Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for September 26/12 
Egyptian President Morsi's UN Speech Tomorrow
Ban: Syria 'Calamity' a Threat to World Peace
U.N. Summit Leaders Say Assad Must Go
Israel should preempt Hizballah now
Consequences of a nuclear Iran 'immense,' Obama says at UN
Israelis shrug at Netanyahu's urgent warnings on Iran
Iranian President Ahmadinejad has harsh words for Israel, calls homosexuality ‘ugly’
Germany Urges U.N. to Unite on Syria and Iran
France demands UN protection for Syria “liberated zones”
Qatar Leader Calls for Arab Military Intervention in Syria
Blasts Hit Military Complex in Damascus
Saudi Arabia going from strength to strength
China's First Aircraft Carrier Enters Service
Armenian Soldier Killed at Azerbaijani Border 
Michael Aoun: The final sell out
Mustaqbal Demands Investigation in Attack against Aoun Convoy, Rejects All Forms of Violence
Aoun: Security Agencies who Deny my Assassination Attempt May Be Linked to
Miqati Lauds Hizbullah's 'Wise Behavior' amid Iran-Israel War Fears
Miqati Meets Clinton, Says Lebanese Keen to Maintain Country's Stability
One of Remaining 10 Lebanese Pilgrims Held in Syria Released
Lebanon's Army Commander General Jean Qahwaji from London: Lebanon Will Overcome 'Critical Situation'
Lebanese General Security Decides against Deporting 5 Syrians
 

U.N. Summit Leaders Say Assad Must Go
Naharnet/ 25 September 2012,
U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon on Tuesday said the Syria "calamity" is turning into a global crisis as U.S. President Barack Obama led growing calls for an end to Bashar Assad's rule.
Condemnations of Assad marked the opening day of the U.N. General Assembly of world leaders, as the conflict passes 18 months and the international community remains deadlocked over how to end the bloodshed. The conflict "is a regional calamity with global ramifications" that needs action by the Security Council, Ban said in the opening address of the assembly.
"The international community should not look the other way as violence spirals out of control," Ban told world leaders, adding that "brutal" rights abuses were being committed by Assad's forces.
He said the Security Council and countries in the region must "solidly and concretely" support peace efforts by U.N.-Arab League envoy Lakhdar Brahimi.
"We must stop the violence and flow of arms to both sides and set in motion a Syrian-led transition as soon as possible," Ban added.
The 15-nation Security Council has become paralyzed by deadlock over the conflict which Syrian activists say has left more than 29,000 dead.
Russia, Assad's main ally, and China have vetoed three Security Council resolutions which could have led to sanctions against the Syrian government.
Obama said there had to be "sanctions and consequences" for atrocities committed in the war and that Assad must go. He also said that Iran "props up a dictator in Damascus."
"The future must not belong to a dictator who massacres his people," Obama told the assembly.
"If there is a cause that cries out for protest in the world today, it is a regime that tortures children and shoots rockets at apartment buildings."
He told leaders: "As we meet here, we again declare that the regime of Bashar Assad must come to an end so that the suffering of the Syrian people can stop, and a new dawn can begin."
Obama also warned that the international community must stop the uprising against Assad turning into "a cycle of sectarian violence."
He said the United States wants a Syria "that is united and inclusive; where children don't need to fear their own government, and all Syrians have a say in how they are governed -- Sunnis and Alawites; Kurds and Christians." "That is the outcome that we will work for -- with sanctions and consequences for those who persecute; and assistance and support for those who work for this common good," Obama said. "We believe that the Syrians who embrace this vision will have the strength and legitimacy to lead." Brazil's President Dilma Rousseff, whose country hesitated over action against Assad when it was on the U.N. Security Council, said that the government "bears the largest share of responsibility" for the violence. But she also highlighted the role of opposition groups "especially those that increasingly rely on foreign military and logistical support."
SourceAgence France PresseNaharnet.

Ban: Syria 'Calamity' a Threat to World Peace
Naharnet/25 September 2012/U.N. leader Ban Ki-moon said Tuesday that the Syrian civil war is a "calamity" that now threatens world peace and demands action by the divided U.N. Security Council.
Ban told the opening of the U.N. General Assembly that the Syria conflict "is a regional calamity with global ramifications" that needs action by the Security Council.
"The international community should not look the other way as violence spirals out of control," Ban told world leaders, adding that "brutal" rights abuses were being committed by President Bashar Assad's government. "I call on the international community -- especially the members of the Security Council and countries in the region -- to solidly and concretely support the efforts" of U.N.-Arab League envoy Lakhdar Brahimi. "We must stop the violence and flow of arms to both sides and set in motion a Syrian-led transition as soon as possible," Ban added.
The 15-nation Security Council has become paralyzed by deadlock over the 18-month-old deadlock which Syrian activists say has left more than 29,000 dead.
Russia, Assad's main ally, and China have vetoed three Security Council resolutions which could have led to sanctions against the Syrian government.
Ban said the crimes being committed in Syria must not go unpunished. "There is no statute of limitations for such extreme violence," he insisted. "It is the duty of our generation to put an end to impunity for international crimes in Syria and elsewhere." Ban said he wanted his address to the 193-member U.N. to "sound the alarm about our direction as a human family."
The U.N. secretary general condemned governments which spend "vast and precious funds on deadly weapons" at a time of growing climate change, economic crisis and growing poverty. He warned that "the door may be closing for good" on chances of creating separate Palestinian and Israeli states because of the growth of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories.
"We must break this dangerous impasse," he said. Ban called the anti-Islam Internet video which has inflamed protests across the world "a disgraceful act of great insensitivity" which he said had caused "justifiable offense and unjustifiable offense." "I am profoundly concerned about continued violence in Afghanistan and in the Democratic Republic of Congo," he said.
"The crisis in the Sahel is not getting sufficient attention and support."
"Poverty, fragility, drought and sectarian tensions are threats to stability across the region," Ban said. "Extremism is on the rise," he warned, referring to the Islamists who have seized northern Mali.
"The international community needs a major concerted effort to address this alarming situation," he added.
The U.N. leader called on Sudan and South Sudan to resolve all the differences that brought them to the verge of war this year.
Source/Naharnet.

Iranian President Ahmadinejad has harsh words for Israel, calls homosexuality ‘ugly’
By Ron Recinto | The Lookout –
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had harsh words for Israel and called homosexuality an "ugly behavior."
During a taped interview with Piers Morgan broadcast Monday night on CNN, Ahmadinejad responded candidly to Morgan's questioning about a statement the Iranian leader once made that Israel should be "wiped off the map."
Speaking through a translator, Ahmadinejad said:
If a group comes and occupies the United States of America, destroys homes while women and children are in those homes, incarcerate the youth of America, impose five different wars on many neighbors, and always threaten others, what would you do? What would you say? Would you help it? ... Or would you help the people of the United States?
So when we say "to be wiped," we say for occupation to be wiped off from this world. For war-seeking to (be) wiped off and eradicated, the killing of women and children to be eradicated. And we propose the way. We propose the path. The path is to recognize the right of the Palestinians to self-governance.
Ahmadinejad also did not fully acknowledge the Holocaust, saying to Morgan, "Whatever event has taken place throughout history, or hasn't taken place, I cannot judge that. Why should I judge that? I say researchers and scholars must be free to conduct research and analysis about any historical event."
The Iranian president, who is in New York for an address to the United Nations on Wednesday, condemned the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Libya that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens.
"First of all any action that is provocative (that) offends the religious thoughts and feelings of any people we condemn. Likewise we condemn any type of extremism. Of course what took place is ugly."
Ahmadinejad also called homosexuality an "ugly behavior."
"Homosexuality ceases procreation," he said. "Who has said that if you like or believe in doing something ugly, and others do not accept your behavior they are denying your freedom? Who says that? Perhaps in a country they wish to legitimize stealing?"
Morgan then asked the Iranian president what he would do if one of his children was gay.
"Proper education must be given," Ahmadinejad said. "The education system must be revamped. The political system must be revamped. But if a group recognizes an ugly behavior or ugly deed as legitimate, you must not expect other countries or other groups to give it the same recognition."

