The Daily Packet

Post Gaddafi Libya… The Scenarios

2011-09-15T21:26:00.006+03:00

The February 17 revolution in Libya is nearly in control of the country after 40 long years of Moamar Gaddafi’s dictatorship. However, the incomplete fall of Gaddafi’s regime poses a number of challenges and facts.

In a large country with only six million people living in it, the deep-rooted tribal structure of Libya’s social infrastructure suggests the likelihood of a prominent division among 120 tribes, 30 of which are very influential. In his 40 years of rule, Gaddafi succeeded in undermining the power of the State’s institutions and cementing the tribal identity. Gaddafi also built up the elements of tribal division and conflict by rewarding loyal tribes and punishing other defying tribes. This will definitely have serious reverberations throughout the whole– maybe long - process of shifting to democracy in Libya.

SAMPLES OF THE CHALLENGES

- Will the tribes be willing to comply with the authority of the law that could exceed the limits of their own rules and customs?
- Will some tribes seek vengeance from other tribes at this present time of state-of-no-law in Libya?
- Will the tribes come to an understanding on the political gravitas and the political representation of each tribe in any new regime?

LIBERALS, ISLAMISTS, HIDDEN AGENDAS AND..HARMOY
Competition at the political and military levels is a not less serious challenge than the tribal factor.

The combination of the revolution forces itself comprises figures who had participated in the 1969 coup and they are currently in active duty at the Military Council. Some of these figures, like Major General Abdul Fattah Younis, were killed in mysterious circumstances, others who have lived long years in exile – mainly in the US – are regarded as liberals and moderates, and finally there are the “Islamists”. It is still hard to know whether these constituents – who also have their own tribal authorities and possibly specific agendas, will be able to harmonize.

Speaking of agendas, NATO is very much focused on keeping control of Libya’s oil and the country’s political and economic transition process. Ultimately, such challenges affirm that the situation in Libya has started a very long and possibly disturbed way towards evolution.

SCENARIOS
CIVIL WAR
Anyway, it goes without saying that the West has played a central role in redirecting the conflict by imposing a change of power balance to the benefit of the rebels. Yet the next phase could see different scenarios like civil war on tribal backgrounds, if serious understandings were not reached on distributing power, mainly among the 30 influential tribes.

MILITARY RULE
Another scenario could see Libya under military rule given that a number of senior military officers are supported by major Libyan tribes. However, four decades of suffering under Gaddafi’s military rule could prevent such scenario from becoming reality.

GREY ZONE
Libya could as well stay in the grey zone, or in the transitional period, for a long time as this could cause tardiness in the process for change. This scenario, nonetheless, is likely in Libya; the country that has fractional, if no democratic experience at all throughout its history. Weak independent institutions – legislative, judicial, etc… - ineffective civil society bodies, and the complicated tribal structure also add to the likelihood of a grey zone materializing in Libya.

FEDERAL LIBYA
During their reign 1551–1911, the Ottomans divided Libya into three provinces: Barqa in the East, Tripoli in the West, and Fezzan in the South. To this day, this administrative division has not practically changed, even though there had been at least eight attempts to change it since independence in 1951.

Despite the fact that a federal Libya serves in defusing power struggles across the country, and given that ethnic, religious, and sectarian harmony amongst tribes could stop the evolution of federalism into separatism, the distribution of the country’s riches and resources vary significantly between one province and another. This could probably trigger a conflict between provinces, fed by tribal divisions as well.

Hard days are awaiting Libya, while the main concern of the Libyans now is to establish a new rule they brought in a revolution on 40 years of tyranny. When they finally clear Libya from the remnants of the Gaddafi regime, their other main concern should become to close ranks and protect their riches and resources from slipping away from them while they fight each other.

أين إسرائيل في وثائق ويكيليكس؟

2010-11-30T15:27:00.009+02:00

أين إسرائيل في وثائق ويكيليكس؟
كيف يمكن لمنظمة أن تحصل على وثائق سرية على غرار ما يحصل في موقع ويكيليكس؟
المقصود من السؤال ليس الوثائق السرية بحد ذاتها، بل عددها الذي يصل الى الملايين.
من يملك القدرة على الوصول الى هذا الكم من الوثائق السرية؟ والأهم من يستفيد من نشرها في هذا التوقيت بالذات؟

يقول المثل: إخدعني مرة، عار عليك، إخدعني مرتين، عار علي.
فما بالك بالمخادع المجتهد في تطوير أساليبه منذ ستين عاماً.

لا يخفى في الولايات المتحدة او في إسرائيل أن العلاقات بين إدارتي نتنياهو وأوباما ليستا على ما يرام، حتى وصل الأمر بالرئيس الأميركي أن يسمح لإسرائيل بابتزازه بمليارات الدولارات وطائرات أف-35 مقابل 90 يوماً من وقف الاستيطان، طبعاً مع استثناء القدس الشرقية المحتلة. لكن بعض الخبراء الأميركيين لا يستغربون، ويقولون إن أوباما يتصرف تماماً كما يتوقع منه من جاء به الى سدّة الرئاسة، وأن كل من يتفاجأ بعدم تغير السياسة الأميركية في الشرق الأوسط، فلا بد أنه لا يفهم قوة وقدرة اللوبي الصهيوني.

ما تريده إسرائيل من الولايات المتحدة، وتحديداً من أوباما الضّعيف قد حصلت عليه، فما عاد أحد يسمع بمفاوضات ما يسمى "السلام"، فيما عين العالم كله على إسرائيل المتهمة بعرقلة العملية السلمية. إنه الوقت المناسب لتحويل الأنظار عنها وتسليطها على ما تبقى من إدارة أوباما، الذي يتربص له المحافظون الجدد عند كل زاوية. وهم نجحوا في تثبيت الصهيوني الأميركي "إريك كانتور" على رأس الأغلبية في الكونغرس الأميركي في الانتخابات النصفية. وعندها فقط، ارتاح أفيغدور ليبرمان وقال إن الاتفاق الدائم مع الفلسطينيين مستحيل، وكان قبله نتنياهو قد قال إنه موافق على استكمال المفاوضات، قالها قبل إنجاز الصفقة الاخيرة مع أوباما.

ماذا تبقى لأوباما؟ علاقاته مع الخارج ومصداقية الولايات المتحدة؟
العلاقات يمكن إعادة بنائها والمصداقية يمكن استعادتها، خصوصاً إذا كان من اتهم بصنعها رئيس له جذور إسلامية وفشل في كل شيء عملياً منذ توليه السلطة.

والأوفر حظاً حتى الساعة للتصدي لمهمة إعادة الثقة بالولايات المتحدة في مرحلة ما بعد أوباما هي هيلاري كلينتون، المتعصبة لإسرائيل والمَرضي عنها في أوساط اللوبي الصهيوني في أميركا AIPAC.
في عام 2008 وأثناء حملتها الانتخابية، وعدت زوجة الرئيس السابق بيل كلينتون إسرائيل بالاعتراف بيهودية الدولة وبعدم تقسيم القدس واعتبارها عاصمة الكيان العبري.

في زمن الأمم، فإن سنتين باقيتين على الانتخابات الرئاسية ليستا بالوقت الكثير. ويمكن تخيل كلينتون عام 2012 وهي تؤدي القسم وتحافظ على التزاماتها مع اسرائيل.

ولكن أين ويكيليكس من كل هذا؟
مما لا شك فيه أن نشر الموقع لهذا الكم من الوثائق السرية يوفر لإسرائيل فرصة لتقويض علاقة الولايات المتحدة مع الخارج، أقله مرحلياً.
في مقالة لـ"جون شتاين" نشرت في صحيفة الواشنطن بوست قبل بضعة أيام، ومن ثم دفنت في مهدها، ورد أن موظفاً سابقاً لدى AIPAC قد طرد بسبب تجسسه على الولايات المتحدة، وأنه في صدد مقاضاة المنظمة. وبحسب المقالة، فإن الموظف ويدعى "ستيف روزن"، رئيس السياسة الخارجية في آيباك سابقاً، سيقدم خلال جلسات المحاكمة أدلة على أن أعداداً كبيرة من الوثائق السرية، خصوصاً ما يتعلق منها بالشرق الأوسط، تصل الى آيباك وإسرائيل بشكل مستمر، ومن هذه الأدلة بحسب قوله، إيصالات استلام الوثائق السرية الموقعة من المنظمة الصهيونية.

كيف ينطبق ذلك على ويكيليكس؟ وربما السؤال الأمثل هو: كيف لا ينطبق ذلك على ويكيليكس التي يعمل عشرات الموظفين فيها على مدار الساعة لتحضير وثائق سرية بهذا الشكل، فيما لا يملك أحداً سبيلاً للوصول إليها سوى من يُنظَر إليه في الولايات المتحدة بأنه فوق القانون، أي اللوبي الصهيوني آيباك؟

وهل من قبيل الصدفة أن لا نرى في تسريبات ويكيليكس ما يمس بإسرائيل وتورطها في التجسس والإرهاب في لبنان، والعراق، واليمن، وفلسطين، وباكستان، والصومال، وإيران، وغيرهم؟

جرائم إسرائيل التي لا تجد لها طريقاً في الاعلام الغربي، هي نفسها التي لن تجد لها مسرباً في ويكيليكس.

فعندما قدم الجنرال "ديفيد بترايوس" دراسته الشهيرة للأدميرال "مايكل مولن"، رئيس أركان الجيش الأميركي، يحدد فيها كيف تقوّض إسرائيل السياسة الخارجية الأميركية، لم يكن الرجل حينها يؤسس على الفراغ، بل كانت أمامه حتماً عشرات، وربما مئات وآلاف الوثائق التي نشرها الموقع دفعة واحدة، ولم يأتي على نشر واحدة منها تتعلق بإسرائيل.

وبحسب المراقبين الأميركيين، فإن سكوت أوباما هو نتيجة خوفه من أن يلاقي المصير ذاته الذي لقيه الرئيس السابق "جيمي كارتر"، وهو الذي اتهمه اللوبي الصهيوني ومعه اسرائيل بمعاداة السامية.. تهمة ينص حكمها في آيباك بالإعدام مهنياَ وسياسياً واقتصادياً على كل من تثبت عليه.
جريمة كارتر هي أنه كان، في نظر إسرائيل وآيباك، يدعو الى سلام شامل في الشرق الأوسط، وأنه حافظ على السياسة النقدية التي أنقذت أميركا من شبح الاستدانة، ودعم قطاع الضمان الاجتماعي والصحي، ورفض التورط في أي نزاع عسكري.

نشرت ويكيليكس ربع مليون من وثائقها السرية، وافتضح أمر من طالته التسريبات، واستلم الإعلام الغربي دفة القيادة التحريضية، وخلط الأوراق، ونشر الفوضى، وتبعه الإعلام العربي وتناول زعيم دولة عربية يطلب شن حرب على دولة إسلامية، وأخ زعيم دولة آخرى متورط في تجارة المخدرات، ورئيس حكومة بلد متورط في الإجرام، وكالعادة، نسي الجميع إسرائيل.

Ahmadinejad’s Lebanon Visit Emphasizes Unity…Till When?

2010-10-15T13:39:00.005+03:00

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spent two epochal days in Lebanon at a time the country and essentially the whole region is witnessing changes, or maybe rise and fall of key players and decision makers.

After spending two very busy days in Lebanon, Ahmadinejad left the country back to Iran, leaving behind many questions about the outcome of this historic visit on the local level and its impact on Israel, the US, and the pro-western camp in Lebanon.

Deftly organized and compacted festivals in Beirut’s southern suburb and south Lebanon were a disturbing spectacle for some foreign diplomats who will find quite a hard time trying to relay, in a comprehensible way, the whole picture of Ahmadinejad’s visit and reception.

The US led a $500 million campaign over the past five years to demonize Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Iran’s main ally (as former Ambassador Jeffery Feltman declared).

Ahmadinejad was very careful not give the West or pro-western players in Lebanon the impression that he sought to support a group against another. The country has already been perching on a precarious precipice over the international tribunal’s indictment, strongly expected to implicate Hezbollah in martyr Rafiq Hariri’s assassination.

For the Iranian president, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon is a Lebanese matter.

In all his speeches, he underlined unity in Lebanon and reminded that Israel, the common enemy, was the sole beneficent from any strife in the country.

Martyr Hariri for the Iranian president was a “dear friend who was killed so that friends would be accused, signaling Syria and Hezbollah, and perhaps the Islamic Republic afterwards.

Ahmadinejad did not visit Hariri’s grave. Likewise, he did not visit martyr Imad Moghniye’s tomb. Instead, the visiting president laid a wreath at the Statue of (all) Martyrs in Lebanon.

On the second day of his visit, Ahmadinejad invited Sunni, Shiite, Druze, and Christian scholars, party leaders, officials, and former prime ministers (former PM Fouad Saniora and the Mufti of the Republic Sheikh Mohamad Rashid Qabbani failed to show up). He told his guests that Lebanon’s enemies had the illusion that the country was the weakest in the Middle East, while Lebanon proved them wrong, when it resisted them.

Iran, among other nations including Qatar, helped Lebanon come out from under the rubble of the 2006 war. Both Iran and Qatar decided to oversee – in detail - the expenditure of their reconstruction donations. Other countries, like Saudi Arabia, chose then-PM Fouad Saniora and his government to deal conclusively with their donations. As a result, Saniora failed to fully compensate the afflicted people until this very day, and most of the money is still unaccounted for.

Israel’s media was impressed by the overall popular welcome of the Iranian president and they ruled out the turnout was due to pressure by Hezbollah and its ally the Amal Movement.

“Many analysts argued yesterday that the presence of tens of thousands of people at the rally was the result of Hezbollah pressure on the people. But this is inaccurate. Many residents of southern Lebanon received aid from Iran after the Second Lebanon War to repair damaged houses or build new ones. Tehran is the one behind the reconstruction of southern Lebanon: homes, schools, hospitals, utilities, and infrastructure. The population owes a lot more to Ahmadinejad than it does to Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri. To them, the Iranian president is the real star,” Haaretz said.

Still, the US and Israel have declared that Ahmadinejad’s visit to Lebanon was an unnecessary provocation aimed at tightening the Iranian grip on the Middle East (especially after Saudi Arabia lost its battle in forming the next Iraqi government to Nouri-Al-Maliki, and consequently to Iran and Syria.) Some, in Lebanon, reiterated this stance although in a relatively less tense tone.

In Israel, everyone was irked by the visit in general and concerned about Ahmadinejad delivering a speech from the southern town of Bint Jbeil, where after the 2000 pullout, Hezbollah S.G Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah said his famous words: “Israel was weaker than a spider’s cobweb.”

Bint Jbeil is just 4 kilometers from the border with occupied Palestine, and Israel's Channel 2 Television said Thursday that echoes of Ahmadinejad's welcoming ceremony were audible on the Palestinian side minutes before the Iranian president arrived.

The Iranian president did not make a fiery speech in Bint Jbeil, but he reminded Israel that the Lebanese can protect their own country and that sooner or later the Zionist entity will stop existing. "The world should know the Zionists are mortal ... today the Lebanese nation is alive and is a role model for regional nations," he said.

Before the Bint Jbeil and Qana tours, Lebanese Forces MP Antoine Zahra said, in an interview with Egypt’s weekly Al-Yom Al-Sabe’a, that Ahmadinejad’s visit to south Lebanon was tantamount to an “insult and a breach of Lebanon’s sovereignty.” Zahra and his Lebanese Forces (of Samir Geagea) however failed to make similar stances when US Ambassador to Lebanon Michel Sisson and her military attachés breached all diplomatic protocols and paid several suspicious visits to south and north Lebanon without the consent of the Lebanese concerned authorities.

Zahra, and other March 14 members have been aiming at Ahmadinejad’s visit long before it took place. Tension in Lebanon reached its maximum level in the past week. Apparently, all parties have agreed to ease down the tense political rhetoric over the false witnesses issue in the Hariri assassination case, until Ahmadinejad wraps up his visit, and parties reassess the situation.

Local observers expect that next week might just not be as politically calm as this week.

From Lebanese Arena to Bigger Regional Arena, Anticipation Rules

2010-09-30T16:44:00.001+03:00

The Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) is no longer a matter of consensus, although it is singled out as independent article in the policy statement based on which the current government was formed.

This is not a precedent.

Article 6 of the same policy statement that establishes the three key elements to defend Lebanon, the army, the people, the resistance, has always been the aim of the pro-US March 14 bloc.

The opposition, on top of which is Hezbollah, regard the STL as a politicized tool that is being used to target the resistance, as part of a greater scheme to force changes in the region.

The March 14 bloc, namely PM Saad Hariri’s Future Movement and Samir Geagea’s Lebanese Forces, have been relentlessly defending the tribunal’s “integrity and credibility.”

In between, “moderate” players have made positions varying between wishes that the STL had never existed, and calls on the tribunal to gain back its credibility.
This means that former March 14 key figure MP Walid Jumblatt and President Michel Sleiman are not fully convinced that the STL is, at least, doing its job as it should to uncover the truth behind martyr Rafiq Hariri’s 2005 assassination.

In Lebanon, political tension has reached its maximum.
The quivers of politicians, journalists, and analysts have gone almost depleted.
Nothing has changed in talk shows; the same rhetoric is being repeated by different comrades from the same political alliances.

Apparently, this is the prerequisite at this “grace period” or “lost time”, before the STL issues its indictment, strongly expected to blame members of Hezbollah for the Hariri murder.

Everything has been said about the necessity to try the false witnesses who deluded the international investigation; this has been neglected. Hezbollah has provided crucial evidence – as recognized by the Israeli MoD – on Israel’s involvement in the murder of Hariri; this has been ignored as well.

There remains the final position which Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah will make soon, after Arab-Arab (Saudi – Syrian) efforts to defuse the crisis in Lebanon come to an end, regardless of the outcome.

From the smaller scene in Lebanon to the greater one in the region, Egypt has crossed into the arena to back the March 14 alliance after Syria labeled the STL as “irredeemably politicized.”
This corroborates the notion that the STL is not a mere Lebanese issue and the repercussions of any decision by the international court will be the result of a carefully schemed plot aimed at the resistance, and through it, the region.

The Syrian Al-Watan newspaper warned against an “unprecedented escalation” since the May 2008 Doha agreement. It cited “Lebanese observers” saying that “all cards have been exposed, and the parties are playing openly pending the STL decision.”

But although the stocks of sectarian violence in the aftermath of an anti-Hezbollah indictment have been rising, Hezbollah and the opposition have been seeking to keep the disagreement over the court inside the walls of concerned institutions; the parliament and the council of ministers.

Opposition members in the Budget and Finance Parliamentary Committee have united to block the funding of the STL, thus establishing the fundamental disagreement over the court seriously regarded as “the tool sewing discord in Lebanon.” Hezbollah has warned that such an indictment is tantamount to a US invasion of Lebanon, which will definitely be confronted.

March 14 members have accused the opposition of violating the government’s policy statement, but forgot their own violation when they opened fire at article six of the same policy statement stipulating the army, the people, and the resistance as the key elements to defend the country.

The difference is that Lebanon is under constant threat by Israel which admitted defeat to Hezbollah four years ago, and therefore defense should be a matter of consensus. On the other hand, Hezbollah as a key element of defense is being threatened by the STL which has yet to materialize the credibility it lost to political bargaining at the expense of the truth and martyr Rafiq Hariri’s blood; Hariri who once told Hezbollah S.G. Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah that “the day they succeed in disarming the resistance will be the day that I retire from politics.”

Tough Days Lie Ahead in Lebanon

2010-09-30T16:40:00.002+03:00

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem stressed the Special Tribunal of Lebanon (STL) “has been irredeemably politicized,” and that Damascus has received word that members of Hezbollah were soon to be formally charged with the murder case of former PM martyr Rafiq Hariri.

Moallem told the Wall Street Journal in remarks published Wednesday that “such developments risked plunging Lebanon into a new round of sectarian strife and that the U.N.'s investigation should be replaced by a purely Lebanese investigation to ensure fair treatment.”

In short, tough days could be lying ahead in Lebanon.

Hezbollah believes that the STL will issue an indictment that would implicate “undisciplined” party members in the 2005 Hariri murder.
S.G. Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah has said that Prime Minister Saad Hariri told about the nature of the indictment. Some MPs in Hariri’s bloc denied Sayyed Nasrallah’s comments, however Hariri did not.

There are several factors that put the STL, in its current form, under suspicion of politicization:
- Israel’s army Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi’s confirmation that an STL indictment would implicate Hezbollah in the murder.
- The notorious Der Spiegel report relating the same scenario, followed by similar reports posted on the Kuwaiti As-Siyassa and the French Le Figaro newspapers.
- Hariri’s conversation with Sayyed Nasrallah and his revelation.
- France’s Ambassador to Lebanon, Denis Pietton’s comments that “it’s not the end of the world if the indictment implicated Hezbollah members.
- The STL handling of the murder case, in terms of relying on testimonies of false witnesses and not persecuting them.
- The resignation of nine senior STL officials, the last of whom was the spokesperson of Prosecutor Daniel Bellemare, Henrietta Aswad.
- The Lebanese judiciary not taking action against the false witnesses.
- The previous reports by international investigators implicating Syria in the murder based on false testimonies, and now the same false witnesses are testifying against Hezbollah, namely Mohamad Zuheir Siddiq who has taken the Kuwaiti As-Siyassa newspaper as his platform to attack Syria and now Hezbollah.
- The STL ruling out Israel’s involvement in the assassination and disregarding crucial evidence provided by Hezbollah to back this charge.

The West considers the STL as the last resort to counter Hezbollah in Lebanon, and through it, the global movement against imperialism and hegemony.
The STL is one aspect of the bigger struggle aimed at reshaping the Middle East, “and Hariri does not recognize these fundamental changes,” prominent journalist and political analyst Johnny Mnayyar said Tuesday.

