What is to become of the Magen Abraham Synagogue in Wadi Abou Jemil-Beirut?
See Also:Heritage and History News Feed
After a relative halt in the constructions and refurbishments in Downtown Beirut, due to the recent Israeli/American aggressions followed by the latest national political strife, the pace seems to be finally picking up. The Beirut Souks Project, a modern shopping district, replacing the traditional markets is now taking shape and its expected beauty is very visible. According to Solidere, it will include facilities totalling 100,000 sqms of floor space and 60,000 sqms of pedestrian areas and landscaped squares. We are to expect around 200 shops, an office building, a gold souk and jeweler’s market, an entertainment complex comprising cinemas, restaurants and games arcades, an international department store, and of course an underground 2600 car park which has already been completed. Very impressive indeed!A few miles away however, stands a long forgotten and decaying architectural body, in need of urgent attention to wash off its years of suffering and sorrow that characterize most of the ruins located along what was known as the demarcation lines.The Magen Abraham Synagogue in Wadi Abou Jemil is probably the last remaining symbol that Lebanon''s currently vanishing Jewish community was in fact once fully integrated into Lebanese economic, social, cultural and political life. Actually, when Greater Lebanon was proclaimed in 1920, they were the only Middle Eastern Jewish community to be constitutionally protected!The Synagogue was built during an era of prosperity, throughout which the Lebanese Jewish community began to flock towards the Wadi Abu Jemil district, making it their cultural, religious, social and economic centre.In fact, Lebanon was the only Arab state to see its Jewish community increase after the establishment of Israel. Lebanese Jews remained generally opposed to the Zionist movement and their attachment to life in Lebanon as full Lebanese citizens was stronger than their sympathy for Israel.During The 1958 conflict however, many Jews left for Europe, the U.S. and South America. Again, very few went to Israel. Like most other Lebanese who emigrated, Lebanese Jews remained attached to their homeland.Following the June Arab-Israeli war and the civil war of 1975, Wadi Abu Jemil was deserted, and the synagogue was closed. Located near the old city centre, it was unfortunately caught between the conflicting factions. But ironically, the synagogue took most of the damage from direct Israeli shell fire during their 1982 invasion of Lebanon.When later on Solidere was created, Beirut’s City Centre started undergoing a full fledge face lift. The restoration of the synagogue didn’t seem to come up in any of the plans, until a project to build a massive Hariri Mosque in the Martyrs’ Square area took form.At the time, there was need to acquire more land in the chosen spot. It is believed that Former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri had concocted a deal with the Safra family (one of the most established Jewish banking families in the world), whereby they donated land they owned for the mosque, in exchange for Hariri’s adoption of the Synagogue’s restoration. The anticipated project also included a garden, surrounding the Synagogue, open to downtown strollers. This would have been the icing or the cherry that would crown Rafiq Hariri’s political career and diplomacy. Things did not go quite as planned…Currently the Mosque is completed, and Rafiq Hariri’s remnants from his horrifying assassination (god rests his soul) is buried within its premises…and the Synagogue is still plunged in its deep slumber. Is it destined to perish in oblivion?
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Deterring a Nuclear 9/11 click herre for full article
Caitlin Talmadge
Can a nuclear terrorist attack be deterred? Nuclear forensic techniques to identify the origins of nuclear materials are improving, but significant associated strategic, political, diplomatic, and organizational challenges have yet to be sufficiently addressed.
Caitlin Talmadge
Can a nuclear terrorist attack be deterred? Nuclear forensic techniques to identify the origins of nuclear materials are improving, but significant associated strategic, political, diplomatic, and organizational challenges have yet to be sufficiently addressed.
Hizballah and Syria: Outgrowing the Proxy Relationship
Emile El-Hokayem is a research fellow at the Henry L. Stimson Center in Washington, D.C.
Terms such as “proxy” and “client” are often used to characterize the power dynamic between Hizballah and its allies Iran and Syria. These states’ vital resources and indispensable political sponsorship elevated Hizballah to the position it enjoys today. They each played a central role in past decisions of momentous importance for Hizballah. Today, however, this image of Hizballah as a client of Iran and Syria has become obsolete due to the power base the Shi‘ite group has nurtured and expanded in Lebanon and the growing political capital it has acquired in the Middle East thanks to at least the perception of its military victories, be they real or not, particularly in the summer 2006 war against Israel.
By holding its ground against Israel, the region’s strongest military, Hizballah demonstrated its capacity to shake the Lebanese and regional political landscape. Hizballah resisted Israel’s onslaught without substantive Syrian support. By partnering with Hizballah, Syria hoped to defy isolation and reclaim its role as a pivotal power in the region, as well as give the Asad regime a new lease on life. The shifting dynamics of this relationship, however, with Hizballah asserting itself as a more-autonomous actor, have considerable implications for policies aimed at engaging or isolating Syria, as well as for dealing with the Hizballah challenge.
Hizballah has acquired a degree of autonomy and flexibility in recent years vis-à-vis Syria. Long gone are the days when Damascus’s rules and influence determined Hizballah’s activities, guaranteeing the predictability and restraint that prevented full-blown war. Hizballah has emerged as a more-independent player able to operate in Lebanon and the wider Middle East on its own terms.
Syria and Hizballah maintain complex relations that have evolved considerably over the past 25 years, shifting to fit their strategic interests and ideological agendas. Yet, two crucial changes, one in the early 1990s when Syria established itself as the unquestioned dominant player in Lebanon and the other ongoing since 2000 as Hizballah gradually grows stronger, have redefined how they interact and led them to reassess their relative positions. Hizballah has acquired enough confidence and prestige to become more than just a pawn for Syria to manipulate. Today, for strategic and ideological motives, Syria is more pro-Hizballah than Hizballah is pro-Syria.
Download the full article, available in Adobe Acrobat [.pdf] format
Emile El-Hokayem is a research fellow at the Henry L. Stimson Center in Washington, D.C.
Terms such as “proxy” and “client” are often used to characterize the power dynamic between Hizballah and its allies Iran and Syria. These states’ vital resources and indispensable political sponsorship elevated Hizballah to the position it enjoys today. They each played a central role in past decisions of momentous importance for Hizballah. Today, however, this image of Hizballah as a client of Iran and Syria has become obsolete due to the power base the Shi‘ite group has nurtured and expanded in Lebanon and the growing political capital it has acquired in the Middle East thanks to at least the perception of its military victories, be they real or not, particularly in the summer 2006 war against Israel.
By holding its ground against Israel, the region’s strongest military, Hizballah demonstrated its capacity to shake the Lebanese and regional political landscape. Hizballah resisted Israel’s onslaught without substantive Syrian support. By partnering with Hizballah, Syria hoped to defy isolation and reclaim its role as a pivotal power in the region, as well as give the Asad regime a new lease on life. The shifting dynamics of this relationship, however, with Hizballah asserting itself as a more-autonomous actor, have considerable implications for policies aimed at engaging or isolating Syria, as well as for dealing with the Hizballah challenge.
Hizballah has acquired a degree of autonomy and flexibility in recent years vis-à-vis Syria. Long gone are the days when Damascus’s rules and influence determined Hizballah’s activities, guaranteeing the predictability and restraint that prevented full-blown war. Hizballah has emerged as a more-independent player able to operate in Lebanon and the wider Middle East on its own terms.
Syria and Hizballah maintain complex relations that have evolved considerably over the past 25 years, shifting to fit their strategic interests and ideological agendas. Yet, two crucial changes, one in the early 1990s when Syria established itself as the unquestioned dominant player in Lebanon and the other ongoing since 2000 as Hizballah gradually grows stronger, have redefined how they interact and led them to reassess their relative positions. Hizballah has acquired enough confidence and prestige to become more than just a pawn for Syria to manipulate. Today, for strategic and ideological motives, Syria is more pro-Hizballah than Hizballah is pro-Syria.
Download the full article, available in Adobe Acrobat [.pdf] format
Friday, April 13, 2007
عربية تقترب من إطاحة الرجل الذي يعد مهندس الإطاحة بنظام صدام
واشنطن: طلحة جبريل بات من المرجح ان تطيح علاقة بين بول وولفويتز رئيس البنك الدولي وعشيقته شاها علي رضا ذات الاصول العربية، على الرغم من ان البيت الابيض اعلن وقوفه الى جانب بول وولفويتز الذي يعد المهندس الرئيسي لغزو العراق.
