LCCC
ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِJuly
16/2010
Bible Of
the Day
The Good News According to
Luke
11:14 He was casting out a demon, and it was mute. It happened, when the demon
had gone out, the mute man spoke; and the multitudes marveled. 11:15 But some of
them said, “He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of the demons.” 11:16
Others, testing him, sought from him a sign from heaven. 11:17 But he, knowing
their thoughts, said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought
to desolation. A house divided against itself falls. 11:18 If Satan also is
divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say that I cast out
demons by Beelzebul. 11:19 But if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do
your children cast them out? Therefore will they be your judges. 11:20 But if I
by the finger of God cast out demons, then the Kingdom of God has come to you. /Naharnet
Free Opinions, Releases,
letters, Interviews & Special Reports
Why Israel Shouldn't
Attack Iranian Nuclear Installations--Unless It Has to Do So/By Barry Rubin/July
15/10
Turkey's foreign policy aims at
a new regional hegemony/By Shlomo Avineri/July
15/10
Latest News
Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for July 15/10
Sfeir urges expatriates to visit
their first nation Lebanon/Daily Star
France's UN
Representative: South Incidents Not Spontaneous/Naharnet
Sarkozy: France to Maintain
Forces in Lebanon as they are 'Essential' for Stability/Naharnet
Hizbullah demands changes in French
security-pact text/Daily Star
Geagea: There are Deep
Flaws in the Relations with Syria/Naharnet
Jamil Al Sayyed has no authority to
demand case files - STL/Daily Star
Hizbullah Demands Clear Definition
of 'Terrorism' in Lebanon-France Security Deal/Naharnet
Syrian UN Representative
Slams Williams: Border Demarcation Not Linked to 1701/Naharnet
Security emergencies in the ER/By:
Matt Nash/July 15/10
Hariri says details of Israeli
collaborators must stay classified/Now Lebanon
Hussein Moussawi wants Israeli
collaborators hanged on gallows/Now Lebanon
Gafo favors increasing LAF size in
South Lebanon/Now Lebanon
Egypt again bars Jordanian
activists from Gaza/Now Lebanon
Second Telecom Spy Arrested…Said to
be More Dangerous than Qazzi
/Naharnet
Syrian opposition activist says
Lebanese authorities ordered him to leave/AFP
Berri Delays Discussion of
Palestinian Rights to Aug. 17, Hariri Says Govt. Responsible for Revealing Names
of Spies /Naharnet
Williams: UNIFIL Found No Evidence
to Support Israeli Claims about Hizbullah Depots
/Naharnet
Lebanese Shepherd Escapes Israeli
Kidnapping Attempt/Naharnet
MP Araji Confirms Consensus for
Giving Rights to Palestinians/Naharnet
Salam: Lebanon Soon Submits Report
Defining Maritime Boundaries/Naharnet
France's UN
Representative: South Incidents Not Spontaneous
Naharnet/France's representative to the United Nations Security Council said
recent confrontations between UNIFIL and villagers in southern Lebanon were "not
spontaneous," Al-Akhbar daily reported Thursday. "These incidents were neither
isolated nor spontaneous," Al-Akhbar quoted him as saying. He stressed on the
need to ensure freedom of movement of UNIFIL in accordance with Section XII of
1701, calling for disarmament of Hizbullah under U.N. Resolutions, particularly
1559 and 1701. Beirut, 15 Jul 10,
Sarkozy: France to Maintain Forces in Lebanon as they are 'Essential' for
Stability
Naharnet/French President Nicolas Sarkozy said France would maintain its forces
in Lebanon "because they are essential for the country's independence and
stability."
His remarks came during the annual military parade on France's National Day.
Sarkozy vowed that the French military will fight on to ensure peace in
Afghanistan, where scores of troops have been killed fighting the Taliban. "The
French army will do its duty in the service of peace with our allies and our
friends, wherever we are," he said on France 2 television, after meeting troops
at the annual military parade. After a march-past by French and visiting African
forces, Sarkozy met French soldiers who had served, and in some cases been
injured, in Afghanistan and in Lebanon, where France is part of a U.N.
peacekeeping mission. "They have done their duty and we must do our duty, which
is to support them, help them and make sure they are never abandoned. We need
them," Sarkozy said. Sarkozy's office said last week that a bomb killed a French
soldier serving with NATO forces in eastern Afghanistan, bringing to 45 the
number of French troops killed in the country since their deployment in January
2002. A poll published in the left-wing newspaper L'Humanite on Wednesday said
fewer than three in 10 French people support France's ongoing involvement in the
Afghanistan war. Most of France's 3,500 soldiers inside Afghanistan are based in
districts around Kabul in the east of the country, where they are part of a
NATO-led multinational force fighting Taliban forces. June saw a monthly record
toll of 102 foreign soldiers killed in the war.(AFP)(AP photo shows Sarkozy
kissing Bruni's hand during military parade.) Beirut, 15 Jul 10,
Hizbullah Demands Clear Definition of 'Terrorism' in Lebanon-France Security
Deal
Naharnet/Hizbullah is demanding the revision of a security accord between France
and Lebanon over the definition of the word "terrorism." "We want a text that
either clearly defines 'terrorism' as per Lebanese and Arab laws or the omission
of the clause that deals with counter-terrorism entirely," Hizbullah MP Hassan
Fadlallah told AFP. "France's definition of terrorism includes Palestinian
resistance movements and that clashes with Lebanese law, which is in line with
the Arab League's definition," he added. "Without resolving this matter, the
accord will not be passed in parliament." The 22-member Arab League does not
regard "armed struggle against foreign occupation," such as the Palestinian
Hamas or Lebanese Hizbullah, as terrorist movements. Lebanon and France signed
the security agreement in Paris on January 21. The accord stipulates the two
countries should "boost cooperation" in fighting "terrorism," money laundering,
and drugs. Parliamentarians held talks Tuesday on the agreement, and a number of
MPs from an alliance led by Hizbullah walked out of the session. Deputy Speaker
Farid Makari told AFP there was "no opposition to the agreement as a whole," but
Hizbullah and its allies had raised the notion that France "views the resistance
(Hizbullah) generally as terrorist." But Hizbullah's rivals were outraged at the
party's demand, with MP Sami Gemayel slamming the group as "isolationist." "We
cannot ruin Lebanon's relationship with France for the sake of Iran's nuclear
ambitions," Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea told reporters on
Tuesday.(AFP-Naharnet) Beirut, 15 Jul 10,
Second Telecom Spy Arrested…Said to be More Dangerous than Qazzi
Naharnet/Lebanese authorities have arrested a second man at the same mobile
network company, Alfa, on charges of spying for Israel. The detainee, identified
as Tareq al-Rabaa, was Charbel Qazzi's co-worker. Qazzi, an Alfa engineer, was
arrested earlier this month for spying for Israel. As-Safir newspaper, citing
well-informed security sources, described Rabaa "as more dangerous" than Qazzi.