“We wanted the STL and we got it, but I wish we didn’t,” former March 14 member MP Walid Jumblatt said last week.

But Hariri will not make compromises at the expense of the STL, will adhere to the indictment, and will accept everything the tribunal says, the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper said Wednesday quoting Future Movement MPs.

In contrast, Lebanese President Michel Sleiman has made a surprise comment doubting the STL handling of the case so far. Speaking in New York to Al-Jadded TV, the president called on the Special Tribunal for Lebanon to gain back its credibility.

For his part, Speaker Nabih Berri has stressed the necessity to try the false witnesses for deluding the international investigation for five years and nearly taking the country to civil war. "I did not say everything I know about false witnesses," Berri said in remarks published Monday by the Lebanese daily as-Safir newspaper, pointing out to important legal aspects related to this issue which he has not yet revealed. “I may just do that at the appropriate time,” he added.

There have been unheard calls to abolish the STL and opposition MPs have been struggling with Hariri’s bloc, during Parliamentary Budget and Finance Commission sessions, to prevent further funding to the tribunal before resolving the false witnesses issue.

Amid a clear intention to target Hezbollah’s existence, the party warned that any such indictment would be dealt with as a US invasion of Lebanon.
Hezbollah Deputy Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem warned last week that targeting Hezbollah as a Resistance is tantamount to targeting Lebanon and the region. He said that his party's demands focus on two issues – uncovering false witnesses and those standing behind them; and accusing Israel of assassinating former PM Rafik Hariri based on the data provided by Sayyed Nasrallah.

On the other hand, Loyalty to resistance MP Nawaf Moussawi also said that avoiding persecuting false witnesses means that “the U.N.-backed investigation team into Hariri's assassination has failed the integrity test and therefore, this is clear cut evidence that the probe is politicized as it is biased to one political camp against another.”

Hezbollah sees the end of the crisis through the persecution of the false witnesses and an end to aiming at the party.

The coming days are not expected to witness any improvement in the situation in Lebanon, as it appears that all players agree that they are playing in the lost time and that they have taken their positions to take the confrontation to its second level, regardless of its nature.

Demonizing Hezbollah; A Déjà Vu Prior To 1982 Invasion of Lebanon

2010-09-24T15:45:00.002+03:00

Between theory and practice, calming down the deteriorating political situation in Lebanon could determine the fate of the country, and even the region.

What had started as a debate on whether false witnesses in the Rafiq Hariri murder case existed or not, whether the Special Tribunal for Lebanon was politicized or not, or even whether Israel was behind the assassination or not, has turned into political wrangling and tense rhetoric.

Worse, March 14 bloc members have taken their speech to a more dangerous sectarian level.

Last week, Lebanon First parliamentary bloc member MP Mohamad Kabbara accused Hezbollah of aiming at “the leader of the Sunnis in Lebanon,” in reference to Hariri.
Before him, Mustaqbal [Future] Movement MP Ammar Houri made similar comments.
Hezbollah retorted by warning against bids to take the country into sectarian strife.
“We will not allow sedition to infiltrate” regardless of the tense rhetoric, Hezbollah MPs have stressed. According to Houri, “Hariri did not give me or colleague Kabbara any remarks about our recent comments.”

The Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) is expected to issue an indictment over the assassination case of former Prime Minister martyr Rafiq Hariri. However, the date set for issuance remains undisclosed, although expectations have put the date sometime next December.

According to ‘leaks’ to the German magazine ‘Der Spiegel’, the indictment will implicate “undisciplined members of Hezbollah.” The party’s S.G. Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah also said that Prime Minister Saad Hariri had told him that the STL’s indictment is inclined to accuse Hezbollah members. Hariri’s bloc, or at least part of it, denied this conversation ever took place although Hariri himself did not.

However, Hezbollah stressed it has not taken its final stance with regards to the STL.
“We are waiting for the outcome of Arab – and particularly Saudi – efforts in light of the Lebanese-Syrian-Saudi commitment to seek ways to keep the STL away from politicization and unfair accusations,” Hezbollah’s Deputy S.G. Sheikh Naim Qassem told the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Rai on Thursday.

Qassem added that S.G. Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah will announce the party’s finale stance “after the time limit of Arab efforts expires, and then we will see whether the STL will redirect its investigation in light of the evidence that implicate Israel in the Rafiq Hariri assassination, which Sayyed Nasrallah has presented.”

The end of September could mark the end of the time limit, according to opposition sources.

Hezbollah maintains that it will regard the STL as politicized as long as it rules out Israel’s involvement in the Hariri murder, and as long as the false witnesses who diverted the course of the international investigation are not tried.

In a recent interview with the Saudi Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper, Hariri acknowledged the existence of false witnesses, after years of denial by his March 14 bloc. He also acknowledged that accusing Syria of assassinating his father was a mistake.

DEMONIZING HEZBOLLAH, A DÉJÀ VU PRIOR TO 1982 INVASION

Demonizing Hezbollah in Lebanon and the world is a prerequisite to achieve a number of objectives within the framework of the US-Israeli scheme being planned for the region.

Hezbollah constitutes an example of resistance revered by all resistance movements in the region and criminalizing it would gradually dismantle, or at least weaken, other resistance movements in occupied Palestine, Iraq, and elsewhere.
With its arsenal of defensive weapons a few meters away from “Israel,” Hezbollah constitutes a crucial element preventing – so far – the Zionist entity from striking Lebanon, Iran, and maybe Syria. Disarming Hezbollah has been a demand by Israel and the US and was internationally endorsed through UNSCR 1559.

In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon under the pretext of crushing the Palestinian resistance, mainly operating in south Lebanon and Beirut. Some in the southern community welcomed the Israeli forces with rice and flowers. Israel had relentlessly worked on paving the ground for its invasion; its tool was its network of collaborators.
Prior to the invasion, dozens of clashes, skirmishes, and scuffles took place in south Lebanon between the Palestinian Liberation Organization and active forces in the southern community; some were pro-Palestinian. The PLO was eventually deemed an aggressive force to the community harboring it. The invasion happened and one year later, then President Amine Gemayel signed the humiliating May 17 agreement with Israel, but it was destined to be brought down by national forces in Lebanon.

Despite its failure in 2006, Israel’s strive to crush Hezbollah as a resistance force has not changed; and so is its endeavor to strike another May 17 agreement to isolate Lebanon from, Syria, Iran, and the whole Arab-Israeli struggle.

NEXT INVASION?

Playing on the sectarian chord has proved to be the most effective way to keep a people divided; it’s been tried in Lebanon before, and the 1982 invasion came as civil war was reaching its peak.

The STL today is under Hezbollah’s microscope until it proves it is handling the Hariri assassination case properly, in light of the provided evidence that point to Israel, the persecution of the false witnesses who deluded the investigation for five years, and the upcoming indictment.

“If the indictment echoed the Der Spiegel report, this will mark the beginning of a US-Israeli invasion similar to that of 1982. Every invasion necessitates a proper confrontation. The objective of the 1982 invasion was the May 17, 1983 agreement and the new invasion, should it happen, aims at a new May 17 agreement which we will categorically refuse. When Lebanon comes under invasion, the resistance has an obligation to defend the country,” Hezbollah MP Nawaf Moussawi said in a televised interview Wednesday.

Pending the outcome of the tripartite Arab efforts and the indictment, Hezbollah sees no possible settlement to the political deterioration in Lebanon. Calm, amid incitement and sectarian mobilization by some March 14 officials, could only be a temporary solution.

The ultimate solution for Hezbollah is to stop targeting the resistance.

With Israel preparing for worst case scenarios, the US striking multi-billion dollar arms deals with Gulf States, and US-Israeli threats to strike Iran are on the rise, the sectarian rhetoric by some March 14 officials in Lebanon is giving US-Israeli warmongers the strategic advantage, the power and the needed spark to enflame the region.

Hariri – Hezbollah Gap Widening; Lebanon in the Eye of the Storm

2010-09-24T15:39:00.002+03:00

The gap between Hezbollah and PM Saad Hariri’s Future Movement continues to deepen at this very delicate stage in Lebanon.

Formally announcing a deadlock could have to wait until the end of September, when the Saudi-Syrian-French effort to stop the country from sliding into the abyss, is expected to end.

Until now, there are no indications that point to progress in this regard.

The French Ambassador to Lebanon, Denis Pietton, was quoted Thursday by An-Nahar newspaper that “it’s not the end of the world if some members of Hezbollah were indicted and that France would still deal with the party as a political entity represented in the government.”
Pietton indirectly declared the end to the French effort and that the indictment will eventually target Hezbollah.

“Pietton’s statement is not reassuring. It raises Hezbollah’s concerns and ours on the STL indictment,” Speaker Nabih Berri told As-Safir newspaper in remarks published Friday.

Although the tone of the political rhetoric has gone lower; most politicians agree that this is only the calm before the storm.

Warnings that an indictment by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) against Hezbollah in the Rafiq Hariri assassination case would mean war in the country, point that the chances of avoiding a clash – in whatever form – are very slim.

“The international decision of war in Lebanon has been taken, and this is what we all should understand,” Marada Party leader Sleiman Franjieh said during an interview on LBCI Thursday.
“If the STL brings sedition to the country why not abolish it?” he added.
In his interview, Franjieh found odd how Hariri can be convinced that the scenario that was schemed against Syria was not the same one plotted against Hezbollah.
He pointed that the STL had taken its information from Lebanese security apparatuses, “namely the Information Branch” adding that “the Branch’s chief Wissam el-Hasan told me once that he had information about the plotted scenario since 2006.”

Franjieh’s announcement implies that the STL is politicized, otherwise why were all accusations directed towards Syria – not Hezbollah - in the past five years?

“Hariri is a decent man and a victim of politics,” the Marada Party chief underlined.
In his most recent interview with the Saudi Sharq al-Awsat daily, Hariri acknowledged the existence of the false witnesses and said that accusing Syria [in the past five years] was wrong.
The PM however, stopped short of clearing Hezbollah’s name from the murder.
"Some of Hariri's allies have harmed him through their statements on Syria and ties with Israel. Stances like these create tension and do not help in finding a solution," Berri told As-Safir.

Hariri and Hezbollah have very limited, if no space at all left to maneuver. The prime minister says there is no compromise at the expense of the tribunal and Hezbollah will consider an indictment against it as a declaration of war. The party, however, has not announced its final stance on the STL, pending the end of September’s “grace period.”

"The report prepared by the Justice Minister [Ibrahim Najjar] on false witnesses is complete. Eventually, the Lebanese judiciary should start questioning those false witnesses," Berri told An-Nahar daily in remarks published Friday.

Nevertheless, Hezbollah is prepared for the next level of its confrontation with the false witnesses’ issue, which the party regards as the key to the current solution and the fundamental element in redirecting the deluded STL investigation to uncover the truth behind martyr Hariri’s murder.

Take The Condemned Spies to the Gallows, Period

2010-07-22T15:46:00.003+03:00

Is there not some chosen curse, some hidden thunder in the stores of heaven, red with uncommon wrath, to blast the man who owes his greatness to his country's ruin? (Joseph Addison, 1672 –1719)

Treason and collaboration with the enemy has probably been the most crucial element to decide who wins and who loses in the game of the nations. Israel is losing this game with Lebanon the hard way, because of an atmosphere that relatively fosters collaborators.

In peace or war, spies are traitors and they should get the maximum penalty according to the constitution of every country: death or life in prison.

The case is the same here in Lebanon, although it’s a little more complicated.
More than a thousand people have been sentenced to death since independence in 1948. Only 50 have been executed, including 17 after the 1989 Taef Accord which ended the civil war. They were mainly convicted with murder.

In the past couple of years, security forces nabbed dozens of Lebanese spies working for the Israeli Mossad; some had played roles in the spree of assassinations following the 2005 murder of former PM martyr Rafiq Hariri and others had specific jobs before, during, and after the 2006 war on Lebanon.

Death sentences have been given to at least three spies this year. Many more such sentences are expected to follow shortly. Other collaborators who fled to Israel in 2000, like the head of the South Lebanon Army (SAL) Antoine Lahed, were tried in absentia and also sentenced to death. Those who were handed by the Islamic Resistance to the Lebanese army that same year, were given very minimum sentences calculated in months.

Lebanese President Michel Sleiman stressed that he will not hesitate to sign any death sentence to make it effective.

As much as it seems encouraging to counter Israeli espionage in Lebanon, these measures could prove futile in case of two scenarios:
1- If the sentences were not executed for whatever reason.
2- If the fostering environment continues to exist giving Mossad spies a safe haven.

“Do not play with security or the judiciary on the basis of religious or sectarian balance. Start executing Shiite collaborators first. Collaborators do not belong to confessions and sects; they don’t even belong to their families. They only belong to Israel,” Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah said in his last speech this month.
Sayyed Nasrallah’s remark included warnings against what has been known in Lebanon as “confessional and sectarian balance.”
Governmental, official, military, administrative, and practically everything here is founded on quotas; Muslims get this and Christians get that...Maronites get to be presidents, Shiites get to be House Speakers, and Sunnis get to be prime ministers. There is growing concern in Lebanon that sending the spies to the gallows would have to adhere to this balance.

Responsibility lies on the shoulders of the political authority.
“There has been leniency on the part of the judiciary. For instance, after the 2000 liberation, courts in Lebanon gave the families of the collaborators – who were serving minimum time in jail - authorization to collect compensation from Israel worth 25 thousand dollars, and this was tantamount to encouraging people to collaborate with an enemy state,” Ibrahim Awada, a Lebanese attorney told Al-Manar Website.

Section 273 of the Lebanese law, however, stipulates that every person who carried arms with the enemy shall be sentenced to death. Yet SLA collaborators, who served Israel for 22 years and had Lebanese blood on their hands, were given minimum sentences varying between one month and three years in jail.
What’s even worse, continued Awada, “if it was not for Hezbollah members of parliament back in 2002, a draft law to cut the collaborators’ sentences to half would have passed.”

Tolerance is definitely not the word to describe the relation between the state and the traitors.
“The political environment is encouraging collaboration with Israel,” former head of the Military Court in Lebanon, Brigadier General Judge Maher Safiyyaddine, told Al-Manar Website.
“A large portion of those who were sentenced in 2000 have been under surveillance and they have not returned to establish contact with the enemy. However, the main problem lies with the spies that are being nabbed today and who had formed what is known as ‘Israel’s sleeping cells’,” Safiyyaddine said.

The former military judge stressed the political atmosphere that prevailed in 2005 after the assassination of PM Hariri, and ultimately after the Syrian forces pulled out of Lebanon, had given the Israeli enemy a strong foothold in the country. He reminded that even Israeli reporters were confident enough to come to Lebanon, interview people, take some shots, and then get back to Israel.

When spy, Charbel Qazzi, was arrested two weeks ago by the military intelligence, a chorus of Lebanese politicians and party leaders led a campaign against the army for many reasons, including ‘the inappropriate way to arrest a Lebanese citizen!”
Others, like post allies to Israel during the civil war, even defended Qazzi.
The spy’s confessions to have been a Mossad agent for 14 years in the sensitive sector of telecommunications was nothing compared to the story of Tareq Raba’a, another spy who works for the same telecommunications firm, Alfa.
Qazzi and Raba’a’s arrests were only a couple of days apart.

In front of this dramatic development, the anti-Lebanese Army rhetoric eased down relatively, and instead focused on “leaks” to the press about interrogations with the spies. Still, politicians have been amazingly divided on the issue of spies and collaborators.

It is understandable that greedy politicians make ugly mistakes for personal interests. It is understandable that politicians engage in wars of words over a variety of issues. But it is not understandable how politicians in Lebanon can be divided over whether to keep Lebanon vulnerable and exposed to Israel’s fangs or not. This is surely not related to personal interests. This definitely has got to do with the game of the nations; or maybe the game of the one big nation and it proxies in our region. Spies should be taken to gallows and this nation must be saved, period.

New Sanctions on Iran: What’s New? How Effective? The Implicit Goal

2010-06-10T13:09:00.004+03:00

It is the fourth round of sanctions on Iran. What next?
During the first three rounds of sanctions since 2006, Iran has developed its peaceful nuclear abilities and cooperated with the international nuclear watchdog (IAEA), which did not find any proof of a military nuclear program to build the A-bomb. The question is what could possibly force the Islamic Republic – the now stronger than ever Iran – to stagger from the sanctions that the international community led by the US has called “crippling”?
The answer is: Probably nothing. Tehran has already announced the sanctions will not force it to change its policy.

Citing Israeli commentators, this new round of sanctions, after a six-month delay, “will not be enough to get Iran to halt its nuclear program...The fight is set to continue in the U.S. Congress, which may vote in favor of more sanctions.” (Haaretz)
This means that Washington will put itself in a row with Beijing and Moscow, which warned the US against taking any unilateral measures against the Islamic Republic.

The new resolution aims to:
1- Ban the supply to Iran of heavy weapons, including tanks, warships, helicopter gunships and missiles.
2- Tighten up the ban on dealings with Iranian banks and individuals, including businesses and members of the Revolutionary Guard
3- Enable states to search any suspect ship or plane.

The Washington-based “Iran Watch” reported last April that the Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL) had undertaken "a large-scale re-labeling of its ships, giving them new names, new managers, new 'owners' - in short, new identities".
"The US blacklist has not kept up with these changes, so it is being circumvented by Iran with relatively little effort," Iran Watch said.

"These are not the crippling sanctions that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had promised about a year ago," said James Lindsay of the Council on Foreign Relations, who was a National Security Council official in the Clinton administration.

The sanctions don't limit the Islamic Republic's ability to produce or export oil.
Although the sanctions ban the sale of many heavy weapons, countries still will be allowed to sell weapons outside those categories.
For instance, Russia still may sell sophisticated S-300 anti-aircraft missiles, which have been a source of concern to the United States.
Moreover, many provisions of the sanctions resolution are essentially optional. For instance, governments can limit financial services provided to Iran by companies under their jurisdiction if the services are believed to further certain nuclear activities.
The resolution also says governments may inspect ships on the high seas suspected of carrying forbidden items, but only if they have the consent of the country to which a suspicious ship is registered.

US President Barack Obama and his European allies had initially sought tougher sanctions against Iran which would have included targeting the Islamic Republic’s gas and oil industries and blacklisting Iran’s Central Bank. But Moscow and Beijing rejected the measure.

Nevertheless, Russia and China did vote in favor of (softer) sanctions, but at what price?

Today, Iran supplies about 11 percent of China’s imported oil. North Korea, on the other hand, only receives oil from China – perhaps for free or subsidized – to keep its economy afloat. And China prefers the status quo on the Korean peninsula, all the better to maintain business with South Korea and Japan.
If Iran were to unilaterally cut off oil exports in response to really tough sanctions, or if Israel were to attack Iranian nuclear facilities and ignite a regional war, China’s steady economic progress would suffer.
Like China, Russia has its interests with the West and of course Iran. Voting on low-tone sanctions on Iran, knowing they will have no concrete effect on the Islamic Republic, comes in line with balancing strategic interests with all parties.

If the international community, along with the co-sponsors of the resolution, the U.S., the U.K., and France, are not convinced that the new sanctions will stop Iran’s nuclear program, then why go for them?

Historically, the West has failed to compel Iran into yielding to its hegemonic disposition. During the last presidential election in Iran, the west – namely the US, the UK, and France, employed all their covert political and intelligence gravitas to create a “green revolution” to topple the regime. The scheme failed and the “opposition”, as the West calls it, lost its momentum. The U.S., Britain, and France have been blamed by Iran for running covert operations to spark and augment the demonstrations that followed election results.
Today, it is believed that the main objective of the new sanctions was meant to breathe life into unrest from within Iran on the eve of the first anniversary of the election. Tehran can use the sanctions to boost the Iranians’ drive for more technological development and the so-called opposition can exploit sanctions to put more pressure on the regime.

However, the Iranian reaction to sanctions this morning does not support this last notion.

Newspapers, both conservative and reformist, unanimously denounced the UNSC move as “illegal measures” that “have chalked a new path of confrontation.”
The conservative Kayhan daily ran a headline on its front-page reading: “Wait for Iran’s decisive response to illegal sanctions.” It added that “the credibility of the UN Security Council is ending.”
For its part, the reformist newspaper Aftab e-Yazd carried a front-page editorial, insisting that the Security Council had "set a path to confrontation" between the West and Iran. "Now that the West, along with Russia and China, has adopted the path of confrontation, Iran's response will be strong," its editorial said.

"These resolutions are not worth a dime for the Iranian nation," Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in comments following the vote.
He said he had told world powers "that the resolutions you issue are like a used hanky which should be thrown in the dust bin."

Of the 15 members of the Security Council, only two - Turkey and Brazil, which have reached a deal under which Iran will deposit much of its low-enriched uranium in Turkey - voted against the sanctions, and Lebanon abstained.

Imam Khomeini…The Man Who Probated the Will of Prophets

2010-06-03T19:02:00.016+03:00

Imam Ruhullah Al-Musawi Al-Khomeini was born on September 24, 1902 into a family of strong religious traditions in Khomein, a small town some hundred kilometers southwest of Tehran.

His father, Ayatollah Mustafa was murdered by bandits only five month after the birth of Ruhullah, so that his mother and aunt were responsible for his early upbringing. At the age of nineteen, the young Imam Khomeini was sent to study the religious sciences in the nearby town of Arak under the guidance of Sheikh Abdul Karim Ha'iri.

In 1922, he moved to holy city of Qom, and took up residence at the Dar al-Shafa school before being exiled to the holy city of Najaf in Iraq.

