.
Similarly, the INS Hanit’s anti-missile defenses had not been activated off the Lebanese coast because it was deemed unlikely that Hizbullah possessed the Iranian- made C-802 missile that holed it, even though the IDF was in possession of enough intelligence information to suggest the contrary.
Just as, back in 1997, we didn’t believe that Hizbullah had the capacity to intercept unencrypted footage from our reconnaissance drones, even though the technical process involved in accessing such footage was straightforward.
WE DIDN’T realize. We didn’t believe. We didn’t know.
But we probably should have known.
And surely we should have prepared more effectively for the worst, in each of these awful incidents, rather than hoping for the best. Surely, we should have long since recognized the ruthless Iranian inspiration that is common to all these bitter incidents. Our very survival, after all, requires that we internalize the methodical malevolence with which Iran is working toward its declared goal of our destruction.
So if we scoffed at Nasrallah’s lengthy bragging this week, deriding him as military chief on the defensive, a vicious murderer confined to his bunker and lashing out in all directions as the walls close in, we had best think again. For such scoffing would only confirm a familiar hubris – a hubris that is intolerable, indefensible and untenable in the face of Nasrallah’s rapacious and relentless paymaster, Iran

Hizbullah’s next target may be Lebanon
By MEIR JAVEDANFAR
08/15/2010 23:07
What should worry the Israeli government is that the recent border skirmish has actually made Hizbullah more popular inside Lebanon. I try not to get worked up about reports of imminent war in the Middle East. For years, I have looked suspiciously at estimates that Iran will get bombed in three months, six months or on Saturday afternoon after Ali Khamenei has finished his lunch. Why? Because the Middle East is always full of surprises. Just when we believe war to be imminent, nothing happens, and vice versa. However, this time I really can’t shake the feeling that something ominous is in the air, involving Hizbullah. It will either be a massive confrontation with Israel, or armed conflict inside Lebanon. After the recent attack by the Lebanese Army against the Israeli Defense Forces soldiers, who were fixing a tree on the border, many have predicted that it’s only a question of time before the outbreak of the next round of fighting between Israel and Hizbullah begins.
But there is another development that showed the seriousness of the impending conflict, and that is the warning given by Hizbullah that the deal brokered two years ago in Doha is about to collapse – a deal made after Hizbullah’s military attack against Sunni forces left 90 dead. In 2008, after an 18-month political crisis surrounding the group’s power in the country and fearing that another civil war could break out, Sunni, Christian and Shi’ite factions traveled to the Qatari capital to try and work out a deal in order to return calm to Lebanon.
They finally succeeded in reaching a compromise, which included veto power for Hizbullah in the Lebanese cabinet. The recent warning was made soon after the Emir of Qatar Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani visited Lebanon. He was there soon after the Saudi king and the Syrian president made a joint visit to the country.
Mohammad Ra’ad, a Hizbullah member of the Lebanese parliament, while addressing a group of supporters, stated that the Lebanese government is facing a new threat, and that the Rafik Hariri murder trial has been politicized to serve Israel’s interests. In other words, any accusation against Hizbullah will be interpreted as an act of treason in Israel’s favor.
The question that must be asked then in this: If Hizbullah is interested in attacking Israel, why is it warning that the Doha agreement is about to collapse? Attacking Israel has nothing to do with that. Hizbullah could get involved in a military confrontation with Israel without warning about the Doha agreement. In fact, even if Israel were its only target, Hizbullah would do everything to strengthen the Doha deal so that it could reap the benefits of domestic support while waging war on Israel.
THERE IS, however, one other possibility: the Shi’ite organization could be about to launch a domestic power grab. This could be bloody, involving massive armed confrontation, or it could be bloodless; perhaps, for instance, involving some sort of agreement made with opposing factions. Hizbullah has the military capability to do this, as it’s the only militia in Lebanon. In fact, if it does turn out that it was behind the Hariri assassination, then it would be a clear sign to any Lebanese politician that Hizbullah is not an organization to be messed with.
Israel has every reason to view developments on its northern border with much concern. The recent attack by Lebanon’s army against the Israeli forces, perhaps with Hizbullah’s blessing, could have been a test. This would not be the first time that Hizbullah underwrote a small attack to test Israeli and international will prior to making a major move. Back in 2005, Hizbullah forces attempted to kidnap IDF soldiers near the village of Rajar, but failed and lost four gunmen. That failure did not deter it from trying again, this time in 2006, which led to the start of the second Lebanon war.
But what should worry the Israeli government is that the recent border skirmish has actually made Hizbullah more popular inside Lebanon. The good news for the Lebanese population is that this could encourage Hizbullah to focus on Israel, and prevent it from taking on domestic elements. Otherwise, the possibility that Hizbullah may go for a power grab still exists.
The bad news for Israel is that it is very ill equipped to defend itself diplomatically. Its tarnished image after falling out with the Obama administration, Turkey and the international community over the Gaza flotilla affair means that it will find an increasingly smaller audience that’s willing to listen to its concerns, as legitimate as they are. The good news for Hizbullah is that if Israel ends the settlement freeze, then Israel’s pool of friends in the international community is going to shrink even more, and fast. The question then becomes: Is Hizbullah willing to wait until September 25, the date of the end of the current freeze, to find out? **The writer is an Iranian-Israeli Middle East analyst and a regular contributor to RealClearWorld, where this was originally published. He is co-author of The Nuclear Sphinx of Tehran: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the State of Iran.

A man with a matchbox
Smadar Peri / / Israel Opinion
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3937303,00.html
Op-ed: Nasrallah trying to buy time while persevering image of crazy regional thug
Smadar Peri Published: 08.16.10, 12:09 / Israel Opinion
Nobody, even in Lebanon (with the exceptions of his cronies,) buys into the “proof” and “new evidence” presented by Nasrallah in his unconvincing conference last week in Beirut. We can bet that Nasrallah himself does not believe that Israel killed Lebanon’s prime minister. Why in the world would Israel assassinate al-Hariri?
