Biblical countries, in the news.

[Shammu]

Syria offers to talk but warns it may join conflict

By Tim Reid in Washington and Ned Parker and Stephen Farrell in Jerusalem
Latest reports at Times Online TV

CONDOLEEZZA RICE will arrive in Jerusalem today on a mission to end the intensifying conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, as Syria indicated for the first time that it was prepared to intervene.

As the US Secretary of State prepared to set out the American plan for ending the fighting - persuading Arab allies to isolate Syria and stop it from arming and funding Hezbollah - Israel said that it would agree to the deployment of a Nato force in southern Lebanon to keep guerrillas from attacking the border. After meetings today with Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, and tomorrow with Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian President, Dr Rice will travel to an emergency conference in Rome on Wednesday, attended by officials from Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the EU and the UN.

Dr Rice left Washington yesterday amid increasing condemnation from the UN and Britain over the scale of the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon. Criticism is likely to mount after the US was forced to admit that it was expediting the delivery of 5,000lb laser-guided "bunker buster" bombs to Israel under an agreement reached between the two countries last year.

With the US ruling out direct talks with Syria and Hezbollah, and with Arab allies refusing to host the emergency meeting because of the White House's rejection of an immediate ceasefire, Dr Rice arrives in the region at a time of intense distrust of American motives. She is almost wholly reliant on Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan to pressure Damascus into disarming Hezbollah.

As she left Dr Rice said that there was "no quick fix" and that diplomacy would be difficult.

In a sign that Syria might be feeling the pressure from its Arab neighbours, Faisal al-Meqdad, its Deputy Foreign Minister, said Damascus was willing to have direct talks with the US to resolve the conflict.

That reconciliatory tone was countered, however, by Mohsen Bilal, the country's Information Minister, who said that Syria would enter the conflict if the Israelis invaded Lebanon. "If Israel makes a land invasion of Lebanon and gets near us, Syria will not stand by with arms folded," he told the Spanish newspaper ABC. "It will enter the conflict.” He added that Syria would only co-operate with peace negotiations within the framework of a broader Middle East peace initiative that would include the return to Syria of the Golan Heights, captured by Israel in 1967.

John Bolton, the US Ambassador to the UN, rebuffed Syria’s offer to help to broker a peace deal. “Syria doesn’t need dialogue to know what they need to do,” he said. He repeated Dr Rice’s assertion that there would be no solution to the conflict until Hezbollah had been disarmed.

The diplomatic activity came after another day of violence. Israeli airstrikes in Beirut and east and south Lebanon killed six people and wounded 80, and Hezbollah rockets killed two and wounded 15 in Haifa. Jan Egeland, the UN’s head of emergency relief, called the Israeli bombardment a “violation of humanitarian law”.

Since the conflict began 12 days ago at least 365 people have died in Lebanon and 37 in Israel. Yesterday the Israeli military said that it had forced out Hezbollah guerrillas from the village of Maroun al-Ras, just inside Lebanon, where six Israeli commandos have been killed this week. Two Hezbollah fighters were captured.

Amir Peretz, the Israeli Defence Minister, said that his country would agree to the deployment of a Nato force in southern Lebanon because of the “weakness of the Lebanese Army”. His statement was the clearest indication yet of a tentative plan for withdrawal from Lebanon.

Syria offers to talk but warns it may join conflict

[Shammu]

Europe Won't Call Hizballah Terrorists
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
July 24, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - Despite growing international awareness about the dangers posed to Mideast stability by Hizballah, the European Union has yet to outlaw the group or move to block its funding.

E.U. countries have not reached consensus on the matter, because some governments argue against treating as a terrorist group an organization that is involved in the Lebanese political system.

An E.U. terrorism list names 27 organizations, some of which have not carried out attacks for many years. But Hizballah is omitted, even though a separate list of 26 terrorist individuals does name Hizballah second-in-command Imad Mugniyah, one of the FBI's most wanted men.

The anomalous situation could pose difficulties should European peacekeepers be deployed in southern Lebanon, as proposed unexpectedly by the Israeli government at the weekend.

Defense Minister Amir Peretz said Israel may accept a NATO peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon to protect its northern flank against Hizballah attacks. U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton expressed cautious support for the idea, but said there had been no consideration given to U.S. troops being involved.

If European forces were deployed, they could come from countries that do not share a common approach towards Hizballah.

The Netherlands, for example, went against the flow in 2004 when it said its intelligence assessment had found Hizballah's political and terrorist activities fell under a single coordinating council. It notified other E.U. members that it was no longer drawing a distinction between the two.