Although during this scholarly phase of his life Khomeini was not politically active, the nature of his studies, teachings, and writings suggested that he believed in the importance of political involvement by clerics. Khomeini studied not only traditional subjects like Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh al-Shari'a), and principles (Usul), but also philosophy and ethics. His teaching often focused on the importance of religion to practical social and political issues of the day.

Ayatollah Khomeini was now 60 and had assumed leadership following the deaths of Ayatollah Sayyed Muhammad Burujerdi (1961), the leading Shiite religious leader; and Ayatollah Abol-Qasem Kashani (1962), an activist cleric. The clerical class had been on the defensive ever since the 1920s with the rise to power of Shah Reza Pahlavi. The "White Revolution" of Reza's son Shah Muhammad Reza, was a further challenge. In January 1963, the Shah announced the "White Revolution", a six-point delusive program to curb the expansion of anti-Shah clerical influence in Iran. Ayatollah Khomeini summoned a meeting of the other senior Marjaas (religious references) of Qom and agreed with them to decree a boycott of the referendum on the White Revolution. On January 22, 1963 Khomeini issued a strongly worded declaration denouncing the Shah and his pro-Western plans. Two days later, the Shah took an armored column to Qom, and he delivered a speech harshly attacking the Ulama (clerics) as a class. Imam Khomeini continued his denunciation of the Shah's programs, issuing a manifesto that bore the signatures of eight other senior Iranian religious scholars. In it he listed the various ways in which the Shah had violated the constitution, condemned the spread of moral corruption in the country, and accused the Shah of submission to America and Israel.

On the afternoon of 'Ashoura (June 3, 1963), Ayatollah Khomeini delivered a speech at the Feyziyeh Madrasah denouncing the Shah as a "wretched miserable man", and warning him that if he did not change his ways, the day would come when the people would offer up thanks for his departure from the country.

On June 5, 1963, Imam Khomeini was arrested. This sparked three days of major protests throughout Iran and led to the killing of some 400 pro-Khomeini protesters. The Imam was kept under house arrest for 8 months and he was released in 1964.

In November 1964, Ayatollah Khomeini denounced both the Shah and the United States, this time in response to the "capitulations" or diplomatic immunity granted by the Shah to American military personnel in Iran. In November 1964, Imam Khomeini was re-arrested and sent into exile.

In early 1970 Khomeini gave a series of lectures in Najaf on Islamic Government, later published as a book titled variously Islamic Government or Authority of the Jurist (Welayat al-Faqih).

Imam Khomeini spent over 14 years in exile, mostly in the holy city of Najaf, Iraq. Initially he was sent to Turkey on 4 November 1964 where he stayed in the city of Bursa for less than a year. Later in October 1965 he was allowed to move to Najaf, Iraq, where he stayed until being forced to leave in 1978, after then-Vice President Saddam Hussein killed his son Mustapha and forced the Imam out after which he went to Neauphle-le-Château in France where he stayed for four months.

Imam Khomeini became the most influential leader of the opposition to the Shah perceived by many Iranians as the spiritual, if not political, leader of revolution. As protest grew so did his profile and importance. Although thousands of kilometers away from Iran in Paris, the Imam set the course of the revolution, urging Iranians not to compromise and ordering work stoppages against the regime.

Imam Khomeini had refused to return to Iran until the Shah left. On January 16, 1979, the Shah did leave the country, never to return back. Two weeks later on Thursday, February 1, 1979, Imam Khomeini returned in triumph to Iran, welcomed by a joyous crowd estimated at least three million.

Fearing a spread of the Islamic revolution to Arab states, most of which were ruled by pro-American governments, Saddam Hussein, Iraq's Ba'athist leader, launched his full scale invasion against the Islamic Republic starting what would become the eight-year-long Iran-Iraq War. Saddam had received support from the US, Jordan and several other Arab states.
By early 1982 Iran regained almost all the territory lost to the invasion. After this reversal, Imam Khomeini refused an Iraqi offer of a truce, instead demanding reparation and toppling of Saddam Hussein from power. The war continued for another six years.

By 1988, Imam Khomeini, in his words, “drank the cup of poison” and accepted a truce mediated by the United Nations.
As the war ended, Imam Khomeini’s health began to decline.

After eleven days in a hospital for an operation to stop internal bleeding, Imam Khomeini died of cancer on Saturday, June 3, 1989, at the age of 89. Millions of Iranians poured out into the cities and streets to mourn the death of the Ayatollah. Iranian officials aborted Khomeini’s first funeral, after a large crowd stormed the procession, nearly destroying the Imam’s wooden coffin in order to get a last glimpse of his body. At one point, Imam Khomeini's body actually almost fell to the ground, as the crowd attempted to grab pieces of the death shroud. The second funeral was held under much tighter security. Imam Khomeini's casket was made of steel, and heavily armed security personnel surrounded it. In accordance with Islamic tradition, the casket was only to carry the body to the burial site. Imam Khomeini's funeral was the largest in history, with more than 12 million people attending the procession.

Imam Khomeini was an outspoken defender of the Palestinian cause. He dubbed the United States and its proxy Israel as the greater and smaller satans because of the oppression they were causing the world. Israel in Imam Khomeini’s conception was a cancerous gland in the Middle East that should be removed. The invasion of Lebanon in 1982 resulted in the rise of the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon, which will be later known as Hezbollah. Imam Khomeini dispatched Iranian Revolutionary Guards officers and trainers to train the fighters to confront the Israeli occupation. Imam Khomeini’s move paid off after 18 years when the Zionist entity was dealt its first blow by a few thousand fighters who forced the “invincible army” out of most Lebanese territories. And in 2006, those same fighters dealt Israel the second blow, only a much harder one. And today, the sons of Imam Khomeini who believe in his path, which is the path of Prophet Mohammed and his household peace be upon them, will God willing fulfill the Imam’s wish to eradicate the cancerous tumor from our region on the road to fulfilling the dram of all God’s prophets to establish justice and equity across the globe.

Israel Can’t Take My Ice Cream Stick from Me Anymore

2010-05-26T00:15:00.002+03:00

I remember the summer of 1982 when Israel invaded Lebanon. I was nine years old and my father had promised to give me half a Lira (Lebanese pound) to buy ice cream. But the footage showing Israeli tanks crossing the border into south Lebanon was enough to deprive me of my treat for the rest of the day and deprive southerners of their freedom for the next 18 years. I’m not sure about the relevance of this lead to the rest of the article, but I think this retrospection is as useful as looking at the post 2000 withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces from most of south Lebanon.

The pullout was not just an event; it was a historic precedent. True, Israel withdrew from Jordan and Sinai after Amman and Cairo were coerced to sign agreements with the triumphant, undefeatable, and arrogant Zionist state.

THEY FLED UNDER RESISTANCE STRIKES, NOT IN LINE WITH UNSCR 425
However, this was not the case in Lebanon. After 18 years of occupation and war of attrition waged by the resistance, Israel decided to cut its losses and escape, yes escape. "It wasn't a withdrawal and it wasn't a retreat...We ran away, pure and simple," Col. Noam Ben-Tzvi, the last commander of the Israeli occupation forces western sector in south Lebanon, told Haaretz last week. Ben-Tzvi was not in denial; he did not attribute the withdrawal to Israel’s implementation of UN Security Council resolution 425 that stipulates Israel withdraw from Lebanon after its first invasion in 1978.

“Hiding behind UNSC resolutions has always been an Israeli policy,” Lebanese political analyst Michel Samaha told Al-Manar Website. “Then Prime Minister Ehud Barak and his Foreign Minister David Levy were maneuvering with the military leadership and they went to negotiate with UN S.G. Kofi Annan to cover the Zionist state with another international resolution that binds it to implement resolution 425 on the one hand and set new conditions on Lebanon. However the strikes of the resistance and its operational performance in the south forced Israel’s political and military echelons to make a dramatic 24-hour pullout before issuing a new UN resolution,” Samaha added.

LARSEN INVENTED THE BLUE LINE
Still, Israel sought to persuade the international community that its withdrawal was in line with the Truce Line as stipulated in the Truce Agreement signed between Lebanon and Israel in 1949. “Annan and then US Secretary of State Madeline Albright conspired to send Terje Rød-Larsen to delineate a Blue Line instead of implementing resolution 425. The aim was to make the pullout look like a full withdrawal according to the Truce Line. So Larsen invented the Blue Line and the Lebanese government cried foul because of the many gaps that kept Lebanese areas, including strategic spots and water sources, under occupation,” Samaha said.

“Our main concern was to determine the international border, but the Israeli enemy had changed the landmarks in several border areas,” Ret. Gen. Amine Hotait, who was the head of the committee to verify the Israeli pullout, told Al-Manar Website. “We started our mission based on official maps, but the Israelis made use of the so called ‘rolling borders’ and sought to delineate a new line that served its avarice, so it demanded a delineation based on more advanced methods. The United Nations adopted the Blue Line but we refused to recognize it as the international border since it missed at least 13 points. After tough negotiations we managed to gain back ten points, and three points remained outstanding: Rmeish, Odayseh, and Metula,” Hotait said.

From a legal point of view, the Blue Line is of no value and does not establish any right for any party. “The idea of the Blue Line was terminated when the Lebanese committee concluded its mission,” the retired general explained.

THE ISRAELI WITHDRAWAL HAD ITS IMPLICATIONS
Speaking to Al-Manar Website, expert in Israeli affairs Helmi Moussa said that some Israeli leaders still have their regrets because the withdrawal was unilateral and without agreement. “The existential threat is cumulating in Israel because of this pullout, especially that their home front has since then become a target for rocket attacks, when prior to the withdrawal they only had to sacrifice 25 to 30 soldiers on yearly basis to preserve their home front security,” Moussa, who writes for the Lebanese daily Assafir, said.

ISRAEL IS WEAKER THAN A SPIDER WEB
The Israeli pullout could not have materialized if it were not for the support of Iran, Syria, and the popular and official positions in Lebanon, particularly during the first term of President Emile Lahoud with PM Salim Hoss and then during Lahoud’s second term with PM martyr Rafiq Hariri. Nevertheless, the internationally backed Israeli move cleared the way for Tel Aviv to demand a similar pullout of Syrian forces from Lebanon and engage in “peace” talks. Israel’s incomplete pullout and its constant threat to Lebanon rendered the years-long pressure on Syria a failure. In 2005, Hariri was assassinated in Beirut and the Syrian leadership decided to speed up the pullout in that same year.

In 2006, Israel waged war on Lebanon with the aim to crush Hezbollah once and for all and to get even with the party’s Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah who – in his famous speech in Bint Jbeil May 25, 2000 - described Israel as an entity ‘weaker than a spider web.’

“Sayyed Nasrallah’s speech in Bint Jbeil established three fundamental principles: First, he described Israel as an illusion and fixed the notion that Israel can be defeated while stressing the necessity to mobilize forces to confront and win over this enemy. Second, the resistance did not act as a party independent from the Lebanese but acted on their behalf because he did not ask for power sharing in return for the sacrifices and the victory; this is why Hezbollah was embraced by the people of Lebanon en route to the 2006 victory. Third, the resistance does not replace the state or its institutions, and this is why, unlike other revolutions throughout history, triumphant Hezbollah did not go on a vendetta spree against those who had collaborated with the Israeli occupation; it left this mission to the Lebanese authorities,” Ret. Gen. Amine Hotait told Al-Manar Website.

SLA AGENTS AND MOSSAD NETWORKS
The failed 2006 war proved Israel’s networks of Mossad agents in Lebanon were useless, and by 2010 dozens of these spy networks were dismantled.

“What’s been said recently about the fate of Antoine Lahed’s South Lebanon Army (SLA) and their suffering in occupied territories highlights another aspect of Israel’s weakness and failure to protect its agents as they promised them. In fact this negatively affects the performance of Israel’s Mossad (mainly in Lebanon) which constitutes the backbone of Israel’s security,” Helmi Moussa said.

“Shortly before the pullout, the Israeli enemy had grasped two facts: First, they cannot rely on their agents as the Israeli leadership predicted the SLA’s breakdown; surprisingly enough, this army of collaborators broke down much faster than Gabi Ashkenazi and his staff had expected. Second, the political and military leaderships were helpless vis-à-vis the sophisticated resistance which dealt the Israeli occupation army and the SLA very severe blows. This same helplessness was the main reason why the so called ‘Four (Israeli) Mothers’ Movement’ came to being and eventually pressured Tel Aviv to take the decision of immediate withdrawal,” Michel Samaha told Al-Manar Website.

MY ICE CREAM STICK THAT ISRAEL CAN’T TAKE AWAY FROM ME AND MY CHILDREN ANYMORE
Today Israel is still threatening Lebanon with war, carrying out large scale exercises to prepare its home front, and making replacements within the top military brass. The resistance leadership has expressed full readiness to deal Israel another blow should it decide to wage war. Syria and Iran have also warned Tel Aviv against making another “foolish mistake”. Until the next war begins and ends, Israel would continue to be the fake entity that destroyed armies and occupied countries in a matter of days, but then defeated at hands of a few determined men and women in Lebanon.

I’ve seen it in 2000 and I’ve lived it in 2006 and I know that what I had seen in 1982 is forever gone. Ever since liberation was fulfilled, I’ve never missed a Resistance and Liberation Day without having an ice cream stick, and today I’m seeing that my children follow suit.

Nakba Will Eventually Become A Memory

2010-05-16T14:00:00.022+03:00

Maybe it’s a crime to ask why Germany is still paying off its debt to Israel for a massacre the Zionists claim the Nazi Fuhrer committed in 1940s. For more than half a century, the Germans, generation after generation, have been “compensating” Israel for a “Holocaust” half of the world is still questioning.

Perhaps it’s a crime to ask why the United States isn’t making up for the Native Americans or why Israel isn’t paying off its debt to the Palestinians, the Egyptians, the Lebanese, and recently the Emiratis. For more than half a century, the whole world has been watching Israel’s atrocities, massacres, usurpations, wars, assassinations, conspiracies and blackmail live on television networks, and of course Rupert Murdoch’s outlets excluded.

But it’s an undisputable right to ask why Arabs are still idle and

indifferent about a shrinking Palestine. How can some Arab leaders send congratulations letters to Israel for its creation 62 years ago. In less than a year, starting February 1948, Zionist gangs like the Haganah, the Irgun and LEHI started to systematically commit massacre after massacre in a bid, a successful one apparently, to force a mass dispossession of the Palestinians. 750 thousand Palestinians were ruthlessly uprooted from their destroyed homes and confiscated lands.

This was later called the Nakba, or the catastrophe, and it was documented.

It took America hundreds of years to declare its “independence” ever since the white man colonized the “new world.” It only took Israel 51 years to declare its creation on the ruins of Palestine ever since Theodore Herzl held the first “International Zionist Organization” conference in Bazle, Switzerland (1897) to “bring” Jews in Diaspora together.

In the early 30's, the Britons issued the so called "White Paper"

that determined the quotas for Jewish emigrants with an annual cut to 15 thousand Jews for five years. Ten years later, according to the "Paper", the Palestinians would rule their own unified state after they declare their independence. However Zionists sought to nullify this "Paper" in 1939. Then Zionist leader Ben Gorion said: "We will fight the war (WW2) as if there were no White Paper and we will fight the White Paper as if there were no war."

When Palestine was ruled by the British mandatory government, it faced resistance and managed during the 1936 - 1939 revolution, to cause extensive damage to the Palestinian leadership. One can argue that the royal army wasn’t directly paving the way for Zionist gangs to attack a defenseless people. yet ethnic cleansing and dispossession had started ever since under British eyes but without their interference.

Back then, Arabs were as helpless as they are today although more connected the fresh cause. And just as the case is today, the Palestinians surrendered their fate to the Arab League, in perhaps one of the biggest mistakes in the course of the Arab – Israeli conflict. Apparently, the Zionist were not very much concerned about the Arabs as much as they were about the strong international community that was shaping up after World War II. Blackmail was their most efficient weapon and their tool was of course the “Holocaust.” The United Nations was supposed to declare in the independence of Palestine in 1947, instead the world body issued the notorious partition resolution that stipulates allocating Palestinians less than half their country and the other bigger half to Israeli settlers.

The Zionists were compensated for the Holocaust with more than half of Palestine. It has nothing to do with religion as Zionists allege.
"There is a country, and its name is by chance Palestine. A country without a people and on the other hand, there is the Jewish people without a homeland," said Chaim Weizmann who played a significant role in issuing the notorious Belford promise and then became the first Israeli president, said during the Nakba.

Seeking atonement, the Europeans did not stop and this was dwarfing the rights of the Palestinians on the one hand and encouraging Zionist gangs to commit massacres without fear of international condemnation; actually this has never stopped being the case.

Now that most of the Jews of Europe had set sail for Palestine, the Holocaust issue became much easier to tackle with a “state” representing the victims, not with the victims themselves. Edward Said’s “chain of victimization” began and the so called “Holocaust victims” now had victims of their own; the Palestinians.

The Europeans maintain a virtual silence toward what the Zionists are doing to the Palestinians under the pretext of showing sympathy for the “victims of the Holocaust.”

German chancellor, Angela Merkel last year made very biased speech in the Israeli Knesset. She did not mention the occupation, and only praised Israel as a “paragon of justice, democracy and civilization. She left the Palestinians with no hope for a different future.

To uproot more Palestinians and expand the Zionist entity with the consent of the International Community, demonizing the Palestinians was a prerequisite; otherwise the Israelis – in the international understanding - would be doing to the Palestinians what they claim the Nazis did to them. With the help of the United States of America, it sort of succeeded; after all, both entities had uprooted two different peoples and replaced them.

The Palestinians were labeled as “Mukharribeen” or ravagers and then

terrorists because they’d decided to take matters from the Arab League’s hands into their own.
The American veto at the UN Security Council was a very effective tool to give Israel more power to kill Palestinians and Arabs throughout decades.
On the 15th of May 1948, David Ben Gurion declared the "State of Israel,” and 62 years on, Western states and some spineless Arab

leaders continue to celebrate this black day.

But on the other side of picture, Israel is ailing, exposed, vulnerable, and in its weakest states. The International community is no longer showing leniency after the Zionists crossed the line – in the European conception - and did to the Gazans what the Nazis allegedly did to the Jews; the US is trying to pressure defiant Israel over settlement construction; Turkey is turning its back on it; the economic crisis has plagued its economy as exports to Europe have extensively diminished; and most importantly, the resistance movement in the Middle East is growing stronger.

In 2000, Israel pulled out of most of south Lebanon by force,
not settlements and concessions. In 2006, and after 33 days of war, Israel tasted the bitter defeat at the hands of a few thousand resistance fighter, after its “invincible army” used to defeat regular Arab armies in a less than a week. Today Israel is threatening Lebanon, Syria, Iran, and the whole region with war; a war that is strongly believed to be Israel’s very last.

Some see it on the verge of collapse, others believe Israel has already slipped into the abyss and Nakba is very close to become just a memory that Palestinians, including the refugees who would have returned to Palestine, will recount to their children.

!المارد موردوك يغزو الثقافة العربية بمساعدة عربية

2010-04-14T10:42:00.006+03:00

ليس غريباً أن يتسلل أي شيء إلى المجتمع العربي من فجوات فتحها العرب بأنفسهم لكل راغب بنتش بعض مما تبقى من إرثنا الثقافي. تسلل اليهود إلى فلسطين فغضب العرب قليلاً وحاربوا قليلاً وقدموا بعض الشهداء...ولكن طفح كيلهم، فهم يريدون العيش وها هم يحيون وما هي بحياة. تسلل الغرب إلى أفواه بعض العرب حتى باتوا يقفون لبرهة ليتذكروا: أنقول ناس أو "ناسات"، وكأن أجدادهم العرب قد اسقطوا سهواً لغة الضاد في غياهب شراويلهم وهم يهمّون باختراع اللغتين الإنكليزية والفرنسية، حتى باتت اللغة العربية عاراً لا تستحق أن يكتب بها أسماء المذيعين والمصورين وسقاة القهوة على بعض الشاشات. ما زال لدينا بعضاً من الإرث الثقافي العربي، وها هو المارد الأميركي يحاول التسلل إليها بمساعدة عربية، كرمى لعيون إسرائيل، وأميركا، وفوكس نيوز.

في مجتمع عربي سواده الأعظم مشتاق للتمثل بعدم الانحياز ولو على أنقاض قضيته وثقافته، لم يعد التصدي لمحاولات الغزو الثقافي مجدياً إذ أنه استشرى وبات على العقلاء القلائل محاولة إنقاذ ما يمكن إنقاذه.
من منا لم يسمع بالغول، أو المارد، أو الحوت الأميركي، الأسترالي الأصل روبرت موردوك؟ ومن منا لم يسمع بالصراع العربي-الإسرائيلي أو أقله بمجزرة غزة عام 2008؟ وما العلاقة بينهم؟

موردوك، المارد الإعلامي كما هو معروف عنه، يملك مجموعة "نيوز كوربورايشن" التي تضم كل أبواقه الإعلامية من محطة "فوكس نيوز" إلى صحيفة "وال ستريت جورنال" إلى "نيو يورك بوست"، وكلها وسائل معروف عنها مناهضتها للعرب وقضاياهم، وبانحيازها لإسرائيل.
أما غزة، فهي محاصرة منذ سنين وتعرضت لأبشع الجرائم والإبادة الجماعية على يد الاحتلال الإسرائيلي عام 2008. عندها قتل وجرح أكثر من خمسة آلاف مدني فلسطيني بسلاح الفوسفور المحرم دولياً. وعندها أيضاً صرّح موردوك أمام"اللجنة الأميركية اليهودية" في آذار/مارس 2009 بالتالي: "العالم الحرّ يرتكب خطأً جسيماً إنّ ظنّ أن هذه الحرب (على غزة) ليست حربنا كلّنا."