But what stops Nasrallah from having a little fun? As far as he’s concerned, Israel can loudly declare that he showed himself to be an even greater liar, prattler, schemer, and swindler; he may have also looked anxious. However, he is not a fool. While moving from one hiding spot to another in the past four years, what’s most important for Nasrallah now is to stay in the game and preserve the image of the crazy, threatening, and dangerous neighborhood thug.
Accusations
Nasrallah describes 1997 ambush / Roee Nahmias
Hezbollah chief claims group intercepted Israeli drone transmissions, used footage to set up ambush for commando troops which killed 12. In same speech Nasrallah also accuses Israel of involvement in Hariri murder plot
If nobody wants to see a civil war in Lebanon, And Saudi Arabia’s king bothered to travel all the way to Beirut in order to secure a lull between the frightened and the threatening – Nasrallah was not frightened. There, the Lebanese are shaking in their boots, fearing a military confrontation with Israel, but he threatens to fire missiles (which he indeed possesses) on Tel Aviv.
The most important thing for him is not to be blamed for the Hariri assassination. Such charge may shake up Nasrallah and his organization. First of all, the government would collapse, the wave of assassination will make a grand comeback, and Hezbollah fighters would have to take over Beirut.
Nasrallah’s nightmare scenario also includes the worst option: Commandoes (guess where they would come from) embarking on a manhunt for the group’s leadership (and thanks to all the agents and spies) and kicking it out of Lebanon. Nobody would shed a tear should such operation succeed.
Playing a slow game
For the time being, Nasrallah is managing to get what he wants. In the wake of his grand media show, regardless of what people say about Nasrallah, Hariri probe Commissioner Daniel Bellemare has no choice but to issue an invitation: Anyone in possession of documents that had not been reviewed is invited to hand them over.
Nasrallah, who currently works in line with a plan aimed at buying time and scaring all parties involved with a ticking bomb, intends to slowly proceed with his game, making the lives of the people who are seeking his downfall miserable. He will of course hand over his videos and clips, and he also possesses a pile of documents that would put off the publication of the full report for long months.
Nasrallah intends to do everything that needs to be done in order to keep the investigators busy. In the next phase, honorable judge Bellemare will attempt to get Nasrallah to leave his hiding spot and testify. Yet the Hezbollah chief is in no rush. He will announce that as long as Israel’s prime minister, defense minister, Mossad chief, and army chief are not summoned, he intends to stay in his hole. And if anyone wishes to force him out, they should turn to Lebanese President Michel Suleiman, who already announced he has no plans to touch top Hezbollah men and certainly no intention to detain Nasrallah.
So here we are, back at square one. The international prosecutor is hereby invited to try his luck. Even if he rules that Hezbollah and Syria assassinated Hariri, who will adopt the conclusions? Even Saad al-Hariri, who swore to pursue his father’s killers, escaped to the family resort in Sardinia. Before leaving, he ordered his ministers and party members not to respond to Nasrallah’s tricks.
So who keeps Lebanon intact these days? Maybe the president, maybe the security services, but certainly not the government, which may collapse if Nasrallah just says the word. As far as he’s concerned, they can try to come and get him. He may be a liar and a prattler, but he’s the one holding the matchbox.

New Opinion: Holding our nerve
Michael Karam, August 16, 2010
Now Lebanon/
One week ago, Hezbollah once again tried to derail the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), the court formed to bring to justice the killers of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and 21 others on February 14, 2005, as well as the later victims of political killings over the subsequent three years.
This time, Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah presented “evidence” to back up his party’s theory that Israel was the perpetrator of the crime. The “proof” was wafer thin but it was the most serious attempt yet to undermine a process that, while seeking to set a precedent in bringing to justice those who believe that local hindrances can be resolved by wholesale political murder, has the potential to nonetheless send shockwaves through Arab society if, as has been widely speculated, Hezbollah members are to be indicted for their suspected involvement in the crime.
But those who think that Lebanon has the option to abandon the tribunal by way of some kind of internal arrangement should consider the consequences. If that were to happen, especially given Lebanon’s fragile reputation in the international community – its renewed ties with Damascus and the doubts surrounding the primary allegiance of the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) – then we would truly be the laughing stock of the world and a fully paid-up member of the pariah state club.
Therefore, there are several points we must remember amid the hysteria – for hysteria it is – resulting from Monday’s press conference.
Point one: there is no set timetable for the STL, which follows investigative protocols set by international law and not by external factors. We must remember it was Nasrallah who announced the indictments would soon be handed down. The Lebanese should take their lead from the STL, which has made no definitive statement on any arraignments, and no one else.
Point two: STL Prosecutor General Daniel Bellemare is the only authority able to investigate and issue an indictment. While he will surely consider Hezbollah’s PowerPoint presentation with the greatest seriousness, he will not be swayed by Nasrallah - or anyone else’s - theatrics.
Belle mare’s authority is crucial to the credibility of the tribunal, especially as the STL’s opponents are seeking to muddy legal waters and shift the debate on who killed Hariri by calling for an independent national committee to investigate claims of Israeli involvement.
Point three: arguably the most important of all is that the STL was established, not only to bring to justice the killers of Rafik Hariri and MP Basil Fleihan and the 20 other innocent Lebanese who died on that fateful day in February 2005, but also those of subsequent victims of political murder: the writer Samir Kassir, politicians George Hawi, Gebran Tueni, Pierre Gemayel, Walid Eido and Antoine Ghanem, and security officials General Francois Hajj and Captain Wissam Eid. Not only were they all committed to Lebanon’s sovereign aspirations in the wake of the 2005 Independence Intifada, their killings were intended to destabilize a Lebanon seeking to assert its regional autonomy.
