LCCC
ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
January 17/09
Bible Reading of the
day.
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Mark 2,1-12. When Jesus returned
to Capernaum after some days, it became known that he was at home. Many gathered
together so that there was no longer room for them, not even around the door,
and he preached the word to them.
They came bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men. Unable to get near
Jesus because of the crowd, they opened up the roof above him. After they had
broken through, they let down the mat on which the paralytic was lying.
When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Child, your sins are
forgiven."Now some of the scribes were sitting there asking themselves, Why does
this man speak that way? He is blaspheming. Who but God alone can forgive sins?
Jesus immediately knew in his mind what they were thinking to themselves, so he
said, "Why are you thinking such things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say
to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise, pick up your mat
and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive
sins on earth"--he said to the paralytic, "I say to you, rise, pick up your mat,
and go home." He rose, picked up his mat at once, and went away in the sight of
everyone. They were all astounded and glorified God, saying, "We have never seen
anything like this."
Catechism of the Catholic Church
§§976-982/"Child, your sins are forgiven."
«I believe in the forgiveness of sins» : the Apostle's Creed associates faith in
the forgiveness of sins not only with faith in the Holy Spirit, but also with
faith in the Church and in the communion of saints. It was when he gave the Holy
Spirit to his apostles that the risen Christ conferred on them his own divine
power to forgive sins: "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any,
they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained» (Jn
20,22-23). «One baptism for the remission of sins» : our Lord tied the
forgiveness of sins to faith and Baptism: "Go into all the world and preach the
gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mk
16,15-16). Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of forgiveness of sins
because it unites us with Christ, who «died for our sins and rose for our
justification», so that "we too might walk in newness of life» (Rom 4,25; 6,4).
When we made our first profession of faith while receiving the holy Baptism that
cleansed us, the forgiveness we received then was so full and complete that
there remained in us absolutely nothing left to efface, neither original sin nor
offenses committed by our own will, nor was there left any penalty to suffer in
order to expiate them.... Yet the grace of Baptism delivers no one from all the
weakness of nature. On the contrary, we must still combat the movements of
concupiscence that never cease leading us into evil. In this battle against our
inclination towards evil, who could be brave and watchful enough to escape every
wound of sin?... The Church must be able to forgive all penitents their
offenses, even if they should sin until the last moment of their lives. It is
through the sacrament of Penance that the baptized can be reconciled with God
and with the Church...There is no offense, however serious, that the Church
cannot forgive. "There is no one, however wicked and guilty, who may not
confidently hope for forgiveness, provided his repentance is honest.» Christ who
died for all men desires that in his Church the gates of forgiveness should
always be open to anyone who turns away from sin
Free
Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports
How the Gaza War Could
End: Three Scenarios-Time
16/01/09
Jewish HATRED in Canada?By: Mark
Harding 16/01/09
Many in Southern Lebanon Are
Hesitant to Enter Fight With Israel. By: Randa Raad 16/01/09
Gaza & The One-World Media’s Propaganda.
By: Frank Salvato /International Analysist Network 16/01/09
Engaging Syria? Lessons from the French Experience-International
Crisis Group 16/01/09
Special Report: A Role for Europe in Gaza-By STUART
REIGELUTH/Middle
East Times 16/01/09
Latest News Reports From
Miscellaneous Sources for January 16/09
Hamas: We will not accept Israeli
conditions for cease-fire-AP
Israel’s Gaza Offensive Divides
Arab States, Sparks Summit Spat-Bloomberg
Suleiman Differs With Points of
View That Wish to Abandon the Arab Peace Initiative-Naharnet
Israeli envoys sent to US, Egypt
for truce talks-AP
Gaza ceasefire imminent as
Israel negotiates deals with Egypt and US
U.N. Urges Israel to Consider
Halting Attacks-New York times
President Travels to Doha after Anti-Suleiman
Slogans by March 8 ...Naharnet
Palestinian Refugees Fear for Loved Ones in 'Hell of Gaza'-Naharnet
Russia 'Deeply Worried' About Situation in the South-Naharnet
An ally of Israel reconsiders-France24
Engaging Syria? Lessons from the French Experience-International
Crisis Group
Murr
Informs Cabinet that Rockets Fell in Lebanon Not Israel-Naharnet
Suleiman's Travel to Doha
Tops Cabinet Discussions-Naharnet
2 Qaida-affiliated Groups
Stand Trial before Military Court-Naharnet
Bush Gets Lebanese Flag-Naharnet
Berri Praises Turkey-Naharnet
Jumblat: Stop the Rocket
Mockery-Naharnet
Militants who Fired
Rockets into Israel Unprofessional-Naharnet
Bush Gets Lebanese Flag
Naharnet/U.S. President George Bush, making his final visit to the State
Department, said Thursday that the U.S. should confidently engage the world with
the "transformative power of freedom and liberty." "We've made our alliances
stronger, we've made our nation safer, and we have made the world freer," Bush
said, summing up his foreign policy initiatives around the globe. Bush said
State Department employees worked to advance the ideals of freedom and can be
proud of the results, whether in the Mideast or Asia or Africa. Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice presented Bush with the flags of Afghanistan, Kosovo,
Iraq, Liberia and Lebanon -- countries that she says have joined the "circle of
freedom" during the past eight years. "Mr. President, it's also going to seem
inevitable that peoples with long histories of oppression would gain the
opportunity to liberate their countries, and that they would seize these
opportunities, with America's support, to make a new life for themselves in
freedom," she said. "On that day, we will remember, but it will seem inevitable,
that an American president would stand before the flags with democratically
elected leaders in Kosovo, Lebanon, Liberia, Afghanistan, and Iraq," Rice told
Bush. Looking back, Rice listed things she said she never expected to witness:
Kuwaiti women gaining the right to vote; a democratic provincial council meeting
in Kirkuk, Iraq; the king of Saudi Arabia at an interfaith dialogue at the
United Nations listening to the Israeli president; and men, women and children
across Africa who no longer are dying of AIDS. Bush also gave the Presidential
Medal of Freedom to Ryan Crocker, who served as U.S. ambassador to
Iraq.(AP-Naharnet) Beirut, 16 Jan 09, 08:48
How the
Gaza War Could End: Three Scenarios
Times 16/01/09/Pressure is mounting on Israel and Hamas to find a way of ending
the war in Gaza. Both sides have responded positively, if tentatively, to
Egyptian proposals for a phased truce that would begin with a lull in fighting
for a defined period (10 days by some accounts). That interlude would then allow
for the brokering of a more comprehensive cease-fire. But each side's goals from
any truce remain antagonistic to those of the other, and reaching an agreement
that bridges the vast gap between them remains a Herculean diplomatic challenge.