أما اليوم، فقد وجد موردوك لنفسه موطئ قدم ثابت في المجتمع العربي وثقافته وصلب قضيته.
ففي شهر شباط الماضي، اشترت "نيوز كوربورايشن" 9,09 بالمائة من أسهم مجموعة روتانا التي يملكها الأمير السعودي الوليد بن طلال، مع إمكانية مضاعفة نسبة الأسهم خلال فترة ثمانية عشر شهرا. روتانا هي واحدة من أكبر شركات الإنتاج في الجمهورية المصرية وتملك الحقوق الحصرية لمئات الأفلام المصرية.
وقد حذّرت الناقدة السينمائية المصرية علا الشافعي من خطورة الأمر وقالت لوكالة الصحافة الفرنسية إن "موردوك سيدخل كل بيت عربي ليفرض عليه التطبيع مع إسرائيل" وأضافت أن هذه الخطوة من شأنها أن تشكّل "هزيمة للسينما العربية وللفن والإرث العربيين."
من جهته وصف الكاتب المصري المعروف أسامة أنور عكاشة دخول موردوك إلى روتانا بأنه "تسلل عبر حصان طروادة لخرق الثقافة العربية".
ويرى الروائي عزت القمحاوي إن الأهمية لا تكمن في بيع الوليد لهذه الأسهم، "فالشخص الذي يسلّم تسعة بالمائة يمكن أن يبيع ما تبقى من الشركة"، بحسب تعبيره. ويضيف القمحاوي: "نحن اليوم نشاهد حقيقة بيع الأفلام العربية والموسيقى العربية إلى مستثمر تشكل إمبراطوريته الإعلامية واحدة من أسباب تشويه صورة الصراع العربي-الإسرائيلي في الغرب".

وفي خطوة تحذيرية، هددت شركة الأفلام المصرية بوقف تعاملها مع مجموعة روتانا التي يستهدف بثها جمهوراً عربياً في الشرق الأوسط لا يقل معارضة لسياسة موردوك عنها.

معروف عن موردوك مساندته لإسرائيل على مدى عقود، وقد تسلم العديد من الجوائز من منظمات يهودية تقديراً لهذا الدعم.
ومعروف أيضاً عن الأمير وليد في بلاده بأنه تقدمي ومساند للقضايا العربية، ولكنه ليس حاداً في انتقاده لإسرائيل.

في مؤتمر صحافي له في المملكة العربية السعودية لمناسبة شراء أسهم روتانا قال موردوك: "أتمنى أن تهدئ هذه الشراكة من حدة الانحياز ضد العرب في بعض وسائل الإعلام التابعة لمجموعة "نيوز كوربورايشن" مثل "فوكس نيوز". عموماً، "فوكس نيوز" ليست الوحيدة المناهضة للعرب، فهذا مرض أميركي...نحن سنفعل ما بوسعنا للتخفيف من هذه النبرة."

ويبقى السؤال، كيف سيعمل موردوك على تخفيف نبرة فوكس نيوز وباقي أبواقه الإعلامية المناهضة للعرب، هل من خلال "تدجين" العرب في غرف جلوسهم على الطريقة الأميركية، أم بفرض قيود على محطته لتحترم أمة يمتد تاريخها إلى ما قبل اكتشاف أميركا بآلاف السنين.
فلنصلِّ أن لا يجعل العربان الخيار الأول هو الخيار الأسهل للغول الأميركي.

"Allah Strengtheneth with His Succour whom He Will"

2010-02-16T15:00:00.004+02:00

“In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful..
There was a token for you in two hosts which met: one army fighting in the way of Allah, and another disbelieving, whom they saw as twice their number, clearly, with their very eyes. Thus Allah strengtheneth with His succour whom He will. Lo! herein verily is a lesson for those who have eyes.” (Quran Sura 3; V 13)

It is the sacrifices of patriots that keep nations alive.
It is also the blood of leaders, cadres, fighters and patriots that has been giving the resistance group Hezbollah momentum and drawing its clear and evident path to God.

Two years ago, the Israeli Mossad assassinated Hezbollah’s resistance commander martyr Imad Moghniyeh (Hajj Redwan) in Damascus.
The martyr has since been known as the leader of the two victories. Hajj Redwan was the architect of the 2000 liberation of most of Lebanese territories from Israel’s 22-year occupation and the man who marked the beginning of Israel’s end when he destroyed, in the 2006 war, the zionist entity’s ‘third temple’ – an indication to the final defeat of Israel according to the Torah.
It is the creators of this malicious entity who predicted that their first defeat will bring Israel’s end.

In a movement like Hezbollah, a resistance that chose death over humiliation, oppression and occupation it is not likely that the killing of its leaders and cadres will stop. Hajj Redwan was simply the last, at least for now.

"Those martyrs presented the good example, achieved liberation, and are still defending the country and supporting the resistance in Palestine. They are still raising the banner, the ensign, the flag that we vowed together not to let go. The flag will never fall. On the contrary, it will pass from one shoulder to another and from one hand to another until it is raised up high over our mountain tops and over the dome of our beloved 'Aqsa' and until our Lebanese, Palestinian, Arab, and Islamic lands are free from occupation," Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah said during the funeral of martyr Ghaleb Awali – a Hezbollah cadre assassinated by the Mossad in July, 2004.

The ensign that is moving from one hand to another was first carried by "the sheikh of the martyrs of the Islamic Resistance" Sheikh Ragheb Harb who once said: "A position is a weapon and a hand shake is acknowledgment", referring to the acknowledgment of Israel. His positions prompted the Israelis to detain him, what sparked an uprising across south Lebanon to demand his release. Israel couldn't quiet him so it found no other solution than to kill him on February 16, 1984. Israel thought that, by killing Sheikh Harb, it will go on with its scheme more smoothly. However, his blood, like the blood of those who will follow him, was destined to draw the path of resistance and jihad.

A few years later, Lebanon witnessed another Israeli assassination of a resistance figure. This time, it was Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Abbas Moussawi. He was on his way back home after having marked the eighth anniversary of Sheikh Harb's martyrdom when his car was hit by rockets launched from Israeli warplanes killing him, his wife, and their son Hussein. Sayyed Mussawi's fundamental will was: "Preserve the resistance."

Once again, a leader's martyrdom had given the resistance movement more momentum. Eleven years later, the Israeli occupation targeted a key resistance figure, Abu Ali Rida Yassin. The now strong resistance retaliated and bombed Zionist targets. Israel backed for eight years, before Said Harb, another resistance commander, fell a martyr. At that same day, resistance fighters carried out two military operations against Israeli posts and shelled Zionist settlements with 'Katyosha' rockets.

The long procession of martyrs never stopped; it’s not meant to stop before complete victory. On August 1999, resistance commander Ali Hasan Dib, known as Abu Hasan Salame, was targeted by a bomb explosion on the 'Abra-Hilaliye' road in southern Lebanon. Mossad agent, a Lebanese called Mahmoud Rafeh, had played a significant role in his assassination. Rafeh is under arrest and awaits trial and perhaps the gallows. He was also involved in the assassination of resistance commander Ali Hussein Saleh in the Kafa’at region in the southern suburb of Beirut on August 2003 and a couple of years later, two Islamic Jihad officials in the southern city of Sidon.

11 months have passed before another resistance figure joined the procession. Ghaleb Mohamed Awali was assassinated when a bomb planted in his car exploded in the 'Moawwad' region in the southern suburb of Beirut.

Last but for sure, not least, top commander Imad Moghniyyeh joined his brothers and all the Islamic resistance martyrs who have made their country proud and rendered our enemy defeated.

Today Israel is still threatening Lebanon with war and Lebanon is promising Israel a resounding defeat. With the sacrifices of resistance fighters and cadres, Lebanon is no longer the Lebanon that former Israeli PM Golda Meir thought would be conquered by the zionist army band...

Gadhafi: Some Guy Was Crucified Instead of Jesus...So, Will You Convert to Islam Now?

2009-11-19T22:41:00.017+02:00

Approaches made by Muslims worldwide to clear Islam of the accumulating accusations of intolerance, ignorance and closeness, have culminated recently by Moammar Gadhafi, the Libyan leader, in Rome.

The post 9/11 era has seen perhaps the worst times for Arabs and Muslims in particular. Well, the culprits of this heinous crime were all Muslims.

Given the hegemony of the Israel lobby on most major news networks in the United States, the little tools at the hands of dedicated Muslims on the one hand and the chronic passiveness of some Arab governments, Islamophobia, Islamists, Islamification and terrorism have become the very first words that will pop into the minds of many westerners who would encounter an Arab or a Muslim.

This is a serious matter for the Muslim community that does not tolerate killing civilians, mutilating their bodies (decapitating), and most importantly coercing others to abide by the rules and the teachings of Islam.

If I were a Muslim who would only choose to follow the teachings of Prophet Mohammed peace be upon him, regardless of the Sunni and Shiite points of view, I would set the Prophet himself as an example of tolerance with Muslims and non-Muslims, even at times of war.
If I were a Shiite, I would set Imam Ali Bin Abi Taleb as another model of knowledge, justice and tolerance.
And if I were a Sunni Muslim, I would set Caliph Omar Ibn Al-Khattab as yet another example. There are tons of such cases just a mouse-click away.

In contrast today, Moammar Gadhafi has his own unique way to promote Islam; a way that indicates to...let me soften it by saying ‘unenlightenment.”

When former US Secretary of Stated Condoleezza Rice had her first encounter with the Libyan leader, he actually asked her to convert to Islam.
Some say Gadhafi has his own quirky conception of Islam. He even proposed to delete some words from the holy Quran, just because he thought they were unnecessary repetitions, like the word “Qol” Arabic for “say, tell, inform...etc)

Recently in Italy, the Libyan leader again felt the dire need to promote Islam – the Gadhafi way. Or maybe he just wanted to make the headlines. He had no one to think of beside good looking Italian women aged between 18 and 35 “to exchange views.”

According to the Italian newswire ANSA, and at the behest of Gadhafi, one Italian modeling agency (Hostessweb) began searching for hundreds of girls across the country. Not only that, but the 68 year-old-all-black-hair leader had carefully set his criteria. Gadhafi’s advertisement conditioned that the Italian women should also be cute, at least 1.7 meters tall, and well dressed.”

Gadhafi, who is used to being accompanied by female bodyguards on state visits, was also bountiful. He gave the good-looking Italian women $75 dollars (the price to attend the event), a copy of the Quran and a copy of his “Green Book”.

Instead of ‘exchanging views’, the Libyan leader, described by many western media as a narcissist, gave a lecture about Islam.

He wanted those good looking ladies to convert to Islam, and he chose Jesus to make his approach.
ANSA quoted some of the participants as saying that Gadhafi told his audience that "you believe that Jesus was crucified, but that didn't happen. God took him to the heavens. They crucified some guy who looked like him."

What could possibly make a sedate man think that such an approach would tease the minds of those ‘cute’ Italian Christian women, enlighten them and trigger them to learn about Islam?

"I was expecting a party, not a lecture," one participant told ANSA. "All the girls expected a party with a gala dinner, instead, "he made a 45-minute speech on Islam and women's role in Islam. It was a bit of an indoctrination session," said Italian Journalist Paola Lo Mele.

Reuters placed Gadhafi’s soiree in the “oddly enough” section.
What more can there possibly be? Is there really a difference between Gadhafi and a masked head chopper? Actually, there is no difference for they are both depreciating Islam.

If I were a cute Italian girl attending Gadhafi’s whatever-it-was, I would have certainly asked him about abduction, lying and murder in Islam.
But since I’ll never be a cute Italian girl, nor will I ever sit with this man at the same table or in the same room, I’ll just ask him this, mano-a-mano, no cute girls involved:

Mr. Gadhafi, what does Islam say about a man who kidnapped two prominent religious figures and a reporter in 1978, and indirectly caused a civil war that resulted in hundreds of thousands of victims?
Mr. Gadhafi, what does Islam say about a man who lied to the world about kidnapping Imam Mousa al-Sadr, Sheikh Mohammed Yaacub and reporter Abbas Badreddine?
What would Islam say about someone who ordered the slaughtering of hundreds (some 1200) of inmates at the Bou Sleem prison in 1996?
Do you really think that Islam tolerates shooting down two civilian aircrafts (The French UTA with 170 passengers on board in 1989 and a Libyan plane with 157 passengers in 1992)?
Mr. Gadhafi, what does Islam say about a man like yourself?

The 31st of August of every year, marks the 1978 kidnapping of Imam Sayyed Mussa Sadr in Libya. The Imam is considered one of the most prominent Muslim Shiite figures who sought to apply the message of religion in real life. Imam Sadr was also among the religious figures who contributed in launching the Islamic-Christian dialogue in Lebanon, at a time civil war was ruining this country. The Imam did not have any ties with Libya or its ruler, however, he decided to visit Tripoli in the wake of the 1978 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, as part of a tour of Arab countries to rally support and prepare for an Arab summit over the war.

Libyan authorities claimed that Sadr, Yaacoub and Badreddine had left Tripoli for Rome, as Ghaddafi refrained from addressing the issue with then Lebanese president Elias Sarkis. An investigative panel was formed to carry out a fact finding mission in Tripoli and Rome, but Libya refused to receive the panel.
Investigators concluded that Imam Sadr and his companions had never left Libya and did not check into Italy.
Rome conducted two rounds of investigations into the case and authorities concluded that Libyan claims were baseless.

An Open Letter to 'Mahmoud Abbas' On The Goldstone Report

2009-10-15T15:20:00.005+03:00

An Open Letter to 'Mahmoud Abbas' On The Goldstone Report

To sign this letter, Click here.

We are a diverse group of Palestinians, solidarity activists, and supporters of human rights and international law. We write to join the Palestinian political parties, civil society groups, trade unions, and citizens that have condemned the recent decision at the UN Human Rights Council to withdraw Palestinian support for a resolution endorsing the report of the “UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict,” led by Richard Goldstone.

We consider this decision a betrayal of the Palestinian struggle for self-determination and of broader efforts to promote human rights and a just international system.

Although we have no illusions that the Goldstone report would have guaranteed accountability for the atrocities committed in Gaza, we recognize it as an important tool in mobilizing the world community for the cause of peace and justice in the region. We also understand that Israel and its allies exerted pressure on you to bury the report. But by withdrawing support for a resolution in the Human Rights Council, you have done more to undermine these efforts than all of the sustained, high-level attacks by Israel and its allies combined. You have squandered the support of the world community for no good reason.

We understand that you have appointed a committee to investigate how and why the Goldstone report was shelved. Such an inquiry is not needed to tell us that the person ultimately responsible for this disastrous decision is you. We are outraged that the self-described leader of a national liberation movement would seek to evade responsibility for such a reckless and damaging error.

Furthermore, we believe this self-inflicted wound raises serious doubts about the soundness of your leadership and the authority of the diplomatic missions under your control worldwide to represent the interests of the Palestinian people.

As Palestinians and non-Palestinian supporters of universal rights, our solidarity is first and foremost with the Palestinian people. We stand together for all actions that strengthen the national liberation movement and a just international system. Your most recent decision so egregiously undermines these goals that it leaves us with no choice but to clarify the contours of our solidarity – to stand with the Palestinian people and against you.

We demand that you restore full Palestinian diplomatic support for advancing the Goldstone report through the United Nations system, including to the Security Council and the International Criminal Court.

Furthermore, we reiterate our support for efforts to restore the unity and legitimacy of the Palestinian national struggle. Until such unity is restored, any appeals for solidarity or support from you or your subordinates will carry no weight.

Meanwhile, we pledge ourselves to redoubling our efforts for a just peace in the region based on respect for human rights and international law, including the right to self-determination – with or without your help.

Signed,

Noam Chomsky

Omar Barghouti

Noura Erakat, Georgetown University

Mahmood Mamdani

Iyad al Sarraj, Gaza Community Mental Health Program

Mamduh al Akr

Nur Masalha, Director, Centre for Religion and History and Holy Land Research Project, St. Mary’s University College (UK)

A/Prof Bassam Dally, The Australian Friends of Palestine

Dror Feiler, Chair, JIPF (Judar för Israelisk Plaestinsk Fred), Sweden

Keith Hammond, Scottish Committee for the Universities of Palestine

Dr. Sara Roy

Philip Weiss

Salim Tamari, Director, Institute of Jerusalem Studies

Daniel Machover, Chair, Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights, London

Hasan Khader

Nahed Samour, German-Palestinian Lawyers’ Association

Abraham Melzer, Editor, SEMIT Jewish Magazine, 63263 Neu-Isenberg, Germany

Mazin Qumsiyeh, PhD, Professor, Bethlehem University

Ingrid Jaradat Gassner, Director, BADIL Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights

Dr. Nancy Murray, President, Gaza Mental Health Foundation

Matan Cohen, co-founder Anarchists Against The Wall, SJP Hampshire College. Member- Boycott From Within

Salman Abu Sitta

Islah Jad

Salih Abdul Jawwad

Joel Kovel

Elaine C. Hagopian, Ph.D., Professor Emerita of Sociology, Simmons College, Boston

Elliott Colla, Dept. of Arabic and Islamic Studies, Georgetown University

Nora Lester Murad

Dr. Marcy Newman

Leila Farsakh, University of Massachusetts-Boston

Eyal Weizman

Noel Ignatiev, Edward Said Visiting Professor of American Studies, American University of Beirut

Dr. Anat Matar, head of Israeli Association for the Palestinian Prisoners, Prof., Tel Aviv University

Marc Estrin, Vermonters for a Just Peace in Palestine/Israel

Thomas Asher, President, The American Council

Mousa Budeiri, Prof., Birzeit University, Israeli-Occupied West Bank

Rachel Giora, Prof., Tel Aviv University

Khalid Farraj

Zakariyya Muhammad

Paolo Canarutto, European Jews for a Just Peace

Mohamad Shmaysani

To sign the petition: Click here

21st Century Palestinians Deserve No Less than 20th Century Jewish Yemenites

2009-09-15T13:49:00.011+03:00

Truth be told, a vast majority of Arabs have been attentively keeping up with Ramadan’s Arabic soap operas, barely finding time for other, well, less important matters.

Westerners, who couldn’t care less about an “idle” world that spends more than 6 hours attached to the TV screen and another 8 hours sleeping, have recently shook the grounds under the Israelis when they uncovered a zionist crime against Palestinians. But the impact here was so resounding that most Arabs have been ‘speechless’!

Swedish journalist Donald Boström of the widely circulated newspaper, Aftonbaldet earned encomium from some Arab circles for exposing an Israeli crime against human life and dignity during the war on Gaza.
Boström’s article title “Our sons plundered for their organs” emphasized the agony of the Palestinians who have been suffering not only from Israeli crimes but from the Arab silence and desertion as well.

The Swedish article infuriated Israel and pro-Israeli groups and resulted in a diplomatic crisis between the two countries. The article says that the Israeli army assisted in organ theft from Palestinians killed by troops and that body parts had been removed during unauthorized autopsies performed in occupied territories. What is more shocking about the report is that this has been going on since the first Intifada.

Yehuda Hiss, director of the Abu Kabir institute in the late 1980s was the doctor behind the large scale harvest of organs. He admitted to the crime, but he was never jailed. He oversaw the autopsies of Palestinians and his ‘trade’ was first uncovered in 2000 by the widely read Yedioth Aharonoth daily.

Odd how Arab media ‘misses out’ such crimes when, alas, it is obvious that what they are airing during this month of Ramadan is merely aimed at reminding Arabs of their chivalrous characteristics and their epics against the French colonial forces in the Levant or the Arabs’ secret intelligence wars with the Israeli Mossad.

However, in the interactive world of the internet where unfortunately the 40% of illiterate Arabs do not live, an anti-zionist blogosphere and many western, Arab and Muslim media outlets have been giving such Israeli crimes great attention.

The organ theft scandal in Israel is likely to have a domino effect as similar crimes by Israeli organizations in the Arab world have been unearthed; an international zionist conspiracy to kidnap Algerian children and harvest their organs.

The story was first reported by Algeria's Al-Khabar daily which revealed that bands of Moroccans and Algerians have allegedly been roaming the streets of Algeria's cities kidnapping young children, who are then transported across the border into Morocco. From the Moroccan city of Oujda, the children are then purportedly sold to Israelis and American Jews, who then harvest their organs for sale in Israel and the United States. The organs are said to fetch anywhere from $20,000 to $100,000.

Dr. Mustafa Khayatti, head of the Algerian National Committee for the Development of Health Research, has linked the crime to the group of pro-Israeli US politicians and rabbis who were arrested recently in New York. But Khayati warned that although “these Jewish organ trafficking gangs have been arrested, other such gangs remain active in several Arab countries.”

The Iranian Press TV linked the gang to Israeli Rabbi Levi Rosenbaum who was recently arrested in New Jersey for his direct role in illegal human organs trade.

Evidence to back such a story is always questionable as some commentators maintain in their bid to discredit a fellow Arab journalist’s story, instead of combining efforts to make an in-depth investigation into the circumstances.

"The report "sounds as though Dr. Khayatti is well connected within the FBI and has access to Interpol documents...Needless to say; neither Al-Khabar nor PressTV provided a source for their story, other than an obscure low-level Algerian bureaucrat," wrote Hassan Masiky, a reporter for the American Moroccan news service MoroccoBoard.com.

It is not really that hard to unearth stories implicating Israeli mafia in crimes including organ and children trafficking. History recalls that in the 1950’s, the same Dr. Hiss was implicated in a scandal involving Yemenite Jewish children adopted by Ashkenazi couples.