This is why the Lebanese – its government and its people – must hold its nerve. They must shake off the decades-old default setting that all evil automatically emanates from Israel. They must accept international judicial process and place their trust in those for whom delivering justice according to the rule of law is an exact, disciplined and transparent process and ignore those who would seek to influence by sleight of hand and intimidation.
That said, the STL should be more vocal in its denouncement of recent efforts to undermine due legal process. Fatima al-Issawi, the spokesperson for the tribunal, has reacted to Nasrallah’s Monday press conference, but a statement from the office of the prosecutor general himself would have been more appropriate given the sudden high stakes.
We must not forget that Lebanon is co-sponsoring and co-financing the tribunal and therefore deserves some kind of transparency. If one were to pick holes in the process to date, there has been an unhealthy culture of secrecy, one that has succeeded in creating a “them and us” between itself and the Lebanese where none need have existed.
The court is for all of Lebanon and all Lebanese. Greater efforts to involve – maybe even educate the Lebanese in its aims and activities - would go a long way to hit back at critics who have exploited the court’s bouts of silence to their advantage. The Lebanese people, who have been pulled from pillar to post in recent weeks, deserve to hear the voice of justice and reason.

Muslim Cleric Calls for Jihad, Coptic Christians Attacked in Egypt
GMT 8-14-2010
http://www.aina.org/news/20100814184359.htm
Assyrian International News Agency
(AINA) -- On August 13 Sheikh Tobah, Imam of the village of Shimi 170 KM south of Giza, called during Muslim Friday prayers for Jihad against Christians living there. As a result the Christian Copts living in the village were assaulted over two consecutive days. Eleven Copts were hospitalized and many Coptic youths were arrested.
The assaults begain a couple of hours after the Sheikhs incitement. An argument between Copt Maher Amin, who was washing his taxi, and Mohamed Ali Almstaui, a Muslim extremist from the village, escalated into violence as Mohamad assaulted Maher. The altercation was stopped by bystanders. However, after the evening break of Ramadan fast, Ahmad, the brother of the perpetrator Mohamad, who is reported to belong to an extremist organization, together with twenty other men, went to Maher's family home, breaking down the door and assaulting him and his family with batons, including his old mother and his paralyzed sister, injuring them and breaking their furniture.
Security forces came and took away the Christian victims and kept them at the station in spite of their wounds, to pressuree them into accepting "reconciliation" with their attackers. None of the Muslims were arrested.
Saad Gamal, Egyptian MP for Elsaff, phoned from Gaza, where he is on a visit, and gave orders to the police to force reconciliation on the Coptic parties.
"I was against reconciliation, because I know that the culprits know that they can assault Copts, and in the end it will boil down to Copts giving up all their rights with the reconciliation sessions," said Reverend Ezra Nageh of St. George's Church in Elsaff.
"I was told by the security authorities that for the sake of the Holy month of Ramadan, everyone ought to make peace."
The next day, after the compulsory reconciliation between the Amin family and Almstaui family, a large number of Muslims were gathered by the Almstauis and attacked again the houses of the Copts, beaten the inhabitants, and went to the fields and assaulted the Copts there also.
"Why should they not do that, when they are told that the MP will defend them," said Rev. Ezra, adding the police have yet to issue a report about the incidents, because they were afraid of the MP. "So to whom should we go for help? MP Saad Gamal hates Christians, and President Mubarak pretends that he is not present or unaware of our plight."
Ghali Tawfik, one of the Coptic victims, said "We are forced into reconciliation and in less than 24 hours, we are assaulted again."
In an aired audio interview with activist Wagih Yacoub, Maher Amin said "they have humiliated us. We were beaten and we could not do anything about it. We are weak and helpless and have to accept reconciliation. They will next come to our homes and rape our women, and we will not be able to do anything about it."
Karam Bebawy, another Coptic victim, said the arrival of strangers to the village two weeks ago "with long beards and wearing short dresses like the Islamists" have a hand in poisoning the atmosphere in their village and inciting the Muslims against the Copts. He said that his Muslim neighbors have turned against him without reason since then.
Police today released the assaulted Copts who were detained on Friday and arrested three new Coptic youths in their twenties on charges of having some old cases against them. They were transferred to State Security. However, Rev. Ezra said that State Security is using the same old trick, which is detaining innocent Copts and fabricating crimes against them, to twist the arm of the church into accepting a forced reconciliation.
The village mayor, Sheikh Saad contacted Rev. Ezra on August 14, regarding a second reconciliation, but he flatly refused.
"They attack us today and force reconciliation on us. Are they waiting for us to be killed tomorrow and then they would think about the rule of law?" asked Reverend Ezra.
By Mary Abdelmassih
Copyright (C) 2010, Assyrian International News Agency. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use.

Oppose the Ground Zero Mosque?
by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi
American Thinker
August 3, 2010
http://www.meforum.org/2718/oppose-the-ground-zero-mosque
News that the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has come out in opposition to the planned construction of a 13-storey 'Córdoba House' or 'Park51' mosque, two blocks away from 'Ground Zero', should prompt us to ask whether it is truly right to oppose the building of this particular mosque.
To begin with, it should be noted that there is no basis for opposing its construction on legal grounds. That said, a distinction needs to be made between legality and morality. The key question therefore is: would the mosque fulfill the apparent, declared intention of fostering outreach and mutual respect between people of various faiths?
The answer, however, should be a clear 'No'. To be fair, some of the opposition from the Tea Party movement to the 'Ground Zero' mosque is undoubtedly rooted in anti-Muslim bigotry: for instance, radio talk-show host Mark Williams, who resigned from 'Tea Party Express' over a month ago, described Allah as a 'monkey god' and characterized all Muslims as 'animals'.