وكان بول وولفويتز قد تدخل لنقل صديقته شاها علي رضا من البنك الدولي الى الخارجية الاميركية ومنحها راتباً أعلى من راتب الوزيرة كوندوليزا رايس. وبادر بول وولفويتز عند انتخابه رئيساً للبنك الدولي في منتصف 2005 التدخل الى نقل شاها التي ظلت تعمل مع البنك منذ ثمانية أعوام، للعمل في وزارة الخارجية الأميركية، لتفادي تضارب المصالح وذلك حسب قوانين البنك التي تمنع ترؤوس شخص لفرد من عائلته. وانتقلت شاها التي كانت تعمل موظفة علاقات عامة في البنك الدولي الى وزارة الخارجية الاميركية لتعمل مستشارة هناك في مكتب ليزا تشيني ابنة نائب الرئيس الاميركي.
واتخذ بول وولفويتز قراراً بزيادة كبيرة وسريعة في مرتبها المعفي من الضرائب في البنك الدولي حيث بلغ 193 ألف دولار أميركي سنوياً، أي أكثر من المرتب الذي تتقاضاه وزيرة الخارجية الأميركية، كوندوليزا رايس نفسها، والذي يبلغ 186 الف دولار سنوياً قبل خصم الضرائب منه.
يشار الى ان شاها علي رضا ولدت في ليبيا من أب ليبي وأم من اصول سورية، وتربت شاها في تونس والسعودية وبريطانيا وتزوجت من بلنت علي رضا في الثمانينات ثم انتقلت معه الى الولايات المتحدة ، بعد ان كانت قد حصلت على درجة الماجستير في العلاقات الدولية من جامعة اكسفورد. ويقول الذين يعرفونها عن قرب انها تتمتع بكفاءة عالية في مجال العلاقات العامة وانفصلت شاها عن زوجها كما ان وولفويتز منفصل هو الآخر عن زوجته. ولم يدافع مجلس مديري البنك الدولي، في البيان الذي اصدره امس عن بول وولفويتز، مما عزز التكهنات بانه سيضطر للاستقالة، بل إن مجلس ادارة البنك وجه أعنف توبيخ للرجل خلال مسيرة حياته السياسية. ويتوقع ان تخيم تداعيات هذه الفضيحة على الاجتماعات السنوية المشتركة بين البنك الدولي وصندوق النقد الدولي التي ستبدأ اليوم في واشنطن. وأصدر المجلس بعد اجتماع دام ساعات طويلة واستمر حتى فجر امس بياناً يقول إن وولفويتز لم يقم بالتفاوض من أجل تعيين عشيقته وتحديد قيمة مرتبها فقط، بل قدم تعليمات مفصلة لتنفيذ ذلك، وتفادي عرض الموضوع على الجهات المعنية داخل البنك للحصول على الموافقة. وقال بيان مجلس مديري البنك (24 مديرا كل واحد يمثل الدول الرئيسية التي تساهم في البنك) «سوف يتحرك المديرون التنفيذيون سريعا للوصول الى خلاصة حول احتمالات يمكن اتخاذها، وسوف ينظر المديرون التنفيذيون الى كل القوانين والظروف واضعين في الاعتبار ما يمس البنك». واعتبر مراقبون ان هذا البيان ليس تأييدا لموقف وولفويتز، ولا حتى شبه تأييد، بل انه يشكك، بطريقة دبلوماسية، في الاعذار التي قدمها وولفويتز. كما ان البيان يشير الى «ما يمس البنك» مما يعني ان المديرين التنفيذيين يضعون اعتباراً اكبر لسمعة البنك، ويعتبرون انها اهم من سمعة بول وولفويتز. وقال البيان إن مجلس المديرين لا يفكر في الإجراء الذي ينبغي له اتخاذه، إذا ما قرر أنه لا بد من ذلك. وتصاعدت مطالبة ممثلي موظفي البنك باستقالة وولفويتز بسبب الفضيحة، فيما قال وولفويتز انه سيقبل اي قرار يتخذه مجلس ادارة البنك. وقال اتحاد موظفي البنك إنه بالإضافة إلى ما حدث، حصلت شاها رضا على ترقية وزيادة في المرتب «مبالغ فيهما». وقال البيان الذي يمثل اكثر من عشرة آلاف شخص يعملون في البنك في كل انحاء العالم «ساهم المدير العام في تدمير سمعة البنك، ويجب عليه، حفاظا على هذه السمعة ان يستقيل استقالة مشرفة».
وكان بول وولفويتز قد أقر بالفضيحة واستهل مؤتمره الصحافي أول من امس بالقول «ساقول بعض الكلمات حول الموضوع الذي يدور في عقولكم ... جئت هنا قبل سنتين وطرحت مسألة احتمال تعارض المصالح على لجنة الاخلاقيات وكان رأي اللجنة ان تتم ترقية ونقل شاها رضا ...وكان من المفترض ان لا أقحم نفسي في الموضوع لذا ارتكبت خطأ واعتذر عنه»، وكان وولفويتز يأمل أن يؤدي اعترافه بالخطأ إلى الحيلولة دون خروج المسألة من السيطرة. والمفارقة ان بول وولفويتز شدد مجدداً في ندوته الصحافية على ضرورة «مكافحة الفساد» في العالم وهو الشعار الذي جاء يحمله الى البنك الدولي. كما تحدث عن نشاط البنك في محاربة الفقر في العالم. ومنذ توليه مهامه داخل البنك كان يرى أن الحواجز التي تعرقل التنمية في البلدان الفقيرة تتمثل في تفشي الفساد بنسب مرتفعة داخل الحكومات. وكان قد قال في خطاب القاه العام الماضي في اندونيسيا «الفساد هو أصل الداء الذي يجعل الحكومات لا تعمل».
وقال مصدر مطلع داخل البنك طلب عدم ذكر اسمه لـ«الشرق الأوسط» إن بول وولفويتز حاول استباق خروج الفضيحة الى العلن وبحث مع بعض مستشاريه القانونيين كيفية ان تمتد الحصانة التي يوفرها العمل داخل البنك الدولي لتشمل الفترة ما قبل انتخابه رئيساً وما بعد ترك منصبه.
وعمل وولفويتز نائبا لوزير الدفاع دونالد رمسفيلد، وكان من الذين وضعوا ونفذوا خطة غزو العراق. ويعتبر من المحافظين الجدد (تحالف المسيحيين واليهود المتطرفين) لكن لم تكن هناك اعترضات على تعيينه في ذلك الوقت لأن اغلبية الشعب الاميركي كانت تؤيد غزو العراق. وكان بول وولفويتز يرى ان اطاحة نظام صدام حسين «ستؤدي الى انبثاق عصر جديد وازدهار الديمقراطية في الشرق الاوسط»، وتوقع ان يستقبل الشعب العراقي القوات الاميركية على اعتبار انها «قوات تحرير».
* تعتبر شاها علي رضا التي ولدت في طرابلس بليبيا من أب ليبي وأم سورية كبرت في تونس والسعودية وبريطانيا ثم انتقلت الى الولايات المتحدة بعد زواجها من بوليند علي شاها في آخر الثمانينات. ودرست شاها في مدرسة لندن الاقتصادية قبل اخذها درجة الماجستير في العلاقات الدولية من جامعة أكسفورد حيث درست في كلية سان أنتوني. وتخصصت شاها في الشرق الأوسط حيث نفذت بحثا ميدانيا في عدد من الدول العربية قبل انضمامها الى البنك الدولي، وعملت في المؤسسة الوطنية للديمقراطية، حيث بدأت وقادت برامج عن الشرق الأوسط في المؤسسة منذ انضمامها للبنك الدولي عام 1997. حيث عملت بالشرق الأوسط وشمال افريقيا في مجال التنمية الاقتصادية والاجتماعية ومنسقة المجتمع المدني في مكتب رئيس المكتب الاقتصادي. وفي يوليو(تموز) 2002، اصبحت نائبة المدير للشؤون الخارجية في البنك الدولي، وهي تعمل الآن مع بنت نائب الرئيس الاميركي ديك تشيني (ليز تشيني) في وزارة الخارجية.
وارتبطت شاها مع رئيس البنك الدولي الحالي بول وولفويتز منذ ان كان وكيل وزارة الدفاع في إدارة الرئيس الاميركي بوش.
واشنطن: طلحة جبريل بات من المرجح ان تطيح علاقة بين بول وولفويتز رئيس البنك الدولي وعشيقته شاها علي رضا ذات الاصول العربية، على الرغم من ان البيت الابيض اعلن وقوفه الى جانب بول وولفويتز الذي يعد المهندس الرئيسي لغزو العراق.