It said Rabaa, in his 40s, a former dweller of Beirut's Tariq Jedideh
neighborhood, currently resides in Aramoun southeast of Beirut.
As-Safir said Rabaa, who is married with no children, has been working as a
communications engineer for Alfa since 1996.
Rabaa was in charge of determining the mode of transmission and was said to be
an expert in this field. Defense Minister Elias Murr notified Cabinet of Rabaa's
arrest. Murr told Cabinet that Rabaa was not arrested as a result of Qazzi's
confessions, but due to a phone voice call interception. An-Nahar said Rabaa was
detained three days ago, but authorities did not want to announce his arrest for
safety of the investigation. Beirut, 15 Jul 10,
Williams: UNIFIL Found No Evidence to Support Israeli Claims about Hizbullah
Depots
Naharnet/U.N. Special Coordinator for Lebanon Michael Williams said UNIFIL has
found no evidence to support Israeli allegations about Hizbullah weapons cache
south of the Litani River. "UNIFIL has found nothing to support these Israeli
claims," Williams said in an interview published Thursday by Al-Akhbar daily.
He denied that the use of cameras in the South was the reason for tension,
stressing that several issues contributed to the explosive situation, including
the military presence among the population. Williams had said that trouble
between U.N. peacekeepers and villagers in southern Lebanon was over. Residents
in south Lebanon had earlier this month disarmed a French patrol and wounded a
French soldier.
The incident followed a series of confrontations over protests that UNIFIL had
stepped up its patrols and was failing to coordinate with the Lebanese army in
the border area.
"I can confirm that the situation in the south is now much better, that I
believe that calm and stability have been returned," Williams told reporters
after briefing the U.N. Security Council.
The U.N. envoy said he and UNIFIL Commander Maj. Gen. Alberto Asarta had met
Lebanese military officials and political leaders, including Hizbullah.
"In the course of those meetings, we heard that they would do everything
possible to prevent a recurrence of those incidents," Williams said. Williams
said negotiations with Israel over the occupied village of Ghajar were "taking
too long." "We discussed in (the Security) Council new ways that we might
approach that and I hope we can do so in the coming weeks," he said.
Beirut, 15 Jul 10,
Geagea: There are Deep Flaws in the Relations with Syria
Naharnet/Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea stressed Thursday that there are
deep flaws in Lebanese-Syrian ties, adding that as long as they are flawed and
the Lebanese attempt to rectify them, they will remain an Arab and international
political issue. Commenting on the recent letter from the Syrian Foreign
Ministry to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon over his report on the
implementation of U.N. resolution 1701, he said Lebanese-Syrian ties have drawn
Arab and international attention since 2005. "If our Syrian brothers are
bothered by this, then the solution is simple and it lies in making the
relations normal so that they will no longer be present at international and
Arab events," he noted. In addition, Geagea pointed out that 65 years ago,
Lebanon and Syria were the first Arab countries to earn their independence, so
what's stopping them from demarcating their shared border? He also stressed the
importance of ending the armed Palestinian presence in Lebanon outside refugee
camps "in a way that would be appropriate for fraternal relations between
Lebanon and Syria" saying that Syria has a role to play in halting armed
Palestinians and others from entering these camps. Beirut, 15 Jul 10,
Security emergencies in the ER
Matt Nash, July 15, 2010 /Now Lebanon/
A security guard assesses damaged after a July 8 shooting at the Makased
Hospital in Beirut. (NOW Lebanon)
Hospital officials are demanding more protection from and actual punishments for
individuals who lash out violently against healthcare workers, particularly in
emergency rooms, following two recent attacks. At hospitals in Beirut and
Tripoli, individuals fired guns and harassed ER staff in early July, causing
damage but no injuries, prompting promises of swifter action from Internal
Security Forces chief Ashraf Rifi and Interior Minister Ziad Baroud.
In the short term, Rifi said, the ISF will respond immediately to any distress
calls from hospitals and that a new, detailed security plan will be written by
July 16.
“This has been going on for quite some time,” Sleiman Haroun, president of the
Syndicate of Hospitals, told NOW Lebanon of violence against hospital staff. “In
the last three months it’s gotten more savage. [People are] beating hospital
staff, breaking equipment, and, finally, what happened at [the] Makased
[Hospital in Beirut], they started shooting.”
The July 8 incident at Makased garnered attention from both the media and Health
Minister Mohammad Jawad Khalifeh, in addition to Baroud and Rifi. The hospital
is run by the Islamic Philanthropic Makased Association – which offers numerous
social services including schools and healthcare centers.
Around a week earlier gunfire also broke out at the Islamic Hospital in Tripoli,
but the reaction from security and government officials was muted. Nassim
Khoriaty, president of the Order of Physicians in Tripoli, told NOW Lebanon
that, while he was not at the hospital as the incident transpired, he heard
there were police on the scene who “observed but didn’t react.”