Nonetheless, it is evident that there is also considerable popular opposition from New Yorkers themselves. For example, according to a poll by Quinnipiac University, on average 52% of New York voters oppose the construction of the Ground Zero mosque. Moreover, even in Manhattan, where there is most support for the project, only 46% are in favor of building the mosque. Amongst Americans in general, a majority oppose the planned construction, as the New York Times notes. Of course, resistance is particularly strong amongst families of the victims of 9/11, whose anguish ought to be taken into account here.
Such opposition is not at all surprising. Even supposing good intentions on the part of those behind the project, one could ask why they did not simply choose a site in Manhattan somewhat further away from Ground Zero. A suitable analogy would be as follows: how would Bosnian Muslims feel about proposing the construction of a Serbian Orthodox church at Srebrenica? Indeed, there are many parallels between the Srebrenica Massacre of 1995 and 9/11. The former was the killing of over 8000 Bosnian Muslims by Serb militias who justified their aggression on the pretext of defending their faith. In reality, however, the goal was to create a Greater Serbia by ethnically cleansing or exterminating Bosniaks and Croats from regions of the former Yugoslavia with mixed populations.
Similarly, the jihadists who perpetrate atrocities such as 9/11 purport to act in self-defense, but actually seek the eventual subjugation of the world under Shari'a. This is apparent from the declarations and writings of the leaders of jihadist groups. A case in point is Osama Bin Laden himself. When addressing Westerners, he normally justifies his actions by naming the usual grievances (e.g. the presence of Western troops in the Arabian Peninsula, U.S. support for Israel etc.), but when appealing to Muslims, he frequently invokes the idea of jihad, whether offensive or defensive, as a religious obligation.
For instance, in response to Saudi intellectuals who called for dialogue with the West in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Bin Laden wrote: "There are only three choices in Islam: either submit [i.e., convert to Islam], or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die. Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred-directed from the Muslim to the infidel-is the foundation of our religion." Similar sentiments were echoed by Faisal Shahzad, who attempted to bomb Times Square, when he stated in a tape released by Al-Arabiya that 'you'll see that the Muslim war has just started...until Islam is spread throughout the whole world.'
Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that Imam Abdul Rauf, the chief proponent of the mosque project, would do nothing effective to counter the broad elements in classical fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) that justify the doctrines of jihad as explained by Osama Bin Laden and Faisal Shahzad above. Indeed, in a 2000 treatise on Shari'a, and a 2004 book entitled 'What's Right With Islam', he has praise for figures such as the Sufi jurist Al-Ghazali, Ibn Taymiyyah and Al-Wahhab, all of whom formulated rationales for the notion of jihad as warfare to expand the realm of 'Dar Al-Islam'.
He furthermore hails the implementation of Shari'a in society, including in America itself. Thus, he is no better than the evasive Tariq Ramadan, who is wrongly lionized as a genuine moderate. After all, praising uncritically thinkers who justified noxious doctrines of warfare and subjugation of non-Muslims in writings intended for Muslims is no way to counter Islamism in any form, as it is their works that have been made so readily available by Saudi petrodollars.
In conclusion, the mosque is an unnecessary act of provocation at best and a project with a dubious agenda at worst, something that will certainly not achieve the supposed goal of improving interfaith relations. It is therefore morally right to stand with groups like the ADL in opposition to the construction of this mosque, whilst at the same time 'condemning unequivocally individuals like Mark Williams who are largely motivated by religious bigotry.
**Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi is a student at Oxford University, and an intern at the Middle East Forum.

Et tu, Brute?
Ana Maria Luca, August 14, 2010
Now Lebanon/General Fayez Karam was a key member in Michel Aoun’s Free Patriotic Movement. Karam – a former army counter-espionage and anti-terror chief – was tortured by the Syrian intelligence during the Lebanese civil war, spent years in exile with Aoun, came back to Lebanon in 2005 on the same plane as the FPM leader and handled the party’s offices in North Lebanon ever since.
His August 5 arrest on allegations of spying for Israel shook the Free Patriotic Movement to its core.
Lebanese Judge Sakr Sakr officially accused Karam of dealing with “the enemy’s intelligence and meeting their officers abroad, and giving them information by phone.” According to the charge sheet released by the Military Tribunal, Karam provided Israel with information on the Free Patriotic Movement, its political ally Hezbollah and other Lebanese parties. His reports mainly focused on what happened at closed meetings between political leaders, and he allegedly received money and weapons in return.
For many FPM supporters this scandal is one of the toughest blows the party has ever received and might affect its political alliance with Hezbollah. The key politicians in the party tried to keep the media under control.
“We are not a party with information and intelligence apparatuses. We are not a state… Therefore, it is not our duty to follow our partisans and see who they are talking to and with whom ‘they are going,’” FPM leader Michel Aoun said in reaction to Karam’s arrest on Tuesday.
Some FPM politicians blamed the media directly for the leaked information. MP Ibrahim Kanaan even threatened a lawsuit against the outlets disseminating confidential information leaked from the investigation. “The matter is sensitive, and it should not be politically manipulated,” he told OTV this week.
Other FPM MPs, such as Salim Salhab were more reserved on the matter. "We will declare our position after the investigation announces its results," he said. The MP also said that information leaked by media on the matter was not valid, and quoted Interior Minister Ziad Baroud’s statement on Sunday that the Internal Security Forces (ISF) Information Branch had nothing to do with these leaks.
Many FPM supporters refused to discuss the matter with the press, fearing what they said might further damage their party. “Let’s just wait and see the results of the trial,” one supporter in Jal al-Dib told NOW Lebanon before rushing away. The same happened with other supporters in Achrafieh and Dekwaneh.
Even if in real life they choose not to talk about it, “General Fayaz Karam’s arrest” became the most popular topic on the public forum of the FMP’s Tayyar website, one of the most-read Lebanese political sites. More than 1,000 opinions have been posted so far in the discussion.
Anonymous FPMers who posted on the forum say they are still stunned. While some believe Karam has to be tried for what he allegedly did and pay the price if found guilty, others insist that his arrest was a political move to ruin the FPM’s credibility.