Even before the Israeli invasion began late December, Hamas had offered to renew
its six-month cease-fire with Israel on condition that the border crossings from
Egypt and Israel into Gaza be opened. Those crossings have been closed as part
of a strategy of imposing economic deprivation on the people of Gaza in the hope
that they would turn on Hamas; Israel remains reluctant to agree to reopen them
as part of a cease-fire deal, since that would be claimed as a victory by Hamas.
Hamas also insists on a full and immediate withdrawal of all Israeli forces from
Gaza. Israel is reluctant to comply until mechanisms are in place to prevent
Hamas rearming.
Israel's declared purpose in launching Operation Cast Lead was to halt
Palestinian rocket fire from Gaza, and prevent Hamas from being able to rearm
through smuggling weapons from Egypt. Israel remains committed, however, to a
long-term goal of ending Hamas control of Gaza, and it insists that the movement
should gain no "recognition" or "legitimacy" as part of any truce - a tough call
since Hamas is the key combatant on the Palestinian side.
So how will the Gaza conflict be resolved? Israel's dominant military position
puts its leaders in a position to decide how the hostilities will. But those
leaders remain locked in debate among themselve over the best way to do that.
Here are the three most likely scenarios, each with different political
consequences for the main players and the future of the conflict:
Scenario 1: Regime Change
Given Israel's long-term goal of ousting Hamas in Gaza, some key military and
political leaders have urged that it expand the goals of its current operation,
and use its momentum to take control of Gaza City and decapitate Hamas. Most
vocal in advocating this option is Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu, the hawkish
front-runner in the race for prime minister, who will portray any outcome that
leaves Hamas intact in Gaza as a failure - bad news for his chief rivals,
Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni.
But the "regime-change" option is even reported to have support from Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert, who sees it as a way to restore the control over all
Palestinian territories of his peace partner, Palestinian Authority President
Mahmoud Abbas. Skeptics, including Barak and Livni, warn that pursuing
regime-change would require the Israeli military operation to continue for
months, risking diplomatic isolation and dramatic increases in casualties. And
the Israeli security establishment is justifiably skeptical of the prospects for
re-imposing the already enfeebled Abbas on a hostile Gaza. Rather than boost his
power, the latest confrontation has seen Abbas further marginalized. Even his
future control over the West Bank has come into question.
Even if forced out of power, Hamas would maintain a resistance role that would
prevent anyone else from governing the territory. (The organization is estimated
to have close to 20,000 men under arms in Gaza, of which Israel claims, so far,
to have killed no more than 2.5%.) That would force Israel to reoccupy a
territory from which it sought to separate in 2005. Still, Israeli leaders hope
that the military operation can deal a powerful enough blow to hobble Hamas.
They still hope to see the Abbas' authority re-imposed as part of any truce.
More realistically, perhaps, Arab mediators and the U.N. Security Council have
urged that cease-fire plans restore reconciliation between Abbas and Hamas. Arab
countries previously brokered a national unity government between the two, and
Hamas remains the ruling party in the Palestinian Authority's legislature. But
Israel has long insisted it will not deal with a Palestinian government that
includes Hamas.
Scenario 2: Long-term Cease-fire
Israel has insisted that a cease-fire be "sustainable," by ensuring that Hamas
is unable to rearm itself. An actual disarming of Hamas' current militias is
unlikely without a full-scale reoccupation of Gaza, which would involve tens of
thousands more Israeli troops over many months. Anything less will see Hamas
continue to be the dominant security presence inside Gaza. So, Israel's priority
will be to choke off the supply of rockets and mortar shells, which have been
smuggled through tunnels from Gaza and fired at Israel. The Israelis want Egypt
to police those tunnels, under U.S. supervision. Egypt has been reluctant to
take on the potential domestic political headache of having foreign troops
policing the Gaza border on its soil, and fears that Israel will seek to force
Cairo to accept increasing responsibility for the territory - a role Cairo
steadfastly refuses to play.
Egypt is reportedly proposing that an immediate truce, in which Israeli forces
retain their current positions but advance no further, be followed by
negotiations on a full withdrawal and reopening the crossings. Egypt will likely
agree to enhanced mechanisms for policing the smugglers' tunnels, but those
tunnels were also Gaza's economic lifeline, and Egypt will insist they can be
closed only if the legitimate crossings into Gaza are reopened to allow the flow
of normal humanitarian and commercial traffic. That, of course, is what Hamas
has been demanding, which will make Israel - and Egypt - uncomfortable. Neither
wants to see the radical movement emerge from this confrontation with an
enhanced status, but the scale of the humanitarian disaster wrought by Operation
Cast Lead renders maintaining the economic blockade untenable. Hamas may claim
vindication, but it will not be allowed to directly control the crossings
itself, as it had demanded, and will be forced to swallow many other
compromises.
Policing the crossings on the Palestinian side will likely be the responsibility
of the Palestinian Authority, although that will require new agreements between
Hamas and President Abbas. Any cease-fire is likely to implicitly recognize
Hamas' dominance as an inescapable reality in Gaza. Hamas will claim victory
from any truce that results in the crossings being reopened, and its claim may
well be echoed by Netanyahu on the campaign trail. After all, ending the current
operation on the basis of a formal long-term truce in Gaza will codify
Israeli-Hamas coexistence. That's why Israeli journalist Aluf Benn dubbed the
conflict "Gaza's War of Independence," an allusion to the conflict 60 years ago
in which Israel established its existence as an intractable political-military
fact. (See pictures of 60 years of Israel.)
Scenario 3: The Guns Go Silent Without a Formal Truce
If the offensive cannot deal Hamas a death blow, Israel may see benefit in
holding its fire, in line with the first phase of the Egyptian plan but not
necessarily concluding a comprehensive cease-fire. It would simply maintain the
halt to hostilities and even withdraw its forces on an open-ended basis. Israeli
leaders saw Operation Cast Lead as an opportunity to restore Israel's
"deterrent" power, which it believed had been damaged when it was fought to a
draw by Hizballah in Lebanon in 2006. But the Gaza operation, with its almost
100-to-1 ratio of Palestinian to Israeli casualties, has issued a painful
reminder of Israel's capacity and willingness to abandon restraints and rain
devastation on the heads of all challengers.