Britain does draw the distinction, but in its case has banned what it says is the "terrorist wing," the Hizballah External Security Organization, rather than Hizballah in its entirety. Other E.U. member states have done neither.

In contrast to the ambivalence of E.U. governments, lawmakers in the European Parliament last year passed a resolution by 473 votes to eight calling Hizballah a terrorist group and calling for "all needed measures to put an end to the terrorist activities of this group."

But E.U. foreign policy chief Javier Solana, visiting Israel last week, said there was no plan to add Hizballah to the terrorism list, since the E.U. did not have enough information to determine whether it should be designated. The issue was a legal and not a moral one, Solana was quoted as saying.

Hizballah has been linked to numerous terrorist attacks in Lebanon and abroad, including suicide bombings against the U.S. Embassy and U.S. Marine barracks in 1983, and the Israeli Embassy and a Jewish community center in Argentina in 1992 and 1994.

It has also been active in Europe, where between 1986 and 1996 it was blamed for attacks - or foiled plots - in France, Cyprus, Spain, Britain and Romania.

The U.S. has long urged the E.U. to add Hizballah to its terrorist list, a step that would deprive the group funding from sympathizers and Islamic "charities" in Europe. France, which has historical links to Lebanon, has led opposition to the move, citing its political activities.

Election platform - 'Armed resistance'

Few dispute that Hizballah enjoys substantial political support in Lebanon. The group holds 14 seats in Lebanon's 128-member parliament and, when joined with coalition partners including the Shi'ite Amal control more than 27 percent of the legislature.

The Israeli government itself appears resigned to the fact that Hizballah will continue to be a political force in Lebanon.

The Washington Post Sunday quoted Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Daniel Ayalon as saying Israel would accept the continued existence of Hizballah as a party engaged in the Lebanese political system, but without terrorism and military capabilities.

But Hizballah, an Iranian creation, has based its identity on the fight against Israel - in last year's election, it campaigned on a plank of continued "armed resistance" against Israel.

It's a stance Hizballah maintains despite Israel having withdrawn from a narrow security zone in southern Lebanon six years ago. Since then, apart from sporadic fighting on Israel's northern border, it has also played a bigger role in Palestinian terrorism against Israel, while defying a 2004 U.N. resolution requiring that it disarm.

Senior Hizballah figure Sheikh Naim Qassem told Lebanese television in 2003: "We believe that our political endeavors are combined with our resistance operations, which cannot be separated from our political activity."

Qassem is a member of a nine-person governing body, the "Decision-Making Shura," headed by Hassan Nasrallah.

According to a 2003 report by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies in Israel, the Shura oversees sub-councils including a political council and a military council.

It said the Shura comprised seven Lebanese - including Nasrallah, Qassem, and Mugniyah - and two Iranians.

Europe Won't Call Hizballah Terrorists

[Shammu]

Although Australia isn't in the Bible, this fits in with whats happening right now.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cleric sought to 'kill 1000'
Natasha Robinson
July 24, 2006
MELBOURNE Islamic cleric Abdul Nacer Benbrika allegedly wanted to kill 1000 Australians to "please Allah" and to force the Howard Government to withdraw troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

"If we kill, we kill here 1000," Mr Benbrika allegedly said in a conversation covertly taped by police.

"Because if you get large numbers here, the Government will listen."

The Melbourne Magistrates Court also heard today that one member of a group of 13 had allegedly placed an order for laboratory equipment intended for use in the manufacture of explosives using chemicals bought by Sydney terror suspects.

The 13 accused – Benbrika, Izzydeen Atik, Ahmed Raad, Bassam Raad, Ezzit Raad, Majed Raad, Amer Haddara, Aimen Joud, Shane Kent, Fadal Sayadi, Abdulla Merhi, Hany Taha and Shoue Hammoud - are all charged with being members of a terrorist organisation which Mr Benbrika is alleged to have directed.

They also face a range of other charges including making funds available to a terrorist organisation, providing support to a terrorist organisation, and possessing a thing connected with a terrorist act.

A committal hearing for the men began today and is expected to last a month.

Cleric sought to 'kill 1000'

[Shammu]

SE Asian Muslims Say They Will Join Hizballah's Fight
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
July 24, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - Muslims in Southeast Asia are protesting Israel's offensive against Hizballah, and in Indonesia, Islamists reportedly were registering as "volunteers" to travel to the region to fight against the Jewish state.

The foreign ministry in Jakarta said it knew of no Indonesians who had yet left the country headed for the Middle East, although spokesman Desra Percaya said it was aware that some were prepared to do so.

He said while he understood Indonesian Muslims' feeling of "sympathy and solidarity" for the Lebanese and Palestinians, there was no need for Indonesians to volunteer to fight. What the Palestinians and Lebanese needed was humanitarian assistance.