“A spy is a spy, and spies are generally implanted in high places and in positions where they can access information. Let's wait and see the results of the investigations, and if it turns out he is a spy, he should be tried as a spy,” one party supporter wrote on the Tayyar forum. “He happens to be an FPMer, he could've been a Hezbollah member, a PSP member, a Syrian officer, an LFer, a Kataeb member, an Army official, or an ex-Guardian of the Cedar.”
“Why is everyone surprised, it’s obvious the Mossad will plant a mole in the Tayyar body,” someone wrote on the Tayyar forum. “They need to know each and every move General Aoun makes. Besides every party that is aligned to the Resistance will be a target, this makes us all vulnerable and exposed.”
It is the lack of solid facts – the charge sheet provided by the Military Tribunal is the only official information coming from any institution involved in the case – and the reliance by the media on anonymous sources who give impossible-to-verify details, that have made much of the Lebanese public, and especially FPM supporters, question the legitimacy of the investigation.
“I will just wait and see what happens at the trial. We don’t have enough information about the case right now. They accused him of spying, but that doesn’t mean he is actually guilty,” one FPM supporter who wished to remain anonymous told NOW Lebanon.
For others, proof of Karam’s guilt came when Michel Aoun came out to say that “Even Jesus had three apostles who betrayed him.” Aoun referencing Biblical traitors made some of his supporters think the FPM chief knows more than they do, that there is actually proof that Karam was dealing with the Mossad.
“You don't exactly know what info GMA [General Michel Aoun] had got about GFK [General Fayez Karam],” one party supporter posted on the forum.
““Fer3 el ma3loomet [ISF Intelligence office] or army intelligence won't go and capture someone like Fayez Karam without being politically covered, [i.e.] GMA himself,” another party supporter wrote.
Others note that even though Karam was still a high-ranking politician in the FPM, he was not close to Michel Aoun anymore. The relationship between the two had cooled off since June 2009, when Karam gave up running for an MP position on the Zgharta list at the request of Marada leader Sleiman Franjieh.
At any rate, according to Aoun, the investigation should have stayed secret, and it was a mistake that the information of the arrest reached the media. “No official, whether a minister or otherwise, is allowed to leak confidential information about the investigations to the press. This was a grave mistake,” he said during his address on Tuesday.

Hizbullah: Hating Israel... and Palestinians
By MUDAR ZAHRAN/jpost.com
08/12/2010 01:13
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=184466
While waving Palestinian cause flag and supporting ‘right of return to Palestine,’ Shi’ite group has been obstructing every attempt to improve livelihood of Palestinians in Lebanon.
Talkbacks (12)
In his latest press extravaganza, Hizbullah chief Hassan Nasrallah exposed what he called evidence of Israel’s involvement in the assassination of Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. The footage Nasrallah presented showed that Israel was monitoring areas in Lebanon since the late 1990s, a fact Israel has never denied. Nonetheless, the footage failed to tackle the most critical element of any crime; motive. Since day one, Hizbullah has been viewed as the prime suspect in Hariri’s assassination, and for good reason; Hariri was a Sunni leader who revived the strength and momentum of Lebanese Sunnis, as well as Saudi influence in Lebanon as a major Arab Sunni force, thus making himself a significant obstacle in Hizbullah’s quest to control Lebanon.
Still, the fact that Hizbullah has been successful in intercepting Israeli UAVs proves, once again, its access to advanced military technology. Furthermore, Hizbullah stands out as a very organized terrorist group with a clear strategy. Much of this stems from the fact that it receives substantial financial and logistical support from a very capable country – Iran – which has a lavish history of state terrorism and a relatively advanced military.
Today, Hizbullah is also well-established militarily. Yet what gives the group its edge is its propaganda tactics, which is exactly what Nasrallah was demonstrating with his latest press conference. In fact, Hizbullah has been playing the media game in a manner unprecedented by any other terror group.
In 2000, when Israel withdrew its troops from the buffer zones in southern Lebanon, Nasrallah appeared on most Arab TV screens chanting that “the mission had not been accomplished yet as Jerusalem and Al-Aksa mosque were still under Zionist occupation.”
This turned him into the poster child for pan-Arab nationalism, Islamism, and even Leftist forces in the Arab world. It created a dramatic shift in Arab public opinion, reviving the so-called “moral of resistance” against Israel that evolved into an entire change of heart by most Arabs, who are predominantly Sunni, towards the Shi’ite sect and principles. Several Arab countries reported cases of denomination conversion to the Shi’ite faith, alarming major Sunni countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
Hizbullah’s confrontation with Israel in 2006 brought the ultimate media trophy for Nasrallah. The fact that he remained alive weeks after of a strong assault by the region’s strongest military force, and that many “martyrs” fell in the process, played into Hizbullah’s media machine very effectively, eventually portraying Hizbullah as victorious and as the protector of Arabs and Muslims. Nonetheless, several Sunni Muslim scholars stood against it then, calling it “a destructive Shi’ite force” and still cite the same slogan today.
WHILE MANY, including some Israelis, seem to believe that Nasrallah loves the Palestinians, and would fight for their cause, the facts on the ground reflect a totally different reality. Hizbullah represents the Shi’ites in Lebanon, who describe themselves as an extension of the global Shi’ite body, with strong emotional and ideological ties to Iran. The Shi’ites in Lebanon have always felt threatened by the Palestinians, who are strictly Sunnis, and whose presence in Lebanon is viewed as adding demographic heavy weight to Lebanese Sunnis. While Lebanese Shi’ite figures never mention this fact, they have been vigorously working against it in practice; they even took up arms against the Palestinians during the Lebanese civil war. In fact, Lebanese Shi’ite were responsible for some of the most notorious atrocities against the Palestinians, with welldocumented massacres and the siege of the Palestinian refugee camps. Ironically, when they ended these in 1987, Shi’ite leader Nabih Berri told the press that this was “a gift for the Intifada.”