وكان بول وولفويتز قد تدخل لنقل صديقته شاها علي رضا من البنك الدولي الى الخارجية الاميركية ومنحها راتباً أعلى من راتب الوزيرة كوندوليزا رايس. وبادر بول وولفويتز عند انتخابه رئيساً للبنك الدولي في منتصف 2005 التدخل الى نقل شاها التي ظلت تعمل مع البنك منذ ثمانية أعوام، للعمل في وزارة الخارجية الأميركية، لتفادي تضارب المصالح وذلك حسب قوانين البنك التي تمنع ترؤوس شخص لفرد من عائلته. وانتقلت شاها التي كانت تعمل موظفة علاقات عامة في البنك الدولي الى وزارة الخارجية الاميركية لتعمل مستشارة هناك في مكتب ليزا تشيني ابنة نائب الرئيس الاميركي.
واتخذ بول وولفويتز قراراً بزيادة كبيرة وسريعة في مرتبها المعفي من الضرائب في البنك الدولي حيث بلغ 193 ألف دولار أميركي سنوياً، أي أكثر من المرتب الذي تتقاضاه وزيرة الخارجية الأميركية، كوندوليزا رايس نفسها، والذي يبلغ 186 الف دولار سنوياً قبل خصم الضرائب منه.
يشار الى ان شاها علي رضا ولدت في ليبيا من أب ليبي وأم من اصول سورية، وتربت شاها في تونس والسعودية وبريطانيا وتزوجت من بلنت علي رضا في الثمانينات ثم انتقلت معه الى الولايات المتحدة ، بعد ان كانت قد حصلت على درجة الماجستير في العلاقات الدولية من جامعة اكسفورد. ويقول الذين يعرفونها عن قرب انها تتمتع بكفاءة عالية في مجال العلاقات العامة وانفصلت شاها عن زوجها كما ان وولفويتز منفصل هو الآخر عن زوجته. ولم يدافع مجلس مديري البنك الدولي، في البيان الذي اصدره امس عن بول وولفويتز، مما عزز التكهنات بانه سيضطر للاستقالة، بل إن مجلس ادارة البنك وجه أعنف توبيخ للرجل خلال مسيرة حياته السياسية. ويتوقع ان تخيم تداعيات هذه الفضيحة على الاجتماعات السنوية المشتركة بين البنك الدولي وصندوق النقد الدولي التي ستبدأ اليوم في واشنطن. وأصدر المجلس بعد اجتماع دام ساعات طويلة واستمر حتى فجر امس بياناً يقول إن وولفويتز لم يقم بالتفاوض من أجل تعيين عشيقته وتحديد قيمة مرتبها فقط، بل قدم تعليمات مفصلة لتنفيذ ذلك، وتفادي عرض الموضوع على الجهات المعنية داخل البنك للحصول على الموافقة. وقال بيان مجلس مديري البنك (24 مديرا كل واحد يمثل الدول الرئيسية التي تساهم في البنك) «سوف يتحرك المديرون التنفيذيون سريعا للوصول الى خلاصة حول احتمالات يمكن اتخاذها، وسوف ينظر المديرون التنفيذيون الى كل القوانين والظروف واضعين في الاعتبار ما يمس البنك». واعتبر مراقبون ان هذا البيان ليس تأييدا لموقف وولفويتز، ولا حتى شبه تأييد، بل انه يشكك، بطريقة دبلوماسية، في الاعذار التي قدمها وولفويتز. كما ان البيان يشير الى «ما يمس البنك» مما يعني ان المديرين التنفيذيين يضعون اعتباراً اكبر لسمعة البنك، ويعتبرون انها اهم من سمعة بول وولفويتز. وقال البيان إن مجلس المديرين لا يفكر في الإجراء الذي ينبغي له اتخاذه، إذا ما قرر أنه لا بد من ذلك. وتصاعدت مطالبة ممثلي موظفي البنك باستقالة وولفويتز بسبب الفضيحة، فيما قال وولفويتز انه سيقبل اي قرار يتخذه مجلس ادارة البنك. وقال اتحاد موظفي البنك إنه بالإضافة إلى ما حدث، حصلت شاها رضا على ترقية وزيادة في المرتب «مبالغ فيهما». وقال البيان الذي يمثل اكثر من عشرة آلاف شخص يعملون في البنك في كل انحاء العالم «ساهم المدير العام في تدمير سمعة البنك، ويجب عليه، حفاظا على هذه السمعة ان يستقيل استقالة مشرفة».
وكان بول وولفويتز قد أقر بالفضيحة واستهل مؤتمره الصحافي أول من امس بالقول «ساقول بعض الكلمات حول الموضوع الذي يدور في عقولكم ... جئت هنا قبل سنتين وطرحت مسألة احتمال تعارض المصالح على لجنة الاخلاقيات وكان رأي اللجنة ان تتم ترقية ونقل شاها رضا ...وكان من المفترض ان لا أقحم نفسي في الموضوع لذا ارتكبت خطأ واعتذر عنه»، وكان وولفويتز يأمل أن يؤدي اعترافه بالخطأ إلى الحيلولة دون خروج المسألة من السيطرة. والمفارقة ان بول وولفويتز شدد مجدداً في ندوته الصحافية على ضرورة «مكافحة الفساد» في العالم وهو الشعار الذي جاء يحمله الى البنك الدولي. كما تحدث عن نشاط البنك في محاربة الفقر في العالم. ومنذ توليه مهامه داخل البنك كان يرى أن الحواجز التي تعرقل التنمية في البلدان الفقيرة تتمثل في تفشي الفساد بنسب مرتفعة داخل الحكومات. وكان قد قال في خطاب القاه العام الماضي في اندونيسيا «الفساد هو أصل الداء الذي يجعل الحكومات لا تعمل».
وقال مصدر مطلع داخل البنك طلب عدم ذكر اسمه لـ«الشرق الأوسط» إن بول وولفويتز حاول استباق خروج الفضيحة الى العلن وبحث مع بعض مستشاريه القانونيين كيفية ان تمتد الحصانة التي يوفرها العمل داخل البنك الدولي لتشمل الفترة ما قبل انتخابه رئيساً وما بعد ترك منصبه.
وعمل وولفويتز نائبا لوزير الدفاع دونالد رمسفيلد، وكان من الذين وضعوا ونفذوا خطة غزو العراق. ويعتبر من المحافظين الجدد (تحالف المسيحيين واليهود المتطرفين) لكن لم تكن هناك اعترضات على تعيينه في ذلك الوقت لأن اغلبية الشعب الاميركي كانت تؤيد غزو العراق. وكان بول وولفويتز يرى ان اطاحة نظام صدام حسين «ستؤدي الى انبثاق عصر جديد وازدهار الديمقراطية في الشرق الاوسط»، وتوقع ان يستقبل الشعب العراقي القوات الاميركية على اعتبار انها «قوات تحرير».
* تعتبر شاها علي رضا التي ولدت في طرابلس بليبيا من أب ليبي وأم سورية كبرت في تونس والسعودية وبريطانيا ثم انتقلت الى الولايات المتحدة بعد زواجها من بوليند علي شاها في آخر الثمانينات. ودرست شاها في مدرسة لندن الاقتصادية قبل اخذها درجة الماجستير في العلاقات الدولية من جامعة أكسفورد حيث درست في كلية سان أنتوني. وتخصصت شاها في الشرق الأوسط حيث نفذت بحثا ميدانيا في عدد من الدول العربية قبل انضمامها الى البنك الدولي، وعملت في المؤسسة الوطنية للديمقراطية، حيث بدأت وقادت برامج عن الشرق الأوسط في المؤسسة منذ انضمامها للبنك الدولي عام 1997. حيث عملت بالشرق الأوسط وشمال افريقيا في مجال التنمية الاقتصادية والاجتماعية ومنسقة المجتمع المدني في مكتب رئيس المكتب الاقتصادي. وفي يوليو(تموز) 2002، اصبحت نائبة المدير للشؤون الخارجية في البنك الدولي، وهي تعمل الآن مع بنت نائب الرئيس الاميركي ديك تشيني (ليز تشيني) في وزارة الخارجية.
وارتبطت شاها مع رئيس البنك الدولي الحالي بول وولفويتز منذ ان كان وكيل وزارة الدفاع في إدارة الرئيس الاميركي بوش.