The Aceh division of an organization called the Islamic Defenders' Front (FPI) claims to have signed up more than 90 volunteers for a "jihad," state Antara news agency reported.

"We are ready to be sent to Palestine and Lebanon as volunteers and martyr fighters to fight Israel," the group's chairman, Yusuf Al Qadrawi, told journalists.

He said the applicants from Aceh would join others in Jakarta before heading for the Middle East.

According to other Indonesian media reports, Suaib Didu, the head of an Islamic students group, said 217 volunteers calling themselves Palestine Jihad Bombing Troops were planning to travel to Lebanon to join Hizballah's fight.

A group of 12 volunteers dressed in black and wearing balaclavas were presented at a press conference in Jakarta, where Suaib said the larger group included Muslims from across Southeast Asia - Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, Brunei, Singapore and Bangladesh.

He said the plan had not been sanctioned by the Indonesian government.

The Jakarta Post quoted a Muslim scholar, Azyumardi Azra, as saying the volunteers would do better by helping Indonesian "earthquake and tsunami survivors and people living in poverty."

Prof. Zachary Abuza, a speci***t in South-East Asia terrorism at Simmons College in Boston, said Indonesian radicals had threatened in the past to go to Iraq to fight against the Americans, but "few actually made it."

This time it could be different, he wrote on the Counterterrorism Blog website.

"Southeast Asian Islamists and jihadists are always seeking to bring the Islamic periphery into the Muslim core, and convince their Arab coreligionists that they are true Muslims. There is no better way to prove their Islamic faith than to fight against Israel in the Holy Land," Abuza said.

"Second, jihadists across southeast Asia have been seeking for ways to both recruit anew and to tap into more mainstream Islamist movements."

Thousands of Indonesians protested Sunday against Israel, burning Israeli and U.S. flags and calling on their government to urge the U.N. to intervene to stop the violence. Demonstrators at one protest, in South Sulawesi, called for jihad and for the establishment of an Islamic caliphate.

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono wrote to U.N. secretary-general Kofi Annan, saying Indonesia was prepared to contribute troops to a U.N. peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon, an offer also made by Indonesia's ambassador to the U.N. at an open session of the Security Council on Friday.

Yudhoyono has also called for a ceasefire between Israel and Hizballah.

Indonesia's Muslim neighbor, Malaysia, also offered to send troops to a U.N. peacekeeping mission.

Malaysia currently chairs the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which said the crisis was "caused by the continuous Israeli aggression on Lebanon." The 56-state OIC has also called Israel's actions "a threat to international peace and security."

In Kuala Lumpur, hundreds of protestors outside the U.S. Embassy burned Israeli flags and chanted "Death to Israel." Neither Malaysia nor Indonesia has diplomatic relations with Israel.

Llater this week, Kuala Lumpur will play host to ministers from 25 Asian and Pacific Rim nations meeting for the region's biggest security conference.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was earlier scheduled to participate, although it remains unclear whether she will attend, given her Mideast diplomatic mission, which starts on Monday.

SE Asian Muslims Say They Will Join Hizballah's Fight

[Shammu]

Int'l Media Is Portraying Victim As Aggressor, Olmert Says
By Julie Stahl
CNSNews.com Jerusalem Bureau Chief
July 24, 2006

Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) - Ahead of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's arrival in the volatile Middle East, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and other senior Israeli officials met with the foreign ministers of France and Germany on Sunday.

Olmert asked both his German and French guests separately if their countries would tolerate rockets raining down on their cities.

About one million Israelis have been virtually living in bomb shelters and security rooms in northern Israel for almost two weeks now. That would be like 7 million French or 12 million Germans, Olmert said.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy had to duck into a residential building during a tour of Haifa on Sunday when an air raid siren sounded.

Ahead of his meeting with German Foreign Minister Dr. Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Olmert said Hizballah was operating at the behest of Iran and Syria and said the situation was not being portrayed fairly in the international media.

"I regret that the wickedness, the malice and the murderous brutality of Hizbullah are not fully shown on television screens outside Israel. There is a distorted picture in which the victim is portrayed as the aggressor," Olmert said.

Syria's information minister Mohsen Bilal said his country would not sit by if Israeli ground troops invaded Lebanon.

"If Israel invades Lebanon over the ground and comes near to us, Syria will not sit tight. She will join the conflict," Bilal said in an interview published in the Spanish newspaper ABC on Sunday.

Both Syrian- and Iranian-made missiles are being launched at Israeli communities. But Olmert said Israel had no intention of attacking Syria.