However, he said he’s heard that there are now police stationed outside of the
hospital.
Amine Daouk, president of the Makased Association, said that as the Beirut
incident transpired, hospital employees who called the police were told no one
could respond immediately as all on-duty officers were busy. By the time police
arrived, the men who fired guns and damaged the hospital’s ER had fled.
Khoriaty, Daouk and Haroun all told NOW Lebanon that they want security forces
and the Interior and Justice ministries to not only provide hospitals more
protection but to actually arrest and sentence anyone who turns violent in a
hospital.
Haroun said that generally, even if police arrest suspects in an attack (as they
did following both recent, those suspects either use political connections to
avoid punishment or are given light – and sometimes no – punishments.
Violence in hospitals – particularly in the ER – is quite common throughout the
world. In the US, a 2006 study found that in a three-year period 25 percent of
ER nurses said they had been physically abused more than 20 times. A 2003 study
in Europe found that 77 percent of nurses in Intensive Care Units experienced
physical abuse.
Though far less frequent, a 1999 study found violence against nurses in Kuwait
as well. Seven percent reported physical violence, though over 60 percent of
those said they were not actually injured. In Lebanon, as earlier noted, Haroun
said violence in hospitals is increasing – which he attributed to the lack of
punishment for those who commit it – though Khoriaty, who said he has been
working in Lebanon since 1981, disagreed that violence is getting noticeably
worse. The ISF did not respond to requests for an interview and statistics on
emergency calls from hospitals. Daouk said ERs in Makased hospitals have
long been dangerous places. During a staff meeting held immediately after the
July 8 shooting, he said, a nurse said that recently, while she was caring for a
patient, an individual accompanying the patient stuck a gun into her back, an
apparent attempt to ensure she administered proper care.
Daouk and Khoriaty said the ISF should station police officers in ERs at all
times. “We have our own [private] security, but they’re ineffective in cases
like this,” Daouk said. “These people need to be confronted with guns authorized
to kill.” Fanny André contributed reporting to this article.
Hussein Moussawi wants Israeli collaborators “hanged on gallows”
July 15, 2010 /Loyalty to the Resistance bloc MP Hussein Moussawi issued a
statement on Thursday saying that Israeli collaborators should be “hanged on
gallows.”“The [Lebanese] who defend the collaborators [seek] to show that
Lebanon is divided,” he added. This comes after Wednesday’s reports that Alfa
telecommunication company employee Tarek al-Rabba was arrested for partnering
with Charbel Kazzi—who has been charged with spying for Israel—in his alleged
espionage activities. -NOW Lebanon
Gafo favors
increasing LAF size in South Lebanon
July 15, 2010 /Following his meeting with Health Minister Mohammad Jawad
Khalifeh on Thursday, Spanish Ambassador to Lebanon Juan Carlos Gafo voiced the
importance of increasing to 10000 the number of Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF)
soldiers deployed in South Lebanon, the National News Agency (NNA) reported.
“UNIFIL troops need to have more freedom of movement according to UN Security
Council Resolution 1701, in addition to increased cooperation between UNIFIL and
LAF,” Gafo said. He also said that the recent anti-UNIFIL protests affect the
relations between the South Lebanon residents and UNIFIL forces. Anti-UNIFIL
protests began on June 29 during a deployment exercise by the peacekeeping
force. The UN Security Council met last Friday to discuss the incidents and
called on all parties in Lebanon to allow the peacekeeping forces to move
freely, in response to recent protests.
-NOW Lebanon
Hariri says details of Israeli collaborators must stay classified
July 15, 2010 /During parliament’s Thursday session, Prime Minister Saad Hariri
said that the details of any investigation into Israeli collaborators in Lebanon
must stay classified in order to prevent information leaks to Tel Aviv, NOW
Lebanon’s correspondent reported.“The cabinet is making efforts [on the matter]
and will keep doing so,” Hariri said.
This comes days after police made a second arrest at mobile phone company Alfa.
A man identified in media reports as Tarek al-Rabaa was arrested by Army
Intelligence agents on Monday for partnering with Charbel Kazzi - who also
worked for Alfa - and was arrested last month for collaborating with Israel.
Meanwhile, Loyalty to the Resistance bloc MP Nawwaf Moussawi said the US
administration is launching a campaign against Hezbollah. He called on the
cabinet to uncover how US money was allegedly funneled to public figures in
Lebanon as a kickback for verbally attacking Hezbollah. The party claims that
$500 million has been spent by the US and its Arab allies to bribe people into
criticizing it.
During his turn, Lebanon First bloc MP Ammar Houri said that no one in
parliament opposes granting Palestinian refugees in Lebanon certain rights. He
voiced hope the proposals submitted so far will be postponed to a future
parliament session. The parliament was split last month over Democratic
Gathering bloc leader MP Walid Jumblatt’s bill on Palestinian rights. More
recently, the March 14 alliance put together its own proposal on the issue. -NOW
Lebanon
Egypt again bars Jordanian activists from Gaza
July 15, 2010 /Jordanian activists and trade unionists slammed Egypt on Thursday
for denying them entry to the Gaza Strip for the second time in less than a
month to deliver aid to the blockaded Palestinians. "We are shocked that Egypt
prevents us from delivering aid and medical supplies to Gaza," Ahmad Armuti,
president of the Islamist-dominated unions' council, said in a statement emailed
to AFP. Armuti called on the Jordanian government to demand clarification from
Egypt, which "should be pressed to change its position."
The group of 150 people, including unionists, journalists and academics, left
for Gaza on Tuesday, with 25 vehicles carrying supplies and medical aid as well
as equipment to establish a hospital for children, the unions said. Late last
month, Egypt banned several Jordanian trade unionists from Gaza through Rafah,
Gaza's only crossing to bypass Israel, saying they had failed to give prior
notice of their arrival.-AFP/NOW Lebanon
Syrian UN
Representative Slams Williams: Border Demarcation Not Linked to 1701
Naharnet/Syrian representative at the U.N. Bashar Jaafari hit back at U.N.