Pelosi's Misguided Middle East Visit
Dr. Marcy Newman,
U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (right) at AIPAC's annual policy conference. (AIPAC)This week U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi concluded her visit to the Middle East in Damascus, Syria, to which President George W. Bush's response was that her visit "sends mixed messages." While Pelosi's delegation to the region should be met with applause for refusing to participate in isolating Syria, her visit to Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria should be met with a great deal of caution.Twice in the last month Pelosi delivered a speech -- of more or less the same message -- before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) annual policy conference and before the Israeli Knesset. In these speeches, she unequivocally stated: "When Israel is threatened, America's interests in the region are threatened. America's commitment to Israel's security needs is unshakable." Statements such as this have made Pelosi, along with her traveling companion Congressman Tom Lantos, one of the top ten recipients of AIPAC donations. She received a standing ovation for these sentiments in the Knesset where she linked the U.S. and Israel's "common cause": " a safe and secure Israel living in peace with her neighbors."Perhaps Pelosi genuinely wants to secure peace in the region. If this were the case, however, we would have seen some indication of balance in her fact-finding mission. While in Israel, Pelosi discussed her visits with the families of Israeli soldiers taken last summer in Gaza and Lebanon, naming them and relaying stories about them. Not once was a Palestinian or Lebanese killed or wounded in Israel's wars dignified with any such humanizing gesture. Instead Pelosi focused entirely on Hezbollah's violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 for failing to disarm. Not once did she mention Israel's almost daily violation of that same resolution with military jets invading Lebanese airspace or recent military incursions into the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Moreover, she failed to mention Israel's continued occupation of Shaaba Farms and Ghajar, which are also violations of 1701; nor did she engage with serious discussions of the occupation of the Golan Heights or the Palestinian Territories with leaders in the region.If Pelosi, Lantos, and the other congressional leaders traveling in their delegation wanted to understand what peace means to all parties they could have spent their time in Lebanon meeting with victims of Israel's war and she could have toured the areas of the country destroyed by Israel. She could have visited with Lebanese families affected by American-made cluster bombs. Such meetings could have helped Pelosi to respond to a report on her desk from the State Department, which states Israel may have violated legal agreements made with the U.S. in the 1970s when it dropped between 2.6 and 4 million American-made cluster munitions on Lebanon last summer in the last 72 hours of the war after the cease fire agreement had been brokered. The report explores Israel's violation of the Arms Export Control Act, which stipulates that American-manufactured weapons must only be used in self-defense, in an open area against two or more invading armies, and never used against civilians.As Speaker of the House it is Pelosi's job (along with Senator Majority Leader Joseph Biden) to review this report and if the violations are corroborated, which evidence from organizations like Human Rights Watch already substantiated, Israel could be sanctioned. Indeed, in response to Israel's use of American-made cluster bombs in Lebanon last summer, Steve Goose of Human Rights Watch reported, "we've never seen use of cluster munitions that was so extensive and dangerous to civilians ... The issue is not whether Israel used the American cluster munitions lawfully, but what the US is going to do about it." As Speaker, Pelosi can and should do something about it. After all, there is a precedent: Ronald Reagan imposed a six-year ban on the sale of munitions to Israel in 1982 after Congress investigated Israel's use of cluster bombs against civilians. For all the talk about "peace" before AIPAC and the Knesset, if Pelosi were actually invested in regional peace she could begin by holding Israel accountable for its violations of the Arms Export Control Act by sanctioning Israel. But this option seems rather unlikely given her congressional voting record. For instance, last summer she voted for her colleague Lantos' resolution in Congress (HR 921), entitled "Condemning the recent attacks against the State of Israel, holding terrorists and their state-sponsors accountable for such attacks, supporting Israel's right to defend itself, and for other purposes." That bill, which overwhelmingly passed (410-8), led to "other purposes," namely selling $120 million of oil to re-fuel Israel's American-made fighter jets that bombed and killed civilians in Lebanon as well as an expedited delivery of 1,300 M26 artillery rockets for Israel to use in its war on Lebanon.If Pelosi's delegation to the Middle East is seriously interested in creating "peace" here, it should begin at home. She should respond to the report on her desk and make the decision to sanction Israel. Moreover, Pelosi and Lantos should both draft legislation that does not focus exclusively on Syria, Lebanon, and Iran for their weapons if only because the U.S. itself provides Israel with extensive military support and political cover. The burden should be shifted to Israel as the occupying power of Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine. Further, Pelosi would do well to join her colleagues in the Senate who drafted the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2007 (S 594) and support the effort of forty other nations who have banned cluster munitions.
Dr. Marcy Newman is a Visiting Professor at the Center for American Studies and Research at the American University of Beirut and a Fellow at the Initiative for Middle East Policy Dialogue.
Dr. Marcy Newman,
U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (right) at AIPAC's annual policy conference. (AIPAC)This week U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi concluded her visit to the Middle East in Damascus, Syria, to which President George W. Bush's response was that her visit "sends mixed messages." While Pelosi's delegation to the region should be met with applause for refusing to participate in isolating Syria, her visit to Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria should be met with a great deal of caution.Twice in the last month Pelosi delivered a speech -- of more or less the same message -- before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) annual policy conference and before the Israeli Knesset. In these speeches, she unequivocally stated: "When Israel is threatened, America's interests in the region are threatened. America's commitment to Israel's security needs is unshakable." Statements such as this have made Pelosi, along with her traveling companion Congressman Tom Lantos, one of the top ten recipients of AIPAC donations. She received a standing ovation for these sentiments in the Knesset where she linked the U.S. and Israel's "common cause": " a safe and secure Israel living in peace with her neighbors."Perhaps Pelosi genuinely wants to secure peace in the region. If this were the case, however, we would have seen some indication of balance in her fact-finding mission. While in Israel, Pelosi discussed her visits with the families of Israeli soldiers taken last summer in Gaza and Lebanon, naming them and relaying stories about them. Not once was a Palestinian or Lebanese killed or wounded in Israel's wars dignified with any such humanizing gesture. Instead Pelosi focused entirely on Hezbollah's violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 for failing to disarm. Not once did she mention Israel's almost daily violation of that same resolution with military jets invading Lebanese airspace or recent military incursions into the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Moreover, she failed to mention Israel's continued occupation of Shaaba Farms and Ghajar, which are also violations of 1701; nor did she engage with serious discussions of the occupation of the Golan Heights or the Palestinian Territories with leaders in the region.If Pelosi, Lantos, and the other congressional leaders traveling in their delegation wanted to understand what peace means to all parties they could have spent their time in Lebanon meeting with victims of Israel's war and she could have toured the areas of the country destroyed by Israel. She could have visited with Lebanese families affected by American-made cluster bombs. Such meetings could have helped Pelosi to respond to a report on her desk from the State Department, which states Israel may have violated legal agreements made with the U.S. in the 1970s when it dropped between 2.6 and 4 million American-made cluster munitions on Lebanon last summer in the last 72 hours of the war after the cease fire agreement had been brokered. The report explores Israel's violation of the Arms Export Control Act, which stipulates that American-manufactured weapons must only be used in self-defense, in an open area against two or more invading armies, and never used against civilians.As Speaker of the House it is Pelosi's job (along with Senator Majority Leader Joseph Biden) to review this report and if the violations are corroborated, which evidence from organizations like Human Rights Watch already substantiated, Israel could be sanctioned. Indeed, in response to Israel's use of American-made cluster bombs in Lebanon last summer, Steve Goose of Human Rights Watch reported, "we've never seen use of cluster munitions that was so extensive and dangerous to civilians ... The issue is not whether Israel used the American cluster munitions lawfully, but what the US is going to do about it." As Speaker, Pelosi can and should do something about it. After all, there is a precedent: Ronald Reagan imposed a six-year ban on the sale of munitions to Israel in 1982 after Congress investigated Israel's use of cluster bombs against civilians. For all the talk about "peace" before AIPAC and the Knesset, if Pelosi were actually invested in regional peace she could begin by holding Israel accountable for its violations of the Arms Export Control Act by sanctioning Israel. But this option seems rather unlikely given her congressional voting record. For instance, last summer she voted for her colleague Lantos' resolution in Congress (HR 921), entitled "Condemning the recent attacks against the State of Israel, holding terrorists and their state-sponsors accountable for such attacks, supporting Israel's right to defend itself, and for other purposes." That bill, which overwhelmingly passed (410-8), led to "other purposes," namely selling $120 million of oil to re-fuel Israel's American-made fighter jets that bombed and killed civilians in Lebanon as well as an expedited delivery of 1,300 M26 artillery rockets for Israel to use in its war on Lebanon.If Pelosi's delegation to the Middle East is seriously interested in creating "peace" here, it should begin at home. She should respond to the report on her desk and make the decision to sanction Israel. Moreover, Pelosi and Lantos should both draft legislation that does not focus exclusively on Syria, Lebanon, and Iran for their weapons if only because the U.S. itself provides Israel with extensive military support and political cover. The burden should be shifted to Israel as the occupying power of Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine. Further, Pelosi would do well to join her colleagues in the Senate who drafted the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2007 (S 594) and support the effort of forty other nations who have banned cluster munitions.
Dr. Marcy Newman is a Visiting Professor at the Center for American Studies and Research at the American University of Beirut and a Fellow at the Initiative for Middle East Policy Dialogue.
Who Pushed America into War in Iraq?