By simply stopping its operation without a formal truce, Israel can claim to
have reestablished its "deterrent" on future rocket fire without "recognizing"
Hamas' authority in Gaza. This option would also allow Israel to avoid accepting
any new restraints on its actions in Gaza. It would also bypass the need to
deploy international forces, a move that would complicate any future offensive.
Israel ended its 2002 offensive against militants in Jenin and other West Bank
cities on its own terms, choosing where to remain deployed and continuing to
raid those cities as deemed necessary. The six-month truce that maintained calm
in Gaza from June until November last year was never formally codified - each
side had its own interpretation of understandings reached with the Egyptian
mediator, and there was no publicly agreed text or mechanism for monitoring or
arbitrating disputes.
Some Israeli reports suggest that halting the offensive without an agreement is
the option favored by Livni. And its prospects may be enhanced by the fact that
negotiations over a formal cease-fire may take more than 10 days and may, in
fact, not be resolved before Israel has elected a new government - possibly, one
with little interest in a truce with Hamas. But even an unspoken truce would
have to involve the opening of crossings to relieve the humanitarian
catastrophe, and would require mechanisms for monitoring the flow of goods into
Gaza, and tunnel smuggling. In other words, even an unspoken cease-fire will
require many of the features of a formal one. Hamas has also insisted that it
won't accept another vague or open-ended ceasefire without defined timetables
and verifiable goals, although its ability to hold out for its terms will be
determined by the resilience of its forces on the ground. But Egypt and other
regional players will press Israel to formalize the truce terms in order to
prevent a recurrence of the horrors seen in Gaza over the past three weeks. (See
pictures of heartbreak in the Middle East.)
Whichever of these three permutations defines the Gaza outcome, the likelihood
is that Operation Cast Lead will not have ended the conflict between Israel and
Hamas, but will instead have propelled it into a new phase.
Suleiman's Travel to Doha Tops
Cabinet Discussions
Naharnet/President Michel Suleiman's participation in the Doha summit was the
main topic of discussion at Thursday's cabinet session as majority and minority
ministers disagreed about the head of state's travel to the Qatari capital. An
Nahar daily on Friday said minority ministers saw Suleiman's attendance as a
victory to a local-regional side while majority ministers stressed that Lebanon
can't be part of regional axes games.Arab heavyweights Saudi Arabia and Egypt
are opposed to Qatar's summit idea as differences grow over how to respond to
the Israeli offensive on Gaza. A senior official in Doha, said the Qatari summit
on Gaza would go ahead with "whoever is present." During the cabinet session at
the Grand Serail, Minister Ali Qanso reportedly considered Suleiman's decision
to travel to Doha as "important and wise."
According to An Nahar, Minister Talal Arslan also accused some Arab countries of
"conspiracy with the Israeli aggression."
"The countries are the same that conspired in the war on Lebanon in 2006," he
reportedly told the cabinet session.
Minister Jean Oghassabian snapped back, saying "Lebanon does not want to become
part of the axes game and does not have the capability to become part of the
Arab conflict."According to the official cabinet statement, Premier Fouad
Saniora stressed that Lebanon has always adopted the policy of Arab
understanding.
He stressed Lebanon's commitment to U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701 and
criticized Israeli violations of the resolution. Beirut, 16 Jan 09, 10:43
President Travels to Doha after
Anti-Suleiman Slogans by March 8 Forces
Naharnet/President Michel Suleiman traveled to Doha Thursday night after
anti-Israeli protesters shouted slogans against him and following pressure from
Hizbullah and Amal movement to attend the Arab summit on Gaza. The pro-Gaza
protest near the U.S. embassy in Awkar raised fears that the implications of the
Gaza war have moved to Lebanon. The daily An Nahar on Friday said the
protesters, that included opposition and leftist parties spearheaded by
Hizbullah, called on Suleiman not to "abandon the (Palestinian) cause." The
pro-March 8 demonstrators also shouted slogans accusing him of being a U.S.
agent.
"We want to go back to your days Lahoud," they shouted in reference to former
President Emile Lahoud. The demonstration was held shortly before Suleiman
headed to Doha to participate in the emergency summit on Gaza if it was
convened. Information Minister Tareq Mitri said after a cabinet meeting Thursday
night that the president traveled to Qatar to attend a consultative
session."There is no summit because quorum was not achieved," he said.
Arab League chief Amr Moussa has said that a quorum of 15 countries to hold the
meeting in Doha had not been achieved as only 13 of the 22 member states had
agreed to attend.
Meanwhile, As Safir newspaper said that Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan
Nasrallah's assistant Hajj Hussein Khalil and MP Ali Hassan Khalil from Speaker
Nabih Berri's Amal movement kept contacts with Suleiman via his advisors all day
Thursday to convince him to attend the Doha meeting.
The daily said at around 6:00 pm the minority was informed of the president's
decision to travel to Doha to take part in the emergency summit.
"If there is no quorum, then the president will participate in any presidential
or consultative meeting in Qatar," according to a Baabda Palace statement.
As Safir said Hajj Hussein Khalil and MP Ali Hassan Khalil informed Suleiman on
Wednesday that they wished he would accept the Qatari invitation for several
reasons: Lebanon is not a neutral country in the war on Gaza, there are
geographical factors that link Palestine and Lebanon and there is a political,
military and demographic Palestinian presence in Lebanon. Al-Akhbar newspaper
also said Friday that Suleiman was clearly informed by minority forces that any
nonparticipation in the summit would be explained that he is taking sides with
parties that are against the Palestinian people. Beirut, 16 Jan 09, 09:30
Palestinian Refugees Fear for Loved
Ones in 'Hell of Gaza'
Naharnet/Om Saeed wipes the tears off her face as she sits in her tiny shop in
Beirut's overcrowded Burj al-Barajneh Palestinian refugee camp. "My daughter is
in the hell of Gaza," she whispers.
The 70-year-old woman, known as "Al Ghazawiya" (the Gazan), because she was born
in Gaza, is among thousands of Palestinians in Lebanon's 12 refugee camps whose
loved ones are trapped in the coastal strip where Israel launched an offensive
against Hamas fighters last month.