Special Coordinator for Lebanon Michel Williams as saying border demarcation
with Lebanon was not associated with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701.
"Border demarcation has nothing to do with the mandate of 1701 or with the terms
of the resolution," Al-Akhbar newspaper quoted Jaafari as saying. He said
Williams should "carefully examine" 1701, "taking into consideration the
political background of the adoption of Resolution 1701. Jaafari pointed out
that 1701 was mainly issued upon the Israeli aggression on Lebanon. Beirut, 15
Jul 10, 11:22
Aoun: Our Problem with U.S., Europe Neither Intellectual Nor Cultural, But a
Problem of Existence
Naharnet/Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun on Wednesday noted that
"our problem with the United States and Europe is neither intellectual nor
cultural, but rather a problem of existence, and we have nothing more precious
than our existence." After visiting the headquarters of the Jounieh Municipality
and meeting with its president, Aoun reiterated his call for the major world
powers, "which displaced the Palestinians", to provide the necessary funding for
building houses for the refugees, with the ownership remaining in the hands of
the Lebanese State, "because our land is our identity and it is not for sale as
a piece of merchandise."
"We have succeeded in establishing stability and preserving it despite the
persistence of the conspiracy against Lebanon," Aoun added.
On the other hand, Aoun said that the "gift" the FPM tried to present to the
municipalities in Lebanon is its demands regarding the paying of the arrears of
the Independent Municipal Fund. "Jounieh Municipality's share is LBP 2,000
billion, while the share of the Union of Jounieh Municipalities is LBP 9
billion."
Aoun slammed the mentality of "theft" dominating the municipalities. On a
separate note, Aoun clarified that he would not participate in the lunch banquet
thrown by ex-MP Mansour al-Boun, because he rejects "to enter the house of he
who painted sheep orange to slaughter them in the parliamentary elections,
unless he apologizes or declares he had no knowledge of the subject." As to the
mass to be headed by Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir on Sunday, Aoun said: "I
won't attend because I haven't received an official invitation similar to that
addressed to the MPs of the Change and Reform bloc." The FPM leader noted that
he is not at odds with the patriarch, but that they rather have divergent
political viewpoints. Beirut, 14 Jul 10, 22:08
Qazzi's Alfa Coworker, Accomplice in Spying for Israel Arrested
Naharnet/Security forces have arrested Tareq al-Rabaa on charges of spying for
Israel. Reports said that Rabaa is a colleague of detainee Charbel Qazzi at the
Alfa mobile service provider and his accomplice in spying for Israel. While
security forces have not yet issued any statement to either confirm or deny the
reports, Defense Minister Elias Murr informed the Cabinet during Wednesday's
weekly session that security forces have arrested a suspected Israeli spy.
Beirut, 14 Jul 10,
Why Israel Shouldn't Attack Iranian Nuclear
Installations--Unless It Has to Do So
By Barry Rubin*
July 14, 2010
http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2010/07/why-israel-shouldnt-attack-iranian-nuclear-installations
We depend on your contributions. To make a tax-deductible donation through
PayPal or credit card, click the Donate button in the upper-right hand corner of
this page. To donate via check, make it out to "American Friends of IDC," with
"for GLORIA Center" in the memo line. Mail to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East
16th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10003.
An Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear installations for the purpose of trying to
stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons at all would be a mistake. Instead,
Israel should plan--and indeed is planning--for a multi-layer campaign of
airstrikes, missile defenses, and other measures in the event of Iran ever
posing a specific threat of attacking Israel.
Before going into the details of why I'm saying this, however, let me stress
that this is not something likely to be a central issue in the near-term future.
That is precisely why we should discuss it now.
Let me also emphasize that Israeli plans should be in place such that if there
ever would be an imminent threat of an Iranian attack, it should be preempted.
What should be avoided, however, is an Israeli attack based merely on the goal
of stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons at all. It is far better to risk
setting of a major regional war only if there is a need to do so, as happened,
for example, regarding the 1967 war, when a serious threat required a preemptive
attack to defend the country.
Of course, Iran's having nuclear weapons is an overall danger for Israeli
interests, wider regional stability, and U.S. interests. Such a situation would
in theory open Israel daily to the possibility of an Iranian nuclear attack. Yet
history shows that Israelis would adjust to this situation, if remote as it
would likely be, without panic or paralysis. Given a calm analysis, however, and
the alternatives, a preemptive attack on Iran possessing a few nuclear weapons
and long-range missiles would make matters worse, not better.
Here's why:
1. Iran is unlikely to attack Israel with nuclear weapons but if Israel attacks
Iranian nuclear facilities such an outcome becomes inevitable. A state of open
war would exist and the Tehran regime would be seeking revenge. All other
options--containment, deterrence, a longer-run overthrow of the regime by
domestic forces, a U.S.-Iran war based on accident or misperception--would be
closed.
Moreover, by waiting to see how the situation develops, Israel will still, in
the event of an apparent war crisis or a serious belief that Iran is going to
attack, can always preempt in the future. The problem with the idea of attacking
to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons is that it is based on the opposite
view--a questionable assumption that an Iranian attack is inevitable in the near
future.
Let me again emphasize that if Israel ever concludes on the basis of
intelligence and actions by Iran that there is a real or imminent threat, it
should react militarily.
It would be a mistake to base a belief that Iran is not going to attack Israel
completely on the idea that Tehran's restraint or interests would prohibit such
an outcome. We know the statements of Iranian leaders, their goals, and their
ideology. Perhaps even more important, we know about the existence of factions
within the regime that are very risk-oriented and the existence of even more
extreme elements in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
Yet also to be taken into account are three additional points: limited Iranian
capabilities; other Iranian goals, as aggressive as they must be; plus Tehran's
fear of retaliation from Israel and the United States. It is the combination of
these four factors that are persuasive.