Israelis shrug at Netanyahu's urgent warnings on Iran
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has relentlessly warned that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat, but most Israelis are sanguine, believing it won't happen or that Israel can handle it.
By Christa Case Bryant | Christian Science Monitor – Even as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presses the US for “red lines” on Iran’s nuclear development and Iran ramps up its rhetoric, Israelis don’t seem to be expecting a war with Iran anytime soon – and are not frantically preparing for one.
Yes, Iran is a dangerous regime, most say. But even as some get new gas masks and repair their bomb shelters, more than half say they think Mr. Netanyahu's statements about launching an Israeli strike on Iran are a bluff intended to pressure the US to do the job instead.
And even if Netanyahu were serious about going it alone, Israelis express a high degree of confidence in Israel’s ability to defend itself.
“We have been following the Iran issue for quite a long time and … [Israelis] actually seem to be pretty relaxed about it and I suppose that, following their answers, this is because they don’t really think it’s going to happen,” says public opinion expert Tamar Hermann, who co-edits a monthly poll known as the Peace Index. “They see it as a chess game by which Netanyahu is trying to achieve certain advantages in the international arena.”
“First of all, I trust God. Secondly, we have very clever people, very good intelligence,” and a strong military, says Moshe Guy, a Tel Aviv resident visiting the Western Wall in Jerusalem’s Old City. “I’m not afraid – I’m much more afraid about the conflict between Jews in Israel – between religious and non-religious.… I see that Judaism is moving toward [being] fanatic, and fanatic is very bad.”
Indeed, other concerns seem to be more top of mind for Israelis, including the high cost of living, rising social tensions, and even a possible earthquake.
US SUPPORT STILL TRUMPS ALL
Earlier this year, a survey conducted by the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) at Tel Aviv University found that only 18 percent of Israelis believed that Iran would attack Israel with nuclear weapons. Even if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack, almost 2 in 3 Israelis believe that Israel can handle such an strike, according to the survey, which will be published in December.
But Israelis were more confident in their country's ability to deal with all but one of the other threats posed by the survey – including war with Arab countries, sustained terrorism, and a chemical or biological weapons attack, according to INSS data shared with the Monitor.
The only thing Israelis are more worried about in terms of national security is a drop in US support of Israel.
“All the studies we’ve done over the past 25 years show that the Israeli public … puts great, great, great emphasis between Israel and US and views strong bonds … as a major factor in Israel’s national security,” says Yehuda Ben Meir, co-director of INSS’s National Security and Public Opinion Project. “Since it’s been made very clear that the US is more than strongly opposed to a unilateral Israeli independent attack at this time … [Israelis] don’t want it.”
To be sure, a substantial cohort – as high as 40 percent, according to some polls – still supports an Israeli strike. But a strong majority – 61 percent, according to the Peace Index – only want a joint US-Israel strike. That said, Israelis don’t necessarily trust the US. Some 70 percent said they did not have full confidence in US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s promise this summer that the US will prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, according to the July edition of Professor Hermann’s Peace Index.
“We cannot trust America,” says Mr. Guy of Tel Aviv, criticizing Netanyahu for pressuring the US to support an Israeli strike or launch its own. “Why speak about it, [why] make so much noise? They will not do it. We must do it.”
IS AN EARTHQUAKE MORE LIKELY THAN A NUCLEAR ATTACK?
This weekend, the deputy commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said that an Israeli strike would “provide a historic opportunity for the Islamic Revolution to wipe [Israel] off the face of the earth,” adding that an infantry battalion would be able to “break Israel’s back” within a day.
It’s sound bites like that which always spur a flurry of calls and website traffic for Dani Avram, the owner of an Israeli bomb shelter company called Ani Mugan (“I am protected”).
“Every time there’s the right news … you see a big increase of people that want to fix their home shelters,” says Mr. Avram, who says that usually such calls drop off after a few days. “But now, it’s many more people and a longer period of time.” Traffic to his company website has increased at least sixfold, he estimates, and calls have risen from a few dozen a day to a few hundred. Even on weekends and recent holidays, traffic has been similar to a normal business day, he says. Part of it may be an improved awareness among citizens about how to brace for attack, thanks in part to a more organized campaign by the government. “It’s not the same as [before the 1991] Gulf War – now we feel more secure because now we feel better prepared,” says Dan, a Modiin resident visiting Jerusalem’s Old City who declined to give his last name.
DISTRIBUTING GAS MASKS
But his wife, Ilanit, says she is worried – though she admits she has yet to get a gas mask for their third child, an infant.
The Home Front Command, set up in the wake of the Gulf War, began a nationwide campaign in 2010 to distribute gas masks to protect citizens in the event of biological or chemical warfare. Since then, they have distributed more than 4 million of the so-called “protection kits,” but only about half of Israelis currently have one, according to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
The country has also helped prepare citizens by organizing nationwide civil defense drills every spring or early summer since the 2006 Lebanon war, when Hezbollah sent a flood of rockets over Israel’s northern border. But this year’s drill, which is set to include NATO and the United Nations, will be held in October and doesn’t have anything to do with missiles or other possible retaliatory attacks from Iran. Normally, the drills include the sounding of a siren, the distribution of messages via SMS, and requests for civilians to go to a designated secure place as they would in an emergency. Local governments are also involved in emergency response simulations.
Instead, the focus this year will be preparing for an earthquake. The last destructive earthquake in Israel occurred in 1927, and with major quakes occurring every 80-90 years on average, some say the country is due for another.“I know it’s much more sexy to talk about Iran, but an earthquake is much more likely statistically,” says Nissan Zehevi, spokesman for the Home Front Defense Minister. But, he adds, “We’re ready for any scenario.”In the meantime, says Hermann, Israelis don’t seem to be batting an eye – noting among other things the recent uptick in home sales lately.
“Normally people do not invest in real estate when they think that their new homes are going to be destroyed by missiles from Iran,” she says.

Allawi the President of Iraq
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat
An important story, but not a surprising one, was published by our newspaper yesterday, quoting the New York Times. It revealed that US President Barack Obama had tried to convince Iraqi President Jalal Talibani to relinquish his position for Iyad Allawi to take his place, after the Iraqi elections that Allawi won by a slim margin over Nuri al-Maliki, yet the latter still became Prime Minister.
The importance of this story is that it shows how the US administration dealt with the future of Iraq very loosely after it had invaded and overthrown the Saddam Hussein regime. Likewise, it shows that President Obama was never confident that al-Maliki would be a Prime Minister for all Iraqis, but that “with Mr. Allawi, a secular Shiite and the leader of a bloc with broad Sunni support, the Obama administration calculated, Iraq would have a more inclusive government and would check the worrisome drift toward authoritarianism under Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki”, according to what was published in the New York Times. This has been proven by successive events in Iraq now, most notably the pursuit of Tariq al-Hashemi and him being sentenced to death.
The story also shows how the current US administration has dealt with Iraq very lightly, and only in order to fulfill President Obama’s campaign promise to withdraw his troops from there. This has led to Iraq as a whole falling under Iranian influence, and this is what is happening today. The importance of the story, of course, does not stop here, because it seems that the US disregard in its handling of the situation in Iraq is more serious than we thought. Washington failed to correct a fatal mistake in Iraq – sectarian political quotas – when it proposed a Shiite political figure for the presidency; Dr. Iyad Allawi. Here I must explain an important point. Dr. Allawi is, for me, far above sectarianism or any form of political reductionism, but with the sectarian political tendencies in our region he is constantly exposed to the risk of assassination, and has been threatened with that in the past. One could argue that the Kurds have no exclusive right to the Iraqi presidency, and that a Shiite Iraqi figure could assume the office, but here of course the role of Iran comes to the fore. If Allawi were to assume the presidency, all those objecting would side with Iran in Baghdad and remind him that he is a Shiite, thus reducing Iraq as a whole into sectarian politics once again.
Here we see the naivety of America, especially because at this time there was a similar proposal for Allawi to be Speaker of the Parliament. I wrote in this column warning against that idea because it would mean justifying the Shiite invasion of all Iraq’s positions, which means, in accordance with Iranian influence in Iraq, that Tehran’s allies would control all Iraq’s positions. This is something that cannot be ruled out in the future, and may rear its head once again with the approaching downfall of the tyrant of Damascus, Bashar al-Assad. Thus, the importance of the story lies in the fact that it shows how the current U.S. administration has dealt lightly with Iraq despite recognizing the danger of al-Maliki, and knowing that Baghdad would become a subsidiary of Iran. What is frightening in this story is that it seems it is not only the Republicans who handed Iraq over to Iran, it was even the Democrats!

Saudi Arabia going from strength to strength
25/09/2012/By John Davie
ondon, Asharq Al-Awsat - As I write this article today Saudi Arabia is celebrating the 80th anniversary of its founding on 23rd September 1932. I wish everyone on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia my congratulations. I will start this week’s article by thanking HRH Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf Al Saud for inviting me to the National Day celebrations the Saudi Embassy in London. This milestone provides an opportunity for looking at the Kingdom’s opportunities in the international sense.
This week it is appropriate therefore to think about ‘the concomitant challenges that lie ahead’. King Abdullah has been described by political analysts as the Kingdom’s most popular king thanks to his political, social and economic reforms. In early 2011, King Abdullah issued a series of decrees announcing a number of social welfare projects. And there is no doubt that the strong Saudi economy's higher spending is addressing social issues and helping the region.
Last week the IMF said in its annual economic review that the outlook for the Saudi economy remains buoyant. It grew at 7.1 percent last year with 8 percent growth recorded in the non-oil sector; the highest since 1981. The private sector grew at 8.5 percent, with the construction and manufacturing sectors providing the largest increases. The latest numbers are that Saudi GDP has reached 2.2 trillion Saudi Riyals, an increase of 31.4%.
That is a fantastic achievement in the current economic climate. Saudi Arabia is going from strength to strength.
The only possible cloud on the horizon is that the oil sector continues to dominate the economy. The cloud comes in the shape of a research note from Citibank suggesting that Saudi Arabia risks becoming an oil importer within 20 years. Saudi Arabia’s per capita consumption of energy is already higher than the developed world and Bloomberg’s research finds the country’s energy consumption is increasing at twice the rate of its population growth. The country already consumes one-quarter of the oil it produces and it already consumes all the natural gas it produces. I am no oil analyst but this should be considered as a call to increase efforts to diversify.
Of course the Saudi government is very aware of this and has been working hard in the past decade to create an environment that encourages risk-taking, creativity and value-creation. Entrepreneurship enjoys high-level support. All sectors are contributing to building a start-up culture in the country, such as the Prince Salman Young Entrepreneur Awards, the National Entrepreneurship Center, and the Saudi Arabian General Investment Authority (SAGIA), which established the Saudi Fast Growth 100.
Saudi Arabia is encouraging the growth of the private sector in order to diversify its economy and to employ more Saudi nationals. Almost 6 million foreign workers play an important role in the Saudi economy, particularly in the oil and service sectors, while at the same time Riyadh is struggling to reduce unemployment among its own nationals.
In countries that need to create huge numbers of new jobs for indigenous people there is scope to be entrepreneurial in the approach to developing the vocational and development training that are required to support localisation programmes; programmes like Nitaqat, the Saudisation programme that came into effect in June last year. Not everyone will go to university, nor should they. This leaves a training gap and that gap must be filled if local people are to provide the workforce that the country requires.
New businesses are developing in advanced economies in clusters: a geographic concentration of interconnected businesses, suppliers, and associated institutions in a particular field and often with smart small businesses. Clusters are considered to increase the productivity with which companies can compete, nationally and globally. Linking academic excellence with vocational training will encourage these new businesses.
Globally youth unemployment is a problem and in Britain, as in most countries, lack of qualifications in some sections of society is a big contributor to this. Britain has a very well educated work force but also has young people without any skills and they are much more likely to be unemployed. In Saudi, officials are particularly focused on employing its large youth population, some of whom lack the education and technical skills the private sector needs.
A lack of suitable skills for the jobs that need to be done brings unemployment for sections of the population. In the desire to protect people from the hardship of unemployment countries that can afford it cushion their people through providing unemployment benefits. However, it is really important to avoid creating a culture of dependency on unemployment benefits: is not a long-term solution as has been found in Britain. Britain accidentally created a new problem: that of households in which there is little work ethic as complete families have not worked for more than one generation. Britain is now addressing this through a new approach to reform the benefit system that extends a ladder of opportunity to those who have previously been excluded or marginalised from the world of work.
The private sector is now involved in a programme of vocational and development training to provide the skills that employers require. An education system must prepare people for the world of work. University education is right for some but not for others. In any case a balanced economy needs assorted skills to be sustainable. Any successful programme of vocational training and education will incorporate domestic private sector organizations and experienced international experts.
In order to sustain the future of any country it is necessary to align the capabilities of its citizens with the strategic requirements of the government. This involves ensuring that academic and other training institutions are teaching courses in the necessary skills and in the correct proportions. International experience has shown that it is difficult for government to reform its own capabilities and methodologies without the external input of a third party.
The King Abdullah Scholarship Program (KASP) was the starting point of turning the Saudi economy away from oil dependency and toward a knowledge-based one.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is adjusting to its future with great resourcefulness but if the Citi report is even slightly accurate then the process must be accelerated. This will need close cooperation between the Saudi Government, its private sector and appropriate international experts.
I hope everyone in Saudi enjoyed the Saudi National Day and that the future remains as bright as the current economic situation clearly is. Saudi Arabia is going from strength to strength.