"She calls Gaza every day, sometimes several times a day," says Mohamed El-Ali,
who operates a call center inside the camp.
He said at least 25 people come to his center each day seeking news about a son,
nephew, grandfather or a friend trapped in Gaza.
Ali said he can usually connect them through an Internet phone link for 50 US
cents a minute.
"The first week after the Israeli onslaught began on December 27, I had a lot of
people coming to call," he said. "But now, with the lines bad and the connection
difficult, I have many fewer."Om Saeed's other daughter Sabah, who also lives in
Burj al-Barajneh, said the family desperately tries to reach her sister Ibtisam
daily in Beit Hanun, located in the north of the Gaza Strip.
"Yesterday we tried at least 100 times to call but couldn't get through," said
Sabah, who asked that her family name not be used. "My mother was going mad and
we feared the worst. "Finally around 1:00 a.m. (2300 GMT Wednesday) my sister
called to reassure us that she was still alive."
She added that Ibtisam told them that she, her husband and their five children
were living with no electricity and that the shelling was intense.
"She told us that 15 families are huddled in the entrance of the building where
she lives," Sabah recounted. "She told me 'we're going nowhere, we are going to
die here'." Rabab Abu Laban, 26, stays glued to her television screen almost
round-the-clock following developments in Gaza where her 20-year-old sister
Nouhad is trapped. "She arrived in Gaza one week before the war to meet her
future husband and got trapped," Abu Laban said. "We are worried sick about her
as well as all the population in Gaza.
"She told me that she was hiding with 50 other people in a neighborhood of Gaza
and had little food or water," she added. "Yesterday they cooked three pots of
rice which could not feed everyone." A picture of Nouhad hangs on one of the
walls of the family home next to a portrait of Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan
Nasrallah.
Throughout the camp's narrow alleyways, pictures of children killed in the Gaza
onslaught are on display along with banners denouncing the war.
"Gaza's rock-solid dignity will destroy their arrogance" reads one banner while
another one says "Hamas stronger than the enemy."
Raed, 29, an employee with the Palestinian Authority's health ministry in Gaza,
said he arrived in Burj al-Barajneh through Egypt to visit family, three days
before the fighting broke out. "We don't want food, nor assistance nor anyone's
help," he says bitterly. "We just want to live in peace."
As he speaks, a message pops up on the screen of his cell phone. It is from his
girlfriend trapped in Gaza. "I can't sleep anymore," the message reads. "The
tanks are approaching and the shelling is fierce."I am terrified."(AFP) Beirut,
16 Jan 09, 13:46
Russia 'Deeply Worried' About
Situation in the South
Naharnet/Russian Ambassador Sergei Bukin told Premier Fouad Saniora on Friday
that his country was "deeply worried" about the deteriorating situation in south
Lebanon. "I expressed Russia's huge and deep worries about the dangers of the
deterioration of the security situation between Lebanon and Israel," Bukin said
after talks with Saniora at the Grand Serail. "We believe that the eruption of
any clashes between Lebanon and Israel are not useful either for Israel or for
Lebanon," he said.
Bukin said his country backed Lebanese efforts to prevent the outbreak of new
clashes between the two countries. Asked if there is a Russian initiative to
stop the Israeli war on Gaza, Bukin said: "We backed Resolution 1860 and Russia
is a member of the Quartet and the Security Council. It is active in Middle East
issues and all efforts that would lead to a comprehensive settlement." Beirut,
16 Jan 09, 13:30
Murr Informs Cabinet that Rockets Fell in Lebanon Not Israel
Naharnet/Defense Minister Elias Murr has reportedly told Thursday's cabinet
session investigation revealed that rockets fired from the south fell inside
Lebanese territory. An Nahar daily said Murr also stressed that the Lebanese
Army and UNIFIL troops continued their investigations to reveal the identity of
the militants who fired the rockets.News reports said Thursday that Israel
banned U.N. peacekeepers from inspecting the site where the rockets allegedly
landed in the northern Israeli town of Kiryat Shmona. Citing U.N. and Lebanese
security sources, local newspapers said no rockets landed in northern Israel on
Wednesday. UNIFIL said in a press release on Thursday that "the investigation
team found evidence of two rockets that had been fired in the direction of
Israel.""A second UNIFIL investigation team discovered fragments of two rockets
in the area of Ain Arab (between Ghajar and Khiam) on Lebanese territory," the
statement said. "The initial report by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) that
rockets impacted inside Israel has not been confirmed by IDF to UNIFIL," it
added. Beirut, 16 Jan 09, 11:18
2 Qaida-affiliated Groups Stand Trial before Military Court
Naharnet/A military court on Thursday continued trial of members of the
so-called "Group 13," a terrorist group that belongs to al-Qaida.
The group is accused of terrorist acts in addition to forging documents,
possession of wireless devices and carrying bags containing weapons, news
reports said Friday.
They said the court adjourned the trial till Feb. 19 after hearing the
testimonies of three witnesses, including Saudi citizen Fahd Mghamiss who is
arrested in connection with a number of cases. Thirteen arrested men stood
before the military court on Thursday, including a Palestinian, a Lebanese of
Jordanian descent, two Syrians, a Saudi and two Lebanese. Local media said seven
other detainees are being tried in absentia. They include four Palestinians and
three Syrians. The court also looked into the case of another group belonging to
al-Qaida that was arrested in east Lebanon's town of Bar Elias in 2007. This
group, which includes 12 detainees in addition to eight others who were still at
large, including an Argentinean, is charged with booby-trapping two cars as well
as possession of arms and ammunition allegedly aimed at targets in
Lebanon.Beirut, 16 Jan 09, 12:04
Jumblat: Stop the Rocket Mockery
Naharnet/Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblat on Thursday said
firing rockets at Israel from south Lebanon means that "some regional powers
insist on turning Lebanon into a Post Office Box … and an open arena for the
region's conflicts." "Lebanon would not accept to be again a field for the wars
of others on a pad for launching rockets so that others can go into negotiations
at its expense," he said. Jumblat urged the Lebanese Army and U.N. peacekeepers
to practice "maximum alert in south Lebanon to halt this mockery of launching
rockets." Beirut, 15 Jan 09, 21:25
Militants who Fired Rockets into
Israel Unprofessional
Naharnet/The identity of militants who have fired rockets into northern Israel
remains a mystery amid concern by countries participating in UNIFIL about lack
of progress in the investigation into the attack. Pan-Arab daily al-Hayat quoted
UNIFIL sources as saying that the militants who fired the rockets from southern
Lebanon the day before were less professional than those who attacked northern
Israel last Thursday. They said the first time the rockets were launched on
Israel, there was more professionalism in directing the rockets towards their
exact target in Nahariya. Wednesday's rockets crashed in an open area in
southern Lebanon and northern Israel. Political sources expressed concern to al-Hayat
about holding Fatah al-Islam or al-Qaida solely responsible for the rocket
attack, adding that there should be caution in prejudging the probe. An Nahar
daily said countries that have contributed troops to UNIFIL haven't been
convinced by ongoing investigations aimed at unveiling the identity of
attackers. Diplomatic sources also told the newspaper that the European
countries might not renew the mandate of their U.N. troops if there is growing
danger in south Lebanon. The reports came as the Lebanese army said in a
communiqué that "an unidentified side" launched several rockets on Israel and
the Jewish state retaliated by shelling southern Lebanon with several rockets.