Limited capabilities: For a very long period of time, Iran will only be able to
launch a very small number of missiles against Israel simultaneously. Therefore,
Israel and the United States could more easily counter such a threat, including
by attacks against the launchers. In addition, over time an Israeli missile
defense system and a parallel system for stopping rocket attacks (that would
come from Hamas and Hizballah in response to any Israeli attack on Iran) would
improve dramatically.
Given the small number of missiles fired by Iran at the same time, plus the U.S.
and Israeli anti-missile systems, Iran's leadership would know that it could not
knock out Israeli airfields. Thus, any attack on Israel would trigger massive
destruction of Iran. And of course some of the missiles could easily miss Israel
entirely (or be knocked down) so they would explode in Lebanon, Jordan, and the
West Bank. Add to this the fact of U.S. warning systems, anti-missile defenses,
and retaliation and the deck is highly stacked against Tehran.
The point here is not that the Tehran regime would be deterred by purely
humanitarian considerations nor proceed in a calm and deliberate matter. But the
level of "craziness" would have to be distinctly higher to start a war under
these conditions.
In addition, a specific threat of any systematic Iranian attack would also have
a warning period allowing Israeli leaders to decide to make retaliation possible
on a specific occasion. And knowing that Israel would have plenty of capability
for a second strike that would inflict huge damage on Iran, even if the Iranian
attack enjoyed some success, would also be a deterrent on Iran.
Moreover, Iran is unlikely to launch a nuclear attack on Israel (and certainly
not an immediate attack on obtaining nuclear weapons) is because that would
interfere with Tehran's overall strategy. That is to use the nuclear umbrella to
carry out a long-term, low-risk aggressive policy of supporting surrogates to
destabilize or take over other countries, along with enjoying the fruits of
intimidation and the resulting appeasement from Europe and Arabic-speaking
countries that a nuclear Iran is likely to enjoy.
Once Iran goes nuclear its prestige in the Muslim-majority world among the
masses is likely to rise sky-high. The strength of revolutionary Islamist
movements, especially those allied to Iran, is going to increase.
Arabic-speaking states know that they cannot rely completely on U.S. guarantees
particularly at a time when a U.S. government proclaims that country's weakness.
On a whole range of issues, Iran is going to make big gains.
Having nuclear weapons and having the West and Arabic-speaking world both
deterred and pushed toward appeasement by fear of Iran's nuclear weapons is an
advantageous situation for Tehran, which could subvert other countries and
expand spheres of influence without fear of retaliation. By firing the weapons,
those advantages would be lost.
2. No matter how it is conducted or even how much initial success it has, an
Israeli attack is not going to do away with Iran's possession of nuclear
weapons. It does not make sense to follow a strategy you know in advance will
not work: to attack Iran to stop it from obtaining nuclear weapons when that
effort will, at best, merely postpone Tehran getting them. At that point,
following an Israeli attack and an Iranian crash program to rebuild facilities
and get weapons, a nuclear war is a virtual certainty.
It is vital to understand that an Israeli attack will increase the likelihood of
Iran firing nuclear weapons on Israel, after a period of time.
As one expert aptly put it:
"You can bomb an enrichment facility, but you can't bomb an enrichment program.
(Or not one as well-developed as Iran's.) It's not like a reactor, with billions
of dollars' worth of hard-to-replace capital piled up in one spot over the
course of several years. Instead, it's thousands of interchangeable pieces that
can be brought together and operated more or less anywhere."
And so, Iran would be able to rebuild after any such attack and, even if it took
a few years, would be far more aggressive against Israel than it has been in
practice up to that point. There is widespread agreement on this point including
within Israeli military and political circles.
In addition, too much could go wrong with an Israeli attack, which could fail in
part or whole if bombs miss the target, too many planes were lost, etc. Again,
even a best-case outcome would not end the problem. It would, in fact, guarantee
a large-scale future confrontation. And a partly failed raid would result in
such a nuclear war happening immediately.
3. While the direct costs after such an operation are sustainable for Israel,
they are likely to be high. If Israel faced an imminent threat from Iran, it
would be worthwhile to bear such costs. In other words, if an attack were
necessary to stop a specific plan or high level of likelihood that Iran would
attack Israel with nuclear weapons, any cost would be worthwhile. But just to
stop Iran from having nuclear weapons and long-range missiles in general does
not validate such high costs.
The potential regional and international outcomes from an Israeli attack would
include:
--Rocket attacks by Hamas and Hizballah along with border fighting.
--Increased Iranian attempts to sponsor terrorist attacks against Israel
throughout the world.
--Possible attempted retaliation by Iran using unconventional weapons.
--A potential wider war between Iran and the West which would create serious
Western resentment against Israel.
--Western criticism of Israel and perhaps serious problems in U.S.-Israel
relations, especially with the Obama Administration in power.
While many Arab regimes would be happy at a successful Israeli strike, this
would not bring any material benefits for Israel. The same would be true for
Western satisfaction that Israel "took care of the problem."
Indeed, while an unsuccessful Israeli raid would be harshly criticized and might
lead to sanctions on Iran, a successful Israeli raid would produce the reaction
that since the danger would now be gone Israel could afford to make major
concessions to the Palestinians and Syria.
Again, if Israel really faced the specific threat of an Iranian nuclear attack,
such costs would be worthwhile, even limited in comparison to the problem. Yet
why should Israel pay a high cost for the mere possibility that at some future
time Tehran would go to war with Israel using nuclear weapons?
It should be stressed, too, that any attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would
also not resolve the threat-no matter how high or low one assessed it to be-of
Iran giving nuclear materials to terrorists. While this is a serious problem
(and one often underestimated in the West), a military attack on Iran would
actually increase the likelihood of this happening, since Iran would have
radioactive materials but not perhaps the capability of delivering them by
missile plus a thirst for revenge. Letting terrorists deliver the nuclear
devices is an ideal solution for Tehran and would be perceived there as both
lower-risk and higher-priority than it would be otherwise.
