LCCC ENGLISH NEWS BULLETIN
September 16/06
Reading: Commentary of the day : Saint
Bonaventure
“There is your mother.”Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 2,33-35.
The child's father and mother were amazed at what was said about him;
and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, "Behold, this child is
destined for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be
contradicted
(and you yourself a sword will pierce) so that the thoughts of many hearts may
be revealed."
Opinions
Annan's Regional Tour and Missed Opportunity: By: Raghida Dergham
Pressures Mount on Bush to Bomb Iran. By: Patrick Seale
Annan's Regional Tour and Missed Opportunity-Dar Al-Hayat
Latest New from Miscellaneous sources for September 16/06
Israel fears Damascus organizing own guerrillas following-WorldNetDaily
Israel May Complete Lebanon Withdrawal in Two Weeks, UN Says-Bloomberg
Canada Questions Laws After Rampage-CBS News
Muslim Leaders Blast Pope's Comments-Washington Post
Republicans Defy Bush On Terror-Detainee Rights-MTV.com
Nasrallah's Malaise-Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Israel, Hizbollah weigh post-war prisoner swap-Reuters
Arab MKs praise Hizbullah on Beirut visit-Ynetnews
Israel May Complete Lebanon Withdrawal in Two Weeks, UN Says-Bloomberg
750 Spanish Troops Arrive in Lebanon-Washington Post
Syria seeks EU help on arms control-Financial Times
Lahoud Seeks Resolution Against Israel at Nonaligned Summit-Naharnet
UN Lebanon deaths 'tragic error'-BBC
News
Spanish troops join UN force in Lebanon-Euronews.net
Corruption scandals wrack an Israel already reeling-Boston Herald
Russian contingent in Lebanon to have guards with light weapons-1-RIA Novosti
UN Lebanon force chief cites lack of cooperation from Beirut-Monsters and Critics.com
Egyptian Activists Turn Against Israel
Qassam rockets continues to land in Israel-People's Daily Online
Latest New THe Daily Star for September 16/06
Bush warns against Iranian 'stalling' in nuclear negotiations
Muslim leaders flay pope's remarks
Beirut tries to ease tensions, limit implications of
1701
Troops trade blows with smugglers in North
UN rapporteur ends mission to probe Israeli
violations of right to food
Logistical hurdles cause delays in deployment of
UNIFIL troops
UN peacekeeping boss wants Lebanon to serve as a
model
Collective punishment: Israel's use of American-made
cluster bombs poses greater threat than expected to South Lebanese
Abu al-Aynayn denies plans to relocate north of
Litani
Hizbullah rejects Amnesty report on war crimes
EU speaker touts role of Europe in peace process
Rerouting aid to cover budget deficit can offset opportunity losses
Hariri Airport buzzes with activity as thousands of Lebanese return home
Environmental groups accuse government of 'weakness'
'I came to help people, not to be used politically'
'Falafel' satisfies with the sweet and the savory
Violence has no place in the Islamic response to
papal errors
White House sends peace vibrations at Tehran -By
David Ignatius
Latest
New from Daily Star for September 15/06
UN: Israel's fence in Lebanon is 'small violation'
Hizbullah: Fighters still in South Lebanon
3 Arab Knesset members pay visit to Lebanon
Lahoud to focus on war fallout in Cuba
Sfeir 'blames Hizbullah' for state of affairs in Lebanon
German court orders release of suspect in foiled bomb plot
Geagea describes Hizbullah victory as 'imaginary'
Environmental Party criticizes oil-spill response
Slow reconstruction process may lead to spike in
emigration
Lebanon has a peace force, why not deploy one for Palestine?
A chance for reform after the devastation -By
Paul Salem
Iran: 'We are parties to dialogue and negotiation'
Ex-Israeli Army chief calls on Olmert to quit
End’ is near for Hezbollah
Posted on 9/14/2006
Ahmed Al-Jarallah
By Ahmed Al-Jarallah
Editor-in-Chief, the Arab Times
TALK about Hezbollah confirms the presence and desire of Iran to control the
Middle East. Tehran doesn’t mind the existence of Israel and will even strike an
alliance with the enemy as long as their interests match. Accordingly, Hezbollah
has been playing the role of aggravator to perfection to give Israel the green
light to launch attacks on Lebanon.