Beirut, 15 Jan 09, 11:54
Many in Southern Lebanon Are Hesitant to
Enter Fight With Israel
By NADA RAAD/Wall Street Journal
HABBARIYA, LEBANON -- Residents of this hilltop village in southern Lebanon
lived through decades of Israeli occupation and saw homes and businesses
destroyed by Israeli soldiers in a brief summer war in 2006.
But even as they watch casualties mount in Israel's 20-day attack on the Gaza
Strip, they say they've turned a page and don't want to be drawn into a second
front in a war with their longtime enemy.
"We don't want another war with Israel," said Suhair Hammoud, a 36-year-old
teacher.
That sentiment, shared by many among the farming communities dotting the rolling
green hills and olive groves here, is a significant departure. The area has been
the launching pad for a handful of rocket attacks into Israel during the Jewish
state's Gaza offensive.
Israel has responded with a barrage of artillery fire into Lebanon, but neither
side has escalated the conflict. The area is also a stronghold of the militant
and political group Hezbollah, backed by Iran and Syria, whose fiery leader has
condemned Israel's attack and mocked moderate Arab states for their restraint in
intervening in Gaza. The rocket attacks initially triggered fears the group was
entering the fray.
In the summer of 2006, amid another military incursion by Israel into Gaza,
Hezbollah fighters crossed the border into Israel and captured two Israeli
soldiers, triggering a month-long battle between Israel and Hezbollah. Southern
Lebanon endured heavy bombardment and an Israeli ground offensive.
This time around, residents here say they don't want to see a new fight with
Israel, if it comes at the expense of more destruction in Lebanon. Hezbollah,
itself, has said it's not interested in starting a fight. Analysts suspect the
recent rocket attacks were the work of rogue, pro-Palestinian groups that also
operate in the region. Lebanon's government quickly condemned the attacks, and
Israeli officials have so far downplayed them.
"We are not happy with rockets launched from our village," says Ali Issa, 50,
the town's mayor.
Baylassan Akl, 24, an Arabic-language teacher at a school near Habbariya, said
children were terrified when they heard the sound of an Israeli shell hitting
nearby on Wednesday. Teachers told the students that the thud was a stone
falling from the rooftop, but most didn't believe the story.
On Thursday, a day after the most recent rocket and artillery volley between the
two sides, many students stayed home from school. Grocery owners said residents
stocked up on food supplies, in case of an escalation.
The streets leading to other southern towns were generally empty. Idle taxi
drivers sat in cafes playing backgammon.
"We don't want another war, we are fed up," says Ezzat Harfoush, 51, a butcher
who lives in the village of Al Firdiss. "We just want to live in peace."
Gaza & The One-World
Media’s Propaganda
By: Frank
Salvato
http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=2727
15 Jan 2009
As the Israelis continue their push into Gaza; as they continue an offensive
military campaign against Hamas, born of the need to protect Israeli civilians
from rockets fired by Hamas jihadis, it is almost impossible to gather accurate
information regarding the conflict, at least not from the mainstream media. The
accounts advanced by mainstream news sources are so devoid of balance – and,
thusly, devoid of a whole and honest truth – that their product reaches a
caliber of propaganda not seen since the disinformation campaigns of the Third
Reich. Goebbels would be envious.
It is next to impossible for someone seeking a full accounting of daily events
in Israel and Gaza to divine them from the one-world media sources. This is
because their coverage serves as an encore to the one-sided reporting they
provided during the 2006 conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in the south of
Lebanon.
During the Hezbollah-Israeli conflict of 2006, the mainstream, one-world media
routinely purchased pictures for publication from photographers sympathetic to
Hezbollah. Two widely exposed incidents of disingenuous and/or staged
photography proved to be the benchmarks. In one incident a wailing Arab women
was repeatedly photographed standing in front of different war-torn buildings,
each said to be the remnants of her house. In another, an Arab rescue worker
spent the larger portion of a day carrying around a dead child who had been
recovered from the rubble of a building hit by Israeli artillery fire. He would
pose, his face wrenched in despair and urgency, for any photographer who would
ask. Reuters was eventually confronted with the photographs and they reluctantly
admitted that they hadn’t vetted the photographers prior to running with the
pictures. Incidentally, the Arab rescue worker has turned up in several pictures
from the current Israeli-Gaza campaign.
While many will argue that these are isolated incidents, this declaration flies
in the face of the facts when one takes into consideration that Hamas and
Hezbollah have active propaganda arms. To catch a glimpse into this world of
deception all you have to do is to watch the short films Pallywood and Al-Dura:
The Making of an Icon, which expose how Palestinian propagandists manipulate an
eagerly accepting and agendized one-world media.
And while the one-world media bemoans the fact that the Israelis have refused to
allow the international press into Gaza to cover the conflict, they have no
problem accepting the accounts of those who have manufactured the propaganda of
the recent past, reporting it as fact. To say that responsible journalism is
dead is a gross understatement, especially when it comes to the
Israeli-Palestinian issue.
Yet, the one-world media continues to “report” on the “poor Palestinians.”