"Israel does not intend to attack Syria. However, if Syria intervenes, we will respond sharply. We are not active in Syria at the moment, and they have no reason to intervene," Olmert said.

Thousands of Lebanese have flooded over the border into Syria.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also made more inflammatory comments over the weekend.

"Israel pushed the button of its own destruction by attacking Lebanon," Ahmadinejad told education officials on Sunday.

He did not give details but said "the people of the region will respond" if Israel and its allies don't apologize for their policies.

Int'l Media Is Portraying Victim As Aggressor, Olmert Says
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now is this any suprise, to some of us??

[Shammu]

Suicide armies launched

From NICK PARKER
Chief Foreign Correspondent
in Lebanon

TEAMS of Iranian suicide bombers were heading for Lebanon’s war zone last night in a terrifying bid to spark meltdown in the Middle East.

Twenty-seven martyrdom-seekers have been sent to Syria on their way to front line positions.

The mad fanatics, belonging to the Iranian Martyrs of Islam World Movement, have been training for months to wreak maximum havoc on military and soft civilian targets. Their aim is to spark terror which will detonate all-out war and suck Western nations into a final bloody showdown.

A spokesman for the martyrs group said yesterday: “Two teams of 18 and nine have gone to Syria separately.

“They have been deployed on a voluntary basis in order to get to the areas of conflict in any way they can.”

The man, named only as Mohammadi, claimed the 27 were picked from 55,000 who registered in Iran. They were briefed and have completed the “relevant courses” so that they could perform both military services and helping the wounded.

Mohammadi added: “If Israel would decide to occupy Lebanon again, they will carry out martyrdom-seeking operations.”

The would-be bombers are also trained to recruit local volunteers and create new cells of suicide attackers.

All of them are fluent in Persian and Arabic, and some speak English.

Mohammadi insisted that the MIWM group has no links with Lebanon’s Hezbollah. Another Iranian source close to the group, named as Mohammad Ali Samadi declared: “The first two groups of esteshhadioun (volunteers of martyrdom) have already reached Lebanon.

“They have received adequate training to fight beside their Lebanese brothers. They will identify Zionist targets and attack them with actions of martyrdom.”

The fanatics also aim to avenge deaths and injuries to people like those caught in the Israeli air strikes on the southern Lebanese city of Tyre.

The deployment of suicide squads will strengthen US claims that Iran is the power behind the current turmoil in Lebanon.

Security has been stepped up amid fears of suicide attacks on soft targets in Beirut and areas close to the Israeli border where fighting is raging. A Lebanese security official said: “It is the nightmare we’ve been dreading.”

Israeli troops yesterday seized two Hezbollah guerrillas during fighting in Maroun al-Ras.

The death toll in the conflict continues to mount. At least three people died when Israeli warplanes struck a minibus carrying 16 villagers fleeing from Tairi in Lebanon.

Hezbollah continued rocket attacks across northern Israel. Two people died as more than a dozen missiles hit Haifa. One was killed in a factory — on the day residents returned to work after a week of sheltering from the bombing.

A total of 17 Israelis have been killed by Hezbollah rockets and 19 Israeli troops have died. And 381 Lebanese have been killed.

A UN observer was injured in the crossfire. Italian Capt Roberto Punzo was hit in the stomach by shrapnel. He was last night undergoing surgery.     

[Shammu]

Reconciliation Is Possible, Says Benedict XVI

At Prayer Vigil for Peace Between Israel and Lebanon

RHEMES-SAINT-GEORGES, Italy, JULY 24, 2006 (Zenit.org).- At a vigil for peace between Israel and Lebanon, Benedict XVI urged reconciliation in response to violence.

"Lord, free us from all evils and grant us peace; not tomorrow or the day after, grant us peace today!" the Pope implored on Sunday. He was presiding at the vigil in the church of Rhemes-Saint-Georges, near Les Combes, in the Italian Alps where he is spending his holidays.

Following a brief Liturgy of the Word which began at 5:30 p.m., the Holy Father presented the Christian vision of peace in a homily delivered without notes. In his homily he commented on the passage of the Letter of St. Paul to the Ephesians, which presents Christ as "our peace."

Addressing some 100 faithful gathered in the church and in the presence of Bishop Giuseppe Anfossi of Aosta, the Pope referred to the disappointment that can be felt given the violence of men against their brothers.

"There is still war between Christians, Muslims and Jews. Others foment war and all is still full of enmity, of violence. Where is the efficacy of your sacrifice? Where in history is this peace of which your apostle speaks to us?" Benedict XVI asked, addressing himself to Jesus.