There has been no need for resistance since the Israeli withdrawal in 2000.
However, the resistance has stayed claiming the Shebaa Farms are still under
Israeli occupation. This is nothing but an excuse to retain foreign control over
southern Lebanon. The role of Hezbollah was obvious when it gave a valid excuse
to Israeli forces to destroy Lebanon. At the same time the Israeli strike has
given the resistance a wonderful excuse to stay on.
Immediately after its end, both the involved parties started debating who won
the war. Hezbollah has claimed victory based on reports carried by the
democratic mass media of Israel. The real loser is Lebanon, which has been
devastated and lost hundreds of innocent lives.
After claiming victory in the war and with its confidence in the Lebanese
democracy, Hezbollah is trying to play another role in Lebanon by demanding the
replacement of the existing government with a new one in which it wants to have
one third of the seats. Hassan Nasrallah, who wants to bring back Syria’s voice
to the Lebanese parliament, is underestimating Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and
doubting the Lebanese government’s ability to handle its responsibilities.
Such confrontations, which have nothing to do with politics, are aimed at
finding excuses for the existence of Hezbollah, especially after its failure to
achieve its objectives and promises. After realizing it is being neglected by
its foreign ally, Hezbollah is facing difficulties in trying to fit inside
Lebanon.
Hezbollah is passing through a tough time and crisis after losing popularity in
its homeland. People are not afraid of Hezbollah’s intellectual terrorism any
longer and Nasrallah’s loud voice doesn’t necessarily mean his power and
influence remain undiminished.
With Hezbollah about to exit from the equation in Lebanon, we are reminded of
the old saying “What goes up must come down.”
e-mail: ahmedjarallah@hotmail.com
Pressures Mount on Bush to Bomb Iran
Patrick Seale Al-Hayat - 15/09/06//
President George W Bush is coming under enormous pressure from Israel -- and
from Israel's neo-con friends inside and outside the U.S. administration -- to
harden still further his stance towards Iran.
They want the American President to commit himself to bombing Iran if it does
not give up its programme of uranium enrichment - and to issue a clear ultimatum
to Tehran that he is prepared to do so. They argue that mere rhetoric - such as
Bush's recent diatribe, in which he compared Iran to al-Qaida -- is not enough,
and might even be counter-productive, as it might encourage the Iranians to
think that America's bark is worse than its bite.
Hard-liners in Israel and the United States believe that only military action,
or the credible threat of it, will now prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear
weapons, with all that this would mean in terms of Israel's security and the
balance of power in the strategically vital Middle East.
Fears that Bush might succumb to this Israeli and neo-con pressure is beginning
to cause serious alarm in Moscow, Beijing, Berlin, Paris, Rome and other world
capitals where, as if to urge caution on Washington, political leaders are
increasingly speaking out in favour of dialogue with Tehran and against the use
of military force.
The quickening international debate over Iran's nuclear activities comes at a
difficult time for Israel, where Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is fighting for his
political life and for that of his ruling Kadima-Labour coalition.
The Iran problem is causing particular concern because it raises fundamental
questions about the continued validity of the security doctrine Israel has
forged over the past half century. A central plank of this doctrine is that, to
be safe, Israel must dominate the region militarily and be stronger than any
possible Arab or Muslim coalition.
The doctrine received a severe knock from Israel's inconclusive war in Lebanon,
which demonstrated the country's vulnerability to Hizballah's missiles and to
the challenge of 'asymmetric' guerrilla warfare.
Israelis -- especially those living in the more exposed north of the country
where up to a million people took refuge in shelters - were shocked to discover
that the war was being waged on Israel's home territory. All previous wars had
been waged on Arab territory alone, and this had become something of an axiom
for the IDF.