The Damascus conference
By Ali Ibrahim/Asharq Alawsat
Whatever the objections voiced by the main Syrian opposition - which has resorted to arms on the ground to confront the regime’s fierce crackdown - to what was put forward during the “National Conference for Rescuing Syria” in Damascus the day before yesterday, in which twenty opposition parties, political trends and figures participated, the conference is still an important indicator that the regime and its allies are starting to realize they are in a stalemate.
Those attending this conference may have been accused by other opposition factions as being “false”, but in their statement they spoke explicitly about the departure of al-Assad. Their statement came from Damascus itself, talking about bringing down the regime with all its symbols and supporting infrastructure, right in the heart of the regime’s lair, under the eyes of its intelligence and security machine, and in the presence of ambassadors from Iran, Russia and China, who all support the regime.
In fact, no one can dispute the majority of the statement. The opposition in attendance called for sectarianism to be renounced, civilians to be protected in accordance with international law, Syria to be considered an integral part of the Arab world, the Kurdish community to be considered an essential part of the national Syrian fabric, and for emphasis to be placed on the unity of Syria and its territorial integrity.
Yet the most significant point was the call for the immediate cessation of violence firstly by the regime’s forces, and then for the armed opposition to also commit to this, under appropriate Arab and international observation. It seems that this is the main point of contention with the rest of the opposition factions, if we put to one side the real weight of each faction, whether they participated in this conference, are active on the ground, or among the people.
Theoretically and logically, no one is against a peaceful resolution to the crisis that has caused rivers of blood, massive destruction in Syrian cities and a huge number of refugees and displaced persons, in addition to the human suffering. No one who has Syria’s interests at heart is happy to see internal fighting ultimately between the sons of one nation, or to see the Syrian army, supposed to be an army for all Syrians, deteriorating like this and tarnishing its reputation in battles against its own people. This is all happening so a regime can cling onto power against the will of the people who have spoken otherwise.
However, there is a great distance between wishful thinking and reality. The Syrian revolution began peacefully and continued as such for many months. However, the demonstrations were met with bullets, fierce repression, attempts to ignite a sectarian conflict and media propaganda seeking to hide the fact that there was mass popular outrage demanding freedom and social justice. In such an endeavor, the regime slogans used slogans that it knew to be hollow.
Seas of blood were spilled, tens of thousands of families abandoned their homes and became displaced, and entire districts of major cities became reminiscent of Beirut’s neighborhoods during the civil war or Sarajevo during the Yugoslavia crisis. Cities are still being bombed by aircraft and feuds are accumulating, and the regime remains intransigent, suggesting that a peaceful way out would be very difficult. However, what was put forward in the Damascus conference may resemble a way out if a practical and realistic plan is put in place, with Arab and international support and credibility, to convince the armed opposition that it is not a trap. The first step in this regard is for the regime to declare a unilateral ceasefire, withdraw its troops from the cities and accept a transitional body comprising of a realistic representation of the actual opposition, including the Free Syrian Army and dissident officers, to pave the way for the transition of power. This will require the opposition to unite under a shared vision and postpone their ideological differences, and it will also require figures within the regime to have the courage to say to their leadership: Enough, you are the reason behind the destruction and bloodshed.

Bomb Iran? Why 5 top Israeli figures don't want to do it.
Christa Case Bryant, Staff writer/Chritain Science Monitor
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s threat of a unilateral strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, supported by Defense Minister Ehud Barak, has sparked an unusually public debate in Israel about the wisdom of the move. While nearly all of those involved seem to agree that Iran poses a serious nuclear threat, they disagree about the timing and method of best countering that threat.
Meir Dagan, former Mossad chief. Meir Dagan has spearheaded opposition to a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran since May 2011 – shortly after he retired as head of Israel’s foreign intelligence agency, the Mossad. He has called such a move “the stupidest thing I have ever heard” and “patently illegal under international law” since Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is operating under the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency. He also opposes a unilateral strike because:
A surgical attack such as Israel’s 1981 strike against Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor is not possible because Iran’s nuclear program is much more dispersed
A strike could lead to a regional war and regional, or even global, arms race
A strike could cause Iranians to rally around the current regime, strengthening its hand
Coming from a family of Holocaust survivors, he has said that, like Netanyahu, he is determined to protect Israel against existential threats. But he apparently believes that his retirement, along with that of several other colleagues, removed an important counterweight to Netanyahu, or Bibi, as he is known.
“I decided to speak out because when I was in office, [Shin Bet director Yuval] Diskin, [military Chief of Staff Gabi] Ashkenazi and I could block any dangerous adventure,” he said. “Now I am afraid that there is no one to stop Bibi and Barak.”

Consequences of a nuclear Iran 'immense,' Obama says at UN
By Howard LaFranchi, Staff writer/Chritain Science Monitor
September 25, 2012
In his speech Tuesday in New York, President Obama sounded tough on Iran, while also saying that global aspirations for change, expressed in the Arab Spring, must not be hijacked by violence.
United Nations, N.Y.
President Obama used the United Nations stage Tuesday to warn the world of the dire consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran, even as he called for greater tolerance among nations and cultures to hold in check the kind of violence that has shaken the Muslim world in recent weeks.
Speaking in effect to two audiences – the global one, and the US electorate that will decide in six weeks the fate of his reelection bid – Mr. Obama sounded tough on Iran. Time is limited, he said, for stopping Tehran through diplomacy, and he insisted that for the United States, simply containing a nuclear Iran is not an option.
At the same time, the leader of the world’s sole superpower said that global aspirations for change, so clearly expressed in the Arab Spring, must not be hijacked by the kind of violence and intolerance that have recently swept across countries from Egypt to Pakistan, resulting in scores of deaths.
RECOMMENDED: Six reasons this UN General Assembly is must-see TV
Obama framed his speech around one of those deaths, that of Christopher Stevens, the US ambassador to Libya killed in a Sept. 11 attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi. Opening with, “Let me begin by telling you about an American named Chris Stevens,” the president said that the one-time Peace Corps volunteer and teacher of English in Morocco “embodied the best of America.”
While Ambassador Stevens “built bridges across oceans and cultures,” Obama said, he also “stood up for a set of principles” that are not only America’s principles, but also those of the United Nations.
"The attacks of the last two weeks are not simply an assault on America. They are also an assault on the very ideals upon which the United Nations was founded,” Obama said. "If we are serious about those ideals, we must speak honestly about the deeper causes of this crisis.”
Saying the world faces “a choice between the forces that would drive us apart and the hopes we hold in common,” he called on the world’s leaders to “affirm that our future will be determined by people like Chris Stevens, and not by his killers.”
He continued, “Today, we must declare that this violence and intolerance has no place among our United Nations."
Obama acknowledged the pain caused for many Muslims by a video made in the US that denigrates the prophet Muhammad. But as “crude and disgusting” as the video was, he said, it could not be the excuse for violence.
"There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents," Obama said. "There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan." Defaming words and actions have also been directed against the Christian faith, Obama noted. In an aside that sounded more than anything like electioneering, he said, “Like me, the majority of Americans are Christians.” But he said the only antidote to “hurtful speech is not repression; it’s more speech” about tolerance and universal values. Concerning Iran’s nuclear program, Obama told his audience that there is still “time and space” for resolving the crisis through diplomacy, but he warned that time is “not unlimited.”
The consequences of a nuclear Iran would be “immense,” he said. Such a state “would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy,” Obama said. “It risks triggering a nuclear-arms race in the region and the unraveling of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.”
Obama repeated the US position that “peaceful nations have a right to access peaceful nuclear power,” but the burden is on Iran to prove its peaceful intentions, he said. And he warned that the time for doing so is running out. On Monday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he believes it is still possible to resolve diplomatically “and through mutual respect” the crisis over its nuclear program. Mr. Ahmadinejad, who is also in New York for the UN meetings, will address the assembly on Wednesday.
The UN General Assembly is usually an opportunity for the US president to hold a number of bilateral meetings with world leaders, but Obama, in full campaign mode, is holding none. After his UN speech, he was to cross Manhattan to address the Clinton Global Initiative – where Republican rival Mitt Romney spoke earlier Tuesday – before returning to Washington.
The heavy lifting on bilateral meetings has been left to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who kept a full schedule Monday and is set to keep that pace all week.
Secretary Clinton held hour-long one-on-ones with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, and Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf – the last of which expressed his country’s deep regret over the Benghazi attack that resulted in the deaths of four American diplomats, including Stevens.

Aoun: Security Agencies who Deny my Assassination Attempt May Be Linked to it
Naharnet/25 September 2012, /Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun condemned on Tuesday doubts that he may have been the victim of an assassination attempt, saying that “some sides have stooped so low as to question the affair.”He added after the Change and Reform bloc's weekly meeting: “Security agencies that deny the attempt on my life may be linked to it.”
In addition, he slammed claims that said that incident was aimed at bolstering his popularity ahead of the 2013 parliamentary elections.
“There is physical evidence and judiciary to prove the matter,” said the lawmaker. Aoun's decoy convoy came under gunfire on Saturday night, with the MP saying that three bullets hit one of the cars.
Conflicting reports had emerged over the exact location of the incident. Aoun was returning from a tour of the southern region of Jezzine when the attack happened.
He revealed that this is the fourth attempt against his life. Furthermore, he said that he did not believe that Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea was a victim of an assassination attempt, saying that he is basing his opinion on technical evidence. “I was the victim of a failed attack on my life. It was not simply a message,” stated the FPM leader.“Who said that the vehicle that was targeted was not armored?” he wondered. Perhaps the attacker only wanted to halt the convoy and once it did more shots would be fired at it, speculated Aoun.