Yemenite Parents had been informed that their children had died, usually after admission to hospital.
However, Yemenite parents have continued pressing for answers, and forced officials to reopen the files.

Today, as some journalists are undermining such stories, Palestinian families are denied the right to speak in international courts when they deserve nothing less than the Jewish Yemenite families.

Moroccan Hassan Masiky wonders: "Who are these kidnapped [Moroccan] children? Where are their parents? Who conducts these organ harvesting operations? How are the children and the organs transported from Morocco to Israel? And more importantly, how can the Algerian army allow such illicit traffic to go unabated?"

The Swedish journalist relayed the oppressed people’s demand for justice. Donald Boström, the ‘western’ reporter who travelled thousands of miles to Palestine, relied on the answers and testimonies of Palestinians whose loved ones’ organs were plundered.

But one thing’s for sure; as proud Arabs, we will never know the answers to Masiki’s questions while watching TV, having dessert and bemoaning our grandfather’s chivalry and noble characters.

Imam Moussa Sadr, The Man Who Disappeared For Lebanon's Sake 31 Years Ago

2009-09-03T17:08:00.012+03:00

31 hard years have passed and people - whether contemporary of him or not - are still hoping to see him again. He’s the Imam whose Muslims and Christians alike miss; the Imam whose whereabouts remain a secret within a secret inside Libya where Imam Moussa Sadr had traveled to seek support against the 1978 Israeli war on Lebanon.

The 31st of August of every year, marks the date of the 1978 kidnapping of Imam Sayyed Mussa Sadr in Libya. The Imam is considered one of the most prominent Muslim Shiite figures who sought to apply the message of religion in real life. He adopted the causes of the oppressed and the poor. Imam Sadr was also among the religious figures who contributed in launching the Islamic-Christian dialogue in Lebanon, at a time civil war was ruining this country. The Imam did not have any ties with Libya or its rulers, however he decided to visit Tripoli in the wake of the 1978 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, as part of a tour of Arab countries to rally support and prepare for an Arab summit over the war.

Then Algerian President Hawari Boumedian, suggested that the Imam visits Libya for that purpose as Moammar Ghaddafi was a key player in the course of the political and military situation in Lebanon. Imam Sadr left Beirut's international airport for an official visit to meet Ghaddafi in Tripoli on the 25th of August 1978, accompanied by Sheikh Mohamad Yaacoub and journalist Abbas Badreddine.

According to reports, the trio stayed in the "Shate' Hotel" in Tripoli, however the Imam's visit was not mentioned in Libyan media and every contact with him was cut. Witnesses said that they saw the Imam and his two companions leave the hotel in an official convoy on the 31st of August, the date set for their meeting with Ghaddafi.

The Libyan president however denied the meeting ever took place, even though reports say that he confirmed the date was set on the 31st of August at 1:00pm. The same reports said that the meeting did take place and deep differences between Ghaddafi and the Imam surfaced pertaining to the crisis in Lebanon. They added that Kings and rulers intervened in vain to sort out these differences.

Sayyed Sadr and his companions disappeared and they were never heard of until this very day. Libyan authorities claimed that Sadr, Yaacoub and Badreddine had left Tripoli for Rome, as Ghaddafi refrained from addressing the issue with then Lebanese president Elias Sarkis. An investigative panel was formed to carry out a fact finding mission in Tripoli and Rome, but Libya refused to receive the panel.

Investigators concluded that Imam Sadr and his companions had never left Libya and did not check into Italy.

Rome conducted two rounds of investigations into the case and authorities concluded that Libyan claims were baseless.

For their part, Lebanese authorities considered the disappearance of the Imam and his companions as a crime against the state's internal security and took legal action. On the 30th of August 2001, Amnesty International issued its first report on the disappearance of Imam Sadr and his companions and stressed allegations that they had left Tripoli contradict the outcome of the Italian investigation.

Imam Sadr was born in the holy city Qom, Iran in 1928 to the prominent Sadr family of theologians. His father was Ayatollah Sadr al-Din al-Sadr, while Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr was his cousin. He attended his primary school in his hometown and then moved to the Iranian capital Tehran where he received in 1956 a degree in Islamic Jurisprudence and Political Sciences from Tehran University. He then moved back to Qom to study theology. Eventually he left Qom for Najaf to study theology under Ayatollah Sayed Muhsin al-Hakim and Ayatollah Sayyed Abul Qasim Khou'i.

The Sadr family is originally a Lebanese family, and in 1960 Musa al-Sadr accepted an invitation to become the leading Muslim Shi'ite figure in the Lebanese southern city of Tyre. He was a vocal opponent of Israel.

In 1969 he was appointed as the first head of the Supreme Islamic Shi'ite Council, an entity meant to give the dacades-long oppressed Shi'ites more say in government.

In 1974 he founded the Movement of the Deprived to press for better economic and social conditions for the Shi'ites.

He established a number of schools and medical clinics throughout southern Lebanon, many of which are still operating today.

Sayyed Sadr was also the founder of the first armed resistance in Lebanon against the Israeli occupation, under the name Lebanese Resistance Brigades Movement, Arabic for Amal Movement.

August 14, A Historic & Glorious Day to Remember

2009-08-09T19:51:00.010+03:00

During the Nakba (Catastrophe) era in 1948, and while the Zionists were busy committing massacres in the Palestinian village of Deir Kassem and other towns, more Israeli soldiers were storming into the Lebanese town of Houla near the border with occupied Palestine, where they killed-massacre 90 inhabitants.

At that time, Lebanon decided to go for truce as its strength, back then, “was in its weakness.”

However the armistice never stopped Israel from attacking Lebanese towns, whenever it desired.

The result was the massacre of Hanine where residents were executed with axes; Yarine where all the homes were leveled on the heads of their occupants and Aytaroun where seven children were massacred, not to forget the massacres of Bint Jbeil, Rashaya, Kounine, Adloun, Abbasiyeh, Khiam and other villages.

Israeli gangs which constituted the kernel of the so called “Israel Defense Army” war closer to aggression than defense. Their massacres continued unabated for the next 20 years.

Most Lebanese still remember Israel’s bombing of Beirut’s International Airport in 1967, when the whole fleet of commercial planes was turned into twisted and riddled metal.

There was no reaction from Beirut, as the whole defeated Arab world plunged in a new era called the “Naksa” or the “Setback.”.

In the second half of the 1970’s, two years after the civil war broke out, Israel entered the phase of organized wars against Lebanon; 6 wars so far.

In 1978, Israel exploited the presence of the Palestinian resistance in Lebanon to execute its scheme: Establish a defensive line along the Litani River. The invasion was dubbed “Operation Litani”. 30,000 Israeli soldiers invaded south Lebanon and formed a 13km - deep “security zone,” with the help of then chief collaborator Saad Haddad.

The UN Security Council issued the renowned resolution 425 that stipulates the full Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon. Israel never implemented the resolution. In its years of occupation, Israel committed dozens of massacres in southern villages and towns under the eyes of the international community.

Israel launched its second war in 1981. Back then its allies, namely the Phalanges Party, were trapped in the Bekaa city of Zahle by National Forces as well as the Syrian army. The air, land and sea aggression on the western sector of the capital Beirut in particular, left behind 700 people killed and injured. Washington pressed Tel Aviv to accept a ceasefire. However, it violated the truce 2777 times.

Less than a year later, Israel launched "Operation Peace of the Galilee.”

It was nothing more than a barbaric invasion of Lebanon in which 100,000 Israeli soldiers, 1100 tanks and 100 fighter jets took part. 25,000 was the count of victims in this third war, not to forget the 1300 Palestinian refugees who were massacred in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.

Eventually, Israel deemed itself successful after it forced out the Palestinian resistance from Lebanon and imposed a pro-Israel regime in Beirut with which it signed a peace deal that was thwarted by national forces. Israel woke up to the reality that a new resistance force was on the rise and it was not long before it found itself in a fierce confrontation with it.

A year later, the Israeli occupation command had to order a withdrawal under the strikes of the young and inexperienced fighters redeploy, a process that extended until 1985, after at least 1200 Israeli soldiers were killed. The new area of occupation was now known as the southern security belt.

In 1985, Hezbollah announced its adaptation of previous resistance operations against the occupation and declared in an “open letter” its decision to resist Israel until liberation.

Israel and the resistance engaged in a war of attrition with its peak reached in 1993, when Hezbollah retaliated to bombing Lebanese villages resulting in massacres, with bombing the settlement of Kiryat Shmona. Israel’s response was launching “Operation Accountability.”

For seven consecutive days, the Zionist army bombed south Lebanon with no less than 27 thousand shells and another 1000 rocket. 120 Lebanese civilians fell martyrs and a quarter of a million others were displaced. It was Israel’s fourth war.

Three years later, Israel’s fifth war was dubbed “Operation Grapes of Wrath,” with its main objective: Crush Hezbollah. During 16 days, Israel carried out 1100 air raids and fired 25 thousand artillery shells on southern villages as well as Beirut’s southern suburb. The toll was 96 civilian martyrs and 165 others injured. In this war, Israel separately committed the first Qana massacre and killed another 118 men, women and children taking refuge in a UNIFIL post in the town. 400 houses and stores were completely destroyed and half a million Lebanese were displaced.

The war ended with an understanding known as the “April Understanding” which binds Israel not to target civilians.

With the humiliating withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces from most Lebanese territory, the Lebanese deemed Israeli wars against their country over. But the 2000 pullout dragged a sixth war six years later; a war that far exceeded in violence and barbarism the five preceding wars because Israel, blessed by the US and some Arab states, wanted it to be the last and decisive engagement with Hezbollah.

Israel’s war backlashed and Lebanon became a hard number in the Israeli – Arab conflict.

"Israel is today under the pressure of accumulated downfalls. Sometimes we must observe our enemy and expect more conspiracies. We should be cautious from some of those around us because the conspiracy is not over yet,” Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Nasrallah warned.

The last but not least victory of Hezbollah and the resistance happened in July 2008, two years after the July 2006 war. It was another pledge by Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah coming true.

Operation Al-Redwan, named after martyr Imad Moghniyeh (Hajj Redwan) who was assassinated in Syria four months earlier by the Israeli Mossad, closed the file of Lebanese captives in Israeli jails as well as the so called “cemetery of numbers” which embraced the remains of some 200 Arab martyrs. Hezbollah exchanged two dead Israeli soldiers with five Lebanese detainees and the remains of the Arab martyrs. Samir Kintar, who has multiple life-time sentences, was among the released, although Israel stated on many occasions that all captives are one case and Kintar was another nonnegotiable one.

Today, three years after the defeat of Israel in the July war of 2006, Israel is still violating UN resolution 1701 that ended hostilities, as confirmed by the United Nations. Israel is still threatening Lebanon with war, full force invasion and occupation of land and resources. The Winograd report that tackled the failures of the Israeli military and political failures in the 2006 war clearly states that Hezbollah defeated Israel and assessments in Tel Aviv, as well as Hezbollah statements, clearly state that the Islamic Resistance has become even stronger today with more capabilities and...surprises.

In its early decades, Israel's 'strategic prowess' was legendary, transforming a weak country into a regional power.

The past decade has seen an opposite process, whereby that powerhouse is starting to collapse. Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah stressed in a speech mourning martyr Moghniyeh that the countdown to Israel’s disappearance had begun since their first defeat. “It is them - the Israelis - who believe that the countdown to Israel’s collapse starts with the moment they are defeated,” Sayyed Nasrallah stressed; and Sayyed Nasrallah’s pledges have been proven to be always true.

Three Sleepless Nights, A Murder and Two “Ufff’s”!

2009-07-15T23:40:00.007+03:00

Three sleepless nights and very noisy days were the latest tough times for my wife and I as parents. Our 18-month boy’s two new teeth were about to show and his fever…well, if you’re a parent you’d know the hell I’m talking about.

Our son had decided, on the third day, that we should take our soldiers’ break at 19:30 Beirut time, that’s when we usually sit half awake to hear the latest news.
Stretching on my couch, my eyes wide open as if I had really seen a ghost and my nervous hands were embracing each other on my chest, I came to think that my three-day experience was not enough to convince me that an 18 year old could cry, nag and instill the sounds of fast paced yet intermittent shrieks in our two ached heads. But eventually I had to face it…kids can do this, and yes…for three days.

As usual, I missed the headlines and part of the editorial, but I insisted on watching the rest of the bulletin. A hot cup of coffee and a cigarillo after a hard day were really tempting to stay awake for another thirty minutes.

When those thirty minutes actually began, I wished my doze of caffeine would not have conquered my drowsiness.

Ufff, I mumbled in my Lebanese accent to express my surprise. Something is wrong with this bulletin. The crucial deliberations to form my country’s new government are not top news! What could be worse than that? I asked my half sleeping wife.

“Adam, 5 and Omar, 7 had been murdered,” the anchor replied.
Ufff, but this time I shouted it with a cough and smoke discharging from my mouth and nose like fume from an exhaust over my wife’s head.

“50 year old Muwaffaq Qobeissi who had worked for 20 years in the United States as a mechanical engineer, has drugged his two children to death before attempting to kill himself by setting his apartment on fire. Qobeissi had returned to Lebanon four years ago and remained jobless throughout those years. He is divorced from Wisal Ma’moun, the mother of Adam and Omar. Reports said that the man committed his crime in Aramoun, southeast of Beirut, to take revenge on his wife. Qobeissi’s brother eventually discovered the murder after he suspected something was not right in the apartment. The two children were lying dead in the master bedroom with their hands tied, and their father beside them barely breathing,” the anchor read.

At this stage, the voice of the anchor, my son’s cries and my wife’s loud “oh my God” slapped my somnolence really hard and then I plunged into an awkward state of insomnia.

When my five senses came back to life, I found my wife carrying my fevered son, crying. “How can a father do something like that to his own flesh and blood? she asked me. Again, the anchor came to the rescue. “Qobeissi claimed he did not mean to kill his children but wanted to calm down the boys, who seemed hyper active, with 25 pills of Lexotanil and Stilonox sedatives dissolved in juice.”

He takes revenge on his wife by killing his own kids, my standing wife said while ‘rocking my fevered – but now quiet - baby’ with her chin on his chest and watching the report but clearly not hearing what it says.

“The mother had been given guardianship over Adam and Omar who were allowed to two visits to their ‘psychologically disordered’ father twice a week. Before their divorce, Muwaffaq used to physically abuse Wisal, but she only sued her husband after he began to beat up the boys. Wisal’s lawyer said the mother had always raised fears that her ex-husband would kill the kids someday, but her fears were always eased down by her family. No father kills his own children, they told her. The lawyer also said that the father was not disordered as he appeared at every court session and discussed the custody case better than any lawyer. Muwaffaq had even suspected that Adam and Omar were not his children. DNA samples were taken from the bodied before they were laid in their resting places. The father, who failed to take his own life, is under arrest while the collapsed mother is given sedatives every four hours…to keep her alive.”

This time I failed to “ufff”, I was too busy pretending not to be crying. But when I saw the sweet picture of the two boys posing cheek to cheek, I cracked down. This is how my two sons hug each other when the eldest, 6, goes to school.

Yes, this was definitely worse than politics, but actually had the spirit of ruthless politics.

A regular Lebanese can draw many similarities between the crime and our domestic politics.

A wise man told me that an overtired and indebted father who embraces his fevered children to protect them from being sacrificed on the altar of rotten bargains, neo-liberalism and globalization is like a country that appreciates its citizens as its cardinal asset, while a jobless father who kills his own boys to take revenge on his ex-wife is like an indebted state (Lebanon is under a 50 billion dollars debt) that sucks the blood of its impoverished citizens and drain-brains itself to take revenge on…itself.

The Dayton-Fayyad Project: Eliminate the Resistance…Fatah as Well

2009-07-01T13:07:00.006+03:00

Palestinian Prime Minister designate, Salam Fayyad, appears to have his own agenda, or rather the same agenda as US General Keith Dayton's. Dayton is appointed by former US President George W. Bush and maintained by the new Obama administration, to the post of Coordinator for US Security in the Palestinian Territories. Since Dayton’s arrival, Fayyad seems to be following his guidelines, stipulating Israel will always have the upper hand over Palestinian rights.

According to Palestinian columnist, Mounir Chafik, the goal is not to repress the factions of the Palestinian resistance, Hamas and Jihad, but also to eradicate Fatah elements from the circles of the Palestinian Authority and civil security services.

Thus, Dayton was able to train and arm a 900-strong force dependent on the paramilitary leader of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas. The force is named Bader and it is aimed at replacing the various Palestinian security forces under Fatah, founded by the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

Having participated actively in the second intifada against the Israeli enemy, the decision was made to sack them. Effectively, Keith Dayton dismissed 7000 Fatah members to recruit new ones, teaching them a whole new ideology hostile to the resistance, and whose mission is to perform the dirty jobs of the soldiers of the Israeli occupation in the West Bank: liquidate the cells of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah. Charity associations, educational and health facilities belonging to those factions will not be spared as well.

Quoting the words of Dayton, in his speech at the Washington Institute in May 2009 that "the performance of Bader force has stunned the Israelis," Chafik concludes that it is through this Palestinian force that Israeli troops in the West Bank were able to go to Gaza, to conduct the war in December-January. Chafik also discussed Fayyad’s last speech on June 21, which he delivered at the University of Jerusalem, in the town of Aboudiss.

The US-backed PM designate said he would "create institutions of an independent state within two years , based on a mature power ... ". Fayyad’s comments suggest a process similar to that adopted with the security forces: a smooth removal of the remaining Fatah officials to replace them with "elements loyal to Fayyad and the duo (George) Mitchell-Dayton," says Chafik. But what worries the Palestinian analyst the most in Fayyad’s speech is a five-word sentence that may have gone unnoticed: "We are meeting in Jerusalem,” he began his speech, knowing that he was speaking in Aboudiss, a city located outside the occupied holy city of Jerusalem; the same city that the Israelis insist on trying to impose as the capital of the "state" of Palestine. ,

However, Fayyad is going to have to accept that the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat had unequivocally and firmly rejected in Camp David in 2000 to give up Al-Quds as the capital of Palestine.

Presumably, Fayyad cannot act without the green light of Mahmoud Abbas.Worth mentioning, the PM designate’s illusive comments to the Palestinian public have backlashed, as distributing roles requires one who creates a fait-accompli and another who distracts the Palestinian people who has, so far, led two Intifadas for the sake of their just cause. Leila Mazboudi contributed to this report

Lebanon Elections Between Obama’s Speech and Settling Palestinians

2009-06-08T19:11:00.006+03:00

...And on Monday, official results came in: The March 14 bloc has won general elections, yet the map of the representation of opposition ‘heavy weights’ has not changed. Hezbollah has kept its 11 MPs and General Michel Aoun now has a larger bloc: 26 MPs including 25 Christians. The 2005 elections gave Aoun a 22 member bloc including MP Michel Murr who later pulled out of the Change and Reform camp.

Surprisingly, the New York Times reflected Washington’s “biggest disappointment” at the outcome of elections. ”Though the Hezbollah-led challengers appeared to lose, Hezbollah itself — a Shiite political, social and military organization that is officially regarded by the United States and Israel as a terrorist group — will continue to be one of Lebanon’s most powerful political forces. The biggest disappointment may well have been Michel Aoun, a retired general who appeared to preserve his bloc of seats but left the Christian constituency divided,” the New York Times said.

Aoun now has the largest Christian bloc in parliament and therefore he’s established as the leader of the Christian community in Lebanon.

What’s to be disappointed about?

Lebanon is likely to slide again into a political crisis over the formation of the next government, similar to the one that battered the country for the last four years. The new government should rule the country based on a policy statement that would set its fixed standards and govern its conduct for the next four years. It goes without saying that the most complicated issues on the statement will be the legitimacy of the resistance and its weapons on the one hand and the settlement of Palestinian refugees.

Hezbollah, which stands firmly with the right of return of Palestinian refugees, has warned that the next government must vow not to touch the arms of the resistance, period. On the other hand, Hezbollah’s ally, Aoun, who continues to lead the Christian majority in Lebanon with more impetus, is a fierce opponent to any project aimed at settling Palestinians in Lebanon.

Back to Obama’s speech in Cairo
“The richness of religious diversity must be upheld - whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt,” US President Barack Obama said in his Cairo speech on June 4, 2009, only three days before general elections in Lebanon.
It was not very clear why Obama had mentioned the two Christian minorities.

Obama’s speech coincided with high-level US “diplomatic” activity towards Lebanon on the eve of elections. US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton made her visit followed a month later by a visit of a high ranking official, a US Vice President to be precise. Despite refuting allegations of interfering in Lebanese elections and domestic affairs, Clinton and Joe Biden held lengthy meetings with March 14 poles.
The message was that Washington was willing to deal with any government that the new majority in parliament will form, although a government formed by a March 14 majority will make things much easier for Washington.

Three days after Obama’s speech in Cairo and hours before polling stations were to be opened, Assistant US Secretary of State Jeffery Feltman decided to remind Maronite Christians in Lebanon about Obama’s remarks, which were still dubious.
"..One of your politicians (Michel Aoun) is proposing that Christians shouldn't depend on the United States. I hope the Lebanese had accurately listened to the president's [Barack Obama] speech that specifically pointed to the widest Christian religious minority in Lebanon, the Maronites. The president spoke about the need for respecting all peoples in the region including minorities…I hope the Lebanese would ask themselves: do we want to be on the side of the international community and close to the stances that president Obama made? I hope they would say yes."

This insistence on reassuring the Maronites in particular and Christians outside General Aoun’s flock is definitely questionable.

The Mideast Crisis solution relied on elections outcome
A solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict in the region will be Washington’s magic key that will open the doors wide into new relations in the region, mainly with Iran and Syria.