Hundreds of the war criminals that were involved in those massacres are now affiliated with Hizbullah, some in senior positions.
The group has been ruthless in its efforts to marginalize and control the Sunni Palestinian population in Lebanon; its leaders insisted on confining 400,000 Palestinians to the refugee camps as a condition for ending the civil war in 1989.
Before his latest press conference, Nasrallah was promoting that his faction would “punish” Israel if it obstructed a Lebanese aid flotilla headed for Gaza. This comes as one of an endless series of media stunts in which Nasrallah portrays himself and Hizbullah as the defenders of the Palestinian cause.
While Nasrallah claims he wants to see food items and medications delivered to Gaza, Palestinians in Lebanon are literally locked up inside their camps every evening. Banned from working legally, Palestinians in Lebanon have to depend on international aid and donations, which Lebanon monitors and restricts. This has resulted in intolerable living conditions. The post- Syrian Lebanese governments exhibited a tendency to improve the living conditions for the Palestinians on its soil; nonetheless, Hizbullah has been most fierce in fighting that trend. Waving the flag of the Palestinian cause, and staunchly supporting the “right of return to Palestine,” Hizbullah has been obstructing every attempt to improve the livelihood of Palestinians in Lebanon.
Furthermore, it has been igniting and financing unrest between Palestinian factions, as Hamas is not shy in showcasing its alliance with both Hizbullah and Iran.
Today, while Nasrallah and Hizbullah are considered iconic symbols of the fight against Israel and the defenders of the Palestinian cause, Palestinians in Lebanon are dying young, uneducated and poor, all in the name of preventing them from being naturalized in Lebanon in order to “keep their love for Palestine.”
This tactic for persecuting the Palestinians is not unique to Hizbullah; it has been played by many Arab countries and in fact by some of the countries claiming to be most friendly to the Palestinians.
The question is; with such friends, who needs enemies?
**The writer, a Jordanian of Palestinian heritage, is a researcher at the University of Bedfordshire

Why Hezbollah Is Edging Closer to War
By Meir Javedanfar
Real Clear World/August 12, 2010
http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2010/08/12/why_hezbollah_chooses_war_99110.html
I try not to get worked up about reports of imminent war in the Middle East. For years, I have looked suspiciously at estimates that Iran will get bombed in three months, six months or on Saturday afternoon after Ali Khamenei has finished his lunch. Why? Because the Middle East is always full of surprises. Just when we believe war to be imminent, nothing happens, and vice versa.
However, this time I really can't shake the feeling that something ominous is about to happen, involving Hezbollah. It will either be a massive confrontation with Israel, or armed conflict inside Lebanon.
After the recent attack by the Lebanese Army against the Israeli Defense Forces soldiers, who were fixing a tree on the border, many have predicted that it's only a question of time before the outbreak of the next round of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah begins. But there is another development that showed the seriousness of the impending conflict, and that is the warning given by Hezbollah that the deal brokered two years ago in Doha is about to collapse - a deal made after Hezbollah's military attack against Sunni forces left 90 dead. Fearing that a civil war could break out, the different Sunni, Christian and Shiite factions traveled to the Qatari capital to try and work out a deal in order to return calm to Lebanon. They finally succeeded in reaching a compromise, which included veto power for Hezbollah in the Lebanese cabinet.
The recent warning was made soon after the Emir of Qatar Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani visited Lebanon. He was there soon after the Saudi King and the president of Syria made a joint visit to the country.
Mohammad Raad, a Hezbollah member of the Lebanese parliament, while addressing a group of supporters, stated that the Lebanese government is facing a new threat, and that the Rafiq Hariri murder trial has been politicized to serve Israel's interests. In other words, any accusation against Hezbollah will be interpreted as an act of treason in Israel's favor.
The question that must be asked then in this: If Hezbollah is interested in attacking Israel, why is it warning that the Doha agreement is about to collapse? Attacking Israel has nothing to do with that. Hezbollah could get involved in a military confrontation with Israel without warning that the Doha agreement is about to collapse. In fact, even if Israel were its only target, Hezbollah would do everything to strengthen the Doha deal so that it could reap the benefits of domestic support while waging war on Israel.
There is, however, one other possibility: the Shiite organization could be about to launch a domestic power grab. This could be bloody, involving massive armed confrontation, or it could be bloodless; perhaps, for instance, involving some sort of agreement made with opposing factions. Hezbollah has the military capability to do this, as it's the only militia in Lebanon. In fact, if it does turn out that it was behind the Hariri assassination, then it would be a clear sign to any Lebanese politician that Hezbollah is not an organization to be meddled with.
Israel has every reason to view developments on its northern border with much concern. The recent attack by Lebanon's army against the Israeli forces, perhaps with Hezbollah's blessing, could have been a test. This would not be the first time that Hezbollah underwrote a small attack to test Israeli and international will prior to making a major move. Back in 2005, Hezbollah forces attempted to kidnap Israeli soldiers near the village of Rajar, but failed and lost four soldiers. That failure did not deter it from trying again, this time in 2006, which led to the start of the second Lebanon war.
But what should worry the Israeli government is that the recent border skirmish has actually made Hezbollah more popular inside Lebanon. The good news for the Lebanese population is that this could encourage Hezbollah to focus on Israel, and prevent it from taking on domestic elements. Otherwise, the possibility that Hezbollah may go for a power grab still exists.
The bad news for Israel is that it is very ill equipped to defend itself diplomatically. Its tarnished image after falling out with the Obama administration, Turkey and the international community over the Gaza flotilla affair means that it will find an increasingly smaller audience that's willing to listen to its concerns, as legitimate as they may be. The good news for Hezbollah is that if Israel ends the settlement freeze, then Israel's pool of friends in the international community is going to shrink even more, and fast.