One of Remaining 10 Lebanese Pilgrims Held in Syria Released
Naharnet/25 September 2012, /A Lebanese man who has been held hostage in Syria along with ten other pilgrims since May was released on Tuesday, media reports said. Awad Ibrahim told LBCI TV network that he was in good health. Voice of Lebanon radio (93.3) also said Ibrahim telephoned his brother to confirm the news of his release. Ibrahim crossed the Syrian border to Turkey and is expected to return to Beirut within hours, VDL said. Eleven Lebanese pilgrims were kidnapped by the rebel Free Syrian Army in the northern province of Aleppo on May 22 as they were returning home from Iran.
VDL (100.5) quoted Ibrahim as saying that the remaining pilgrims are doing well. The rebels are holding onto their demand for an apology from Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah to release the 9 pilgrims, he said.Last month, Hussein Ali Omar was released in what his captors said was a “goodwill gesture.”

Army Commander General Jean Qahwaji from London: Lebanon Will Overcome 'Critical Situation'
Naharnet/ 25 September 2012, /Army Commander General Jean Qahwaji stressed on Tuesday that Lebanon will be able to overcome the “critical situation” as long as its people are backing the military institution. “We will not go back in time. The army will not allow anyone to use Lebanon as a sanctuary for importing or exporting strife,” Qahwaji said during a meeting with the Lebanese community in the UK. He pointed out that the army's role is to preserve democracy and freedom in Lebanon in addition to the country's sovereignty and independence. Qahwaji traveled to London on September 23 on a five-day visit where he is set to hold talks with a number of British officials. The army commander stated that the challenges confronting the military institution are numerous. However, Qahwaji said that the army was able to control the Lebanese-Syrian border, prevent the smuggling of arms and accomplished several missions to preserve the security situation in the country. He is scheduled to meet with David Ashley, head of the British Foreign Office's Levant Regional Team, to discuss military aid to the Lebanese army.

Miqati Lauds Hizbullah's 'Wise Behavior' amid Iran-Israel War Fears
Naharnet /25 September 2012, /Prime Minister Najib Miqati shrugged off fears of Hizbullah's involvement in any future war between Israel and Iran, saying the party is wise and has pledged to steer Lebanon clear of regional conflicts. “Hizbullah is lately behaving very wisely,” Miqati told reporters in New York. “It has given its consent to the Baabda Declaration that states keeping Lebanon away from the policies of axes and regional and international conflicts.” The premier made his comment in response to a question about fears that the Tehran-backed party could get involved in any possible Israeli aggression on Iran. Miqati reiterated that his “entire concern as prime minister is to preserve Lebanon and keep it clear of the repercussions of the events around it.”“As it's known by now, Lebanon is divided between those who back the Syrian revolution and those who oppose it,” he said. “That's why we seek to keep away any negative reflection of the events in Syria.”
Asked about his position on Syria, Miqati told reporters that he rejects the spilling of blood and supports the choice of the Syrian people.
Miqati is in New York at the head of a delegation to attend the United Nations 67th General Assembly. He is scheduled to hold on Tuesday a series of separate meetings with the presidents of France, Egypt, Cyprus and the Palestinian territories. His press office said Miqati will also meet with the prime ministers of Kuwait and Qatar, the U.S. Secretary of State and the foreign ministers of Russia and the UAE.
Furthermore, the prime minister has a scheduled meeting with U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon, the statement said.
Miqati held talks on Monday with Britain’s Foreign Office Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, Alistair Burt, who said following the meeting that the UK is aware of the Lebanese prime minister's difficult responsibilities. He told reporters that attempts to keep Lebanon at a distance from the conflict in Syria have so far succeeded.

Miqati Meets Clinton, Says Lebanese Keen to Maintain Country's Stability
Naharnet /25 September 2012/Prime Minister Najib Miqati stressed on Tuesday that Lebanese foes agreed to preserve the country's stability and safeguard it from the negative repercussions surrounding it.
"The international community should understand the Lebanese state's decision to disassociate the country from the developments in the region," Miqati told U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly. The PM tackled with Clinton the importance of boosting the military aid for the Lebanese army and offering it all the possible support to enable it to carry out its duties. Miqati pointed out during the meeting that the country's sovereignty is being continuously violated by Israel. He called on the U.S. to exert efforts to halt the endeavors carried out by Israel. Miqati is in New York at the head of a delegation to attend the U.N. 67th General Assembly. He is also scheduled to hold a series of separate meetings with the presidents of France, Egypt, Cyprus and the Palestinian territories. For her part, Clinton hailed the cabinet for assuming its responsibilities and preserving the country's stability. During the 40-minute meeting, Clinton tackled with Miqati the conditions of the Syrian refugees in Lebanon. Clinton expressed gratitude for the stance undertaken by the Lebanese stance concerning the matter and for the humanitarian aid it is offering for the refugees. The U.N. says more than 1.2 million Syrians, over half of them children, have become internally displaced in the country while an estimated 250,000 refugees sought shelter in neighboring Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq. With around 40,000 refugee in Lebanon. The U.S. Secretary of State urged the Lebanese cabinet to swiftly resolve the dispute over its Exclusive Economic Zone and to start drilling for offshore natural gas reserves. Lebanon has been slow to exploit its maritime resources compared with other eastern Mediterranean countries. Israel, Cyprus and Turkey are all much more advanced in drilling for oil and gas.
The country has submitted to the United Nations a maritime map that conflicts significantly with one proposed by Israel.
The disputed zone consists of about 854 square kilometers, and suspected energy reserves there could generate billions of dollars.

Mustaqbal Demands Investigation in Attack against Aoun Convoy, Rejects All Forms of Violence
Naharnet/25 September 2012,/The Mustaqbal parliamentary bloc condemned on Tuesday the spread of kidnappings in Lebanon at the hands of armed groups, saying that such incidents are aimed at undermining the authority of the state. The bloc also addressed after its weekly meeting the shooting against Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun's convoy, demanding an investigation in the matter. “We reject and condemn any use of violence or armed assault against any side or individual in Lebanon regardless of the motives,” it declared. It therefore demanded that an investigation be launched in the affair to reveal the truth to the people. Aoun's convoy came under gunfire on Saturday in what the lawmaker said was an attempt against his life. He was not in the actual convoy, which turned out to be a decoy. On the kidnappings, the Mustqbal bloc attributed the spread of arms to the persistence of the phenomenon. It therefore demanded that the government and the security forces take the necessary measures “to put an end to these developments without hesitation.” It praised the Lebanese army for its raids on the Bekaa and Beirut's southern suburbs during which it arrested a number of suspects wanted for various abductions, hoping that it will keep up its efforts in order to improve stability and security in Lebanon. Addressing Syrian violations of Lebanon's border, the bloc considered that any “infiltration of the border is an attack against the Lebanese people and a violation of the country's sovereignty.” It therefore stressed the need for the army to bolster its presence along the border with Syria to protect the people and Lebanese territory.

Lebanese General Security Decides against Deporting 5 Syrians
Naharnet/25 September 2012/Five Syrians were released on Tuesday after being detained in Rashaya al-Fakhar on Monday. The National News Agency reported that party and political efforts were exerted to reach a settlement to ensure their release. It added that they were transported to a General Security post in Hasbaya where a settlement to grant them temporary residency was being made. This will allow them to reside in Lebanon legally for a temporary period of about two months. The security forces had initially arrested the Syrians after they entered Lebanon illegally through Mount Hermon on Monday. The General Security's attempts to deport them was met by angry protests by the Jamaa Islamiyya on Monday, reported Agence France Presse.

France demands UN protection for Syria “liberated zones”
September 25, 2012 /France's President Francois Hollande on Tuesday called for UN protection for "liberated zones" under opposition control in Syria.Hollande also told the UN General Assembly that France would recognize an opposition government when it is formed. The socialist president made the call in a wide-ranging speech on the security threats around the world. He said France would not accept Iran's rejection of UN demands on its nuclear drive, and also called for urgent action on the Islamist takeover in northern Mali.Hollande said that Syria was the main international emergency. He said the United Nations must give Syrians the support and assistance they have requested, "in particular that liberated zones be protected and that humanitarian aid be assured for refugees."Hollande added that President Bashar al-Assad and his government should be warned that the international community will act if they use chemical weapons.-AFP

Michael Aoun: The final sell out
Now Lebanon/September 24, 2012
Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun has made some fatuous arguments in his time, but his defense of the Resistance and his denigration of the army he once commanded, and which in October 1990 fought the Syrian army against overwhelming odds virtually to the last man, sets new standards in duplicity.
Aoun, talking to Al-Akhbar daily on Saturday, described the army as nothing more than a paramilitary force only suited to internal security. “It will be incapable of confronting a foreign assault, and this is where the Resistance's role in liberating land comes in,” he said, adding, “The Resistance is a central figure in defending Lebanon.”
How easy it has been for Aoun to abandon the army, the institution that made him. Surely he of all people should be the one to champion the constitutional role of the army. As a matter of principle, Aoun’s line should endorse the army’s ability to defend Lebanon’s borders. The current crop of officers and senior soldiers would no doubt be delighted to learn that they signed up merely to shore up internal security and are “incapable of confronting a foreign assault.” They can iron their uniforms and shine their boots to march on Army Day as the pride of the nation, but when push comes to shove the Resistance says, “Move over, sonny, and leave the real fighting to us.”
That one army may be weaker or stronger than another should not detract from the role of that army within the framework of the state and the fabric of the national consciousness. Neither should it be subordinated just because the odds might be stacked against it. The army represents national dignity – Aoun’s allies in Hezbollah surely know a thing about dignity – and the symbol of nationhood. It was surely this dignity and devotion to the flag that Aoun tapped into nearly 22 years ago when, with the overwhelming superiority and firepower of the Syrian army descending upon the presidential palace in Baabda, his soldiers fought to the bitter end. Surely this is the stuff that builds a national identity; Lebanese men shedding Lebanese blood in the defense of Lebanese soil.
But clearly Aoun is reading from a different script these days, one that seeks to consolidate Hezbollah’s local power base and casts aspersions on those pesky trouble-making Sunnis as part of a regional bid to save the regime in Syria. (It should come as no surprise that the alleged assassination attempt on Saturday night should have happened in Sidon, that hotbed of Sunni extremism.)
It is in his role as Christian stooge that Aoun often strays into the land of fantasy to make a point. “Militias are used in all world countries to assist the army in its duties,” he told al-Akhbar, even likening Hezbollah’s role to that of the Maquis, or French Resistance, in World War II, forgetting that France was occupied by Germany at the time and that the French authorities were by and large collaborating with the Nazis. If that is the best argument he can make to justify Hezbollah’s permanent martial posture, one that by its very presence is an existential threat to Lebanon, then he really is clutching at straws.
Elsewhere his rambling efforts to interpret world affairs are equally bewildering. He uses vague but dramatic phrases such as the “European financial crisis” and, as is typical of many Lebanese leaders when they want to be cryptic, talks of “other major powers…leading the region toward a new world order.” Could he not elaborate upon this startling revelation? Clearly he is a man who chooses to disseminate his words carefully. As for the situation in Syria, Aoun stuns us by revealing that it will be resolved “through political dialogue or the defeat of one of the sides involved.” Not really going out on a limb there, is he? “I believe the opposition will be defeated, not the ruling regime,” he said. Oh well, then. He said it so it must be true.
Bottom line, Aoun is a man who made a name for himself as a soldier and sold himself as a patriot. By insulting the institution that made him, he has squandered what little political equity he had left. What is left is simply hot air.