On the one hand, the US is pressing Israel to adopt a two-state solution in occupied Palestine and to halt settlement expansion. On the other hand, Israel is concerned about an independent Palestinian state that will become the homeland of millions of Palestinians in exodus. The issue of the right of return of Palestinian refugees must be solved urgently and perhaps at any price.

In his speech in Cairo, Obama did not announce a new roadmap for “peace” as expected and did not address the refugees’ issue.

Article two of Phase three of the roadmap stipulates that: “Parties reach final and comprehensive permanent status agreement that ends the Israel - Palestinian conflict in 2005, through a settlement negotiated between the parties based on UNSCR 242, 338, and 1397, that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and includes an agreed, just, fair, and realistic solution to the refugee issue, and a negotiated resolution on the status of Jerusalem that takes into account the political and religious concerns of both sides, and protects the religious interests of Jews, Christians, and Muslims worldwide, and fulfills the vision of two states, Israel and sovereign, independent, democratic and viable Palestine, living side-by-side in peace and security.”
The just, fair and realistic solution to the refugees issue is an elastic sentence.
Settling Palestinians in hosting countries is the most likely, if not sole solution.

In Washington’s calculations, the pro-western March 14 camp - that was assured by Obama, Biden, Clinton and Feltman that settling Palestinian refugees in Lebanon will not harm them - should have emerged as the bloc that comprises the majority of Lebanese Christians. But not to the US’s expectations, General Aoun’s Christian base grew wider, and ultimately any project to settle the Palestinians in Lebanon will face strong resistance by the majority of the Christians - not the “reassured Christians”. This same Christian majority has been skeptical about the Maronite Church’s stance Sunday, when Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir declared Lebanon an “entity in peril”, contrary to the electoral law that bans making such direct statement to induce voters on Election Day. Sfeir’s stance that functioned as a lever to the alliance, prompted March 14 ministers to interfere with the Elections’ Supervision Committee to clear the Patriarch’s comment for publication.

Even key Arab players in the region want a permanent end to the refugees’ issue.

According to the Saudi daily “Al-Hayat”, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has urged U.S. President Barack Obama to “impose a solution on the festering Arab-Israeli conflict if necessary,” a Saudi newspaper said on Sunday.

Saudi Arabia, the backer of MP Saad Hariri’s Future Movement, was the driving force behind an Arab peace initiative first put forward by Arab states in 2002 offering Israel recognition in return for withdrawal from Arab land captured in 1967 and a Palestinian state. Israel reacted saying a return of Palestinian refugees to areas “now inside Israel” would destroy the Jewish character of the state. Saudi Arabia believes the “collapse of Middle East peacemaking” has given Iran a chance to expand its regional influence through groups such as Hamas in occupied Palestine, as well as Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The project to settle Palestinian refugees in Lebanon would surely mean that the country would transform into a confederation; the kind of state some key poles in the March 14 alliance, namely Lebanese Forces chief Samir Geagea, have been envisioning.

True, the project to build the fair, capable, strong and incorrupt state of Lebanon was temporarily postponed, but there is no doubt that, in parallel, the project to transform the country into a confederation where Palestinians, Sunnis, Shiites, Christians and minorities would live in ghettos has permanently failed.

Jumblatt: Martyr Hariri Never Supported UNSCR 1559

2009-05-30T19:39:00.003+03:00

The head of the Democratic Gathering parliamentary bloc MP Walid Jumblatt, who is also one of the main constituents of the March 14 political camp, drew the public’s attention Thursday night when he unveiled – again - that former Prime Minister martyr Rafiq Hariri had never supported UNSC resolution 1559.

The resolution that was adopted nearly seven months before Hariri was assassinated in February 2005, calls for the withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon and the disarmament of all militias, in a clear reference to Hezbollah’s resistance.
Since then, Lebanon and Syria came under tremendous international pressure to implement the resolution. Syria, which was already packing for departure, was even threatened with dealing with it militarily under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.

Eventually, Hariri was murdered after Syrian President Bachar Assad announced his intention to pull his troops out of Lebanon. The arms of the resistance issue, however, remained pending.

Jumblatt assured that he and martyr Hariri had agreed not to support resolution 1559 and to remain committed to the Taif Agreement. According to him "1559 is the resolution that killed Hariri." The Druze leader has been following a review policy ever since the Special Tribunal for Lebanon ordered the release of the four security generals from Lebanese jails, after spending four years in political detention over the Hariri murder case, without charges and without trial.

It is not the first time the Progressive Socialist Party leader makes this mention. He made similar remarks to the Arabiyyah satellite channel in 2005. But since then, his note was buried in the waves of information, rumors and lies that have encircled Lebanon.
Jumblatt has renewed his revelation which also succeeded to surprise his prominent LBCI interviewer.

Ever since his assassination, martyr Hariri was introduced by some March 14 forces as the first proponent of resolution 1559 which “was the result of a joint action between the United States and France,” according to then French President Jacques Chirac, to give the impression that Hariri was killed for trying to implement the resolution.
However, Jumblatt’s revelations contradict such claim. The PSP leader had accompanied Hariri to Washington to meet with then US President George W. Bush, shortly after the Security Council adopted UNSCR 1559. It was to him that martyr Hariri had confided – following another meeting with Chirac – that “this resolution will cause us many problems.”

This shows that martyr Hariri was not inclined to implement the resolution word for word, as Bush and Chirac wanted him to.

Moreover, Jumblatt’s revelations are consistent with the speech of Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah following the assassination of Hariri. The Hezbollah leader revealed that meetings were held regularly between him and Hariri, in the presence of advisers on both sides, with the aim to discuss the article pertaining to the resistance weapons. Sayyed Nasrallah revealed that martyr Hariri had vowed to never accept the clause related to the resistance and said that even if international pressure was exerted on him in that direction, he would resign and leave the country but still refuse to disarm the resistance.

Both were fully aware of Israel’s hallmarks in the resolution, that clearly aimed at eradicating the strength of Lebanon; the only Arab country to force the zionist enemy out of Lebanon without having to sign political agreements or humiliating concessions.

Sayyed Nasrallah’s revelations helped neutralizing all attempts to implicate Hezbollah in martyr Hariri’s assassination. Hence they should have prompted the international investigation to approach the murder from another angle than the one circulated and propagated by some forces who claimed that Hariri was killed because he wanted to enforce the UN resolution, while Jumblatt stresses that the martyr did not support it and preferred to stick to the Taif Agreement.

Israel Wants No End to Conflict, Abbas Trusts Its Good Wills!

2009-05-29T11:00:00.004+03:00

In contrast to previous Israeli leaderships who refused surreptitiously to adopt the two-state solution in occupied Palestine, the Benjamin Netanyahu cabinet is distinguished by frankness.

Israeli vice president and Minister of Strategic Affairs Moshe Yaalon played his cards and ruled out the creation of any “Palestinian entity” at a conference at the Knesset on Tuesday entitled "Alternatives to the Two-State Outlook." He added that “efforts to find a solution to the conflict must stop.”

The conference came after Prime Minister Netanyahu’s meeting with US President Barack Obama in Washington and as the US and Europe are sending clear messages to Israel to adopt a two-state solution in occupied territories.

According to Israeli media, the Knesset conference was intended to send a message that opposition to the creation of a Palestinian state was common among mainstream Israelis and politicians not considered extremist. He said the best that could be done now was to stop efforts to find a solution to the conflict and manage it instead, “by encouraging reforms and economic development in the Palestinian Authority.”

Speakers included the Deputy Prime Minister, Moshe Yaalon, who was not around the bush, and that "a Palestinian state will provide no security stability".

Other plans presented at the conference called for a confederation between the West Bank and Jordan, and the extension of the Gaza Strip into the Egyptian-controlled Sinai Desert.

The statement was a clear reply to Western leaders, particularly French president Nicolas Sarkozy who had suggested that the creation of a Palestinian state was a safety factor for the Zionist entity.

Yaalon goes even further in his argument, adopting a rather belligerent tone: "I do not see any chance of establishing a viable Palestinian entity in Judea and Samaria and/or the Gaza Strip that could sustain itself economically," Ya'alon said. "The gap between Israel as a First-World country and a Palestinian Third-World country is a recipe for instability. I also don't see a chance to form a viable Palestinian entity in Judea and Samaria and/or the Gaza Strip that could bring stability on the security front, while chances the entity would be adversarial are very high."

Of course, Yaalon ignores the real causes of this divide, which lies in the Israeli settlements. Another sign of refusal to the solution of two states is the Israel’s mulishness to keep major settlements in the occupied West Bank, (Ma'ale Yadoumim and others), and to go for expanding them under the guise of redressing the growing population, without considering UN resolutions.

Note that all zionist leaders, have adopted the same policy with regards to the settlements issue; that of colonialism and expansion of outposts to impose an indisputable status quo while keeping what they call “illegal” settlements” to discussion whenever pressure is exerted to stop colonization.

In parallel, Netanyahu tirelessly reiterates his predecessors’ position on the question of Jerusalem, which according to the UN, should be divided to become the capital of two states. He says that Jerusalem will remain the exclusive capital of the zionist entity. He even canceled a planned visit to France next week to protest against a recent French position refusing any decisions taken in advance on the final status of this city.

In view of this rampant Israeli stubbornness, European and American “requests” have always been vain and the Israelis have always managed to “absorb and prevent” western powers from taking actions against the zionist state, like sanctions.

The masks of Netanyahu, Lieberman and others have fallen as they reject the two-state solution and want no end to the conflict. Accordingly, the international community no longer has any reason not to move to sanctions, unless it is an accomplice. In this case, the mask of this community should fall as well.

And still, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas continues to express confidence in the zionist entity. Following his meeting with Obama in Washington on Thursday (28-05-09) he said: "It was a serious and open meeting and President Obama seems determined on what he has said...I believe that if the Israelis would withdraw from all occupied Palestinian, Syrian, and Lebanese land, the Arab world will be ready to have normal relationships with the state of Israel!”

May 25, 2000, Countdown for Third Temple Destruction

2009-05-24T14:37:00.007+03:00

May 25, 2000 is when Arab dignity was carved anew in the hearts and minds of the free.

May 25, 2000 is the date that soothed a somber month plagued with Nakbas (May 15) and disgraceful agreements (May 17) for over 60 years.

May 25, 2000 is when history embarked on a new journey into a tough, yet shining future; one in which defeat no longer has a place.

Call it an event or a set of circumstances, but what happened that day was nothing less than a miracle. May 25, 2000 was the day Lebanon shook the ground underneath the “invincible” army of the zionist state and forced it to crawfish out of most occupied territories.

What we are celebrating today is the result of 22 years of an armed resistance, popular steadfastness and efforts to transform the Quds (Jerusalem) cause from a pan-Arab issue into one with an Islamic dimension, mainly by Iran under the Islamic Revolution.

22 years of fighting a superior and aggressive force that defeated Arab armies in days was about belief and commitment to a just cause.

The Hezbollah made gradual progress since the larger-than-life battle of Khalde (south of Beirut) in 1982. From modest capabilities, to martyrdom operations, to an organized body with highly trained fighters executing perfectly planned operation, Hezbollah was destined to make history. Significant losses in Israeli ranks, the targeting of senior collaborators in Antoine Lahd’s South Lebanon Army and the unique operations deep inside the so called security zone gave then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak no other alternative than to cut the losses and flee. It was Israel’s first defeat that exposed the comb web.

“Israel may own nuclear weapons and heavy weaponry, but I swear by Almighty Allah , it is weaker than a spider’s web,” Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah said during the liberation speech in Bint Jbeil in 2000.

The star of Hezbollah went on rising as the resistance party now enjoyed unprecedented support in ‘most’ of the world. The same party that defeated Israel imposed its own conditions to set free hundreds of Lebanese and Arab detainees from Israeli jails as well as the remains of dozens of Islamic Resistance martyrs.

How Hezbollah dealt with the collaborators during the liberation process, gave it the respect it deserved.

“Months after liberation was achieved, I told the French Ambassador: Relay my greetings to your Prime Minister and tell him that our resistance is more civilized and more ethical than the French resistance, because you executed ten thousand agents, some of which never had a trial, whereas we have not killed ‘a chicken’ that belonged to (chief collaborator)Antoine Lahed,” the Hezbollah chief revealed.

During the next six years, and after ridding itself of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat as well as the second Intifada, Israel sought to restore the broken image of the ‘invincible army’. A US-Israeli-Arab scheme was in the making and it was meant to crush Hezbollah once and for all. But the plot backlashed.

“Harsh day of battles claims lives of nine soldiers in two incidents. At 5 a.m., dozens of terrorists wait for IDF troops at entrance to village of Bint Jbeil,” a Yediot Aharonot news report said on the 27th of June 2006; the fifteenth day of the 33-day war against Lebanon.

In this war, Islamic Resistance fighters killed dozens of soldiers, destroyed the pride of Israel - the Merkavas and the Saar vessels - and nearly bombed Tel Aviv. Eventually, Israel was dealt the second most severe blow since its creation.

“The Second Lebanon War constituted a great and dangerous missed opportunity," this is how the head of the Winograd Committee summarized the conclusion of its 600-page final Report on Israel’s failure in the war.

"Israel embarked on a prolonged war, which it initiated itself and which ended without it winning a clear military victory. A quasi-military organization numbering some thousands of fighters withstood for several weeks the strongest army in the Middle East, an army which enjoyed absolute aerial supremacy and advantages in size and technology,” the report said.

There was nothing that can possibly restore Israel’s already broken image; nothing but attempting to escape forward, not knowing what lies ahead.

The Israeli Mossad assassinated Islamic Resistance commander Imad Moghnieh in 2008. Hajj Redwan played a major role in Israel’s double defeat. His assassination and the five-day large scale maneuvers (Turning Point 3) scheduled for May 31 suggest Israel is planning another round of confrontation.

“The first (assumption) is to say that the top priority goal of these maneuvers is of a psychological and moral nature…The second assumption is that Israel is really worried about its existence…The third probability, let us put it in the framework of intimidation, is aimed at sending a strong message to the whole region, the Palestinians, Lebanon, Syria, Arab peoples and Arab governments, Iran and the rest of the world, that Israel is not weak, broken or hesitant as you think it is… The fourth and last assumption which we cannot ignore is that Israel is planning a new blitzkrieg,” Sayyed Nasrallah said Monday, May 17.

In the worst case scenario, Israel might go for another and probably last round.

“Listen to what Ben Gurion says. He says that Israel would fall…. Yes, fall…, not withdraw from the South or the Golan or Sinai or the West Bank, no. He says that Israel, this artificial entity, will fall after losing its first war…and Israel had its war in July 2006. Some of the zionists called it the sixth war as did most of the world, but the leading strategists in Israel have called it the first war,” Sayyed Nasrallah said during the funeral of martyr Hajj Redwan in February, 2008.

Religiously speaking, Jews say that the first ‘destruction of the temple’ was at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon.
The second destruction of the temple was at the hands of the Roman Emperor.
After the May and the July defeats, many Ultra-Orthodox Jews have expressed belief that the third promised destruction of the temple was about to take place with which the state of Israel will cease to exist.

In politics, Israel’s double defeat in Lebanon has not affected this malicious entity alone. It main backer, the United States has also suffered setback.
The Americans had thought that by invading Iraq unilaterally would demonstrate the US might that would dread Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah into compliance with the American project in the region, known as the New Middle East. The failure of American policies in the region, particularly its war on Iraq, in fact, constitutes another factor for the fall of Israel; a factor neither Ben Gurion had in mind nor Ultra-Orthodox Jews had cited in their books.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former US national security adviser explained in one of his post 2006 war interviews that “neocon prescriptions of which Israel has its equivalents, are fatal for America and ultimately for Israel. They will totally turn the overwhelming majority of the Middle East's population against the United States. The lessons of Iraq speak for themselves. Eventually, if neocon policies continue to be pursued, the United States will be expelled from the region and that will be the beginning of the end for Israel as well.”

Aware of Israel’s inherent aggressive nature, Washington under new President Barack Obama is seeking a different approach in the region, particularly with regards to Syria and Iran; yet not a necessarily a reassuring approach. The US openness to Syria and Iran can be understood in two contradicting ways: First, Washington is willing to soften its Mideast policy probably because of its inability to wage more wars amid a staggering economic crisis plaguing the world, inability to stretch its already exhausted armies and inability to endanger its interests in oil-rich Gulf states. Second,, Washington is leading a delusive campaign to gain time and sooth the region, mainly Iran, by propagating its intention to hold talks with the Islamic Republic while its proxy, Israel, is carrying out maneuvers and exercises in Gibraltar simulating an aerial attack on Iranian nuclear facilities and amid reports that Obama has ordered updates to the US attack plan on Iran. After all, the US fears it will not be able to convince the international community of the feasibility of such an attack after its argument, six years ago at the UN Security Council, about WMDs in Iraq was proven to have been baseless.
In either case, Israel seems more than determined to attack Iran knowing that such a move would put the whole region on fire. Suicidal as it may seem, Israel might go for that option even without Washington’s consent.
It goes without saying that it is difficult to separate the Israeli-Arab conflict mainly in occupied Palestine, the US quagmire in Iraq and Iran from each other. Perhaps there are some people who would deceive themselves into believing that Washington or Tel Aviv has the capacity to impose a unilateral solution tailored for the region. Brzezinski believes that if a solution to the Palestinian question was not found and if Iran is not politically and diplomatically engaged then the day will come when the whole region would explode. Israel, according to the veteran politician, would be in great jeopardy.

26 Years on the Humiliating May 17 Agreement with 'Israel'

2009-05-17T20:53:00.003+03:00

In 1983, Lebanon was recovering from a fierce Israeli war launched under the pretext of crushing the Palestinian resistance. That same year, Lebanon nearly became the second Arab state to sign a peace deal with the Israeli entity, or did it?
On the 17th of may 2003, then Lebanese President Amin Gemayel, now a key figure in the March 14 bloc, represented by Antoine Fattal, signed the deal with the Israelis; a deal that was thwarted one year later…under the pressure of a popular uprising.

The events:

At that time Israel needed the deal to achieve its other goals.

The United Stated represented by its envoy Philippe Habib granted Israel its wish. Negotiations kicked off on the 28th of December 1982. 35 rounds of talks were held alternately between the Lebanon Beach Hotel in the Israeli occupied Khalde region and a ballet hall near the settlement of Kiryat Shmona.
From the first round of talks, the Israelis never left any detail for coincidence; they even imposed the shape and dimensions of the negotiations table.

The term "normalization" was not mentioned in the text of the agreement which stated on forming a joint contact committee to hold regular meetings in Lebanon and "Israel". The committee was given the mission of developing bilateral relations, including controlling the movement of imports and exports, individuals, etc.

The Lebanese delegation sought to renounce terms which made the agreement look like a peace agreement, fearing Lebanon would be boycotted by Arab states as was the case with Egypt. So the deal was named "The Israeli withdrawal agreement." Yet it implicitly ended the state of war which was declared against Israel since the establishment of the Zionist entity.

The agreement gave Israel the right to establish a security zone in south Lebanon controlled by 4341 soldiers from both Lebanese and Israeli armies. Local forces, according to the text, would protect the zone, in an indication to the collaborating forces of Saad Haddad. The deal determined the makeup of the Lebanese army forces to be allowed to be present in this area, limiting their number to two brigades in addition to police and internal security forces.

However the deal never saw light.
A campaign of protests was launched just after parliament endorsed the bill of the agreement. In 1984 the struggle broke out and the "February 6 Uprising" forced Gemayel to take back the agreement to parliament, to be annulled on the 5th of March 1984.

At that time, the resistance was carrying out operations against Israeli occupation forces and their collaborator until it forced them to withdraw from Lebanon on the 25th of may, 16 years later.

“In respect of our memory and to the commemoration of the May 17 (agreement), it is regrettable to see those who stood up to the May 17 agreement that was signed by the then Lebanese regime that yielded to Israeli conditions out of weakness, defeat and disgrace take a different position today. Who signed the agreement? Who wanted to succumb Lebanon to Israel through that agreement? Who stood up to the agreement, from scholars, men and women, particularly in the Imam Rida mosque in Bir el-Abed (Beirut’s southern suburb)? Who spilled his blood to declare Lebanon’s rejection to the agreement, other than martyr Mohammed Najdeh? Who signed the agreement of disgrace with Israel? Today, those who had sought to give in Lebanon to Israel have become symbols of sovereignty, freedom and independence while those who offered their blood to liberate Lebanon have become symbols for subordination to the outside powers. Isn’t this unfair? Can we forget this?” Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah said on Friday, May 15, 2009.

Full Text of the May 17 Agreement Between Israel and Lebanon

2009-05-17T20:00:00.002+03:00

The Government of the State of Israel and the Government of the Republic of Lebanon:

Bearing in mind the importance of maintaining and strengthening international peace based on freedom, equality, justice, and respect for fundamental human rights;

Reaffirming their faith in the aims and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and recognizing their right and obligation to live in peace with each other as well as with all states, within secure and recognized boundaries;

Having agreed to declare the termination of the state of war between them;

Desiring to ensure lasting security for both their States and to avoid threats and the use of force between them;

Desiring to establish their mutual relations in the manner provided for in this Agreement;

Having delegated their undersigned representative plenipotentiaries provided with full powers, in order to sign, in the presence of the representative of the United States of America, this Agreement;

Having agreed to the following provisions:

ARTICLE I

1. The Parties agree and undertake to respect the sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity of each other. They consider the existing international boundary between Israel and Lebanon inviolable.

2. The Parties confirm that the state of war between Israel and Lebanon has been terminated and no longer exists.

3. Taking into account the provisions of paragraphs I and 2, Israel undertakes to withdraw all its armed forces from Lebanon in accordance with the Annex of the present Agreement.