The question then becomes: Is Hezbollah willing to wait until Sept. 25, the date of the end of the current freeze, to find out?
**Meir Javedanfar is an Iranian-Israeli Middle East analyst and a regular contributor to RealClearWorld. He is co-author of The Nuclear Sphinx of Tehran: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the State of Iran.

Lebanon and Nasrallah's Trinity
13/08/2010 /By Amir Taheri
Asharq Al-Awsat/If the latest reports are correct, within the next few weeks the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague will reveal the names of nine members of the Lebanese branch of Hezbollah for alleged participation in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
Sources close to the ICC tell us that the list of those likely to be indicted includes the names of at least two senior members of Hezbollah.
Once the list is published, the question would be how to detain those indicted and bring them to trial in The Hague?
Since Lebanon is not a signatory of the ICC treaty, it is unlikely that it will order any arrests. The accused may also decide to run to Iran as soon as they get wind of their indictment. As Iran is not an ICC member either, there would be little chance of any arrests on its soil. Over the past 30 years several pro-Iranian Lebanese militants have fled to Iran after being indicted by courts in a number of European countries.
Thus, some might wonder what is point of issuing warrants that cannot be enforced.
The answer is that arrest warrants issued by the ICC or similar international tribunals carry a political, and some might say even a moral, weight that cannot be ignored.
Right now some 30 such warrants still remain pending, among them Ratko Mladic, the Serbian general who organised the massacre of Muslims in Srebrenica. However, many arrest warrants are enforced after many years. Mladic's partner in crime Radovan Karadic was picked up after 12 years of successful hiding.
Although the ICC is focusing on a number of individuals, it would be hard to pretend that Hezbollah as a whole will not be affected by such grave accusations. The Lebanese branch of Hezbollah, like all other branches of the pan-Shiite radical movement, is known for its iron discipline and highly centralized decision-making. It also has a seasoned intelligence service of is own which trained and supported by Iranian services.
No one would believe that individual members could organize a sophisticated operation to carry out a high profile assassination in the heart of Beirut without anyone in their party knowing what was going one.
And, if someone high-level in the Lebanese branch knew of the plot, is it possible that Tehran was not informed? Would a branch of the movement go for such a high risk operation without obtaining at least a nod from the 'mother country'?
Judging by a series of recent statements from senior Iranian figures, the answer must be no.
Here is Major-General Hassan Firuzabadi:' Those who criticize our support for Hezbollah and Hamas do not understand what is at stake. We support {those movements} because they represent the firs line of our own defense. They are fighting for our safety and security and he triumph of our revolution.'
General Friuzabadi is Chief of Staff of the Islamic Republic's armed forces and member of the High Council of National Security that ultimately sets the strategy for foreign radical groups supported by Iran.
And here is Awaz Heydarpour, a member of the Islamic Consultative Assembly's security commission in Tehran: ' Wherever there is Hezbollah there is Iran. Our revolutionary movement is not limited by borders.'
And here is Hassan Nasrallah, Secretary-General of the Lebanese branch of the movement: I am proud of being a soldier of the Supreme Guide and a fighter for Walyat al-Faqih (Rule by the Clergy).'
There is an abundant literature on Hezbollah's Iranian connection. Ayatollah Ali-Akbar Mohtshami-pour has published memoirs narrating how founded the party during his tenure as Khomeini's ambassador to Damascus.
Hezbollah was originally founded by a group of mullahs, led by Ayatollah Hadi Ghaffari, while they were in the Shah's prisons in Iran in 1975.
In 1980, the government, headed by the then Prime Minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi, approved a budget of $60 million to help create branches of Hezbollah in s many Arab countries as possible. The idea was that these groups would help switch Arab public opinion in favor of the Islamic Republic during its bloody war with Saddam Hussein.
The model taken was that of the Communist International which helped create more than 60 pro-Soviet parties across the globe during the 1920s and 1930s.
Over the eight years that followed the Tehran decision, 10 foreign branches of Hezbollah were created abroad.
The Lebanese branch became the best known because of its involvement in a series of dramatic operations, including the taking of over 100 foreign hostages.
That Hezbollah is, at least in part, a foreign body, is clearly indicated by the new slogan launched in Lebanon.
The slogan is: People, Army and Resistance. (Al-Shaab, al-Jaish, al-Muqawimah).
The slogan splits the assumed unity of Lebanon as a nation-state by dividing it into three distinct elements. It assumes that people is something separate from the army and the resistance.
Because the term 'resistance' is supposed to identify Hezbollah, the slogan also assumes that the Lebanese people and their army are not willing or able to resist foreign threats against their security and national sovereignty. That assumption implicitly puts the Lebanese people and their army in the position of tutelage vis-à-vis Hezbollah.
The slogan could be seen as a cover to legitimize the creation of a Hezbollah stat within the Lebanese one with Tehran's financial and political support.
But let us return to the impending indictments.
Even if the foot soldiers of h crime are brought to justice, those who sent them into the killing field will remain immune.
The immediate question would be whether a party that is accused of being involved, even remotely, in so heinous a crime could remain part of a country's legislature and government.
Dislodging Hezbollah from positions of power would not easy. The party has the capacity and, certainly the will, to use force even if that meant pushing the country towards another civil war that few Lebanese want.
Thus the real question is the dire political choice that all those involved must face: the choice between justice and peace.

Israel may unilaterally attack Iran's N-facilities: Report
Translate into: http://www.zeenews.com/news647536.html
Updated on Wednesday, August 11, 2010,
Jerusalem: Israel may launch a unilateral attack on Iranian nuclear facilities within a year if the Obama administration fails to assure Tel Aviv that it is serious about foiling Tehran's atomic ambitions, a media report has said.
Israel will carry out the military attack without asking for Washington's famous "green light" or even give couple of false pre-attack alerts, according to Atlantic magazine's yet-to-be published cover story for the September edition, obtained by Ha'aretz daily here.