Another cause of anxiety for Israel's right-wing - the settler movement, the
nationalist-religious parties, the Likud and the right-dominated Kadima - is
that Israel is coming under increasing international pressure to negotiate with
the Palestinians, with a view to the creation of a Palestinian state.
Influential voices are calling for an international conference - a sort of
Madrid II - to re-launch the peace process.
Overcoming the crippling conflict between Hamas and Fatah, the Palestinians
themselves are forming a national unity government, which will make it more
difficult for Israel to claim that it has 'no partner' with whom to negotiate.
Even British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whom the Israelis believed had been
firmly co-opted into the U.S.-Israeli camp, has recently called for the economic
boycott of the Palestinians to be lifted once the unity government is in place.
This is all very bad news for right-wingers in Israel and their American
supporters. They had hoped that the 'land-for-peace' formula of UN Security
Council Resolution 242 of 1967 had been finally buried. They want to break the
Palestinian national movement - hence Olmert's unremitting assault on Gaza and
the West Bank -- rather than negotiate a political compromise with it. They want
to seize more Palestinian land, not to withdraw to anything like the 1967
borders.
Such is the background to the outcry over Iran's nuclear activities. An Iranian
bomb would end Israel's regional monopoly of nuclear weapons. It would force
Israel to accept something like a balance of power, or at least a balance of
deterrence.
Israelis claim vociferously that an Iranian bomb would pose an 'existential
threat' to their state. It is not clear whether they really believe that Iran
might attack them and risk national suicide -- an Armageddon scenario -- or
simply that they cannot contemplate a Middle East in which they would no longer
be overwhelmingly strong, and in which their freedom to attack their neighbours
and crush the Palestinians might be circumscribed.
When it destroyed Iraq's French-built nuclear reactor in 1981, Israel made clear
that it would strike pre-emptively against the nuclear programme of any hostile
state in the region. The message which it and its friends are now addressing to
President Bush is that if the U.S. does not bomb Iran, Israel will have to do
so.
This was put unambiguously in an article last week by Efraim Inbar, professor of
political science at Bar-Ilan University and a well-known right-wing Israeli
analyst. 'Israel,' he wrote, 'can undertake a limited pre-emptive strike. Israel
certainly commands the weaponry, the manpower, and the guts to effectively take
out key Iranian nuclear facilities… While less suited to do the job than the
United States, the Israeli military is capable of reaching the appropriate
targets in Iran. With more to lose than the U.S. if Iran becomes nuclear, Israel
has more incentive to strike.'
These views are echoed by pro-Israeli writers in the United States, such as
Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute. 'Offers of dialogue with
Iran are a waste of time,' she wrote. 'Iran has pursued ruthless oppression at
home, terrorism abroad and weapons proliferation, largely with impunity… We have
talked about talking for long enough, there must be other options.' Ominously
she warned Iran, 'It is not wise to force American into a choice between doing
nothing and doing everything. But it may come to that.'
Commentators like Inbar and Pletka, and many others in America and Israel who
share their hard-line views, are deeply suspicious of what they see as Iran's
duplicity, which they fear has seduced the Europeans. They are outraged by the
negotiations which Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief, is pursuing
with Ali Larijani, Iran's principal nuclear negotiator.
The reported suggestion that Iran might suspend uranium enrichment for a month
or two is seen as a trick to divide the Security Council and remove the threat
of sanctions. They suspect that the international community is edging towards a
position of allowing Iran to produce nuclear fuel under International Atomic
Energy Agency safeguards. For the hard-liners, this would be one step away from
tolerating an Iranian bomb in the not too distant future.
The real fear of the hard-liners is that the United States might agree to direct
talks with Iran which would legitimise the theocratic regime, vastly increase
Iran's stature as the dominant power in the Gulf, and eventually downgrade
Israel as America's exclusive regional ally.