Blasphemy: an indispensable human right
Hussein Ibish/Now Lebanon
September 25, 2012
Blasphemy is an indispensable human right. Without the right to engage in blasphemy, there can be no freedom of inquiry, expression, conscience or religion.
As I predicted last week, the Organization of Islamic Conference has seized on the controversies regarding an anti-Islam video clip on YouTube and satirical cartoons about Mohammed in a French magazine to renew its call for a global ban on "blasphemy." The OIC is, in effect, not only announcing that Muslim states in general have no intention of allowing real freedom of conscience and speech, but they want to bully the West into eliminating those freedoms as well.
OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu called on countries that respect free speech to “come out of hiding from behind the excuse of freedom of expression.” OIC governments apparently cannot resist the populist appeal of perversely posing as "defenders of Islam" by attacking free thought and free speech.
Who, after all, will be authorized to define "blasphemy"? Does anything that offends any religious sensibilities qualify as "blasphemy"? Will a critical mass of objections be seen as legitimate grounds for silencing critics of religious doctrine, scholarly inquiry into their origins, skeptical analysis of superstition and faith, iconoclasm, or mockery of religious claims, symbols, assertions, and shibboleths?
Iran is a member state of the OIC. It has just raised the bounty, issued decades ago, against Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses. The novel, which is a fine one, is not, in fact, blasphemous by any reasonable definition. It probably would've been an even more interesting book if it had been. But it offended people, most of whom had not read it, was declared and widely considered "blasphemous," and therefore presumably would be banned under the OIC's proposals.
Pakistan says it's going to press the issue of a global "blasphemy" ban at the UN and other multilateral institutions. This is the same country that is persecuting a teenage Christian girl for alleged blasphemy in a most horrifying and indefensible manner. Along with a number of other Muslim-majority states, Pakistan allows for the death penalty, at least theoretically, for "blasphemy" criminal offenses.
Several Arab states, including Egypt and Kuwait, have recently been toying with new criminal definitions of "blasphemy" that specifically ban insulting the wives and companions of the Prophet Mohammed, which is barely concealed code for the suppression of Shiite doctrinal criticism of Sunni Islam. The OIC is based in Saudi Arabia, a country that does not allow freedom of worship for any non-Muslims. The examples of the hypocrisy behind these calls are simply endless.
If freedom of religion, conscience and speech are to mean anything, religious doctrines, symbols and assertions must be open to inquiry, criticism and, indeed, ridicule. Otherwise, the human thought process will be shut down by force of law in order to protect the sensibilities of the superstitious, and free inquiry into the most central issues facing humanity since the birth of the species will be effectively foreclosed.
These calls reflect a paranoid worldview that is widespread among Muslims that their religion is under some kind of global assault. If so—because Islam is spreading faster than almost any other religion, with the possible exception of Mormonism—it's an odd kind of siege. In reality, Islam is thriving in its countries of origin and spreading quickly into the West.
What this idea really bespeaks is a terror that most faiths contain at their core: that serious, skeptical, dispassionate evaluations of their specific claims will reveal them to be indefensible, hollow and easily debunked. Embracing modernity requires tolerating such fears without demanding the enforcement of religious orthodoxy, even of an ecumenical variety, through the power of the state.
In fact, and unfortunately, the devout of the world have little to fear. Sigmund Freud was right in his seminal 1927 tract on religion, "The Future of an Illusion," that as long as people fear death and yearn, in an Oedipal manner, for an all-powerful supernatural father-figure to "exorcise the terrors of nature" and "reconcile men to the cruelty of Fate, particularly as it is shown in death," we are likely to be stuck with metaphysical superstitions and religion. There is little chance, in short, that human society at large will ever be free of its grip.
Reason and skepticism, for good or ill, are not poised to overthrow faith. Islam is thriving in the modern world, both in its traditional lands and in its new adopted homes. Its politicized devotees are acquiring increasing power in post-dictatorship Arab societies. And on top of all of this, the OIC wants to globally shut down freedom of thought, conscience and speech to further "protect" Islam from perceived slights. There is only one appropriate response to this, in language the devout should be able to easily understand: to hell with you.
Hussein Ibish writes frequently about Middle Eastern affairs for numerous publications in the United States and the Arab world. He blogs at www.Ibishblog.com.

Hezbollah’s imaginary monsters
Hanin Ghaddar/Now Lebanon
September 24, 2012
A week ago, the head of Tehran’s Islamic army, Mohammad Ali Jaafari, said that Iran’s Revolutionary Guards have been sending military advisers to Lebanon and Syria to assist Hezbollah and Bashar al-Assad’s regime, respectively. The political storm caused by this statement, which also prompted Lebanese President Michel Suleiman to demand clarification from Tehran, subsided after Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Ramin Mehmanparast, denied it and blamed the media for mistranslating Jaafari’s statement.
I don’t think anyone can deny the involvement of the Revolutionary Guards in the creation and militarization of Hezbollah. In the summer of 1982, almost 1,500 Iranian Revolutionary Guards were dispatched to the Syrian-controlled Beqaa region under the pretext of fighting Israel, though they were secretly forming the Party of God. The Guards were used for recruitment, training and indoctrination.
The question is not whether or not there are Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Lebanon; it is what exactly they are doing. What are the dynamics of the relationship between the Party of God and its creator? What is the nature of this partnership, and how deep does it go? Can Hezbollah make an independent decision on whether or not to retaliate if Iran got hit by Israel?
Now that the fear of a strike on Iran is increasing by the day, the main question the Lebanese, including Hezbollah supporters themselves, are asking is whether the party will respond or not.
No one wants a war, and instead of reassuring the Lebanese people, Hezbollah is completely ignoring the issue and focusing its energy on intimidating its local adversaries. The Party of God prefers to keep its supporters in fear of the unknown, hating monsters it has created to keep them worried. Fear will keep them stuck to the party as their only, although increasingly weak, protector.
First the main monster was Israel, then came the Salafists, and now the party’s new campaign is against the Shiites who oppose Hezbollah, its doctrines and its politics. It doesn’t matter what these Shiites did or said. Hezbollah’s media arm takes care of it, and this time it came from the fading Al-Akhbar newspaper and its head, Ibrahim al-Amin, formerly a Communist and now a staunch Hezbollah advocate.
The paper published a series of articles under the spotlight “America’s Shiite Tools in Lebanon,” criticizing Lebanese Shiite figures for meeting with Americans diplomats. Their proof: Wikileaks. Of course the question is why publish this spotlight now, knowing that Wikileaks have been out for more than a year.
But the dangerous part is what Amin wrote afterward. In his piece No place for traitors among us, he threatened a number of Shiite figures. “Do they not believe that their links to the US Embassy and their participation in US schemes targeting the Resistance in Lebanon amount to a clear and blatant form of collaboration with Israel?... Perhaps they should know they are being watched and are under observation because of the offenses they committed without batting an eyelid or feeling a pang of remorse. They ought to know that resistance to them will be stepped up, and become stronger than in the past, and that the enemy’s most violent assault yet on the Resistance in the region will result in their being besieged and silenced. Perhaps those who wish them well owe them a word of advice that the days of all-round forgiving-and-forgetting are over.”
So here’s the new monster for Hezbollah supporters to fear. And why? Just because these figures talked to some American diplomats and did not consider the Americans as enemies. No Shiite is allowed to think differently. Yet Hezbollah and its pundits still criticize sectarian rhetoric in other communities, as they deem the Shiite one rigid, homogenous group.
So back to the question of why now? Because Hezbollah is seriously worried about the drastic decrease of its popularity among the Shiites. It has been losing support since the beginning of the Syrian uprising and also since Hezbollah started showing signs that it cannot properly manage the government it created in 2011. However, the real hit came a few weeks ago when two prominent Shiite clerics in Lebanon, Mohammad Hassan al-Amin and Hani Fahs, issued a joint statement calling on Lebanon’s Shiites to support the popular uprising in Syria.
Hezbollah more than anyone else understands that change comes from within, and the clerics Fahs and Amin enjoy real respect and popularity among the Shiites, even those who support Hezbollah. They were never labeled Western-backed or March 14-backed or even Saudi-backed.
These clerics and some secular Shiite figures and activists are slowly but surely coming together as one entity that is open to differences. And that’s what makes the Party of God afraid.
Fear and hate can sometimes be synonyms, and now Hezbollah has launched a new hate campaign to avoid the important questions people are asking. The Shiite community cares no more for these imaginary monsters. They need to know whether they will have a decent future in their own country or not. The Lebanese, Shiite and not, need to start pressuring Hezbollah to answer the question: What will it do if Iran gets hit? Everything else is a waste of time and energy.
Hanin Ghaddar is the managing editor of NOW Lebanon. She tweets @haningdr