4. Finally, there is a rather ironic geostrategic aspect of this issue. If we
are discussing certainties rather than scenarios, Iran's main threat in practice
is not to Israel but to Arabic-speaking states and to U.S. interests.
Israel can defend itself; the Arab regimes cannot. Arab states are going to be
intimidated and subverted internally by Iran; Israel will not engage in
appeasement or face any significant increase in direct subversion or a
conventional threat on its borders.
On the contrary, fear and preoccupation with Iran's threat will force Arab
states to devote more attention and resources on that front. (The one exception
is that Iran's ally, Syria, is likely to be bolder in fomenting attacks on
Israel from Hamas and Hizballah smug in the knowledge that Tehran will protect
it and that the United States won't put pressure on it.)
Why, then, should Israel engage in a high-risk, costly venture to protect
countries like Saudi Arabia or Iraq that will do nothing to reciprocate or to
reduce their own hostility to Israel?
Rather, it is the job of the United States to provide a regional umbrella
against an Iranian nuclear threat. America must set up a defensive shield for
its Arab state clients, which will also necessarily include Israel, provide them
with assurances, and threaten Iran. In practice, this also means that the United
States will have to support Israel's missile defense efforts and provide help in
obtaining other military equipment Israel will need.
If Washington fails to handle containment properly, there will be a long period
of testing in which it will have an opportunity to see the extent of the threat
from Iran and its allies, notably Syria. This will lead either to a better U.S.
policy on the issue or to Israel being able to readjust its strategy toward Iran
as required.
During that period, Israel will always have the option to act if it perceives a
direct and immediate threat to itself. Thus, it will not in any way be dependent
on U.S. protection although it will also benefit from whatever is provided by
Washington to defend Arab states or the region in general from an Iranian
attack. Equally, if Iran is perceived as more aggressive, international support
for Israeli action would be far higher than at the beginning of the Iran nuclear
era.
It is not impossible that at some point Iran itself will provoke a war with the
United States due to its subversive and terrorist efforts in Arabic-speaking
countries; its interference with U.S. operations and shipping in the Persian
Gulf; direct attacks by its surrogates on U.S. forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, or
elsewhere; or its brinkmanship with nuclear weapons.
Of course, it is more likely that this will not happen, but if Iran does behave
in this manner the world will blame it--and many countries will coalesce against
it--in any resulting war. Why should Israel take on Iran all by itself, not only
lacking international support but actually receiving international condemnation
for doing so?
It would be a mistake, and one Israeli decisionmakers aren't going to make, to
assume that Iran will immediately use nuclear weapons against Israel or that
Israel can easily make the problem go away with a series of air attacks.
Whatever public posture Israel's government uses about a possible military
option-and one can certainly argue it is in Israeli, U.S., Western, and Arab
interests for Tehran to perceive a real Israeli threat-actually to carry out
such an attack would be a mistake.
*Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs
(GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA)
Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with
Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria
(Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp
Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy
in the Middle East (Wiley). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or
to order books, go to http://www.gloria-center.org. You can read and subscribe
to his blog at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.
Sfeir urges expatriates to
visit their 'first nation Lebanon'
By Antoine Amrieh /Daily Star
Thursday, July 15, 2010
DIMAN: Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Butros Sfeir called on Lebanese expatriates
Wednesday to visit their “first nation Lebanon, the nation of fathers and
ancestors,” as he urged for “a permanent connection between native Lebanese and
expatriates.”The prelate made his comments while receiving a Brazilian
delegation of Lebanese origins at his summer residence in the village of Diman.
The delegation arrived in Lebanon upon the invitation of the Social Affairs
Ministry to take part in voluntary work camps organized annually by the Lebanese
Youth Ministry. The group was headed by priest Elias Karam and Brother Selwance
Chamoun. Camilla Maalouf spoke on behalf of the delegation, highlighting the
“attachment of Brazilians of Lebanese origins to their Mother country Lebanon.”
While thanking the Social Affairs Ministry for “hosting and supporting those
youth,” Maaalouf urged Sfeir to help “those youth in reclaiming their Lebanese
nationality.” In response, Sfeir thanked the delegation for coming to Lebanon.
“You came to renew relations with your mother country, your land of fathers and
ancestors, we wish you will enjoy your time in Lebanon,” said Sfeir. – Antoine
Amrieh
Hizbullah demands changes in French security-pact text
By The Daily Star /Thursday, July 15, 2010
BEIRUT: Hizbullah is demanding the revision of a security accord between France
and Lebanon over the definition of the word “terrorism,” a party official said
on Wednesday. “We want a text that either clearly defines ‘terrorism’ as per
Lebanese and Arab laws or the omission of the clause that deals with
counterterrorism entirely,” Hizbullah MP Hassan Fadlallah told AFP. “France’s
definition of terrorism includes Palestinian resistance movements and that
clashes with Lebanese law, which is in line with the Arab League’s definition,”
he added.
“Without resolving this matter, the accord will not be passed in Parliament.”The
22-member Arab League does not regard “armed struggle against foreign
occupation,” such as the Palestinian Hamas or Lebanese Hizbullah, as terrorist
movements. Lebanon and France signed the security pact in Paris on January 21
which stipulates the two countries should “boost cooperation” in fighting
“terrorism,” money laundering and drugs. Parliamentarians held talks Tuesday on
the accord, and a number of MPs from an alliance led by the Hizbullah walked out
of the session. Deputy Speaker Farid Makari told AFP that there was “no
opposition to the agreement as a whole,” but Hizbullah and its allies had raised
the notion that France “views the resistance [Hizbullah] generally as
terrorist.” But Hizbullah’s political rivals were outraged at the Shiite party’s
demand, with Christian Maronite MP Sami Gemayel slamming the group as
“isolationist.” “We cannot ruin Lebanon’s relationship with France for the sake
of Iran’s nuclear ambitions,” Samir Geagea, who heads the Maronite Lebanese
Forces, told reporters on Tuesday. – The Daily Star
Sayyed has no authority to demand case files - STL
By The Daily Star /Thursday, July 15, 2010
BEIRUT: A former Lebanese Army general had no authority to ask for the release
of his secret case file, according to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL)
General Prosecutor’s office.