The “Poor Palestinians”
In 2006, elections were held in Gaza and the West Bank – the Palestinian
“territories.” The result of the 2006 elections saw the Palestinian people
handing a decisive victory to Hamas. Hamas (Harakat Al-Muqawama Al-Islamia) was
formed in late 1987 as an outgrowth of the Palestinian branch of the Muslim
Brotherhood and is, to this day, dedicated – by charter – to the establishment
of an Islamic Palestinian State that encompasses Israel, the West Bank and Gaza
and the eradication of Israel and her people. Hamas won a majority 76 of the 132
parliamentary seats and, thus, became the dominate political force in the
Palestinian Authority...by mandate of the Palestinian people.
Even then, Hamas couldn’t share the power of government with their Palestinian
brethren, Fatah. In 2007 Hamas staged an armed insurrection in Gaza, expelling
Fatah as a political force and dividing the Palestinian people between the West
Bank, ruled by Fatah, and Gaza, ruled by Hamas. Israel immediately instituted a
blockade of Gaza for several reasons, chief among them the fear that Hamas would
resurrect terrorist attacks on Israel; a fear justified by Hamas’ own charter.
The Gaza Strip, according to the CIA World Factbook, is approximately 223 square
miles in area, not quite the size of Jacksonville, Florida.
According to James Prince, who in 2005 served as a consultant to the Palestinian
Investment Fund, the Palestinians receive “the highest per-capita donor aid in
the world." Former head of the International Monetary Fund, George T. Abed,
declared that the banking system in the Palestinian territories, circa 2005, was
generally sound, “healthier, in fact, than most banks in neighboring Arab
countries, such as Egypt, Syria and Jordan.” In 2005, the 22 Palestinian banks
regulated by Abed's authority had a total of $4.3 billion in deposits. Today,
under the tyranny and mismanagement of government executed by the hand of Hamas,
the banks in Gaza are on the verge of collapse and the threat of jihadist
recruitment among the Palestinian people looms, as the promise of income derived
from entities that share Hamas’ goal of the end of Israel entices.
While the pro-Palestinian factions and protesters around the world curse Israel
for their blockade of Gaza, blaming Israel for the financial and societal
hardships being experienced by the people of Gaza, the truth is that the
Palestinian people voted this reality into power. This reality is routinely
ignored by the one-world media, as is the reality that the cause of Israel’s
actions is immediately derived from the violent conduct of Hamas and its refusal
to exorcise the goal of Israel’s destruction from their charter.
In the Face of Evil
The indiscriminate firing of missiles by Hamas into civilian areas of Israel
forces Israeli families to stow protective gear close by at all times. Every
Israeli must also know where the closed bomb shelter is located and be able to
arrive at the location within a prescribed 15 to thirty seconds. Even at the
height of the Cold War, in the dire hours of the Cuban Missile Crisis, we in the
United States never lived under that prerequisite.
And as the explosions of Hamas’ Katyusha rockets serve as a constant reminder of
the frailty of life, the Israelis have never wavered from providing humanitarian
aid to the Palestinian people. Even as the current conflict rages the Israeli
military has instituted three-hour windows of calm to facilitate the transport
of humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip. The Israeli government has provided
medical care to Palestinians and Hamas operatives alike who have been injured
throughout.
Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has appointed a minister to “coordinate
between the different government bodies in the humanitarian assistance to the
civilian population in the Gaza Strip." A statement issued by the Prime
Minister’s office said the move was aimed at "bolstering the humanitarian
efforts in the Gaza Strip following requests by international bodies and states
that have expressed concern over the developing humanitarian situation."
Even as the Israelis struggle with how to provide aid and medical treatment to
the Palestinian people, even as the Israelis put down their weapons daily for
three-hours to facilitate humanitarian aid, Hamas used the same opportunities,
the same time periods, to fire rockets into Israel’s civilian centers. This
reality is also ignored by the one-world media as is the fact that most of the
Arab world does nothing to impede Hamas’ path to violence.
The Ominous Influence of Iran
In all of this – and in all of the reporting by the one-world media on the
events taking place – one aspect is being either ignored or overlooked: The
influence of Iran in the current conflict.
Throughout Operation Cast Lead, Iran has been interacting with not only Hamas,
but Hezbollah (a terrorist entity inspired, and some say created, by the
Islamist Revolution that stole Iran from the Iranian people), Syria and
sympathetic operatives and elected officials in Lebanon. Iran, not unlike Hamas
and Hezbollah, stands committed to the destruction of the Israeli state by any
and all means possible. It is in this quest that these three entities –
regardless of their juxtaposed Sunni and Shi’ite dogmas that have served as a
catalyst for centuries of conflict between the two groups – stand united against
a country roughly the size of Maryland.
Iran serves as Hamas’ primary benefactor, providing political, military and
financial support to the Sunni group. Iran denies that they are facilitating
weapons but the technology being used to extend the range of the rockets fired
by Hamas evidences Iranian influence and support.
On January 14, 2009, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad urged Arab leaders to
sever all contacts with Israel and to use their political and economic means to
pressure the Israelis into halting their offensive in Gaza.
In an interview with al-Manar television, an entity of the Iranian-backed
Hezbollah, Ahmadinejad said,
"Arabs can do many things on the political level...they can cut off all open and
secret contacts with Israel...they can use their political capabilities to
pressure the backers of the Zionist entity by severing relations with them. And
they can make use of their economic wealth."
In an interview I conducted with Dr. Walid Phares, Senior Fellow at the
Foundation for Defense of Democracies and Director of its Future of Terrorism
Project, I asked if Iran could be using Hamas, in the current conflict, as a
probe, as a feeler, to test the resolve of not only Israel but the commitment of
the West – and especially the United States – to liberty in the Middle East. His
response was in the affirmative.
“Absolutely. When we mention that Hamas is a jihadi instrument which is now in
the hands of the Iranian led axis because of their full-fledged funding and
military training, you have to imagine that there is a ‘war room’ in Tehran and
that ‘war room’ moves its branches on several fronts...So, yes, it’s true that
Hamas is moving along the lines of an Iranian strategy and it’s also true that
this is the perfect time for the Iranians to use Hamas to test the reaction of
the new administration in the United States...”
Yet the one-world media, the mainstream media, stands delinquent in examining
the intense relationship between Iran and Hamas and the motives behind Iran’s
desire to entertain the relationship at all, given their respective Shi’ite and
Sunni origins.