Kick Me: European Union Backs Iran's Hezbollah
by Peter Martino/Gatestone Institute
September 25, 2012
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3364/european-union-hezbollah
These measures indicate that Western Governments are aware of the threat Hezbollah poses to Western security. Nevertheless for reasons of appeasement, they refuse to declare the organization a terrorist group -- a classification which would allow the blocking of Hezbollah funds and the seizure of its assets.
The Lebanon-based Islamic organization Hezbollah is one of the most dangerous groups in the world. Recently, Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah incited violence against American and European interests over the movie The Innocence of Muslims. And yet, the European Union refuses to follow America's example and classify Hezbollah as a terrorist organization – a move that would enable the EU to freeze the group's assets in Europe.
Several people, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya, have been killed, ostensibly in retaliation for the movie, which is perceived to be critical of Muhammad, the 7th century Arab warlord who founded Islam. Instead of calling for calm, Hezbollah leader Nasrallah called for prolonged protests: "The whole world needs to see your anger on your faces, in your fists and your shouts."
Hezbollah is also involved in terrorist activities in Syria. During a meeting on September 7 in Paphos, Cyprus, the foreign ministers of the 27 member states of the European Union (EU) discussed the situation in Syria, including the position which the EU should take regarding Hezbollah. While Britain and the Netherlands urged other EU governments to join the United States in imposing sanctions on Hezbollah, they were unable to convince the other EU members. Dutch Foreign Minister Uri Rosenthal said that Hezbollah should, further, be branded a terrorist organization; he was, however, was isolated with this stance.
This does not come as a surprise, considering the EU's earlier refusal to condemn Hezbollah for terrorism. Last July, Avigdor Lieberman, the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs, visited the EU capital, Brussels, to persuade the EU to follow America's example and classify Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Lieberman met with resistance – a lot. He was attempting to isolate Hezbollah after the July 18 suicide bombing at the airport of the Bulgarian coastal resort of Burgas – an attack, and clearly a terrorist one – in which five Israeli tourists and a Bulgarian bus driver were killed.
According to Israeli and American intelligence sources, the terrorist attack was the work of Hezbollah, upon orders from Iran. Nevertheless, the Cypriot minister of Foreign Affairs, Erato Kozakou-Marcoullis, who currently holds the rotating EU presidency said that there is "no tangible evidence of Hezbollah engaging in acts of terrorism;" hence, there was "no consensus for putting Hezbollah on the list of terrorist organizations." He emphasized that Hezbollah was an organization with a political as well as an armed wing and that it has representatives in the Lebanese parliament and government.
In 2008, the Netherlands declared Hezbollah and all its branches terrorist entities. Britain considers only its armed wing a terrorist group. Consequently, Hezbollah can operate freely all over Europe, except in the Netherlands. Apart from the Netherlands and the United States, only Canada, Australia and New Zealand have classified Hezbollah as a terrorist group. The European Parliament did the same in a 2005 resolution, but as the latter was non-binding the EU has ignored it.
Jacob Campbell, a researcher at the British Institute for Middle Eastern Democracy, told the Jerusalem Post: "Within just days of the Burgas bombing – almost undoubtedly perpetrated by Hezbollah – the Presidency of the EU Council explicitly ruled out the possibility of listing Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, insisting that there is no 'tangible evidence' to link Hezbollah to terrorism. This ludicrous statement was made despite an earlier resolution adopted by the European Parliament, which cites 'clear evidence' of terrorist acts committed by Hezbollah. On this issue, as in so many others, Brussels appears to have its head buried firmly in the sand."
France is one of the countries that oppose the efforts to blacklist Hezbollah. France, the former colonial power in Lebanon, wants to preserve its diplomatic influence in that country. In 2011, Najib Mikati, a Hezbollah-backed politician, became Prime Minister of Lebanon after Hezbollah toppled the previous government. Even deadly attacks by Hezbollah on French nationals have not persuaded the French government to designate the group as terrorist. Last year, Alain Juppé, the then Foreign Minister of France, accused Hezbollah of attacking French U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon. However, with Hezbollah constituting part of the Lebanese establishment, the French are reluctant to act against it.
The German government, too, refuses to draw the obvious conclusion regarding Hezbollah, although the German domestic intelligence agency, the Bundesverfassungsschutz, has warned that Hezbollah has over 900 active members in Germany. In 2008, the German Interior Ministry restricted the reception of the programs of the Hezbollah television station Al-Manar in German hotels. Al-Manar is used by Hezbollah to recruit terrorists and communicate with sleeper cells around the globe.
These measures indicate that Western governments are aware of the danger Hezbollah poses to Western security. Nevertheless, for reasons of appeasement they refuse to take the necessary action to declare the organization a terrorist group – a classification which would allow the blocking of Hezbollah funds and the seizure of its assets.
Meanwhile, one can only hope that the new government in the Netherlands, in which the pro-Palestinian Labor Party is likely to participate, does not reverse the current Dutch policies. The courageous stance of the past Dutch government and its willingness to face the facts, has led to a more realistic view on the part of ordinary Dutch citizens regarding politics in the Middle East. A recent poll showed that the Dutch are far more positive towards Israel than they were nine years ago. In 2003, 71% of the Dutch regarded Israel as a "threat to world peace," while today this percentage has dwindled to 35%, with 36% regarding the Palestinian Authority as a threat to peace.

Egyptian President Morsi's UN Speech Tomorrow
by Raymond Ibrahim • Sep 25, 2012 at 1:47 pm
Cross-posted from Jihad Watch
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/2012/09/egyptian-president-morsi-un-speech-tomorrow
Following news that Egypt's President Morsi is threatening the Coptic Church if Copts demonstrate against him during his UN speech tomorrow, Coptic Solidarity has just issued a press release calling "upon all those who do not want Egypt to turn into another Iran to join in the demonstrations." The press release, which follows, is also useful in that it summarizes the many ways Egypt has increasingly turned Islamist since the Muslim Brotherhood's Morsi became president:
WASHINGTON, Sept. 25, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Coptic Solidarity is calling for a peaceful demonstration to tell Egyptian President Morsi that Coptic Christians deserve equal citizenship rights. This demonstration calls for peace, coexistence and equal human rights for all Egyptian citizens and that Egypt must not be turned into another Iran.
Egyptian President Morsi will be at the United Nations on Wednesday, September 26, 2012.
Ever since the Muslim Brotherhood took over Egypt's revolution of January 2011 and usurped the government's rule, several alarming changes have taken place:
The increasing Islamization and Ikhwanization (from "Ikhwan;" Brotherhood in Arabic) of the State in Egypt with all its institutions;
A constitution that codifies religious fascism is being hurriedly written;
Hundreds of convicted terrorists were released from Egyptian prisons or allowed into the country, turning Egypt into a potential major harbor for Jihadist terrorism;
The Muslim Brotherhood and its Salafist allies led the barbaric incitement to attack embassies and U.S. interests in the newly Islamist-dominated Middle East countries;
Mr. Morsi (emulating Iran's Ayatullahs) incessantly affirms his identity as an Islamist leader of an Islamist state;
Just like under the Mubarak regime, journalists have been arrested and prosecuted for "insulting the president";
Under Morsi, Islamist extremists have been appointed to head the State press and audiovisual media;
There has been no progress with respect to the citizenship rights of Copts, but instead there seems to be a deliberate increase by the state and extremist elements in the society, in the Copts' marginalization, humiliation, persecution and treatment as submissive dhimmis in the Ikhwani-Salafist state;
Unfair and biased "blasphemy" trials, with the aim to humiliate, repress, and intimidate, are conducted against Copts, in a way that is contrary to the axioms of justice in the civilized world;
Calling for an international "anti-blasphemy" agreement that would undermine freedom of belief and expression and counter America's First Amendment;
Copts and moderate Muslims are increasingly fleeing from Egypt to emigrate to places where they can live their lives in, freedom safety and peace.
Coptic Solidarity calls upon all those who do not want Egypt to turn into another Iran to join in the demonstrations...