For Washington's neo-cons, the battle to shape U.S. policy towards Iran is a
crucial test of their dwindling influence. They played a decisive role in
persuading the U.S. to make war on Iraq. They clamoured for the destruction of
the Hamas government in the Palestinian territories. They gave fervent support
to Israel's war on Hizballah, relentlessly portrayed as a 'terrorist movement'
and as the armed outpost of Iran.
But the neo-cons have lost ground in Washington. The war in Iraq has turned into
a strategic catastrophe, with another disaster looming in Afghanistan.
Anti-Americanism in the Arab and Muslim world is at record levels. Leading
neo-cons like Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby have left the
Administration. For the remaining neo-cons - and their standard-bearer, William
Kristol editor of The Weekly Standard losing the argument over Iran could be a
terminal blow.
Their ultimate nightmare is that the United States may have to come to rely on
Iran to help stabilise the dangerously chaotic situation in both Afghanistan and
Iran. The visit to Tehran this week of Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is,
from their point of view, a ghastly pointer in that direction. End
Annan's Regional Tour and Missed Opportunity
Raghida Dergham Al-Hayat - 15/09/06//
New York - Kofi Annan is a good, ethical man who wishes to leave the post of UN
Secretary General with an accomplishment that would be added to his historical
career. He believes that such an achievement could be accomplished in the
Lebanon and the Middle East files.
However, his dream would be threatened by a major failure if he sustains the
approach he employed in his last visit to the region, despite the intermittent
successes in some of the files.
For his known trait, characterized by the ability to sail through while avoiding
involvement, might cost him his career and ambitions. Moreover, the negative
outcome on Lebanon and Palestine may be exorbitant. Hence, unless he stops,
rectifies, and thinks 'outside the traditional frame' when dealing with the
Middle East conflict and the balance of powers in the aftermath of the war on
Iraq, Kofi Annan might unintentionally contribute to a serious deterioration in
Lebanon and Palestine.
What the UN Secretary General must realize first and foremost is that the
element of time might turn against him, serving agendas that contradict his
faithful aspirations for Lebanon and the region. He should scrutinize the
requirements for sparing Lebanon a series of sabotages, assassinations, and
maybe even upcoming wars, because he may be held accountable for some of them
after it is too late.
He should stop repeating the tune regarding the interconnectedness of solutions
for Lebanon, Palestine and Syria in the conflict with Israel, because it is the
Syrian regime's tune, holding Lebanon and Palestine as hostages as means to
reclaim the Golan Heights.
If Kofi Annan's intention is to be fair and balanced in his position toward the
Arab-Israeli conflict, then he has plenty of opportunities to demonstrate his
resoluteness in basic principals. As a start, he has a clear case of occupation.
It is among his duties as the Secretary General to declare, and repeatedly
declare, that he is against this occupation, and that Israel must end its
occupation of all Arab territories.
Then there is Israel's record, rife with violations of international human
rights laws, which Annan has not addressed, expect for a reproof here and a
condemnation there, via his spokesman. The Secretary General could show more
concern, and can personally, and on each occasion, object to Israel's violation
of the international law, human rights and international human laws to pressure
it to cease committing such violations.
Kofi Annan's last report on Resolution 1701 did not blame Israel for its use of
cluster bombs in Lebanon or for its excessive and abhorrent violence in striking
at Lebanese infrastructure. It even avoided directing any criticism to Israel,
an alleged necessary balancing element in exchange for not criticizing Hezbollah
for dragging Lebanon into war without the least regard to the Lebanese
government's stance.
This imbalance is against the interests of both Lebanon and Israel, and places
Kofi Annan in an unfavorable light by emphasizing his scarce courage in calling
a spade a spade.
Kofi Annan's compliments to Syria and Iran also seem in line with the 'balance'
for not criticizing Israel, but it actually came to serve Syria and Iran, as
well as Hezbollah's leadership in a suspicious way that led to many questions
regarding who and what influence Kofi Annan's thinking.
For this is not the first time that Annan has displayed appeasement and
acceptance of Syrian and Iranian approaches as though he sees Damascus and
Tehran as partners in some mysterious project only he is capable of
comprehending and implementing.