The Canary in the Proverbial Coal Mine
They say that Israel is America’s “canary in a coal mine”; that whatever happens
to Israel will eventually happen to the United States and the West. As the dawn
of a new presidential administration here in the United States takes place, one
that has put into place people who mistakenly believe – and sometimes gravely so
– that acts of terrorism are to be treated as law enforcement issues, we should
all ask if we haven’t put ourselves in a position favorable to inviting violent
jihad back to our shores.
The Gazan battlefields on which Israel now defends her people must be considered
one of the battlefields that comprise the global battle theater in the war
against radical Islamist aggression. This global battle theater is not unlike
the consequential battlefields of ages past; battle theaters that saw violent,
tyrannical Islamist aggression vanquished at the gates of Vienna and at al-Andalus.
It is a battlefield – not unlike the battlefield of Badr, circa 624 AD – that,
if lost, could determine the veracity of those who quest to establish a global
Islamic Caliphate.
Despicably, in the end – and even though the information surrounding the events
in Gaza and the greater Middle East concern everyone in the free world – the
truth of the situation in Gaza and Israel, the truth about Hamas, Iran,
Hezbollah and radical Islamist aggression, doesn’t fit into the one-world
media’s Progressive-Left agenda.
Engaging Syria? Lessons from the French
Experience
Middle East Briefing N°27
15 January 2009
This briefing is also available in Arabic and in French.
OVERVIEW
How is one to engage Damascus? As the incoming U.S. administration examines the
future of its relationship with Syria, seemingly persuaded that an improvement
in bilateral ties and an Israeli-Syrian agreement could fundamentally modify the
regional landscape, France’s recent experience offers useful lessons. Determined
to engage in dialogue – but also ready to break off if the other side was
uncooperative – and creative in approach, while fixing it within a clearly
defined framework of objectives, President Sarkozy also knew how to seize on
unexpected opportunities when they presented themselves.
The restoration of ties between Paris and Damascus, coming after a bitter break
and heightened tensions that developed in consequence of the 2005 assassination
of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri, came haltingly and with
difficulty. It began with the election in 2007 of an unusual French president,
hyperactive, believing in dialogue, eager to set himself apart from his
predecessor and more pragmatic than ideological. From the outset, his approach
reflected improvisation, risk-taking, flexibility and constant readjustments
rather than a pre-established plan. But it never deviated from its primary goal,
a consensual Lebanese president as was achieved with Michel Suleiman’s May 2008
election.
Periods of intensive contact, including directly with his counterpart, President
Bashar Assad, were followed by periods of estrangement. The experiment is
ongoing, its full outcome still uncertain, as France looks for further advances
with regard to Gaza, the Israeli-Arab conflict, Lebanese sovereignty,
counter-terrorism and the Iranian nuclear issue. It will become convincing, and
therefore relevant in American eyes, only if it clearly demonstrates Syria’s
capacity to act as a credible partner to promote regional stability.
Much depends on the coming weeks and months. Paris and Damascus have the
opportunity to highlight the benefits of an engagement policy by working on at
least three issues. In Lebanon, the goal should be to minimise the threat of
renewed confrontation by meaningfully addressing the current governing
majority’s most legitimate demands: demarcating Syrian-Lebanese borders;
amending bilateral agreements signed when Syria thoroughly dominated its
neighbour; and accepting credible international mediation on the issue of
Lebanese citizens who disappeared in Syrian jails.
In Iraq, France could take advantage of Syria’s network of relations to reach
out to a larger segment of the Sunni Arab community. In so doing, it might set
the stage for a U.S. effort to engage more broadly with members of that
community who remain outside the political process and are not part of the
“awakening” councils. French mediation in this area potentially could produce
genuine cooperation between the U.S. and Syria, going beyond Washington’s
illusory quest for Damascus to hermetically seal its border with Iraq.
Finally, Paris might test Damascus’s willingness to play a constructive role in
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The ongoing Gaza conflict offers an
opportunity in which France could ask Syria to influence Hamas and ensure that,
once there is a workable ceasefire, it either accepts an equitable deal with
Fatah or endorses the Arab Peace Initiative if that would remove the last
obstacle to establishing a Palestinian unity government. To those ends, of
course, France will need to take the lead in forging a European approach that is
complementary rather than subordinate to the U.S. and that pragmatically
assesses when and how to conduct a dialogue with the Islamist movement.
However, President-elect Obama’s team can already garner important lessons from
France’s always energetic, often impulsive and at times contradictory approach:
To begin, in the wake of a long hiatus in bilateral relations – a feature of
President Chirac’s and President Bush’s tenures – both sides likely will require
a significant period of mutual observation and trust-building. Quick results, in
other words, ought not to be anticipated. Next, any successful relationship must
be based on clear and steady objectives rather than an endless list of demands.
Patience during negotiations is as important as swiftness when opportunity
strikes. Haste, when Sarkozy displayed overenthusiasm, at best was futile, at
worst encouraged Damascus to harden its position and play for time. But by
immediately welcoming and rewarding Syria’s first positive gestures, France
bolstered its credibility while nudging Damascus to move. There should be no
hesitation to halt dialogue if events warrant, while maintaining informal
communication to allow quick reaction at the appropriate moment. For
Washington’s new team, this entails immediately acknowledging and reciprocating
positive steps and penalising negative ones.
Finally, there are lessons for those in the U.S. who bank on a Syrian-Iranian
split. This will not occur, at least under current circumstances. However, the
willingness to normalise relations with France suggests the regime wishes to
diversify its strategic alliances. Washington should promote such a trend, which
inevitably would dilute Iran’s importance in Syria’s eyes and facilitate a
gradual reconfiguration of its regional alliances.
Even with the best of intentions, U.S.-Syria relations will be difficult. Beyond
looming crises – whether over the International Atomic Energy Agency’s
investigation into Syria’s nuclear program or the international tribunal on the
Hariri assassination – the two governments must come to terms with the legacy of
an unhealthy relationship, full of distrust and misunderstanding, that
deteriorated in the Bush years but did not originate then. The new president’s
advisers could do far worse than reflect on the trials and errors of the current
Franco-Syrian rapprochement.
Special Report: A Role for
Europe in Gaza
By STUART REIGELUTH
January 16, 2009
UNWITTING TOOLS -- Shortly after Israel disengaged from Gaza in 2005, European
monitors deployed on the Gaza-Egypt border. But it soon became evident that the
Europeans were being used as technical tools to implement the Israeli closure
policy. Next time, however, the EU will have a real role to play.