On Tuesday, Major General Jamil Sayyed, the former head of Lebanese General
Security, asked the court to release his secret case file on the 2005
assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri to learn why he had
been jailed for nearly four years without charge. He said he had applied more
than 100 times to the tribunal and to the Lebanese authorities for access to his
file, but was never allowed to see any of it. The hearing by the STL is the
first since Sayyed and three other army officers were freed from a Lebanese jail
for lack of evidence in April 2009. The four officers were detained for six
months after Hariri and 22 others died in a massive truck bomb explosion in
Beirut, and suspicion fell on Syria and its Lebanese allies.
Lebanese newspaper Al-Mustaqbal reported Wednesday that STL General Prosecutor
Daniel Bellemare’s representative Daryl Mundis said during the hearing that
Sayyed had no right to ask the court for documents because his “demand does not
fall under the court’s jurisdiction and he ( Sayyed) has no authority.” He said
the court’s mandate is limited to prosecuting those responsible for the February
14, 2005, bombing and “to bring terrorists to justice.” “International courts
have narrow jurisdiction for a reason,” added Mundis. Mundis added that the
court’s jurisdiction did not “allow us to respond on such a request and we
should reject it.” Also, the paper reported that Sayyed’s defense attorney Akram
Azoury shouted insults at a member of the prosecuting committee. When asked
about such insults, Sayyed downplayed the remarks, saying “we Lebanese use such
words.” – The Daily Star
MP warns telecoms exposed to infiltration
By The Daily Star /Thursday, July 15, 2010
BEIRUT: The current state of the telecommunications sector in Lebanon exposes it
to security infiltration, the head of the Media and Telecommunications
Parliamentary committee Hassan Fadlallah said Wednesday. The Bint Jbeil MP made
his remarks while meeting with head of Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (TRA)
Imad Hobballah at the former’s office in Parliament. Fadlallah is also a
Hizbullah official. Hobballah briefed Fadlallah on the damage that had been
sustained by the telecommunications sector by a former employee in the field who
had provided Israeli intelligence with sensitive information enabling it to
monitor the entire telecommunications network. Charbel Qazzi, a technician in
state-run Alfa telecommunications firm, was arrested last month by Lebanese
authorities on charges of providing the Israelis with crucial data. During the
investigation, the detainee confessed that he had been collaborating with
Israeli authorities since 1996. Hobballah described to Fadlallah means to remedy
the long-term damage that the telecommunications sector had seen. He also
detailed the responsibilities of firms running the telecommunications sector
with regard to guarding against infiltration. Qazzi said shielding the
telecommunications sector against penetration required “immediate and strict
measures in several fields including work, equipment, and external relations
which are all vulnerable to any future infiltration.” For his part, Fadlallah
said that “we are still in the first phase of appraising damage and trying to
recover.”“There are responsibilities that should be shouldered by [telecom]
firms, and a vital role for the state to play in protecting this sector by
practical measures,” he said. On Tuesday, Qazzi was charged with spying for
Israel. Another Israeli spy, Ali Mantash, was sentenced to death at the same
day.
Earlier, Lebanese President Michel Sleiman voiced his readiness to sign any
death sentence he received. – The Daily Star
Syrian opposition activist says Lebanese authorities ordered him to leave
Thursday, July 15, 2010 /Daily Star
Rita Daou /Agence France Presse
BEIRUT: A Syrian opposition activist granted refugee status by the United
Nations said Tuesday that Lebanese authorities had ordered him to leave. “I went
to the General Security bureau today to reclaim my passport, only to find that
the words ‘to travel by July 20, 2010’ were stamped on it,” former Syrian MP
Maamun Homsi told AFP on Tuesday. Homsi, 55, was arrested in Syria in 2001 and
jailed for five years after a short-lived “Damascus spring” of liberalization
when President Bashar Assad ascended to power 10 years ago.
Homsi was convicted for working “to change the Constitution through illegal
means.” He was released in January 2006 and has since lived in Lebanon with his
wife and two youngest sons.
On May 26, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) granted him
refugee status. But today, he says, he has no choice but to return to Syria
where he “will certainly be jailed” for his political beliefs. UNHCR deputy
representative to Lebanon Jean Paul Cavalieri confirmed to AFP that Homsi was
accorded refugee status but said he “could not comment to third parties about
individual cases.” “Our job is to protect refugees in Lebanon and find durable
solutions for them outside of Lebanon in cooperation with Lebanese authorities,”
Cavalieri said. Lebanese General Security officials were not immediately
available for comment.
While Homsi said the UNHCR offered him the chance to move to Sweden, he could
not find it in him to “uproot my children to a town more than 700 kilometers
from the capital of a country they do not know and the language of which they do
not speak.” When asked why Lebanon would not renew his residency, Homsi said: “I
see no reason other than Lebanon’s newfound openess to Syria.” Syrian troops
entered Lebanon during the 1975-90 Lebanese Civil War and Damascus exercised
political and military control over its smaller neighbor for 29 years. But the
2005 assassination of the former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, widely blamed on
Syria, sparked a wave of mass protests and Syria subsequently withdrew its
troops under international pressure. Syria has consistently denied any
involvement in the murder and in a string of subsequent assassinations targeting
anti-Syrian journalists and politicians.