Patrick Seale - 13/04/07//
A shadowy Pentagon unit -- the Office of Special Plans, headed by Douglas Feith, former U.S. Under Secretary of Defence for Policy -- deliberately fabricated intelligence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to al-Qaida in order to incite the United States to make war on Iraq.This conclusion, long suspected by most observers of the Middle East, has now been confirmed by Thomas F. Gimble, Inspector General of the U.S. Defence Department, in a declassified report, released on April 5 at the request of Carl M. Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Together with his boss, Paul Wolfowitz, then Deputy Defence Secretary, Douglas Feith was one of an influential group of pro-Israeli neo-conservatives in the Bush administration who exploited the 11 September 2001 terrorist attack on the U.S. to campaign and intrigue for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.According to the Inspector General's report, Feith produced intelligence assessments which claimed that there was a 'mature, symbiotic relationship [between Iraq and al-Qaida]' in no fewer than ten specific areas, including training, financing and logistics. To bolster his case, Feith made much of an alleged meeting in Prague in April 2001 between Muhammad Atta, one of the Al-Qaida hijackers, and an Iraqi intelligence officer, Ahmad al-Ani.To mobilize the American public for an attack on Iraq, Feith leaked his fraudulent conclusions to the Weekly Standard, the neo-con magazine which, under its editor William Kristol, had been stridently calling for 'regime change' in Iraq since the late 1990s - and which has now turned its attention to calling for war against Iran. After a thorough examination of the evidence, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) both concluded that Feith was wrong. They found 'no conclusive signs' of a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida and no evidence of 'direct cooperation.'But Feith was not deterred. Instead, he did his best to discredit the CIA and DIA findings and, bypassing the intelligence community, he presented his phoney evidence as fact to another prominent neo-con, I. Lewis Libby, Vice-President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and to Deputy National Security Director Steven Hadley. In due course, by means of complicities in the Administration, Feith's dubious material was passed up to President Bush and Vice-President Cheney who used it in speeches preparing the public for war in March 2003. The intrigue was successful.Senator Carl Levin said in a written statement last week that the Defence Department's report fully demonstrated why the Inspector General had concluded that Douglas Feith had 'inappropriately' written intelligence assessments before the March 2003 invasion alleging connections between Iraq and al-Qaida. The word 'inappropriately' is hardly a precise description of Feith's criminal behaviour. As is now plain for everyone to see, the war has been an unmitigated disaster for the United States, for Iraq and for the whole Middle East. But it is only now, four years after the American seizure of Baghdad, that an official report has clearly pointed the finger at the men largely responsible.Why did Feith and his neo-con associates do it? And how did they manage to get away with it?Clearly, in pressing for war, they were primarily concerned to enhance Israel's security by smashing a major Arab state, thereby removing any potential threat to Israel from the east. As they schemed to transform the region with America's military power, they dreamed of defeating all of Israel's enemies -- Arab nationalists, Islamic radicals and Palestinian militants -- at a single stroke. Overthrowing Saddam was to be only the first step in a thorough transformation of the region to the advantage of both Israel and the United States.In the event, the United States has suffered a devastating blow to its political influence and moral authority, as well as to its finances and to the fighting ability of its armed services, while Israel, confronted by a resurgent Iran, is itself less secure than before the war.The reckless enterprise of Feith and his fellow neo-cons would probably have had little chance of success had they not managed to team up with men like Dick Cheney and former Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who were evidently seduced by the prospect of taking control of Iraq's oil reserves, second-largest in the world after Saudi Arabia's, and of turning a submissive Iraqi client state into a base for the projection of American power throughout the Middle East and Central Asia.President George W Bush himself bought their agenda - a decision he must now bitterly regret, as he and his advisers seek desperately to find a way out of the Iraqi quagmire.In retrospect, the campaign by Israel and its American friends to push the United States into war with Iraq must be judged one of the most audacious sabotage operations of the Arab world ever mounted.Israel has a long history of seeking to destabilise its neighbours in the belief that a weak and divided Arab world is to its advantage. Over the years, it has sent funds, weapons and military instructors to stiffen the southern Sudanese in their long war against Khartoum and has provided even greater support to the Kurds against Baghdad. Its repeated invasions of Lebanon - in 1978, 1982, 1993, 1996 and 2006 -- have been designed to wrest that country out of Syria's sphere of influence and bring to power in Beirut a government prepared to do Israel's bidding. In the Occupied Territories it has sought to destroy Palestinian resistance not only by boycotts, military strikes and a systematic campaign of murder of Palestinian activists, but also by setting one Palestinian faction against another, notably Islamists against nationalists.But for sheer daring, the intrigue which carried the U.S. into war against Iraq can best be compared to the Iran-Contra Scandal of the mid-1980s.It will be recalled that Israel started sending American weapons secretly to Iran from the start of the Iraq-Iran war in 1980, even while American hostages were held captive in Tehran and in infringement of the arms embargoes imposed by both the Carter and Reagan Administrations.Israel's interest was to fuel the war so as to rule out any possibility that Iraq might turn westwards and combine its military power with that of Syria. Selling arms to the Islamic Republic of Iran, which was then fighting for its survival, was a way to weaken two potential enemies - Iran and Iraq. It was also highly profitable for Israel's arms dealers.To persuade Washington to turn a blind eye to this arms trade, Israel came up with an ingenious idea. It proposed overcharging Iran for the American weapons it was secretly supplying and diverting the profits to the Nicaraguan Contras. The Americans fell for it. They had been looking for ways to support the Contras after Congress had cut off funding.On 17 January 1986, President Reagan signed a Finding which formally re-launched the clandestine arms programme. Israel's arms sales to Iran were freed from all constraint. But the exposure of what was to become known as 'Irangate' crippled the last years of the Reagan Administration, much as Bush's last years have now been crippled by the Iraq war.Can Israel now be persuaded to seek its long-term security by means of good neighbourly relations with the Arabs rather than by spreading mayhem among them?The Arab Peace Initiative of 2002, re-launched at the recent Arab Summit in Riyadh - which offers Israel peace and normal relations with all 22 members of the Arab League if it withdraws to its 1967 borders -- could perhaps be seen as an invitation to Israel to play a constructive rather than a destructive role in the region.The Arab message to Israel seems to be this: 'Stop being the bad boy on the block. Let's put war behind us and cooperate for a better future.' But Israel's interventionist instincts are so deeply ingrained that it would take something of a revolution in its military and security thinking for it to seize the opportunity now being presented to it.