Annan and his advisors might be under the impression that the
Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis is challenging the US-Israeli axis. Hence, it is the
axis speaking for Arab and Islamic rights. If this is what is truly in Annan and
his advisors' minds, then they should all reconsider, otherwise the contribution
of this team to the region's future will be one of doom.
Accordingly, it is not necessary for the UN Secretary General and his team to
seek 'balance' through insisting on some intertwined solutions for Lebanon,
Palestine, and Syria, because the war of axes, in which Damascus enters as an
active and direct party, will lead to the flagrant exploitation of Lebanon and
occupied Palestine.
The Secretary General and his team were better off openly objecting to the
proposals by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that he will not co-operate or
assist in liberating the Shebaa Farms from Israeli occupation unless he is
guaranteed an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights.
Annan ought to have openly opposed this proposal, instead of voluntarily
conveying it to the headquarters of the international organization. Since the
Shebaa Farms issue - and Kofi Annan knows this very well - was created by
Damascus to implicate Lebanon.
Why, then, has Annan agreed to convey the scandalous Syrian stance taking the
Shebaa Farms hostage for the Golan Heights, when he knows that abstaining from
dealing with the Shebaa Farms aims at overthrowing the Lebanese government
headed by Fouad Siniora through allowing Hezbollah to claim the right to
resistance to liberate the Farms from Israeli occupation?
Kofi Annan opened the door in his report to the possibility of working with
Israel, Syria and Lebanon to resolve the Shebaa Farms issue based on a proposal
by the Lebanese government to end the occupation of the farms and place the area
under an international guardianship until the demarcation of the Lebanese-Syrian
borders, which will decide on the farms' geography.
He said in his report that he "took note of the Lebanese government's proposal
to place the area of the Shebaa Farms and Kfar Shouba at its proximity under the
UN supervision until the final border demarcation" pointing out that "this
measure requires a precise geographical definition of the area as per my letter
to Al Siniora in June 2006, and I am currently considering this possibility from
all its geographical, legal and political aspects, while its adoption is
eventually up the Security Council."
Annan did well to leave the door open to the Lebanese government's proposal, but
frankly, he did not present the issue of the Shebaa Farms in his report and
during his visit firmly enough, neither with Israel nor Syria. The Secretary
General should have given this issue a clear priority during his talks with the
Israeli leadership, informing it that the international community - which it now
needs the most - will not be able to assist it unless it drinks from the 'cup of
poison', if it believes that placing the Shebaa Farms under UN supervision
constitutes a 'reward' to Hezbollah.
Kofi Annan should have unequivocally informed Israel that its refusal to place
the Farms under international guardianship dramatically undermines the Lebanese
government, which needs to eliminate Hezbollah and Syria's pretexts, and to be
able to exercise its sovereignty and deploy the its army in the South and along
the borders to prevent the flow of arms to Hezbollah and the Palestinian
factions, as well as to what Syria claims to be al-Qaeda elements that have
infiltrated into Lebanon.
As for Israel, Kofi Annan was not firm with Syria, despite his mandate delegated
by the Security Council, and which stemmed from international Resolutions, most
prominently, 1559 and 1680, which made clear demands on Damascus, including the
demarcation of borders to include the Shebaa Farms.
Kofi Annan conveyed Syrian promises to demark the borders in his report as an
achievement. He could have been rightfully proud of such an achievement if he
had returned with time lines, and start and end dates for demarcation.
Had he achieved guarantees that Damascus was ready to exchange ambassadors and
set up embassies as attestation of its recent recognition of Lebanon's
independence, he would have been able to rightfully claim that he had made a
breakthrough. Had he produced an explicit Syrian agreement to the deployment of
international forces on the Lebanese-Syrian borders to prevent infiltration and
arms smuggling, he would have been able to rightfully bestow on Syria the mark
of excellence he gave it in his report. But there is nothing in his report to
indicate his motive for rewarding Damascus or Iran with the mark of excellence.
Annan bestowed this mark on Iran in the conclusion of his report without even
bothering to add a paragraph that tells us why Tehran deserved such recognition.