Relations between the two neighboring countries have warmed in recent years, and
Syria and Lebanon decided to establish formal diplomatic relations in October
2008. But Homsi, for his part, says he and others like him may well end up
paying the price. “If Lebanon decides to shift to a new political stance,
perhaps it would be wise to amend its Constitution and laws which today make it
the only oasis of freedom and democracy in the Arab world,” Homsi said. “I have
principles and if I go back to Syria there is a price to pay for the principles
I hold.”
Turkey's foreign policy aims at a new regional hegemony
By Shlomo Avineri /Daily Star
Thursday, July 15, 2010
A few months before he became Turkey’s foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, then
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s chief adviser, met with a group of Middle
Eastern academics and policy experts, including Arabs and Israelis. With his
academic background and immense erudition, he succeeded in painting, on a wide
canvass, the new directions of Turkey’s policies under the Justice and
Development Party (AKP) leadership.
By then, it had become clear that Turkey’s road to the European Union had been
closed, somewhat rudely, owing mainly to combined German and French pressure.
But those who expected Islamist fire and brimstone from Davutoglu were deeply
disappointed.
What was articulated was a levelheaded and sophisticated exposé, seldom heard
from policymakers: it was thoughtful, honest, and breath-taking. It was also a
clear departure from the conventional foreign-policy straightjacket devised by
Kemal Ataturk, which had for decades forced Turkish diplomacy into the
Procrustean bed of 1920s-style integral nationalism.
Davutoglu began conventionally, declaring that Turkey’s geopolitical situation
would always dictate the country’s foreign policy. Then came the bombshell:
contrary to the conventional Kemalist view of the One and Indivisible Turkish
Nation, Davutoglu referred to what everyone has known since modern Turkey was
created: the country has more Azeris than Azerbaijan, more people of Albanian
origin than live in Albania, more people of Bosnian origin than live in Bosnia,
and more Kurds than in Iraqi Kurdistan.
This reality, Davutoglu maintained, means that violence and instability in
Turkey’s immediate neighborhood threatens to spill into Turkey itself, and
regional external conflicts can easily become internally disruptive. Hence the
credo of Turkish foreign policy should be “zero conflicts with our neighbors and
in our neighborhood.”
This, he explained, was the reason that Turkey was trying to find an
accommodation with Armenia. It justified Turkey’s policy vis-à-vis the Kurdish
Regional Government in Northern Iraq, its involvement in Bosnia and in Kosovo,
its rapprochement with Syria, and also its attempt to mediate between Syria and
Israel.
Turkey, he argued, is neither pro-Israeli nor pro-Syrian: it seeks an
Israeli-Syrian accommodation in order to add another building block to regional
stability. All these steps are taken by the AKP government because it is in
Turkey’s interest, given not only its geopolitical position, but also its unique
multi-ethnic structure (Davutoglu didn’t use that terminology, though the
implication was clear).
Since then (Davutoglu became foreign minister in May 2009), much of what Turkey
has done can be explained as being in line with this “zero conflicts” theory,
including a slightly more nuanced policy on the Cyprus issue. Yet recent
developments suggest that, if this policy is pushed to its limits, it stumbles
on its own premises.
One can well understand a Turkish policy of trying to defuse tensions with Iran
over that country’s nuclear program. But the joint Iranian-Brazilian-Turkish
initiative goes beyond such a policy.
Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva may have stepped on a hornets’
nest, owing to his unfamiliarity with regional policies and his general
“anti-Yanqui” sentiments. Erdogan must have known that, by trying in this way to
shield Iran, he is opening a wider chasm with the EU – and obviously with the
United States. Opposing new sanctions against Iran in the Security Council
further alienated Turkey from both the EU and the US. This does not sit well
with a “zero conflict” policy.
The same can be said about the shrill tone that Turkey, and Erdogan himself, has
recently adopted vis-à-vis Israel. Walking off the stage at Davos during a
round-table debate with Israel’s President Shimon Peres might have gained
Erdogan points in the Arab world, which has historically viewed Turkey with the
suspicion owed to the old imperial ruler. But the vehemence with which he lashed
out at Israel during the Gaza flotilla crisis obviously went far beyond
(justified) support for beleaguered Palestinians and (equally justified)
criticism of the messy way in which Israel dealt with an obviously difficult
situation.
While gaining support on the so-called Arab street, and perhaps upstaging
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the role of a modern
Commander-of-the-Faithful, Erdogan’s policy and behavior have shocked not only
Israelis, but also moderate Arab leaders in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and
some of the Gulf states.
For many years, the AKP appeared to many in the region and elsewhere as a model
for a democratic party with Islamic roots. But by supporting Hamas, Erdogan has
allied Turkey with the most disruptive and extremist fundamentalist force in the
Muslim Arab world – an organization that has its origins in the Muslim
Brotherhood, the arch-enemy of all Arab regimes in the region (including, of
course, Syria).
Since Erdogan is a critic of Israel, Arab rulers cannot say this openly. But
Arab governments – and their security services – are beginning to ask themselves
whether Turkey’s policies will undermine whatever internal stability their
states possess.
This is the exact opposite of a genuine “zero conflict” policy that aims to
minimize tensions and enhance stability. Turkey now finds itself, through its
alliance with Iran and support for Hamas, rushing headlong into a series of
conflicts – with Europe, the US, Israel and moderate Arab regimes that have
survived Iranian Shiite fundamentalism but may now feel threatened by a
neo-Ottoman Sunni foreign policy.
Turkey is thus emerging not as a regional mediator, equidistant from contending
local players, but as an assertive, if not aggressive, regional power aiming for
hegemony. Far from avoiding conflicts and mediating existing tensions, Turkey
under the AKP appears intent on stoking new conflicts and creating new
frontlines.
***Shlomo Avineri, a professor of political science at the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, served as director-general of Israel’s Foreign Ministry in the
government of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. THE DAILY STAR publishes this
commentary in collaboration with Project Syndicate © (www.project-syndicate.org).