"...one day next spring, the Israeli national security adviser, Uzi Arad, and the Israeli defence minister, Ehud Barak, will simultaneously telephone their counterparts at the White House and the Pentagon, to inform them that their Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has just ordered roughly one hundred F-15Es, F-16Is, F-16Cs, and other aircraft of the Israeli air force to fly east toward Iran," the magazine article says.
The aircraft could fly to Iran "possibly by crossing Saudi Arabia, possibly by threading the border between Syria and Turkey, and possibly by travelling directly through Iraq's airspace, though it is crowded with American aircraft...," it says painting a possible scenario.
The repercussions of such a strike, which could include the bombing of the Iranian facilities in Natanz, Qom, Esfahan, and may be even the Russian-built reactor in Bushehr, are less than clear, despite the endless discussions and several simulations, the report said.
American experts speculate that attacking Iran's nuclear facilities will only slightly delay the nuclear programme, whereas some Israelis, as per the report, are a bit more optimistic, in light of the successful Israeli operations against Iraqi and Syrian reactors in the past.
The article's author Jeffery Goldberg bases his arguments on dozens of interviews he conducted in recent months with Israeli, American and Arab officials and is of the opinion that the possibility of an Israeli strike has crossed the 50 per cent mark.
The results of such an attack will be dire and it is likely that the Israeli air force will not have much time to waste in Iran, as Hizbullah will probably retaliate against Israel in the North and the fighter jets will be needed there.
The unilateral operation might throw relations between Jerusalem and Washington into an unprecedented crisis, and could even unleash a full-scale regional war with possible economic repercussions for the whole world, not to mention the cost of human lives, the report says.
The timetable on the issue for the US is an evasive one as the red lines were pushed back again and again, but the red lines for Israel are very clear, Goldberg says.
"Based on my conversations with allies, it's not so much the timing of when or how the Iranians might pursue the nuclear weapons, it's whether they do so. And so whether it would take six months, a year, or five years, it's that deep concern about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons that is the preoccupation of our friends and partners.
"And we would be pursuing the path we're pursuing regardless of any issue of timing because we think it's got the best potential for changing Iranian behaviour," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told New York Times last week.
However, the end of December is Netanyahu's deadline to estimate the success of "non-military methods to stop Iran," the report says.

A House of Worship or a Symbol of Destruction?
16/08/2010
By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid/Asharq alawsat
US President Barack Obama adopted a difficult position when he supported the building of a mosque near ground zero, where 3,000 US citizens died at the hands of Al-Qaeda terrorists on 11 September 2001.
Despite the fact that the president adopted the correct stance in principle, i.e. the principle of freedom of worship, in my opinion he adopted an unnecessary and unimportant stance, even as far as Muslims are concerned. The mosque is not an issue for Muslims, and they are not bothered by its construction.
This reminds us of another principled stance Obama took when he insisted on putting the Guantanamo prisoners accused of belonging to Al-Qaeda on trial before civilian courts, and on closing down the military prison. It is true that this stance deserves appreciation. However, the fact is that he fought a battle that does not concern Muslims across the world, because there are tens of thousands of Muslims - similar to those accused of extremism - who are imprisoned in worse conditions in Muslim countries.
Muslims do not aspire for a mosque next to the 11 September cemetery, and are not bothered with Bin Ladin's cook being put on trial in a civilian court. Muslims have issues that encroach upon the destinies of nations; these issues are the cause of isolation and calamity, such as the establishment of the State of Palestine. For Obama to focus his energy and efforts, and fight for the establishment of peace in the Middle East is more important and more valuable than a mosque in New York.
The fact is that building a mosque next to the site of the World Trade Center Twin Towers, which were destroyed during the 11 September attacks, is a strange story. This is because the mosque is not an issue for Muslims, and they have not heard of it until the shouting became loud between the supporters and the objectors, which is mostly an argument between non-Muslim US citizens!
Neither did the Muslims ask for a single building, nor do the angry Muslims want the mosque. This is one of the few times when the two opposing sides are in agreement. Nevertheless, the dispute has escalated, and has reached the front pages of the press and the major television programs, demonstrations have been staged in the streets, and large posters have been hung on buses roaming the streets of New York calling for preventing the building of the mosque and reminding the people of the 11 September crime. It really is a strange battle!
I cannot imagine that Muslims want a mosque on this particular site, because it will be turned into an arena for promoters of hatred, and a symbol of those who committed the crime. At the same time, there are no practicing Muslims in the district who need a place of worship, because it is indeed a commercial district. Is there a side that is committed to this mosque? The fact is that in the news reports there are names linked to this project that costs 100 million dollars!
The sides enthusiastic for building the mosque might be building companies, architect houses, or politicized groups that want suitable investments?! I do not know whether the building applicant wants a mosque whose aim is reconciliation, or he is an investor who wants quick profits. This is because the idea of the mosque specifically next to the destruction is not at all a clever deed. The last thing Muslims want today is to build just a religious center out of defiance to the others, or a symbolic mosque that people visit as a museum next to a cemetery.
What the US citizens do not understand is that the battle against the 11 September terrorists is a Muslim battle, and not theirs, and this battle still is ablaze in more than 20 Muslim countries. Some Muslims will consider that building a mosque on this site immortalizes and commemorates what was done by the terrorists who committed their crime in the name of Islam. I do not think that the majority of Muslims want to build a symbol or a worship place that tomorrow might become a place about which the terrorists and their Muslim followers boast, and which will become a shrine for Islam haters whose aim is to turn the public opinion against Islam. This is what has started to happen now; they claim that there is a mosque being built over the corpses of 3,000 killed US citizens, who were buried alive by people chanting God is great, which is the same call that will be heard from the mosque.
It is the wrong battle, because originally there was no mosque in order to rebuild it, and there are no practicing Muslims who want a place in which to worship.