Why a Special Issue on UNRWA?
by Steven J. Rosen
Middle East Quarterly
http://www.meforum.org/3344/unrwa-special
Led by the United States, the founders of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), the institution tasked with oversight of the Palestine refugees, conceived of it as a temporary instrument to help relieve the plight of the Arab refugees displaced by the struggle over Israel's creation in 1948-49. But over the ensuing sixty-three years, UNRWA has evolved into an agency that perpetuates the refugee problem as a source of conflict rather than contributing to its resolution. Its refugee camps and educational programs keep alive the impossible dream that millions of descendants of the original refugees will "return" to today's Israel. Its social service delivery programs create permanent dependency and impede local integration into the societies and countries where its beneficiaries have resided for decades. Unlike its sister agency, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which is responsible for millions of non-Palestinian refugees worldwide, it does not have an active program for "local integration" of refugees where they now reside nor "resettlement" in third countries. This special issue will explore the extent to which UNRWA has complied with its original mandate and ways and means for its reform.
The Original Reintegration Mission
It was not always the case that UNRWA stood in the way of local integration and resettlement. In its early years, particularly from 1949 to 1960, UNRWA followed a declared policy of "reintegration" of Palestinian refugees into the normal life of the Middle East, a term understood to include resettling large numbers of them outside Israel.
Founded in 1949 as a temporary instrument to help relieve the plight of the Arab refugees displaced by the struggle over Israel's creation in 1948, UNRWA has, over the ensuing sixty-three years, evolved into an agency that perpetuates the refugee problem as a source of conflict rather than contributing to its resolution. Here a Palestinian man overlooks the site of a future school in one of the first refugee camps.
UNRWA's reintegration program was endorsed by U.N. General Assembly resolution 393 (V), enacted on December 2, 1950. It called for "the reintegration of the refugees into the economic life of the Near East, either by repatriation or resettlement," which "is essential in preparation for the time when international assistance is no longer available, and for the realization of conditions of peace and stability in the area." The resolution also instructed UNRWA "to establish a reintegration fund ... for the permanent reestablishment of refugees and their removal from relief."[1]
In November 1951, UNRWA's second director, John Blandford, Jr., proposed a three-year, $200 million program to reintegrate 150,000-200,000 refugees into their Arab host countries.[2] Blandford's plan was endorsed by U.N. General Assembly resolution 513 of January 26, 1952, which tasked UNRWA "to explore with the governments ... their assuming administration of reintegration projects at the earliest possible date."[3] Seven years later, the concept was reaffirmed by U.N. secretary-general Dag Hammarskjöld, who called for the "reintegration" of refugees "into the economic life of the area."[4]
For its part, Washington was a foremost advocate of the reintegration program as evidenced by various State Department plans and proposals, including those in May 1949, May 1953, July 1957, March 1959, and June 1960. To this must be added the 1954 Anglo-American Alpha Plan, a plan proposed by Secretary of State John Foster Dulles as well as a bold initiative by Secretary of State Christian Herter and approved by President Dwight Eisenhower in June 1960.
But since 1960, successive administrations have ignored or forgotten the reintegration idea, and U.S. allocations of funds to UNRWA have been devoted to maintaining the few surviving refugees and their much more numerous descendents in unsettled conditions, turning them into a growing source of conflict.
Today, neither UNRWA's "Medium Term Strategy 2010-2015"[5] nor the official "Framework for Cooperation between UNRWA and the Government of the United States"[6] mentions reintegration at all, nor do congressional appropriations of funds for UNRWA make allocations for reintegration as they did in earlier years.
Former UNRWA general counsel James G. Lindsay remarked that "neither the donors nor the General Assembly has pressed UNRWA on 'reintegration' in quite some time."[7] Lance Bartholomeusz, former head of the International Law Division of UNRWA, said, "This part of the mandate probably ended by 1960 when reference to 'reintegration' was dropped from General Assembly resolutions relating to UNRWA, reflecting some acknowledgment that this objective had been defeated."[8] And Peter Hansen, former commissioner-general of UNRWA, said in 2004, "The agency's mandate has repeatedly been refined and shaped by other General Assembly resolutions, which have allowed it to shift its focus from reintegration efforts in its early years to human development projects through to this very day."[9]
And so UNRWA abandoned its original mission of relief extension and conflict resolution, evolving into an agency for the perpetuation of unsettled claims against Jerusalem for millions of persons born in the years after the founding of Israel in 1948.
A Perpetual Self-Expansion Machine
At its inception on May 1, 1950, UNRWA served approximately 750,000 persons whom it considered Palestine refugees. Due to natural attrition, most of those original refugees are no longer alive today. Yet the number of "refugees" now registered with UNRWA has grown exponentially instead of declining, with almost 5,000,000 persons registered as Palestinian refugees—seven times as many as those registered sixty-two years ago.
This has been made possible through the addition of descendants of refugees (along the male line) to UNRWA's refugee rolls, regardless of how much time has passed. Today, the vast majority of those classified by UNRWA as Palestinian refugees are in fact descendants of refugees, not persons who were ever refugees themselves. These are grandchildren and great-grandchildren born in Jordan, the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and elsewhere—not in pre-1948 Palestine.
According to a projection published by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees extrapolating from UNRWA's past growth rates, by 2030, UNRWA's refugee list will expand another 70 percent to 8.5 million.[10] In fact, at the same growth rate, by 2060 there will be four times as many Palestinian refugees as there are today and twenty-five times the number registered by UNRWA in 1950—though not a single one of the original Palestinian refugees is likely still to be alive by then.
Projected growth of UNRWA Refugee Rolls
1950 750,000
2010 4,880,377
2020 6,432,567
2030 8,478,434
2040 11,174,981
2050 14,729,159
2060 19,413,735
Source: Mick Dumper, "Future Prospects for the Palestinian Refugees," Refugee Survey Quarterly, 2-3 (2009): 563-6.
This represents a drastic break with UNRWA's early practice. In 1950, its first director told the General Assembly that the "agency has decided that a refugee is a needy person, who, as a result of the war in Palestine, has lost his home and his means of livelihood."[11] His definition made no reference to descendants.
Not until 1965, fifteen years after its creation, did an UNRWA commissioner-general decide, against objections from the United States government, to create "an extension of eligibility, subject to need, to the third generation of refugees (that is, to children of persons who were themselves born after 14 May 1948)."[12] And even then, he extended eligibility only to the third generation, the grandchildren. According to political scientist Benjamin Schiff, Commissioner-general Laurence Michelmore's motive was driven by a short term budget imperative to "enlist the host-states' assistance in cut­ting the rolls ... he had offered a trade: If the governments would help rectify the rolls, he would be willing to ... add third-generation refugees to the rolls."[13]
In 1982, or thirty-two years after its creation, UNRWA took another step forward by extending eligibility to all generations of descendants. It did so by obtaining a General Assembly resolution instructing UNRWA "to issue identification cards to all Palestine refugees and their descendants"[14] without any limitation on how many generations of descendancy this practice would continue. This momentous decision was adopted without debate or a separate vote in the General Assembly.[15]
UNRWA went still further in 1992 by adding a provision that those descendants of Palestine refugee males who "are eligible to register for UNRWA services" and are registered with UNRWA, should be "referred to as Registered Refugees or as Registered Palestine Refugees" though they do not meet UNRWA's own standard of having lived in Palestine prior to May 1948.[16] They are not persons "whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, [and] who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict." In fact, fewer than 10 percent of today's UNRWA-classified refugees were born before 1948.[17]
Under U.S. law, a Palestinian who sought admission to the United States as a refugee on the grounds that his/her grandfather was a refugee would be ineligible for refugee status. The law specifically declares that a grandchild is ineligible for derivative refugee status.[18] The standard form used by the Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services states: "A petition may not be approved for the following persons: ... (6) A parent, sister, brother, grandparent, grandchild, nephew, niece, uncle, aunt, cousin, or in-law."[19] Other developed countries employ similar definitions.
Clearly, UNRWA's definition of descendants of refugees as refugees is artificial and misleading and undermines the possibility of resolving the refugee problem in future peace negotiations by manufacturing fictional "refugees" who vastly outnumber the actual remaining 1948 refugees. And five million is such a huge number that even Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas has acknowledged that asking Israel to repatriate this number "would mean the end of Israel."[20]
Failure to Enforce the "Cessation" Rule
The United States is a signatory to and a strong supporter of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, as are 143 other governments.[21] That convention states that a person shall no longer be considered a refugee if "(3) He has acquired a new nationality and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality."[22] The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, charged with implementing the refugee convention for all refugees in the world other than those Palestinians covered by UNRWA, is guided by this principle[23] as is the European Union, which provides that a "third country national or a stateless person shall cease to be a refugee, if he or she: ... (c) has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his or her new nationality."[24] When UNHCR refugees get citizenship in another country, they are taken off its list. But when UNRWA "refugees" get new citizenships, they are still considered refugees.
Most recipients of UNRWA services in Jordan have been given citizenship in that country,[25] but UNRWA continues to define them as refugees. Of the two million Palestinian refugees registered in Jordan, all but 167,000 have citizenship under Jordanian law,[26] which grants citizenship to "[a]ny person who, not being Jewish, possessed Palestinian nationality before 15 May 1948 and was a regular resident in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan between 20 December 1949 and 16 February 1954." In addition, the law states: "The children of a Jordanian man shall be Jordanian wherever they are born."[27] Yet a great grandchild of a Jordanian citizen who was a Palestinian refugee, born tomorrow morning in Amman, is entitled to UNRWA refugee status for life.
Refugees in their Own "Homeland"?
Another peculiar practice of UNRWA is to classify its beneficiaries living in the West Bank and Gaza as refugees although the Palestinian Authority (PA) classifies them as citizens living in their "homeland" according to the Palestinian Basic Law of 2003: "No Palestinian may be deported from the homeland, prevented or prohibited from returning to or leaving it, deprived of his citizenship, or handed over to any foreign entity … Palestinian citizenship shall be regulated by law."[28] The PA also issues passports to its citizens, in accordance with the Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles of September 13, 1993.[29]
Washington and almost the entire international community view UNRWA beneficiaries in the West Bank and Gaza as future citizens of the prospective Palestinian state, who already live in their homeland. U.S. President Bill Clinton told a Palestinian negotiating team in December 2000,
The solution [to the refugee problem] will have to be consistent with ... the state of Palestine as the homeland of the Palestinian people and the state of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people ... The Palestinian state would be the focal point for Palestinians who choose to return to the area ...We need to adopt a formulation on the right of return that will make clear that there is no specific right of return to Israel itself … Return to the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and areas acquired in the land swap would be the right of all Palestinian refugees.[30]
President George W. Bush wrote in a letter of assurances to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in April 2004, that the "solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel."[31] A concurrent resolution of the U.S. Congress supported this principle by overwhelming bipartisan majorities,[32] and President Barack Obama's Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, reaffirmed it in 2009.[33]
In January 2008, while a presidential hopeful, Obama said, "The right of return [to Israel] is something that is not an option in a literal sense."[34] He argued in June 2011 that a "lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people."[35] Even PA president Abbas told his negotiations support unit: "On numbers of refugees, it is illogical to ask Israel to take five million, or indeed one million. That would mean the end of Israel. … All refugees can get Palestinian citizenship (all five million), if they want to (for example, Palestinian refugees in Jordan may not wish so, while for refugees in Lebanon there is a need.)"[36] Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, told Mitchell that the "Palestinians will need to know that 5 million refugees will not go back" to Israel.[37] Abbas gave the U.S. mediators a paper proposing that only a "symbolic number of refugees return" to Israel.[38]
Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are already residing in their own self-proclaimed homeland, building by their own account the instruments of their future state. Yet UNRWA colludes in the practice of defining them artificially as refugees, encouraging unending claims against Israel that perpetuate conflict.
UNHCR Standards Are Not the Solution
It has been argued that UNRWA's role in perpetuating the refugee problem could be redressed if it were required to apply the standards used by UNHCR. But UNRWA's fiefdom is protected by a statutory barrier. The 1951 convention on the status of refugees provides: "This Convention shall not apply to persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance."[39] The wording was designed to protect UNRWA, founded a year earlier.
Moreover, a closer look at UNHCR reveals more permissive standards for derivative refugee status. As UNRWA spokesman Chris Gunness noted, the UNHCR Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination makes it
very clear that in accordance with the refugee's right to family unity, refugee status is transferred through the generations. According to Chapter 5.1.2 "all unmarried children of the Principal Applicant who are under 18 years ... should be considered to be eligible for derivative status under the right to family unity," and Chapter 5.1.1 states that "individuals who obtain derivative refugee status ... should retain this status notwithstanding the ... fact that the child reaches the age of majority."[40]
UNHCR confers derivative refugee status on the basis of family unity where there is a relationship of dependency. "As a matter of general practice, UNHCR does not promote the reunification of ... grandchildren... unless they can be determined to be eligible under the principle of dependency." This can mean financial dependency, "but also taking emotional dependency into consideration."[41] And UNHCR's concept of dependency is astonishingly broad.
In most circumstances, the family unit is composed of more that the customary notion of a nuclear family [husband, wife and minor children] ... In many societies, extended family members such as parents, brothers and sisters, adult children, grandparents, uncles, aunts, nieces and nephews, etc., are financially and emotionally tied to the principal breadwinner or head of the family unit. ... For spouses, UNHCR considers not only legal unions [i.e., sanctioned by civil authorities], but also couples who are engaged to be married, those who have entered a customary marriage [known in some countries as "common-law" marriages], or couples who have lived together for a substantial period establishing a family unit. In this vein, UNHCR also recognizes same sex partnerships as unions for purposes of family reunification. ... UNHCR also recognizes polygamous marriages in its criteria of eligible unions.[42]
It is true that, UNHCR's basic standard is the nuclear family and that subsequent generations are given derivative refugee status only on an exceptional basis[43] while UNRWA automatically grants grandchildren and great-grandchildren refugee status. But UNRWA defenders such as Gunness can argue that the two agencies are guided by the same basic principles.
In this Issue
Is it possible to reform UNRWA, so that it contributes to a durable solution to the refugee problem by returning to its original mission of reintegration of the refugees into the normal life of the Near East instead of perpetuating this source of conflict? Or is it constitutionally and politically bound to its present destructive role? These are the main questions addressed by this special issue of the Middle East Quarterly.
Alex Joffe looks at UNRWA's resistance to any solution other than repatriating millions of refugees and their descendants to Israel—perhaps the foremost obstacle to Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Nitza Nachmias analyzes UNRWA's abandonment of its original mission of reintegrating the refugees "into the normal life of the Near East" and its role in perpetuating their predicament. By contrast, Emanuel Marx argues that UNRWA has effectively reintegrated refugees into the normal life of the Middle East though its officials have carefully disguised this reality for fear of criticism by the refugee population and various political factors.
Uri Resnick, an Israeli Foreign Ministry expert on UNRWA, contrasts the agency's mandate with other policies it has appropriated for itself.
Asaf Romirowsky explores Washington's complicity in the betrayal of UNRWA's original mandate while Brig. Gen. (Ret.) Baruch Spiegel, former deputy head of the Ministry of Defense office that works most closely with UNRWA, explains the paradox of Israel's "marriage of convenience" with a hostile and highly problematic U.N. agency.
Two other articles look at UNRWA's failure to protect Palestinians. David Schenker examines the agency's indifference to the civil rights and human needs of Palestinians residing in its Lebanon camps. This author explores UNRWA's failure even to record the Kuwaiti government's 1991 expulsion of 400,000 long-term Palestinian residents from its territory.
Finally, James Lindsay, legal adviser and general counsel of UNRWA in 2002-07, argues that solutions to many of the agency's problems are impeded by the automatic support it gets from the anti-Israel majority in the U.N. General Assembly, then recommends steps to be taken by the U.S. government, UNRWA's largest donor, to reform the organization.
**Steven J. Rosen is the director of the Middle East Forum's Washington Project. Previously, he served for twenty-three years as one of the top officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
[1] U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) res. 393 (V), "Assistance to Palestine Refugees," New York, Dec. 2, 1950.
[2] John Blandford, Jr. to Advisory Commission, UNRWA, Memorandum No. 18, Jan. 30, 1951.
[3] UNGA res. 513 (VI), Jan. 26, 1952.
[4] "12 Proposals of the United Nations Secretary General [Dag Hammarskjöld] on Palestine Refugees," Report A-4121, June 15, 1959.
[5] "Medium Term Strategy 2010-2015," UNRWA, Dec. 31, 2009.
[6] "Framework for Cooperation between UNRWA and the Government of the United States of America for 2012," Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, U.S. Dept. of State, Washington, D.C., Mar. 14, 2012.
[7] James G. Lindsay, "Fixing UNRWA: Repairing the UN's Troubled System of Aid to Palestinian Refugees," Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Washington, D.C., Jan. 2009, pp. 14-5.
[8] Lance Bartholomeusz, "The Mandate of UNRWA at Sixty," Refugee Survey Quarterly, 2-3 (2009): 471.
[9] Peter Hansen, "UNRWA's Operational Environment and the Role of International Law," London School of Economics, Apr. 28, 2004.
[10] Mick Dumper, "Future Prospects for the Palestinian Refugees," Refugee Survey Quarterly, 2-3 (2009): 563-6.
[11] "Interim Report of the Director," UNRWA document A/1451/rev.1, Oct. 6, 1950.
[12] "The Palestine Question, Report of the UNRWA Commissioner-General," Yearbook of the United Nations 1965, New York, Dec. 31, 1965, chap. XIV.
[13] Benjamin N. Schiff, Refugees unto the Third Generation: UN Aid to Palestinians (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1995), pp. 7, 53-4.
[14] UNGA res. 37/120, sec. I, Dec. 16, 1982.
[15] "Working Group on the Financing of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East," in "Resolutions adopted by the General Assembly at its 37th session," A/RES/37/120A SPC, 65, A/37/PV.108, 16 Dec. 1982 without vote, A/37/723, accessed May 23, 2012; Dag Hammarskjöld Library, Voting Record Catalogued, UN resolution A/RES/37/120A, Working Group on the Financing of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East: resolution / adopted by the General Assembly, Vote Notes: Adopted Without A Vote, Vote Date: 19821216, Agenda Information: A/37/251 65—United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East.
[16] "Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions," UNRWA, p. 3, accessed May 18, 2012.
[17] "UNRWA Statistics-2010," UNRWA, Nov. 2011, p. 6.
[18] "Derivatives of Refugees," Immigration and Naturalization Service, Dept. of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C., 8 CFR 207.7, sec. (b)(6), pp. 177-8.
[19] "Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition," U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Dept. of Homeland Security, form I-730.
[20] "The Palestine Papers: The Documents," The Guardian (London), Jan. 24, 2011.
[21] "States Parties to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol," United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Geneva, Apr. 2011.
[22] Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, UNHCR, 1951, 1967, UNGA res. 2198 (XXI), accessed May 18, 2012.
[23] "The Cessation Clauses: Guidelines on their Application," UNHCR, Apr. 1999, art. 1C.
[24] "Cessation," European Council Directive 2004/83/EC, Luxembourg, Apr. 29, 2004, art. 11.
[25] "Jordan's Position on Palestinian Refugees," King Abdullah II interview with Asharq al-Awsat (London), Jan. 23, 2007, Embassy of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Washington, D.C.
[26] "Jordan: Refugees and Asylum Seekers," World Refugee Survey 2008, U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, Arlington, Va., p. 104; Lindsay, "Fixing UNRWA, p. 53.
[27] Law No. 6 on Nationality, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Jan. 1, 1954, arts. 3, 9.
[28] 2003 Amended Basic Law, Palestinian Authority, Ramallah, Mar. 18, 2003, arts 28, 7.
[29] "Palestine/Occupied Territories: Information on Passports issued by the Palestine National Authority," U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C., Dec. 17, 1998.
[30] "The Clinton Parameters," Clinton Proposal on Israeli-Palestinian Peace, White House, Dec. 23, 2000.
[31] U.S. President George W. Bush to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Jerusalem, Apr. 14, 2004.
[32] Concurrent res. 460, 108th Congress, 2nd sess., Washington, D.C., June 24, 2004.
[33] Ha'aretz (Tel Aviv), Jan. 29, 2009.
[34] The Jerusalem Post, Jan. 29, 2008; Turkish Weekly (Ankara), Jan. 30, 2008.
[35] President Obama, address, American-Israel Public Affairs Committee Policy Conference, Washington, D.C., May 22, 2011.
[36] "Meeting Minutes: Mahmoud Abbas and NSU Advisors, Mar. 24, 2009," al-Jazeera Transparency Unit, Doha.
[37] "Meeting Minutes: Saeb Erekat and George Mitchell, Oct. 21, 2009," al-Jazeera Transparency Unit, Doha.
[38] "Meeting Minutes: Saeb Erekat – Amb. David Hale, Jan. 15, 2010," al-Jazeera Transparency Unit, Doha.
[39] Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, art. 1-D, accessed May 18, 2012.
[40] "Exploding the Myths: UNRWA, UNHCR and the Palestine Refugees," Ma'an News Agency (Bethlehem), June 27, 2011.
[41] "Family Reunification in the Context of Resettlement and Integration," Annual Tripartite Consultations on Resettlement, UNHCR, Geneva, June 20-21, 2001, p. 5, 6.
[42] Ibid.
[43] Ibid. p. 8.
 