Patrick Seale - 13/04/07//
A shadowy Pentagon unit -- the Office of Special Plans, headed by Douglas Feith, former U.S. Under Secretary of Defence for Policy -- deliberately fabricated intelligence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to al-Qaida in order to incite the United States to make war on Iraq.This conclusion, long suspected by most observers of the Middle East, has now been confirmed by Thomas F. Gimble, Inspector General of the U.S. Defence Department, in a declassified report, released on April 5 at the request of Carl M. Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Together with his boss, Paul Wolfowitz, then Deputy Defence Secretary, Douglas Feith was one of an influential group of pro-Israeli neo-conservatives in the Bush administration who exploited the 11 September 2001 terrorist attack on the U.S. to campaign and intrigue for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.According to the Inspector General's report, Feith produced intelligence assessments which claimed that there was a 'mature, symbiotic relationship [between Iraq and al-Qaida]' in no fewer than ten specific areas, including training, financing and logistics. To bolster his case, Feith made much of an alleged meeting in Prague in April 2001 between Muhammad Atta, one of the Al-Qaida hijackers, and an Iraqi intelligence officer, Ahmad al-Ani.To mobilize the American public for an attack on Iraq, Feith leaked his fraudulent conclusions to the Weekly Standard, the neo-con magazine which, under its editor William Kristol, had been stridently calling for 'regime change' in Iraq since the late 1990s - and which has now turned its attention to calling for war against Iran. After a thorough examination of the evidence, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) both concluded that Feith was wrong. They found 'no conclusive signs' of a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida and no evidence of 'direct cooperation.'But Feith was not deterred. Instead, he did his best to discredit the CIA and DIA findings and, bypassing the intelligence community, he presented his phoney evidence as fact to another prominent neo-con, I. Lewis Libby, Vice-President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and to Deputy National Security Director Steven Hadley. In due course, by means of complicities in the Administration, Feith's dubious material was passed up to President Bush and Vice-President Cheney who used it in speeches preparing the public for war in March 2003. The intrigue was successful.Senator Carl Levin said in a written statement last week that the Defence Department's report fully demonstrated why the Inspector General had concluded that Douglas Feith had 'inappropriately' written intelligence assessments before the March 2003 invasion alleging connections between Iraq and al-Qaida. The word 'inappropriately' is hardly a precise description of Feith's criminal behaviour. As is now plain for everyone to see, the war has been an unmitigated disaster for the United States, for Iraq and for the whole Middle East. But it is only now, four years after the American seizure of Baghdad, that an official report has clearly pointed the finger at the men largely responsible.Why did Feith and his neo-con associates do it? And how did they manage to get away with it?Clearly, in pressing for war, they were primarily concerned to enhance Israel's security by smashing a major Arab state, thereby removing any potential threat to Israel from the east. As they schemed to transform the region with America's military power, they dreamed of defeating all of Israel's enemies -- Arab nationalists, Islamic radicals and Palestinian militants -- at a single stroke. Overthrowing Saddam was to be only the first step in a thorough transformation of the region to the advantage of both Israel and the United States.In the event, the United States has suffered a devastating blow to its political influence and moral authority, as well as to its finances and to the fighting ability of its armed services, while Israel, confronted by a resurgent Iran, is itself less secure than before the war.The reckless enterprise of Feith and his fellow neo-cons would probably have had little chance of success had they not managed to team up with men like Dick Cheney and former Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who were evidently seduced by the prospect of taking control of Iraq's oil reserves, second-largest in the world after Saudi Arabia's, and of turning a submissive Iraqi client state into a base for the projection of American power throughout the Middle East and Central Asia.President George W Bush himself bought their agenda - a decision he must now bitterly regret, as he and his advisers seek desperately to find a way out of the Iraqi quagmire.In retrospect, the campaign by Israel and its American friends to push the United States into war with Iraq must be judged one of the most audacious sabotage operations of the Arab world ever mounted.Israel has a long history of seeking to destabilise its neighbours in the belief that a weak and divided Arab world is to its advantage. Over the years, it has sent funds, weapons and military instructors to stiffen the southern Sudanese in their long war against Khartoum and has provided even greater support to the Kurds against Baghdad. Its repeated invasions of Lebanon - in 1978, 1982, 1993, 1996 and 2006 -- have been designed to wrest that country out of Syria's sphere of influence and bring to power in Beirut a government prepared to do Israel's bidding. In the Occupied Territories it has sought to destroy Palestinian resistance not only by boycotts, military strikes and a systematic campaign of murder of Palestinian activists, but also by setting one Palestinian faction against another, notably Islamists against nationalists.But for sheer daring, the intrigue which carried the U.S. into war against Iraq can best be compared to the Iran-Contra Scandal of the mid-1980s.It will be recalled that Israel started sending American weapons secretly to Iran from the start of the Iraq-Iran war in 1980, even while American hostages were held captive in Tehran and in infringement of the arms embargoes imposed by both the Carter and Reagan Administrations.Israel's interest was to fuel the war so as to rule out any possibility that Iraq might turn westwards and combine its military power with that of Syria. Selling arms to the Islamic Republic of Iran, which was then fighting for its survival, was a way to weaken two potential enemies - Iran and Iraq. It was also highly profitable for Israel's arms dealers.To persuade Washington to turn a blind eye to this arms trade, Israel came up with an ingenious idea. It proposed overcharging Iran for the American weapons it was secretly supplying and diverting the profits to the Nicaraguan Contras. The Americans fell for it. They had been looking for ways to support the Contras after Congress had cut off funding.On 17 January 1986, President Reagan signed a Finding which formally re-launched the clandestine arms programme. Israel's arms sales to Iran were freed from all constraint. But the exposure of what was to become known as 'Irangate' crippled the last years of the Reagan Administration, much as Bush's last years have now been crippled by the Iraq war.Can Israel now be persuaded to seek its long-term security by means of good neighbourly relations with the Arabs rather than by spreading mayhem among them?The Arab Peace Initiative of 2002, re-launched at the recent Arab Summit in Riyadh - which offers Israel peace and normal relations with all 22 members of the Arab League if it withdraws to its 1967 borders -- could perhaps be seen as an invitation to Israel to play a constructive rather than a destructive role in the region.The Arab message to Israel seems to be this: 'Stop being the bad boy on the block. Let's put war behind us and cooperate for a better future.' But Israel's interventionist instincts are so deeply ingrained that it would take something of a revolution in its military and security thinking for it to seize the opportunity now being presented to it.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
The Truth About Syria
By Liz CheneyThursday, April 12, 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
Anyone familiar with the past two years of Lebanese politics would never claim, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did in Damascus last week, that "the road to Damascus is a road to peace." Her assertion must have seemed especially naive to the people of Lebanon, where the list of the slain reads like a "Who's Who" of Syria's most vocal and effective opponents.
This round of murders began at 12:56 p.m. on Feb. 14, 2005, when 2,000 pounds of TNT exploded outside the St. George Hotel in Beirut, killing former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri and 22 others. Hariri's crime? He was increasingly outspoken in opposition to Syria's involvement in Lebanon. Basil Fleihan, a member of the Lebanese parliament, was riding with Hariri that day. Burned over 95 percent of his body, he was recognized only when someone heard him whisper "Yasma," his wife's name. Fleihan died two weeks later.
Following Hariri's assassination, Lebanon's freedom forces, known as the "March 14 movement," demanded an end to Syria's military occupation. They won a majority in the country's parliamentary elections.
Their victory did not go unanswered. Three days after the first round of elections, on June 2, 2005, Lebanese journalist Samir Kassir, an outspoken opponent of Syria, was murdered by a car bomb. In response, hundreds of Lebanese journalists gathered in Martyr's Square and held aloft black pens inscribed with Kassir's name as they chanted, "We will not kneel." One of those in attendance said, "When you read Kassir's work, you will know who killed him." His last column criticized the Syrian regime for imprisoning a group of civil activists.
Three weeks later, the day after the March 14 forces announced their electoral victory, the Lebanese intellectual and anti-Syrian leader George Hawi was assassinated by a car bomb. Lebanese journalist Michael Young wrote that Hawi's killing was a clear message to the March 14 forces: The risks to you of ending Syria's occupation will be high.
On Dec. 12, 2005, the United Nations issued a report concluding that it was unlikely that Hariri's assassination could have been carried out without Syria's knowledge. That same day, Gibran Tueni, editor in chief of An Nahar newspaper, another influential opponent of Syria, was killed by a car bomb. Tueni, who had been among the first at the scene after Samir Kassir's murder, knew he was risking death by vocally opposing Syrian oppression. He did it anyway.
Last November, the 34-year-old minister of industry, Pierre Gemayel, became the latest victim. An outspoken anti-Syrian member of the cabinet, Gemayel was killed when his motorcade was rammed by gunmen who then shot him in the head at point-blank range. Gemayel's murder was seen as a clear message to the March 14 forces inside the Lebanese government: We will kill you to prevent you from acting against Syria's wishes.
These murders are intended to terrorize Syria's opponents into silence. They also eradicate the intellectual and political leadership of Lebanon's democracy movement. Imagine if, in 1776, James Madison, John Adams or Thomas Jefferson had been struck down by assassins. Could America have been born without them? It seems a calculation has been made that if enough Lebanese democrats are killed, Lebanese independence will die in its cradle.
At the same time Syria is terrorizing Lebanon, it is facilitating the flow of insurgents into Iraq, supporting the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah, and allowing its territory to be a foothold in the Arab world for Iran's belligerent ambitions. It continues all this despite scores of trips by senior diplomats to Damascus to "talk to the Syrians."
It is time to face facts. Talking to the Syrians emboldens and rewards them at the expense of America and our allies in the Middle East. It hasn't and won't change their behavior. They are an outlaw regime and should be isolated. Members of Congress and State Department officials should stop visiting Damascus. Arab leaders should stop receiving Bashar al-Assad. The U.N. Security Council should adopt a Chapter VII resolution mandating the establishment of an international tribunal for the Hariri murder.
The Security Council should also hold Syria accountable for its ongoing violations of existing resolutions. The U.S. government should implement all remaining elements of the Syria Accountability Act and launch an aggressive effort to empower the Syrian opposition. European governments should demonstrate that they value justice over profit and impose financial and travel sanctions on Syria's leaders.
After Pierre Gemayel's assassination, I received an e-mail from a Lebanese member of parliament. "It is so awful," he wrote. "Pierre was such a promising young man, and he was afraid of nothing. They will try to kill all of us in the end, but we will keep fighting. We will never surrender."
Conducting diplomacy with the regime in Damascus while they kill Lebanese democrats is not only irresponsible, it is shameful.
The writer was deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs from 2002 through 2003 and principal deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs from 2005 to 2006.
By Liz CheneyThursday, April 12, 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
Anyone familiar with the past two years of Lebanese politics would never claim, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did in Damascus last week, that "the road to Damascus is a road to peace." Her assertion must have seemed especially naive to the people of Lebanon, where the list of the slain reads like a "Who's Who" of Syria's most vocal and effective opponents.