ARTICLE 2
The Parties, being guided by the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law, undertake to settle their disputes by peaceful means in such a manner as to promote international peace and security, and justice.

ARTICLE 3
In order to provide maximum security for Israel and Lebanon, the Parties agree to establish and implement security arrangements, including the creation of a Security Region, as provided for in the Annex of the present Agreement.

ARTICLE 4

1. The territory of each Party will not be used as a base for hostile or terrorist activity against the other Party, its territory, or its people.

2. Each Party will prevent the existence or organization of irregular forces, armed bands, organizations, bases, offices or infrastructure, the aims and purposes of which include incursions or any act of terrorism into the territory of the other Party, or any other activity aimed at threatening or endangering the security of the other Party and safety of its people. To this end all agreements and arrangements enabling the presence and functioning on the territory of either Party of elements hostile to the other Party are null and void.

3. Without prejudice to the inherent right of self-defense in accordance with international law, each

Party will refrain:

a. from organizing, instigating, assisting, or participating in threats or acts of belligerency, subversion, or incitement or any aggression directed against the other Party, its population or property, both within its territory and originating there from, or in the territory of the other Party.

b. from using the territory of the other Party for conducting a military attack against the territory of a third state. c. from intervening in the internal or external affairs of the other Party.

4. Each Party undertakes to ensure that preventive action and due proceedings will be taken against persons or organizations perpetrating acts in violation of this Article.

ARTICLE 5
Consistent with the termination of the state of war and within the framework of their constitutional provisions, the Parties will abstain from any form of hostile propaganda against each other.

ARTICLE 6
Each Party will prevent entry into, deployment in, or passage through its territory, its air space and, subject to the right of innocent passage in accordance with international law, its territorial sea, by military forces, armament, or military equipment of any state hostile to the other Party.

ARTICLE 7
Except as provided in the present Agreement, nothing will preclude the deployment on Lebanese territory of international forces requested and accepted by the Government of Lebanon to assist in maintaining its authority. New contributors to such forces shall be selected from among states having diplomatic relations with both Parties to the present Agreement.

ARTICLE 8

1. a. Upon entry into force of the present Agreement, a Joint Liaison Committee will be established by the parties, in which the USA will be a participant, and will commence its functions. This Committee will be entrusted with the supervision of the implementation of all areas covered by the present Agreement. In matters involving security arrangements, it will deal with unresolved problems referred to it by the Security Arrangements Committee established in subparagraph c below. Decisions of this Committee will be taken unanimously.

b. The Joint Liaison Committee will address itself on a continuing basis to the development of mutual relations between Israel and Lebanon, inter alia the regulation of the movement of goods, products and persons, communications, etc.

c. Within the framework of the Joint Liaison Committee, there will be a Security Arrangements Committee whose composition and functions are defined in the Annex of the present Agreement.

d. Subcommittees of the Joint Liaison Committee may be established as the need arises.

e. The Joint Liaison Committee will meet in Israel and Lebanon, alternately.

f. Each Party, if it so desires and unless there is an agreed change of status, may maintain a liaison office on the territory of the other Party in order to carry out the above-mentioned functions within the framework of the Joint Liaison Committee and to assist in the implementation of the present Agreement.

g. The members of the Joint Liaison Committee from each of the Parties will be headed by a senior government official.
h. All other matters relating to these liaison offices, their personnel and the personnel of each Party in connection with the implementation of the present Agreement will be the subject of a protocol to be concluded between the Parties in the Joint Liaison Committee. Pending the conclusion of this protocol, the liaison offices and the above-mentioned personnel will be treated in accordance with the pertinent provisions of the Convention on Special Missions of 8 December 1969, including those provisions concerning privileges and immunities. The foregoing is without prejudice to the positions of the Parties concerning that Convention.

2. During the six-month period after the withdrawal of all Israeli forces from Lebanon
in accordance with Article I of the present Agreement and the simultaneous restoration of Lebanese governmental authority along the international boundary between Israel and Lebanon, and in light of the termination of the state of war, the Parties shall initiate, within the Joint Liaison Committee, bona fide negotiations in order to conclude agreements on the movement of goods, products and persons and their implementation on a non-discriminatory basis.

ARTICLE 9

1. [Lines missing] abrogation of treaties, laws and regulations deemed in conflict with the present Agreement, subject to and in conformity with its constitutional procedures.

2. The Parties undertake not to apply existing obligations, enter into any obligations, or adopt laws or regulations in conflict with the present Agreement.

ARTICLE 10

1. The present Agreement shall be ratified by both Parties in conformity with their respective constitutional procedures. It shall enter into force on the exchange of the instruments of ratification and shall supersede the previous agreements between Israel and Lebanon.

2. To Annex, the Appendix and the Map attached thereto, and the Agreed Minutes to the present Agreement shall be considered integral parts thereof.

3. The present Agreement may be modified, amended, or superseded by mutual agreement of the Parties.

ARTICLE 11

1. Disputes between the Parties arising out of the interpretation or application of the present Agreement will be settled by negotiation in the Joint Liaison Committee. Any dispute of this character not so resolved shall be submitted to conciliation and, if unresolved, thereafter to an agreed procedure for a definitive resolution.

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1, disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the Annex shall be resolved in the framework of the Security Arrangements Committee and, if unresolved, shall thereafter, at the request of either Party, be referred to the Joint Liaison Committee for resolution through negotiation.

ARTICLE 12
The present Agreement shall be communicated to the Secretariat of the United
Nations for registration in conformity with the provisions of Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.
Done at Kiryat Shmona and Khaldeh this seventeenth day of May, 1983, in triplicate in four authentic texts in the Hebrew, Arabic, English, and French languages. In case of any divergence of interpretation, the English and French texts will be equally authoritative.

David Kimche Antoine Fattal
For the Government of the For the Government of the
State of Israel Republic of Lebanon

Witnessed by: Morris Draper
For the Government of the
United States of America

ANNEX
SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS
1. Security Region

a. A Security Region in which the Government of Lebanon undertakes to implement the security arrangements agreed upon in this Annex is hereby established.

b. The Security Region is bounded, as delineated on the Map attached to this Annex, in the north by a line constituting "Line A", and in the south and east by the Lebanese international boundary.

2. Security Arrangements
The Lebanese authorities will enforce special security measures aimed at detecting and preventing hostile activities as well as the introduction into or movement through the Security Region of unauthorized armed men or military equipment.
The following security arrangements will apply equally throughout the Security Region except as noted:

a. The Lebanese Army, Lebanese Police, Lebanese Internal Security Forces, and the Lebanese Auxiliary Force (ANSAR), organized under the full authority of the Government of Lebanon, are the only organized armed forces and elements permitted in the Security Region except as designated elsewhere in this Annex. The Security Arrangements Committee may approve the stationing in the Security Region of other official Lebanese armed elements similar to ANSAR.

b. Lebanese Police, Lebanese Internal Security Forces, and ANSAR may be stationed in the Security Region without restrictions as to their numbers. These forces and elements will be equipped only with personal and light automatic weapons and, for the Internal Security Forces, armored scout or commando cars as listed in the Appendix.

c. Two Lebanese Army brigades may be stationed in the Security Region. One will be the Lebanese Army Territorial Brigade stationed in the area extending from the Israeli-Lebanese boundary to "Line B" delineated on the attached Map. The other will be a regular Lebanese Army brigade stationed in the area extending from "Line B" to "Line A". These brigades may carry their organic weapons and equipment listed in the Appendix. Additional units equipped in accordance with the Appendix may be deployed in the Security Region for training purposes, including the training of conscripts, or, in the case of operational emergency situations, following coordination in accordance with procedures to be established by the Security Arrangements Committee.

d. The existing local units will be integrated as such into the Lebanese Army, in conformity with Lebanese Army regulations. The existing local civil guard shall be integrated into ANSAR and accorded a proper status under Lebanese law to enable it to continue guarding the villages in the Security Region. The process of extending Lebanese authority over these units and civil guard, under the supervision of the Security Arrangements Committee, shall start immediately after the entry into force of the present Agreement and shall terminate prior to the completion of the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.

e. Within the Security Region, Lebanese Army units may maintain their organic anti-aircraft weapons as specified in the Appendix. Outside the Security Region, Lebanon may deploy personal, low, and medium altitude air defense missiles. After a period of three years from the date of entry into force of the present Agreement, the provision concerning the area outside the Security Region may be reviewed by the Security Arrangements Committee at the request of either Party.

f. Military electronic equipment in the Security Region will be as specified in the Appendix. Deployment of ground radars within ten kilometers of the Israeli-Lebanese boundary should be approved by the Security Arrangements Committee. Ground radars throughout the Security Region will be deployed so that their sector of search does not cross the Israeli-Lebanese boundary. This provision does not apply to civil aviation or air traffic control radars.

g. The provision mentioned in paragraph e. applies also to anti-aircraft missiles on Lebanese Navy vessels. In the Security Region, Lebanon may deploy naval elements and establish and maintain naval bases or other shore installations required to accomplish the naval mission. The coastal installations in the Security Region will be as specified in the Appendix.

h. In order to avoid accidents due to misidentification, the Lebanese military authorities will give advance notice of all flights of any kind over the Security Region according to procedures to be determined by the Security Arrangements Committee. Approval of these flights is not required.

i. (1) The forces, weapons and military equipment which may be stationed, stocked, introduced into, or transported through the Security Region are only those mentioned in this Annex and its

Appendix.

(2) No infrastructure, auxiliary installations, or equipment capable of assisting the activation of weapons that are not permitted by this Annex or its Appendix shall be maintained or established in the Security Region. (3) These provisions also apply whenever a clause of this Annex relates to areas outside the Security Region.

3. Security Arrangements Committee
a. Within the framework of the Joint Liaison Committee, a Security Arrangements Committee will be established.

b. The Security Arrangements Committee will be composed of an equal number of Israeli and Lebanese representatives, headed by senior officers. A representative of the United States of America will participate in meetings of the Committee at the request of either Party. Decisions of the Security Arrangements Committee will be reached by agreement of the Parties.

c. The Security Arrangements Committee shall supervise the implementation of the security arrangements in the present Agreement and this Annex and the timetable and modalities, as well as all other aspects relating to withdrawals described in the present Agreements and this Annex. To this end, and by agreement of the Parties, it will:

(1) Supervise the implementation of the undertakings of the Parties under the present Agreement and this Annex.

(2) Establish and operate Joint Supervisory Teams as detailed below.(3) Address and seek to resolve any problems arising out of the implementation of the security arrangements in the present Agreement and this Annex and discuss any violation reported by the Joint Supervisory Teams or any complaint concerning a violation submitted by one of the Parties.

d. The Security Arrangements Committee shall deal with any complaint submitted to it not later than 24 hours after submission.

e. Meetings of the Security Arrangements Committee shall be held at least once every two weeks in Israel and in Lebanon, alternately. In the event that either Party requests a special meeting, it will be convened within 24 hours. The first meeting will be held within 48 hours after the date of entry into force of the present Agreement.

f. Joint Supervisory Teams

(1) The Security Arrangements Committee will establish Joint Supervisory Teams (Israel-Lebanon) subordinate to it and composed of an equal number of representatives from each Party.

(2) The teams will conduct regular verification of the implementation of the provisions of the security arrangements in the Agreement and this Annex. The teams shall report immediately any confirmed violations to the Security Arrangements Committee and ascertain that violations have been rectified.

(3) The Security Arrangements Committee shall assign a Joint Supervisory Team, when requested, to check border security arrangements on the Israeli side of the international boundary in accord with Article 4 of the present Agreement.

(4) The teams will enjoy freedom of movement in the air, sea, and land as necessary for the performance of their tasks within the Security Region.

(5) The Security Arrangements Committee will determine all administrative and technical arrangements concerning the functioning of the teams including their working procedures, their number, their meaning, their armament, and their equipment.

(6) Upon submission of a report to the Security Arrangements Committee or upon confirmation of a complaint of either Party by the teams, the respective Party shall immediately, and in any case not later than 24 hours from the report or the confirmation, rectify the violation. The Party shall immediately notify the Security Arrangements Committee of the rectification. Upon receiving the notification, the teams will ascertain that the violation has been rectified.

(7) The Joint Supervisory Teams shall be subject to termination upon 90 days notice by either Party given at any time after two years from the date of entry into force of the present Agreement. Alternative verification arrangements shall be established in advance of such termination through the Joint Liaison Committee. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Joint Liaison Committee may determine at any time that there is no further need for such arrangements.

g. The Security Arrangements Committee will ensure that practical and rapid contacts between the two Parties are established along the boundary to prevent incidents and facilitate coordination between the forces on the terrain.

4. It is understood that the Government of Lebanon may request appropriate action in the United Nations Security Council for one unit of the United Nations Interim forces in Lebanon (UNIFIL) to be stationed in the Sidon area. The presence of this unit will lend support to the Government of Lebanon and the Lebanese Armed Forces in asserting governmental authority and protection in the Palestinian refugee camp areas. For a period of 12 months, the unit in the Sidon area may send teams to the Palestinian refugee camp areas in the vicinity of Sidon and Tyre to surveil and observe, if requested by the Government of Lebanon, following notification to the Security Arrangements Committee. Police and security functions shall remain the sole responsibility of the Government of Lebanon, which shall ensure that the provisions of the present Agreement shall be fully implemented in these areas.

5. Three months after completion of the withdrawal of all Israeli forces from Lebanon, the Security Arrangements Committee will conduct a full-scale review of the adequacy of the security arrangements delineated in this Annex in order to improve them.

6. Withdrawal of Israeli Forces

a. Within 8 to 12 weeks of the entry into force of the present Agreement, all Israeli forces will have been withdrawn from Lebanon. This is consistent with the objective of Lebanon that all external forces withdraw from Lebanon.

b. The Israel Defense Forces and the Lebanese Armed Forces will maintain continuous liaison during the withdrawal and will exchange all necessary information through the Security Arrangements Committee. The Israel Defense Forces will cooperate during the withdrawal in order to facilitate the reassertion of the authority of the Government of Lebanon as the Israeli armed forces withdraw.

APPENDIX
In accordance with the provisions of the Annex, the Lebanese Armed Forces may carry, introduce, station, stock, or transport through the Security Region all weapons and equipment organic to each standard Lebanese Armed Force brigade. Individual and crew-served weapons, including light automatic weapons normally found in a mechanized infantry unit, are not prohibited by this

Appendix.

1. Weapon systems listed below presently organic to each brigade in the Security Region are authorized in the number shown:
Tanks - 40 tanks- 4 medium tracked recovery vehiclesArmored Cars- 10 AML-90/Saladin/etc.Armored Personnel Carriers - 127 M I 13A I/ VCC-L, plus 44 M 113 family vehiclesArtillery/ Mortars - 18 155MM towed howitzers (also 105MM/122MM) - 12 120MM mortars - 27 81MM mortars (mounted on M-125 tracked mortar carriers)Anti-tank Weapons - 112 RPG - 30 anti-tank weapons (106MM recoilless rifle/ TOW/ MILAN) Air Defense Weapons - 12 40MM or less guns (not radar-guided)

2. Brigade Communications Equipment:
- 482 AN/ GRC-160 - 74 AN/VRC-46 - 16 AN/VRC-47 - 9 AN/VRC-49 - 43 GRA-39 - 539 TA-312 - 27 SB-22 - 8 SB-993 - 4 AM/GRC-106

3. Brigade Surveillance Equipment:
- Mortar locating radars - Artillery locating radars - Ground surveillance radars - Night observation devices - Unattended ground sensors

4. In accordance with the provisions of the Annex, armored vehicles for the Internal Security Forces will be as follows:
- 24 armored wheeled vehicles with guns up to 40MM

5. In accordance with the provisions of the Annex, there will be no limitations on the coastal installations in the Security Region, except on the following four categories:
- Coastal sea surveillance radars: 5- Coastal defense guns: 15 50MM or less- Coastal air defense guns: 15 40MM or less (not radar-guided)- Shore-to-sea missiles: None

6. The Lebanese Army Infantry Brigade and Territorial Brigade in the Security Region are each organized as follows:
1 Brigade Headquarters and Headquarters Company Off: 14 Enl: 173 3 Infantry Battalions Off: 31 ea Enl: 654 ea 1 Artillery Battalion Off. 39 Enl: 672 1 Tank Battalion3 Tanks1 Reconnaissance Company Off: 37 Enl: 579 1 Logistics Battalion Off: 26 Enl: 344 1 Engineer Company Off. 6 Enl: 125 1 Anti-Tank Company Off: 4 Enl: 117 1 Anti-Air Artillery Company Off: 4 Enl: 146 Total: 4,341 Off: 223 Enl: 4,118
Off: = Officers; Enl: = Enlisted men.

AGREED MINUTES
ART. 4.4 Lebanon affirms that Lebanese law includes all measures necessary to ensure implementation of this paragraph. ART.6 Without prejudice to the provisions of the Annex regarding the Security Region, it is agreed that non-combat military aircraft of a foreign state on non-military missions shall not be considered military equipment.

ART. 6 It is agreed that, in the event of disagreement as to whether a particular state is "hostile" for purposes of Article 6 of the Agreement, the prohibitions of Article 6 shall be applied to any state which does not maintain diplomatic relations with both Parties.

ART. 8.1.b It is agreed that, at the request of either Party, the Joint Liaison Committee shall begin to examine the question of claims by citizens of either Party on properties in the territory of the other Party.

ART. 8.1.h It is understood that each Party will certify to the other if one of its personnel was on official duty or performing official functions at any given time

ART. 8.2 It is agreed that the negotiations will be concluded as soon as possible.

ART. 9 It is understood that this provision shall apply mutatis mutandis to agreements concluded by the Parties pursuant to Article 8, paragraph 2.

ART. 11 It is agreed that both parties will request the United States of America to promote the expeditious resolution of disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the present Agreement.

ART. 11 It is agreed that the phrase "an agreed procedure for a definite resolution" means an agreed third-party mechanism which will produce a resolution of the dispute which is binding on the Parties.

ANNEX PARA 1.b

It is agreed that, in the portion of Jabal Baruk shown on the map attachment to the Annex, only civilian telecommunications installations, such as television facilities and radars for air traffic control purposes, may be emplaced. The restrictions on weapons and military equipment that are detailed in the Appendix to the Annex will also apply in that area.

ANNEX PARA 2.d

The Government of Lebanon affirms its decision that the Territorial Brigade established on April 6, 1983, mentioned in subparagraph c, will encompass the existing local units which had been formed into a near brigade-sized unit, along with Lebanese Army personnel from among the inhabitants of the Security Region, in conformity with Lebanese Army regulations. This brigade will be in charge of security in the area extending from the Israeli-Lebanese boundary to "Line B" delineated on the map attachment to the Annex. All the Lebanese Armed Forces and elements in this area, including the Lebanese Police, Lebanese Internal Security Forces and ANSAR, will be subordinated to the brigade commander. The organization of the existing local units will be adapted, under the supervision of the Security Arrangements Committee, in conformity with the Table of Organization for the Territorial Brigade as shown in the Appendix.

ANNEX PARA 2.g

1. An area extending from: 33 degrees 15 minutes N 35 degrees 12.6 minutes E; to33 degrees 05.5 minutes N 35 degrees 06.1 minutes E; to33 degrees 15 minutes N 35 degrees 08.2 minutes E; to33 degrees 05.5 minutes N 35 degrees 01.4 minutes E;which is at present closed for civil navigation, will be maintained by Lebanon.

2. In order to prevent incidents, there will be continuous communications between the southern command of the Lebanese Navy and the Israeli Navy in order to exchange information concerning suspected vessels. The procedures for the abovementioned exchange of information will be established by the Security Arrangements Committee.

3. The Lebanese Navy will act promptly in order to ascertain the identity of such suspected vessels. In emergency cases, there will be direct communications between vessels.

ANNEX PARA 3.f

1. The Joint Supervisory Teams will carry out their functions in recognition of the fact that the responsibility for military, police, and other control operations rests with the Lebanese Armed Forces, police, and other authorized Lebanese organizations, and not with the teams.

2. If the Joint Supervisory Teams uncover evidence of a violation or a potential violation, they will contact the proper Lebanese authorities through the Security Arrangements Supervision Centers created pursuant to the Agreed Minute to paragraph 3.f(5) of the Annex, in order to assure that Lebanese authorities take appropriate neutralizing and preventive action in a timely way. They will ascertain that the action taken rectified the violation and will report the results to the Security Arrangements Committee.

3. The Joint Supervisory Teams will commence limited activities as early as possible following the coming into force of the Agreement for the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Israel Defense Forces withdrawal arrangements. Their other supervisory and verification activities authorized in the Annex will commence with the final withdrawal of the Israeli armed forces.

4. Joint Supervisory Teams will conduct daily verifications if necessary during day and night. Verifications will be carried out on the ground, at sea, and in the air.

5. Each Joint Supervisory Team will be commanded by a Lebanese officer, who will recognize the joint nature of the team when making decisions in unforseen situations, during the conduct of the verification mission.

6. While on a mission, the Joint Supervisory Team leader at his discretion could react to any unforseen situation which could require immediate action. The team leader will report any such situation and the action taken to the Security Arrangements Supervision Center.

7. The Joint Supervisory Teams will not use force except in self defense.

8. The Security Arrangements Committee will decide inter alia on the pattern of activity of the Joint Supervisory Teams, their weaponry and equipment, their mode of transport, and the areas in which the teams will operate on the basis of the rule of reason and pragmatic considerations. The Security Arrangements Committee will determine the overall pattern of activity with a view to avoiding undue disruption to normal civilian life as well as with a view to preventing the teams from becoming targets of attack.