And this is an example of the truncated nature of the report, characterized by
dangerous failure toward Lebanon and the region, and perhaps toward Annan's
aspirations of a distinguished resume.
The Secretary General seemed apologetic on behalf of Iran's President, Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, who seeks lip service in what he calls 'negotiations', as a way to
buy time and stall the nuclear file, while not proving any commitment whatsoever
in contributing to the implementation of Resolution 1701.
What is worse is that Resolution 1701 practically demanded that Iran and Syria
stop supplying Hezbollah with weapons, but the Secretary General's report failed
to mention any commitment by Iran to withhold weapons or refrain from smuggling
them though Syria to Hezbollah and the Palestinian and Non-Palestinian factions
with the aim of sabotage in Lebanon.
He, nonetheless, exempted Iran from answering such issues and gave it a mark of
excellence.
Indeed, Kofi Annan and his team realize that according to Iranian calculations,
Palestine and Lebanon are no more than an appendix for exploitation and abuse in
the files of its regional and nuclear ambitions. Indeed, they realize that
instability in Lebanon is extremely lucrative for Iran, and is a source of
petrodollars. Indeed, they realize that it is a carefully studied policy
equivalent to the policy of buying time and stalling, leading to a 'mild
escalation' in the nuclear file, which in turn translates into money from the
oil markets and petrodollars.
They realize that the leadership in Iran hijacks the Palestinian Cause, not for
the sake of providing salvation to the Palestinians from occupation, but to
trade their misery for the usual Israeli-Iranian appeasement and for subjecting
the Islamic World to the imperialistic ideology emanating from Tehran.
Kofi Annan, as he has stated, does not believe in the isolation policy, but in
the involvement policy. However, in his considerations toward Iran, he overlooks
that Tehran finds that isolation is indeed in its interests, and that it is not
willing to become involved because reciprocation is not what it wants. Rather,
isolation protects it from demands.
In his report, Kofi Annan failed to shoulder the burden and responsibility. He
has not made any proposals, and has missed a golden opportunity. He may not have
lost it completely, despite his terrible dereliction in seizing it, and despite
the astonishment at the content in his report to the Security Council.
He succeeded in helping to lift the Israeli blockade on Lebanon, which is an
important achievement that deserves appreciation as much as mobilizing key
nations to participate in the formation of the UNIFIL 2 forces, and monitoring
the borders to prevent the smuggling of weapons into Lebanon. Such are the
achievements for which Kofi Annan deserves all the appreciation for his
fundamental contribution.
But this does not exclude the seriousness of the content of his report on the
participation troops in the UNIFIL 2 forces, and on the Lebanese government,
despite Fouad Siniora's wish that the report was to carry a tone of flexibility,
and not imply threats or warnings.
For the language of threats and warnings lies within the area of expertise of
Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah, who also knows when to use it.
This was clear when Nasrallah deliberately stated on the eve of Annan's report
that the Lebanese government is not qualified to honor commitments.
As a surprise, two days later in a press conference, Kofi Annan declared that he
had no knowledge of Hezbollah's demands for the resignation of the Lebanese
movement, and for that reason, he had "no comment" on the principle, but voiced,
nevertheless, his overwhelming support of Siniora's government, calling on the
Lebanese to do the same.
He also vehemently objected to the criticism that he did not come up with any
concrete proposals, saying that if he were to disclose the content of the
conversations he holds with world leaders, they would only speak to him about
the 'weather' and 'grandchildren' afterward.
Annan became very agitated and blocked follow-up questions when he heard a
question about his unjustified and publicly announced marks of excellence, and
his failure to utilize the opportunity given by the Security Council to make
proposals. He vehemently responded by saying: "I don't think that anyone in this
hall or in the region believes that my trip to the region was a waste of time or
a missed opportunity."
Of course not. The visit was not a waste of time, but the report was a wasted
opportunity, but even that is not the end of the road. Kofi Annan delivered this
report 30 days after the adoption of Resolution 1701, and might ask the Security
Council for more time for its completion and the inclusion of concrete
proposals, which is good.