This round of murders began at 12:56 p.m. on Feb. 14, 2005, when 2,000 pounds of TNT exploded outside the St. George Hotel in Beirut, killing former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri and 22 others. Hariri's crime? He was increasingly outspoken in opposition to Syria's involvement in Lebanon. Basil Fleihan, a member of the Lebanese parliament, was riding with Hariri that day. Burned over 95 percent of his body, he was recognized only when someone heard him whisper "Yasma," his wife's name. Fleihan died two weeks later.
Following Hariri's assassination, Lebanon's freedom forces, known as the "March 14 movement," demanded an end to Syria's military occupation. They won a majority in the country's parliamentary elections.
Their victory did not go unanswered. Three days after the first round of elections, on June 2, 2005, Lebanese journalist Samir Kassir, an outspoken opponent of Syria, was murdered by a car bomb. In response, hundreds of Lebanese journalists gathered in Martyr's Square and held aloft black pens inscribed with Kassir's name as they chanted, "We will not kneel." One of those in attendance said, "When you read Kassir's work, you will know who killed him." His last column criticized the Syrian regime for imprisoning a group of civil activists.
Three weeks later, the day after the March 14 forces announced their electoral victory, the Lebanese intellectual and anti-Syrian leader George Hawi was assassinated by a car bomb. Lebanese journalist Michael Young wrote that Hawi's killing was a clear message to the March 14 forces: The risks to you of ending Syria's occupation will be high.
On Dec. 12, 2005, the United Nations issued a report concluding that it was unlikely that Hariri's assassination could have been carried out without Syria's knowledge. That same day, Gibran Tueni, editor in chief of An Nahar newspaper, another influential opponent of Syria, was killed by a car bomb. Tueni, who had been among the first at the scene after Samir Kassir's murder, knew he was risking death by vocally opposing Syrian oppression. He did it anyway.
Last November, the 34-year-old minister of industry, Pierre Gemayel, became the latest victim. An outspoken anti-Syrian member of the cabinet, Gemayel was killed when his motorcade was rammed by gunmen who then shot him in the head at point-blank range. Gemayel's murder was seen as a clear message to the March 14 forces inside the Lebanese government: We will kill you to prevent you from acting against Syria's wishes.
These murders are intended to terrorize Syria's opponents into silence. They also eradicate the intellectual and political leadership of Lebanon's democracy movement. Imagine if, in 1776, James Madison, John Adams or Thomas Jefferson had been struck down by assassins. Could America have been born without them? It seems a calculation has been made that if enough Lebanese democrats are killed, Lebanese independence will die in its cradle.
At the same time Syria is terrorizing Lebanon, it is facilitating the flow of insurgents into Iraq, supporting the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah, and allowing its territory to be a foothold in the Arab world for Iran's belligerent ambitions. It continues all this despite scores of trips by senior diplomats to Damascus to "talk to the Syrians."
It is time to face facts. Talking to the Syrians emboldens and rewards them at the expense of America and our allies in the Middle East. It hasn't and won't change their behavior. They are an outlaw regime and should be isolated. Members of Congress and State Department officials should stop visiting Damascus. Arab leaders should stop receiving Bashar al-Assad. The U.N. Security Council should adopt a Chapter VII resolution mandating the establishment of an international tribunal for the Hariri murder.
The Security Council should also hold Syria accountable for its ongoing violations of existing resolutions. The U.S. government should implement all remaining elements of the Syria Accountability Act and launch an aggressive effort to empower the Syrian opposition. European governments should demonstrate that they value justice over profit and impose financial and travel sanctions on Syria's leaders.
After Pierre Gemayel's assassination, I received an e-mail from a Lebanese member of parliament. "It is so awful," he wrote. "Pierre was such a promising young man, and he was afraid of nothing. They will try to kill all of us in the end, but we will keep fighting. We will never surrender."
Conducting diplomacy with the regime in Damascus while they kill Lebanese democrats is not only irresponsible, it is shameful.
The writer was deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs from 2002 through 2003 and principal deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs from 2005 to 2006.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
The Fifteen: Part 3
by John Batchelor
Eleven days after Tehran abducted British soldiers at gunpoint, not only has London handed itself as a hostage to the Mahdists of Tehran and their IRGC gunmen, but also Paris, Madrid, Berlin, Rome and Moscow have joined Britain to become hostage Europe.America, drained by the proxy war in Baghdad , now fights on alone among the powers against an inestimably cunning enemy.The result of this defeat is that Tehran is one step closer to provoking its shooting war for supremacy over the planet. Europe is the newest captive, gun to the head, hands bound, blindfold neatly tied tight.This is the third time Europe has submitted to tyrants in seventy years, and this time the failure is beyond farce. The first time was Europe's disgrace at Munich in September 1938, a tragedy that murdered sixty millions.America , battered by a decade of a broken economy, rallied to defeat Berlin 's and Tokyo 's mass murderers. The second time was Europe cowering at the Berlin blockade, in June 1948, a farcical blunder that beggared three generations of children in Eastern Europe and shackled Russia 's 300 millions to the undead Bolsheviks. America , robust and busy, again found the confidence to arm itself and fight the Reds from Berlin to Chosin to Saigon to Afghanistan in order to bury Ulyanov's legacy in an ash heap. The third time now comes with Europe's quivering posture before the irrational and hallucinatory mullahs of Tehran ; and what is beyond farce is chaos.London did not spend even one moment of its banked finest hours in resistance. These are Chamberlain's grandchildren, not Churchill's.From the first, London sought an accommodation with Tehran , what in diplomatic clichés is known as a ladder to climb down. London offered the facts of the GPS positioning of its people as a way to call this a navigation error. Tehran countered with falsehoods of the position. London offered back-channel negotiations as a way to avoid questions. Tehran tore up the Geneva Convention and countered with televised propaganda of an abused sailor. London asked the United Nations Security Council to validate its inarguable case as a legalism to save face. Tehran countered with a film festival of isolated, deceived and threatened prisoners of war.And now, when Tehran 's National Security Adviser Ali Larijani declared yesterday that Tehran wants "to solve the problem through diplomatic channels," Prime Minister Blair's office, rather than decry Tehran as a naked provocateur, offers that there is a "shared desire to make early progress." This is a climb-down that in America we call copping a plea.Britain does not kneel alone. The other European capitals have pretended to be deaf and dumb, as they were in 1938, 1948, 1956, 1968; and the EU's foreign minister, Javier Solana, has accepted the 15 abducted Britons as part of his portfolio of appeasements.Lone among the powers, America found the correct word when President George Bush used his radio speech to call the 15 Britons, "hostages." This sotto voce fightback spooked Tehran , and it squealed with a hollow threat from its Foreign Ministry, "The US President had better refrain from ill-considered and unreasonable comments."Tehran, having won the battle of the 15 hostages with brazen falsehoods and a zeal to demonstrate repeatedly that it is a barbarian power that treats prisoners of war like slaves and the United Nations Security Council like a bumbling watchman, now readies itself for the gun battles ahead.The timeline remains unpredictable. A month ago, the information was that there were months not weeks until the catastrophe. Now, after grabbing just 15 hostages, by which it has brought along Europe's 300 millions as a hostage - all of whom must soon live under the threat of ballistic missiles tipped with nuclear warheads - Tehran may very well have accelerated its plan; and there may be only weeks left, not months.The fact is there is no known date. The summer months are pointed to repeatedly by many sources as the optimum time for Tehran 's surrogates to launch their provocations. The aim is to bleed America and to drive it from the field both militarily and politically. Tehran knows that frustrating America in Baghdad and Kabul is not sufficient; that America is prepared to ignore the fact that the al-Maliki government is a Tehran surrogate and to camp for years in Baghdad and Anbar provinces, keeping modern-day Fort Apaches in Indian territory regardless of the worthlessness of the terrain. To defeat America , Tehran knows that it must strike at the weak points, and America has two of the most difficult to defend, Israel and the Persian Gulf.Israel is most vulnerable and at this time without a winning answer to what Jerusalem knows is coming: an across-the-board attack by Tehran 's surrogates, Hamas in Gaza , al Aqsa on the West Bank, Hizballah in Lebanon , and the Syrians on the Golan Heights . All four of these gangs are funded, armed and directed by Tehran , with easy coordination among them supervised by IRGC special forces and espionage agents. The information is that Hizballah has been completely rearmed with Iranian short- and medium-range missiles as well as anti-aircraft, anti-tank and anti-ship missiles, and is now operating at a higher level of combat effectiveness than it was last summer. The civilian houses that conceal the rockets are rebuilt and awaiting the shoot orders.In Gaza , Hamas is now equipped with the same arsenal as Hizballah, and is capable of striking all of the Negev region. Al Aqsa on the West Bank has unknown capabilities, but has been reported with Iranian missiles for some time. The most dangerous new element since last summer is that Syria is now tasked to retake the Golan Heights with a combination of tactics. It will use a so-called liberation group as an asymmetrical