9. Up to a maximum of eight Joint Supervisory Teams will function simultaneously.

ANNEX PARA 3.f.5

1. Two Security Arrangements Supervision Centers will be set up by the Security Arrangements Committee in the Security Region. The exact locations of the Centers will be determined by the Security Arrangements Committee in accord with the principle that the Centers should be located in the vicinity of Hasbaya and Mayfadun and should not be situated in populated areas.

2. Under the overall direction of the Security Arrangements Committee, the purpose of each Center is to:

a) Control, supervise, and direct Joint Supervisory Teams functioning in the sector of the Security Region assigned to it.

b) Serve as a center of communications connected to the Joint Supervisory Teams and appropriate headquarters.

c) Serve as a meeting place in Lebanon for the Security Arrangements Committee.

d) Receive, analyze, and process all information necessary for the function of the Joint Supervisory Teams, on behalf of the Security Arrangements Committee.

3. Operational Arrangements:

a) The Centers will be commanded by Lebanese Army Officers.

b) The Centers will function 24 hours a day.

c) The exact number of personnel in each Center will be decided by the Security Arrangements Committee.

d) Israeli personnel will be stationed in Israel when not engaged in activities in the Centers.

e) The Government of Lebanon will be responsible for providing security and logistical support for the Centers.

f) The Joint Supervisory Teams will ordinarily commence their missions from the Centers after receiving proper briefing and will complete their missions at the Centers following debriefing.

g) Each center will contain a situation room, communications equipment, facilities for Security Arrangements Committee meetings, and a briefing and debriefing room.
ANNEX PARA 3.g In order to prevent incidents and facilitate coordination between the forces on the terrain, "practical and rapid contacts" will include direct radio and telephone communications between the respective military commanders and their staffs in the immediate border region, as well as direct face-to-face consultations.

O Palestine, 61 Years On, You're Still Our Palestine

2009-05-12T11:28:00.005+03:00

O Palestine, 61 Years On, You're Still Our Palestine
Mohamad Shmaysani - May 12, 2009

Nakba, Arabic for (Catastrophe)

A land without a people for a people without a land or a nation.
A saying coined by Zionist intellectuals to justify their occupation of Palestine.

Initially, Palestine was not the target.
But, its suffering throughout ages due to occupations and conflicts on its sacred land had made it a dreamland for every greedy entity; and the pretext was religious.

"There is a country, and its name is by chance Palestine. A country without a people and on the other hand, there is the Jewish people without a homeland."
These were the words of the president of the Jewish state during Nakba, Hayeem Wiseman, who played a significant role in issuing the notorious Belford promise said.

The Ottoman occupation fell in the trap of the Zionist plot that worked on offering money as allurements to bring Jewish emigrants to dwell near sacred sites.

The first agricultural settlement was built in 1878; it was a preface to bring thousands of Jews from Diaspora.
Four years later, the first batch of Jews comprising 25 thousand people arrived from eastern Europe.

The idea of creating a national homeland for Jews began to show in different articles and opinions compiled by Austrian Jewish author and journalist (Theodore Herzl).

Herzl established the international Zionist organization to bring Jews in Diaspora together. The organization's first conference was held in Bazle, Switzerland in 1897.

40 thousand Jews arrived in Palestine during World War 1.
Jewish inhabitants now formed 6% of the population.

In 1917, the Sayks-Piko Treaty was signed. Soon after, British Foreign Minister, Belford, made his promise to create a homeland for Jews. To realize this, Britain should control Palestine and this is what happened one year after the promise.

Creating a national homeland for Jews means draining the land from its original residents, and this requires an army, weapons and international cover. Ethnic cleansing was top priority for the new occupier to lodge the coming Jews on the ruins of more Palestinian lands.

In 1920, The League of Nations was formed as a prelude to give independence to the occupied country, or the country under mandate as they called it, by preparing it officially, constitutionally, politically and socially.

Palestine was mandated to the British Kingdom.

Instead of achieving independence for the Palestinian state, it cleared the way, since 1921, for Zionist gangs like Haganah and Irgun, to heavily arm themselves. Haganah determined that the ages of immigrants should be between 15 and 40, because the people, they said, should be young and strong for the battle to come.

The number of settlers increased in Palestine to change the demographic reality. Britain's census in 1922 revealed that 89% of the population were Palestinians with 757,182 residents, whereas Jews constituted less than 9% of the population.
This indicates that Palestine was not empty as the Zionists had claimed. The increasing flow of settlers prompted the Palestinian leadership to seek an end to it.

The Palestinian people took to the streets to protest the flow and deter the new occupation.

In the early 30's, the Britons issued the so called "White Paper" that determined the quotas for Jewish emigrants with an annual cut to 15 thousand Jews for five years. Ten years later, according to the "Paper", the Palestinians would rule their own unified state after they declare their independence.

However Zionists sought to nullify this "Paper" in 1939.

Then Zionist leader Ben Gorion said:
"We will fight the war (WW2) as if there were no White Paper and we will fight the White Paper as if there were no war."

The situation in Palestine got worse.

Zionist control began to appear during the British occupation, through committing massacres against hundreds of Palestinians, destroying their homes and displacing them.

Before "Nakba", half of the Palestinians had been displaced under the eyes of the United Nations which replaced the League of Nations. Ten years later (1947), and instead of declaring the independence of Palestine, The United Nations divided the country when the General Assembly issued resolution 181 that stipulated taking 56.5% of Palestinian land to build the Jewish state and leaving 43% of the territories for the Palestinian state, whereas Quds (Jerusalem) would remain under international supervision.

The Palestinians rejected the decision to divide their country of which they own 94% at a time Zionists, as foreigners, owned less than 6% of it.

The Arab League was entrusted with the mission of liberating Palestine on behalf of its people because they did not have the means.

They were backed by the Salvation Army which lacked arms and wise leadership. The number of Arab soldiers was small compared to the heavily armed Zionist militias. By 1948, the number of combatant zionists had reached 120 thousand.

Horrifying massacres took place, as well as terrorist acts and schemes to fully confiscate and control lands leaving one-third of the Palestinian population with no other choice but to run for their lives.

On the 15th of May 1948, Ben Gorion declared the "State of Israel" and chronicling the return of the Palestinians after their "Nakba" had begun.

61 years on, nothing has changed for the oppressed Palestinians.
61 years on, the west and, unfortunately, some Arab governments are colluding against the right of the Palestinians to return.
61 years on and Western and Arab leaders come to occupied Palestine to celebrate the creation of the zionist state that was built on the blood and flesh of the Arab people.
O Palestine, 61 years on, you are still and you'll always be our Arab Palestine.

Madsen: Cheney Had Death Squad, Killed Hariri & Hobeika

2009-05-11T21:16:00.001+03:00

Madsen: Cheney Had Death Squad, Killed Hariri & Hobeika
Mohamad Shmaysani
May 06, 2009

Dick Cheney, the name that always pops up whenever there is talk about a serious crime someplace in the world.

Well, Cheney had his own death squad CIA unit which he ran from the white house. By Cheney’s orders, the assassinations unit killed former Lebanese minister and Lebanese Forces chief Elie Hobeika on the 24th of January 2002 and former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri on the 14th of March 2005, prominent investigative journalist Wayne Madsen said.

Madsen who is known for his close ties with active circles in the CIA, was speaking to the Russia Today television when he revealed that the same squad that had assassinated Hobeika in coordination with former Israeli PM Ariel Sharon’s office, had also assassinated Hariri.

“This is something that I have heard about five years ago from CIA sources,” Madsen said. “I reported in 2004-2005 that the CIA unit linked to the White House was responsible for coordinating the assassinations in Lebanon of former Christian leader Elie Hobeika and also the former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, and that this was done in close coordination with a similar unit operated by then Israeli PM Ariel Sharon’s office in Jerusalem,” Madsen said.

In 2002, Hobeika was to travel to The Hague to testify against Sharon on the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacres in Beirut.

However in 2005, the assassination of Hariri was meant to trigger an exceptionally favorable circumstance to destabilize Lebanon, swoop up Syria, build a US base in North Lebanon and get rid of resistance movements in the region, namely Hezbollah that was haunting Sharon.
What Madsen had revealed has drawn storms of reactions that demand Cheney be prosecuted. Madsen founded his revelations on the information uncovered by American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh and released them after establishing them.

On the 3rd of last March in Minnesota, Hersh revealed that a secret Delta Force Commandos unit known as the ‘Assassinations Wing” and Frogmen units have been assigned to carry out assassinations around the world even without passing by the Secretary of Defense and apart from the Pentagon; only through Cheney’s office.

“It’s a special wing of our special operations’ community that is set independently. They do not report to anybody, except in the Clinton and Bush days. They reported directly to the Cheney office…It’s an executive assassination ring essentially and it’s been going on and on,” Hersh said.

“From what Hersh revealed, it was definitely Dick Cheney at the very top of that structure. What I had reported back in 2004-2005 was that Karl Rove, President George W. Bush’s top political adviser, he was involved along with deputy National Security Adviser in the Bush administration, people may recall, Elliot Abrams and he was involved in the Iran Contra scandal and was indicted in that scandal, but he was pardoned by the former president George H.W. Bush”

In 2005, Madsen cited one “key source’ in his report and said that “a number of intelligence sources have reported that assassinations of foreign leaders like Hariri and Hobeika are ultimately authorized by two key White House officials, Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliot Abrams. In addition, Abrams is the key liaison between the White House and Sharon’s office for such covert operations, including political assassinations and Abrams is the guy the Israelis go to for a wink and a nod for such ops.”

The new revelations opened new doors on the assassination cases that have plagued Lebanon for over four decades and highlight hypotheses – mainly with regards to the Hariri assassination – that some Lebanese had concealed for the benefit of canned political accusations.

.....Lest we forget Qana

2009-04-18T21:26:00.000+03:00

.....Lest we forget Qana
Mohamad Shmaysani
May 17, 2009

They could have been fathers and mothers today telling their children the stories of what's right and what's wrong.

They could have been grandmothers and grandfathers.

They could have been vivid young men and young women working on their future.

106 people could have been anything other than mere remains and anyplace other than under the ground of Qana.

13 years ago, Qana was the scene of an obscene massacre caused by one of ‘Israel's' "Grapes of Wrath."

Few know that the name the Grapes of Wrath has religious implications. ‘Israeli' Rabbi Moshe Cohen explained that the word "grapes" came from the fact that grapes occupied the first position among the seven fruits mentioned in the Talmud, which means that the "grapes of wrath" means anger of the Jewish people.

'Israel' had bombed the UNIFIL headquarters in the southern town of Qana with "pinpoint accuracy" just after dozens of Lebanese refugees had sheltered there. More than half of the 106 martyrs were children.

One really must have a heart of stone not to feel compassion for those children who became numbers on plastic bags and in some cases small body parts in carpets.

The gruesome pictures of the massacre were published in most Arab newspapers. In the West, however, publishers spared their readers the terrible pictures of how an ill-minded entity steels the future from children. True they respect the dead, but did they respect them when they were alive. The 155mm shell that killed those children was made in the US, and so was the missile that killed the children of the Nabatiyeh massacre on that same day and the children of the Mansouri ambulance massacre earlier and the many Israeli slaughters to follow.
'Israel' said it was returning fire at Hezbollah and that technical failures might have occurred.

THE UN REPORT
The UN appointed military advisor Major-General Franklin van Kappen of the Netherlands to investigate the massacre. He said in his conclusion that:

a) The distribution of impacts at Qana shows two distinct concentrations, whose mean points of impact are about 140 meters apart. If the guns were converged, as stated by the ‘Israeli' forces, there should have been only one main point of impact.

b) The pattern of impacts is inconsistent with a normal overshooting of the declared target (the mortar site) by a few rounds, as suggested by the ‘Israeli' forces.

c) During the shelling, there was a perceptible shift in the weight of fire from the mortar site to the United Nations compound.

d) The distribution of point impact detonations and air bursts makes it improbable that impact fuses and proximity fuses were employed in random order, as stated by the ‘Israeli' forces.

e) There were no impacts in the second target area which the ‘Israeli' forces claim to have shelled.

f) Contrary to repeated denials, two ‘Israeli' helicopters and a remotely piloted vehicle were present in the Qana area at the time of the shelling. While the possibility cannot be ruled out completely, it is unlikely that the shelling of the United Nations compound was the result of gross technical and/or procedural errors."

SACRIFICED AT THE ALTAR OF ZIONISTS
Then U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali released the report after coming under severe pressure not to release it Shamefully though the U.N. Security Council has refused to act on the report or to hold the ‘Israelis' accountable. Of course the American veto threat and tremendous pressures upon Boutros-Ghali and member states at the U.N. was behind this further demonstration of U.N. impotence and cowardice. For his crime, Ghali was later sacrificed at the altar of the Zionist masters who controlled the Oval Office.

THE "ISRAELI" RESPONSE
'Israel' responded by categorically rejecting the findings of the UN report and insisted that "their investigation" has shown that the UN position was hit by artillery fire "due to incorrect targeting based on erroneous data."

THE COURSE OF THE WAR
'Israel' needed to get rid of the July 1993 understanding that put the conflict between occupation forces and the resistance in its absolute military form, excluding civilians from military operations. Moreover, then ‘Israeli' Prime Minister Shimon Perez was accused by the Likud and his own Labor party of helplessness in dealing with the Lebanese resistance attacks. Perez was facing election before the summer of 1996.

With an American blessing, he exploited the international sympathy with ‘Israel' in the wake of the Palestinian resistance attacks. This sympathy was established in the Sharm el-Sheikh summit in Egypt on the 13th of March 1996, which gave ‘Israel' full rein to crush resistance forces in Palestine and Lebanon; a plan was set.

'Israeli' occupation forces opened artillery fire at the southern village of Yater and killed several people. It was the first fruit of the ‘Israeli' plot, grapes of wrath. Bit by bit, yet in a fast pace, ‘Israeli' artillery fire and air raids expanded to reach the Bekaa region and southern populated areas.

The ‘Israeli' fire was accompanied by a psychological warfare assumed by the (Voice of the South) radio, controlled by the pro-‘Israeli' militias of chief collaborator Antoine Lahed. Beirut's southern suburbs were targeted with four laser-guided missiles near Hezbollah’s Shoura [consultative] council announcing the beginning of a fierce war.

The party's Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah announced that Hezbollah will retaliate to the ‘Israeli' aggression by bombing settlements in northern occupied Palestine.
And so it happened.

Rounds of Katyusha missiles fell on the settlements of Keryat Shmonah, Nahariya and Metula.
On the fifth day of the aggression, it became evident that the initiative was in the hands of the resistance.

The ‘Israeli' command realized that "grapes of wrath" had backlashed. To escape this situation, it intensified military assaults, while the resistance raised its tone and threatened to attack more settlements. In the meantime, Damascus, Tehran and Beirut were confronting the ‘Israeli'-American axis, while Paris and Moscow which intervened for calm down had their initiatives hindered by the American demand that concerned parties sign a document calling in one of its article for the deletion of resolution 425; the UN resolution that demanded ‘Israel's' withdrawal from Lebanon. Washington was also protecting ‘Israel; at the Security Council by vetoing any resolution that condemned ‘Israeli' aggressions against Lebanon, including the massacres in Qana, Nabatiyeh and other places.

Realizing ‘Israel' was heading to abyss, the Americans launched their own initiative.

Then US Ambassador to Lebanon Richard Jones told the Lebanese government of martyr Rafik Hariri that to end ‘Israeli' hostilities in Lebanon, the resistance had to stop attacking ‘Israeli' forces in the south, whereas ‘Israeli' forces preserved the right to attack Hezbollah positions if they attacked "northern ‘Israel'."

Lebanon seemed to be fighting this war alone, amid Arab silence.

Beirut and the Lebanese backed the resistance and Lebanon's allies were working on a cease-fire. The Americans acknowledged that Sayyed Nasrallah had become a major player in any attempt to reach a cease-fire.

'Israel's' goal to crush and disarm Hezbollah had turned into a request to stop firing Katyusha missiles at settlements in return for a stop of ‘Israel's' military campaign.

Then US Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, failed to press for ‘Israel's' demands. After seven days of political wrangling, Christopher called up Lebanese Speaker Nabih Berri and Prime Minister Rafik Hariri for a meeting in Damascus. The April understanding, as it was later known, announced the end of the 16-day ‘Israeli' aggression. The signed understanding stated that ‘Israel' and its collaborators would not fire at civilian targets and the resistance would not attack "northern ‘Israel'[occupied Palestine]" with Katyusha missiles or any other kind of weapons. The understanding included an article to form a monitoring group made up of observers from the US, France, Syria, Lebanon and ‘Israel' to oversee the implementation of the understanding.

Operation grapes of wrath ended and the ‘Israeli' military assessment concluded it was a failed operation while the political aftermath saw Shimon Peres defeated in ‘Israeli' elections.

Ten years later, ‘Israel' launched an unprecedented war against Lebanon, in yet another attempt to crush Hezbollah. In the "Second Lebanon War" Qana was again the turning point that changed the course of the war. ‘Israel' committed a massacre there killing dozens of people, mainly children and women, hiding from ‘Israeli' bombs.

This historical village in south Lebanon has contributed at least twice in hitting the last nails in the coffin of ‘Israel'.

According to the Winograd report, the Second ‘Israeli' war constituted a humiliating defeat to ‘Israel'.

Religiously speaking, the ‘Israelis' believe that the beginning of their entity's end starts with their first defeat - which took place in 2000 and then enhanced by another resounding defeat in 2006.

The resistance remains strong and Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's promises are fulfilled.

Today, despite attempt to distort the resistance and Sayyed Nasrallah's image, his eminence's pledge, in case of a new ‘Israeli' war, is to let the world witness new surprises that would change the course of the battle and the face of the whole region.

Israel…A Trail Ablaze On a Steep Slope

2009-04-08T21:34:00.000+03:00

Israel…A Trail Ablaze On a Steep Slope
Mohamad Shmaysani
January 20, 2009

Between July 1942 and February 1943, a 200-day battle, the bloodiest in human history, left 1,800,000 casualties on the Russian and German sides. A total of 200,000 square kilometers were destroyed in the battle of Stalingrad, yet casualties and destruction were never the measurement unit of defeat and victory. The Germans lost the Battle and for the Russian heroism shown King George VI of the United Kingdom awarded the Stalingrad citizens a jeweled sword in appreciation of the bravery that they had shown.

Between December 27, 2008 and January 17, 2009 a 22-day assault, the bloodiest in human history, left more than 1,300 civilians killed on one side; the Palestinian side. Much of a total of 365 square kilometers has been destroyed in the Israeli war on Gaza. Still, casualties and destruction is not the measurement unit of victory and defeat. The Israelis who launched a disproportionate war on Gaza have been defeated.

Throughout history, a resistance force has never been required to eliminate an enemy or capture land; like in France, Lebanon and Palestine, the resistance’s job is to fight, repel and hold out. Victory is achieved when these three conditions are met.

Triumphant Gazans will not wait for a ‘king’ to award them with a jeweled sword; they’ve already earned the accolade of honor.

Although Hitler’s strategic main objective of battle of Stalingrad was the capture of the Volga River, Olmert’s objective of the war on Gaza was…nobody inside and outside Israel knows.
What they have been saying in the Jewish state after the ceasefire took effect, is that the war ‘is just another stop along a trail blazing with fire;’ a trail that formally started to ascend in 1948 and reached the pinnacle just before the end of the second millennium. However, the trail has been descending steeply since the start of this third millennium with an increasing speed and a fast growing blaze that will eventually render the whole trail to ashes.

First was the humiliating pullout of Israel from Lebanon in 2000, second was the 2006 war on Lebanon and third was the 2008 war on Gaza. In those three wars, Israel was not the entity everyone thought it was; the entity that battles Arab armies and defeats them in less than a week. 33 days in Lebanon and another 22 days in Gaza saw Israel’s defeat not by armies, but by resistance fighters and steadfast civilians.

Israel claimed it wanted to crush Hamas, then faced the bitter truth and claimed it just wanted to change the status quo in Gaza, then it got more modest and claimed it wanted to stop Palestinian rocket firing, then in a weaker tone it stated it only wants to teach Hamas a lesson and when all of the above failed, Israel said it wanted to restore its so called power of deterrence after the defeat in Lebanon in 2006; deterrence by adopting the “Dahyie Doctrine” – The Beirut Southern Suburb Doctrine that saw the destruction of Dahiye in 2006 - in military operations though which civilians and civilian infrastructure become the main targets.

The Israelis could not achieve anything from the war on Gaza. They couldn’t even engage in ‘phase three’ of the war.

Like Lebanon, Gaza has proved Israel’s military might can no longer be the primary instrument for pushing the Israeli trail in this region.

Gaza did not cure Israel of its deep Lebanon wound but only further exposed the tragic and never-ending mistakes the Jewish state has committed for over 60 years.
‘When the guns become completely silent, and the full scope of the killing and destruction becomes known, then we will finally understand how deeply and fundamentally wrong our actions in this region have been from time immemorial - how misguided, unethical, unwise and above all, responsible, time after time, for fanning the flames that consume us,’ David Grossman’s Haaretz analysis said.

There is nothing much left in this ‘blazing trail’ to burn.

The Daily Packet

2009-04-07T20:00:00.000+03:00

Greetings.

My name is Mohamad Shmaysani and I have just launched my Daily Packet blogspot.

My long term objective is to transform the "Daily Packet" into an electronic newspaper.

My short term objective, however, is to create an interactive space for bloggers in different domains like: Politics, Sciences, Arts, Culture, Interfaith, etc...

I would appreciate your contribution to this blogspot as I would treasure your commitment to freedom of speech that rises above slandarous and defamatory rhetoric.

Thank You