What the Secretary General should be aware of as he embarks on his work to
implement Resolution 1701 to solve the Middle East's issues is that Lebanon is
his - the Secretariat General's - and the UN's greatest test. This is for the
record, so that Kofi Annan does not claim later that he never heard or realized
his personal responsibility toward the international tribunal, which is publicly
opposed by the Syrian government for an unknown reason, considering that the
tribunal will try those involved in the assassination of late Lebanese Prime
Minister Rafiq Hariri and his comrades.
The Syrian government, with support from Iran, intends to abort the formation of
this international tribunal, and is continuing to pursue its objective of
toppling the Lebanese government through Hezbollah and its other allies, since
this tribunal requires the unanimous support of the government. Hence, toppling
the government means toppling the tribunal; it is the objective Damascus seeks
to achieve by any means possible.
Syrian officials interrogated about copycat terror group
Israel fears Damascus organizing own guerrillas following Hezbollah 'victory' in
Lebanon
Posted: September 15, 2006
By Aaron Klein
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
TEL AVIV – Israeli police yesterday interrogated members of Syrian President
Bashar Assad's Baath Party living in the Israeli-captured Golan Heights
regarding information – first reported by WorldNetDaily – the party is forming
its own Hezbollah-like guerrilla organization.
The Baath officials were arrested but were released after several hours of
questioning. They claimed they did not know anything about the new organization,
police sources said. The officials' arrests followed an announcement this past
weekend by Israeli Defense Forces chief of intelligence Amos Yadlin that Israel
believes Syria is in the initial stages of developing the concept for a copycat
Hezbollah group, which he said would launch attacks aimed at pressuring the
Jewish state into vacating the Golan Heights. The Heights is strategic
mountainous territory captured by Israel after Syria used the terrain to attack
the Jewish state in 1967 and again in 1973. The area borders Israel, Syria and
Lebanon and is claimed by Damascus. Yadlin's announcement came one month after
WND broke the story that following its estimation Hezbollah was victorious last
month during military confrontations with Israel, Syria is in the process of
forming what an official from Assad's Baath Party called the Front for the
Liberation of the Golan Heights, a new "resistance" group that models itself
after Hezbollah. The official told WND the Front will attempt attacks to force
Israel from the Golan.
Military officials here long have maintained returning the Golan Heights to
Syria would grant Damascus the ability to mount an effective ground invasion of
the Jewish state. The territory looks down on major Israeli and Syrian
population centers.
Eight Syrian Baath officials live in the Israeli-occupied sections of the Golan
Heights. They can technically become Israeli residents. The Heights has a
population of about 35,000 people – approximately 18,000 Jewish residents and
17,000 Arabs, mostly Druze. The Arab residents retain their Syrian citizenship,
but under Israeli law can also sue for Israeli citizenship. The Baath party
official told WND Syria learned from Hezbollah's military campaign against
Israel the past month that "fighting" is more effective than peace negotiations
with regard to gaining territory. Hezbollah claims its goal is to liberate the
Shebaa Farms, a small, 125-square-mile bloc situated between Syria, Lebanon and
Israel. The cease-fire resolution accepted by Israel to end its military
campaign in Lebanon calls for negotiations leading to Israel's relinquishing of
the Shebaa Farms. The Baath official told WND the Front for the Liberation of
the Golan Heights was formed in June and that the group consists of Syrian
volunteers, many from the Syrian border with Turkey and from Palestinian refugee
camps near Damascus. He said Syria held registration for volunteers to join the
Front in June. One week after the WND article detailing the claimed group was
published, state-run Al-Alam Iranian television featured an interview with a man
who identified himself as the leader of the new Front for the Liberation of the
Golan.
The man, whose features were blocked out, said his new group consists of
"hundreds" of fighters who are training for guerrilla-like raids against Israeli
positions in and near the Golan. He claimed the Front has opened several
training camps inside Syria.