MADRID -- Europe has not really engaged in Gaza. What, if anything, can Europe
do now? If referring to the terms of a two-state solution in which Israel lives
side by side with Palestine according to the pre-June 1967 War lines of
demarcation, then there is still a role for Europe to play in Gaza and the West
Bank. (There is not much left of Arab Jerusalem to mention playing a role there
besides maintaining token consulates.)
Within the parameters of two adjacent, sovereign states, the European Union
could revive its border assistance mission (EUBAM) at the Rafah crossing point.
But this time, under different, more impartial terms, favoring neither side,
acting as a third party should always act: as a neutral, diligent and yet
distant broker.
Commonly known as EUBAM-Rafah, European monitors were sent to verify that the
passage of goods and people went smoothly through the sole crossing point
between Egypt and Gaza. The European civilian mission was deployed in November
2005, shortly after Israel disengaged unilaterally from the strip that summer.
Despite the initial success of deploying rapidly at the Rafah crossing point, it
soon became evident that the Europeans were being used as technical tools to
implement the Israeli closure policy. Two examples are sufficient to depict to
what degree the mission was a pawn of Israeli interests:
1. After the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) won the legislative elections
in late January 2006, the Europeans monitored PA officers confiscating cash
suitcases entering Gaza from Egypt. (EUBAM has no executive powers, and should
not acquire such a mandate.) Operating within the confines of the Rafah crossing
point, the Europeans could do nothing against the tunnel smuggling.
2. After Hamas pre-emptively took over the Gaza Strip in mid-June 2007, the EU
monitoring mission was officially suspended. In reality, the crossing had only
been opened sporadically, and decreasingly, since Hamas won those democratic
elections, despite basic humanitarian, travel and educational needs.
The suitcases were usually brought in by Hamas officials; other objects such as
bullets, rocket propelled grenades, and high-technology, were transported via
those tunnels. Suspending the European mission as a result of Hamas ruling Gaza
speaks for itself.
Eager to engage in promoting the two-state solution, the Europeans had signed on
to the terms of the Agreement on Movement and Access (AMA), which defined the
placement and management of the European monitors at Rafah. These terms
obviously favored Israel, and include two other pivotal points which Hamas
demands to be rectified:
1. EUBAM-Rafah headquarters are in Ashkelon, Israel, which is situated to the
north of Gaza. This means that the monitors drive around the strip each time to
reach the crossing point in the south of Gaza, and have to pass through the
Kerem Shalom crossing on the south-eastern point of Rafah.
2. Israel watched from Kerem Shalom via real-time cameras installed in the Rafah
crossing point the passage of people. This permitted Israel (and the PA) to have
veto over which Palestinians passed. These cameras inside Rafah crossing were
disconnected, but not destroyed, by Hamas during the June 2007 takeover.
Europe has other options than staying in Ashkelon, where fearing stray missiles,
the monitoring mission moved from the fourth to the second floor. This fear
could be avoided by moving into Gaza, or to Arish, Egypt, which is closer than
Ashkelon. This later option provides the highest degree of neutrality.
Having made peace with Israel and fearing the spillover of the Hamas effect,
Cairo is prepared to play a more enforcing role at the Rafah crossing. Since
Rafah city straddles the border of Gaza and the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt,
Israeli cameras should not record passing goods and people. After all, Egypt is
a U.S. ally, and should be trusted.
If the Europeans abide by these more impartial terms, Hamas would expectedly
agree to the redeployment of European monitors at the Rafah crossing. This could
occur with or without Mahmoud Abbas sending his Presidential Guard to create a
mini-buffer zone between the crossing and inland checkpoints which Hamas anyhow
will control.
Predictable now, the European Union starts small to build bigger in the Middle
East, such as the Commission's criminal investigation project in Lebanon to
professionalize the Internal Security Forces (ISF) in Beirut: eventually, this
project could overlap with the German initiative to ameliorate border management
in northern Lebanon with Syria.
Similar to Lebanon where Primer Minister Fouad Siniora asked Germany to
intervene, the Palestinians could invite European Member States to deploy a
Maritime Task Force along the coast of Gaza. This naval force could comfort
Israeli security concerns, while returning Palestinian fishing rights to the
Mediterranean waters accorded at Oslo 1993.
Currently, Palestinian fishermen are not allowed to go out further than two
kilometres (1.2 miles). When they do go out, they are often subjected to Israeli
searches and shootings. The Oslo Accords permitted the Palestinians to go 20
miles out to sea. Trying to break the siege with humanitarian aid boats like
"Dignity" is fine, but the reality is that no smuggling comes in by sea.
This measure would therefore be largely symbolic, but also profitable for
Palestinian fishing; and could be fulfilled by France, Italy, Spain or Portugal,
all founding members of the European Maritime Force (EUROMARFOR), which
participates in the UN naval force off the Lebanese coast. Operationally, this
is possible; only politically is it prickly.
This option is only politically perplexing when viewed through the prism of the
two-state solution. Israel claims to fear a radical, Islamist enemy, on its
southern border. As long as international involvement does not entail shooting
to kill, the Europeans would be happy to help pacify the eastern corner of the
Mediterranean.
Europe can take this small step. A European naval could relay security issues to
the Egyptians, Israelis and Palestinians. EUBAM could reengage at Rafah, and
could even expand to the other crossings points between Gaza and Israel; but
only if not perceived as imposing a solution – only to verify that both sides
comply with cease-fire terms.
Of course, this is only if a two-state solution is really still viable. In the
West Bank, the European Union is busy helping reform the Palestinian civil
police, via its other civilian mission, known as EUPOL-COPPS. Also put on hold
after the 2006 elections, EUPOL-COPPS was recently reinvigorated to buttress
Fatah forces of PA President Abbas.
The recent flurry of diplomatic activity on behalf of the exiting French EU
Presidency in early January 2009 was a sign of France's ambition to play a
leading role in reviving the European monitoring mission in Gaza. Subsequent
synergies with the police reform mission could then also be envisioned, as well
as a maritime force off the coast.
But as usual, only listening to the requests of one side (the Israeli-U.S.-PA
Presidency troika) will not facilitate such a deployment, nor will it improve
the image of Europe in the Middle East, and certainly will not lead to a viable
two-state solution. European engagement in Gaza will now have to be impartial,
or not at all.
**Stuart Reigeluth is writer and researcher on the Middle East.