Israel should preempt Hizballah now
http://fresnozionism.org/2012/09/israel-should-preempt-hizballah-now/
Hizballah rocket launcher. These are dug in throughout southern Lebanon
As Israel comes closer to a confrontation with Iran, we should note that Iran’s primary strategy is unlikely to be direct conflict with Israel. Iran’s air and missile forces, despite their bragging, are not sufficiently well-developed to support such a conflict.
Instead, I expect that they will depend on their main proxy, Hizballah. Hizballah can be expected to attack with its considerable missile forces and even to attempt ground incursions into Israeli territory. At the same time, Iran will try to leverage Western fears of terrorism and oil-supply disruption into pressure on Israel; so we can also expect to see terrorist attacks against Western targets.
The difficulty of destroying or seriously damaging Iran’s nuclear capability is much-discussed, but I think the neutralization of Hizballah will also be a major task, and one of more immediate importance. In the short term, the number of Israeli casualties and the amount of damage to the home front in a conflict with Iran will be proportional to the time it takes the IDF to end Hizballah’s ability to fight.
Hizballah is also an essential component of Iran’s long-term strategy, whether or not she succeeds in building a bomb. A nuclear Iran is more likely to pursue her interests in the region by threats and low-intensity conventional conflict under a nuclear umbrella than by actual use of atomic weapons, which would expose her to devastating retaliation.
In 2006, the Bush Administration gave Israel a month to finish Hizballah. Israel did not make use of the opportunity because of the incompetence of the government and top military commanders, complacency, lack of planning, poor intelligence, etc. I believe that these problems have been fixed to a great extent.
Although one might expect Obama to be less cooperative, it’s possible that the administration’s closeness with conservative Sunni interests — primarily Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or even Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood — which are natural enemies of Hizballah, might lead it to wait before lowering the boom.
On the other hand, if Hizballah terrorists are car-bombing buildings in New York, Los Angeles or Washington, there will be enormous pressure on Israel to end the conflict (yes, it’s irrational, but we’ve seen this response before). I don’t think that Israel can count on getting a month this time.
If I were an Israeli planner I would think about a preemptive attack on Hizballah — separately from and before attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, for the following reasons:
Hizballah is the most immediate threat to Israel
Hizballah will be Iran’s major weapon of retaliation if Israel strikes Iran
By not attacking Iran, Israel does not give the regime an excuse to disrupt oil supplies
The IDF can concentrate on defeating Hizballah
It’s always better to initiate than to respond
The chaos in Syria makes it easier to isolate Hizballah from its source of supply and keeps the Syrian military too busy to intervene
I would stress the importance of a short campaign, which will probably mean the use of massive force. Hizballah is very well dug-in in southern Lebanon, and an operation aborted by international pressure could be disastrous.
If Israel can be successful in removing Hizballah from the equation, Iran will be greatly weakened, Israel’s security and posture of deterrence will be strengthened, and the chances for future military action (or even diplomacy) to keep Iran from getting the bomb will improve.