warfare unit in the neighborhood of the Golan, but it will also use its long-range Scud-like missiles that will bring Tel Aviv and Jerusalem under fire.The Syrian battle preparation is so blatant that Damascus is concerned the IDF will launch premptive action against the storage sites. The IDF has already staged live ammo exercises on the West Bank in urban centers that resemble Damascus in order to communicate that, if and when required, the IDF will project its armor columns to the Syrian capital and hold.In the Persian Gulf, the long-expected weapon of the IRGC will be to choke off tanker traffic, close the Arabian peninsula depots and plunge the world financial markets into free fall. There is no short-term answer to this extortion. Tehran's plan is well known to the people of Iran, and a BBC-collected email from a woman in Tehran, Fatima, with regard the present hostage stand-off, states the imminent crisis passionately: "The present Iranian government is hell-bent on bringing destruction upon itself; and it will be us women and kids who will suffer the most; while these war-mongering mullahs will safely retire to their bunkers. A majority of us Iranians are much like you in the West. But the sad part is that we had the Islamic Revolution."In the meantime the so-called big six, the Security Council plus Germany , prepare for war with tidy cowardice. The condemnation of Tehran for violations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty was a show of weakness, not strength, of disunity not common cause.What is important is what the big six have done since the unanimous vote on the nuclear fuel cycle. France is absorbed with a foreordained election and awaits the inevitable in the Middle East like an altar goat. Britain , numbed by its alliance with America in Iraq and Afghanistan , has acquitted itself badly by cooperating with the abductors in Tehran but not as basely as can be expected when the Bekaa, Gaza and Golan are burning and Tel Aviv, Beirut , Damascus and Tehran are under evacuation. Germany is silent, a position that connects quietly to its anti-American prejudice, a shameless demonstration of how its wants revenge on the America that twice in the 20th Century was obliged to arrest German villainy.Most importantly, Russia has hesitated to acquiesce to Tehran but has not acted effectively. It did acknowledge Tehran 's threat when it suddenly interrupted the Bushehr reactor deal. However, Russia has not challenged Tehran from the north, for fear the mullahs will stoke the Islamicists of Russia's Central Asia clients. Also Russia has completely cooperated with Tehran by settling a bilateral energy deal with China .Putin's and Hu's recent agreement secures the oil and gas that China must have in order to endure the Gulf shut-down, and with this China signaled Tehran that Beijing will stay out of the fight with America and Israel.The only positive from the big six is that Moscow has told Tehran it must not destroy Israel.America has traveled this road alone before. Europe has quit the field without fighting before. Fire alarm bells have sounded in Washington , and members of State and Congress have insisted that diplomacy and dialogue can civilize the tyrants before. Speaker Nancy Pelosi's embassy to Beirut and Damascus , to chat with the lackeys of Tehran , is not an original act of appeasement.There is small balm in reviewing the facts rather than raging against the willfully blind. In the spring of 1940, the Roosevelt Administration sent Under-Secretary Sumner Welles to Rome to converse with Pope Pius over a Nazi peace proposal to stop the fighting in Europe between Britain , France and Germany . " Germany is Said to Propose Peace on Basis of Old Four-Power Pact," read the New York Times headline, and a subhead promised, "General Disarming and Partial Restoration of Poland and Czech State Among 11 Points Cited as Welles Sees Pope."On first reading today, it can sound promising and stately, and at the time there was cheer in Europe and America that somehow the blitzkrieg could be halted and a ceasefire in France and Belgium might be at hand. Then you read the third point of the eleven-point German plan and you realize why you do not negotiate with criminals."Recognition of absolute religious freedom, but first Germany would force all her Jews to emigrate under the direction of Britain (to Palestine ), Italy (to Ethiopia ) and France (to Madagascar )."An updated version of this eleven-point peace proposal will be enroute this summer from Tehran to Europe, no doubt to be discussed soberly at the Vatican and Brussels and the United Nations Security Council. There is a strong likelihood that it will include a small rewrite of the Nazi third point. This time, the Israeli Jews are to be sent back to Germany , France , Italy and Britain . How quickly will hostage Europe agree to sign?
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Christians Are Fleeing Lebanon Due to Rise in Radical Islam
April 3, 2007
Christians are fleeing Lebanon to escape political and economic crises and signs that radical Islam is on the rise in the country.
In a poll to be published next month which was exclusively leaked to The Sunday Telegraph, nearly half of all Maronites, the largest Christian denomination in the country, said they were considering emigrating. Of these, more than 100,000 have submitted visa applications to foreign embassies. Their exodus could have a devastating effect on the country, robbing it of an influential minority which has acted as an important counter-balance to the forces of Islamic extremism.
About 60,000 Christians have already left since last summer's war between Israel and Hezbollah. Many who remain fear that a violent showdown between rival Sunni and Shia factions is looming.
"If we love our children we have to tell them to get out," said Maria, a Christian mother of one from the northern city of Tripoli, who refused to give her surname for fear of reprisal. "When my daughter finished her high school I sent her to Europe, and I will follow her if I can."
Christine, another Christian woman, said that all of her family's younger generation had left the country, adding that Tripoli had become increasingly Islamized in recent years.
There is a rising number of veiled women and religiously bearded men on the streets - although she blamed economic and political instability for much of the emigration.
Christians, who make up 22 per cent of the population, have historically played a major role in the development of Lebanon's political, social and cultural institutions. Currently the president, the army commander and the head of the central bank are all Maronites, and under the agreement which ended the civil war in 1989, half the 128 seats in Lebanon's parliament are reserved for Christians.
"Lebanon has always been a bastion of religious tolerance, but now it is moving towards the model of Islamisation seen in Iraq and Egypt," said Fr Samir Samir, a Jesuit teacher of Islamic studies at Beirut's Université Saint-Joseph.
Lebanon's Christian community is concerned that its influence is waning as a result of a continuing internal power struggle, which for the past five months has pitted a Sunni-led government against a predominantly Shia opposition, spearheaded by the Shia militant group Hezbollah. The collapse in influence has been exacerbated by a roughly equal spilt in support among Christians for rival Shia and Sunni leaders. The battle between Muslim factions has paralyzed the Lebanese administration and crippled the economy.
The exodus of young workers crosses the religious spectrum. Some 22 per cent of Shias and 26 per cent of Sunnis say they are considering going abroad, according to the study by Information International, an independent Beirut-based research body.
By Michael Hirst
April 3, 2007
Christians are fleeing Lebanon to escape political and economic crises and signs that radical Islam is on the rise in the country.
In a poll to be published next month which was exclusively leaked to The Sunday Telegraph, nearly half of all Maronites, the largest Christian denomination in the country, said they were considering emigrating. Of these, more than 100,000 have submitted visa applications to foreign embassies. Their exodus could have a devastating effect on the country, robbing it of an influential minority which has acted as an important counter-balance to the forces of Islamic extremism.
About 60,000 Christians have already left since last summer's war between Israel and Hezbollah. Many who remain fear that a violent showdown between rival Sunni and Shia factions is looming.
"If we love our children we have to tell them to get out," said Maria, a Christian mother of one from the northern city of Tripoli, who refused to give her surname for fear of reprisal. "When my daughter finished her high school I sent her to Europe, and I will follow her if I can."
Christine, another Christian woman, said that all of her family's younger generation had left the country, adding that Tripoli had become increasingly Islamized in recent years.
There is a rising number of veiled women and religiously bearded men on the streets - although she blamed economic and political instability for much of the emigration.
Christians, who make up 22 per cent of the population, have historically played a major role in the development of Lebanon's political, social and cultural institutions. Currently the president, the army commander and the head of the central bank are all Maronites, and under the agreement which ended the civil war in 1989, half the 128 seats in Lebanon's parliament are reserved for Christians.
"Lebanon has always been a bastion of religious tolerance, but now it is moving towards the model of Islamisation seen in Iraq and Egypt," said Fr Samir Samir, a Jesuit teacher of Islamic studies at Beirut's Université Saint-Joseph.
Lebanon's Christian community is concerned that its influence is waning as a result of a continuing internal power struggle, which for the past five months has pitted a Sunni-led government against a predominantly Shia opposition, spearheaded by the Shia militant group Hezbollah. The collapse in influence has been exacerbated by a roughly equal spilt in support among Christians for rival Shia and Sunni leaders. The battle between Muslim factions has paralyzed the Lebanese administration and crippled the economy.
The exodus of young workers crosses the religious spectrum. Some 22 per cent of Shias and 26 per cent of Sunnis say they are considering going abroad, according to the study by Information International, an independent Beirut-based research body.
By Michael Hirst
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)