The Lord's reconciliation is the answer, the Holy Father said, according to a report by Vatican Radio. "His sacrifice did not remain without efficacy," the Pope insisted.

As proof, he mentioned "the great reality and communion of the universal Church," as well as the "islands of peace in the body of Christ," in particular, the saints of charity "who created oases of God's peace in the world."

Islands

Martyrs are also these "islands" as they have given "witness of peace, of the love that puts a limit to violence," the Holy Father said.

In fact, according to the Bishop of Rome, man's violence has a limit: the love of Christ.

"The Lord conquered on the cross," he observed. "He did not conquer with a new empire, with a more powerful force to destroy others; he did not conquer in a human manner, as we would imagine, with a stronger empire.

"He conquered with a love that goes unto death. This is God's new way of conquering. He did not oppose violence with greater violence. He opposed violence precisely with the opposite: love to the end, to his cross."

The Pope exhorted the faithful to trust in this divine love to be able to be peacemakers.

It is necessary to take our love to all the suffering, knowing that the Judge of the Last Judgment identifies with them, he said.

The central truth of Christianity, "God is love," must never be obfuscated, but must be reappraised in dialogue with the rest of religions, the Pontiff contended.

He continued: "Today in a multicultural and multireligious world, many are tempted to say: It is better for peace in the world between religions and cultures not to speak too much of the specific character of Christianity, that is, of Jesus, of the Church, and of the sacraments. Let's leave to one side the things that might be less common."

"But it isn't true," replied the Pope. "Love, the message of love and of all that we can do for those who suffer in this world must also be supported by the testimony of this God, of God's victory precisely in the nonviolence of his cross."

Reconciliation Is Possible, Says Benedict XVI

[Shammu]

WTO global trade talks collapse

Monday 24 July 2006, 22:39 Makka Time, 19:39 GMT 

The Doha round of global trade talks in Geneva has collapsed after top powers failed to agree on steps to free up trade.

Announcing the talks at the World Trade Organisation had been suspended, Indian Trade Minister Kamal Nath said it could take “from months to years” to restart the negotiations.

"This is a serious setback, a major setback," said Celso Amorim, the Brazilian foreign minister.

 

The complex talks were launched in Doha, Qatar, five-years ago in a drive and described as a "once-in-a-generation chance" to boost the global economy and lift millions out of poverty worldwide.

 

But the Doha round stalled after 14 hours of talks between the G6 members - the US, EU, Brazil, Australia, Japan and India - yielded no breakthrough in reducing farm subsidies and lowering agricultural tariffs.

Dead end

Peter Mandelson, the EU trade commissioner, told journalists that Washington had been "unwilling to accept or indeed to acknowledge the flexibility shown by others."

Peter Mandelson said the US was not being flexible

Christine Lagarde, the French trade minister, blamed "intransigence" by the US for the dead end.

But the US said the EU and other "protectionist" WTO members had not lowered farm tariff barriers enough to allow it to move further on subsidies.

France believes countries should now seek regional trade negotiations as a way around the impasse.

Hopes remain

Washington has said its offer to reduce farm subsidy limits by 60 per cent was significant, but trade rivals argued the cuts left real spending unaffected.

Diplomats said Mandelson had spelt out how close Brussels could get to the level of tariff and subsidy cuts demanded by developing countries, but that was not enough for the US.

Ahead of the talks Pascal Lamy, the WTO director general, had said the US must offer deeper cuts in its farm subsidies, the EU must further drop barriers to farm goods' imports and the big developing countries must agree to open up their markets for industrial goods.

Despite the failure of the talks, all G6 members say they remain committed to the multilateral trading system and to the eventual completion of the Doha round, even if they could not say how or when the negotiations could be revived.

The process is running out of time as the authority of George W. Bush, the US president, to "fast track" the trade deal - which allows the White House to make deals that can be either approved or rejected by Congress, but not amended - runs out in mid-2007.

The G6 countries account for some three quarters of world trade and consequently represent a wide range of commercial interests.

WTO global trade talks collapse

[Shammu]

Pakistan builds plutonium reactor
Plant could supply material for 40-50 nuclear bombs a year

By Joby Warrick
The Washington Post
Updated: 10:00 p.m. MT July 23, 2006

Pakistan has begun building what independent analysts say is a powerful new reactor for producing plutonium, a move that, if verified, would signal a major expansion of the country's nuclear weapons capabilities and a potential new escalation in the region's arms race.

Satellite photos of Pakistan's Khushab nuclear site show what appears to be a partially completed heavy-water reactor capable of producing enough plutonium for 40 to 50 nuclear weapons a year, a 20-fold increase from Pakistan's current capabilities, according to a technical assessment by Washington-based nuclear experts.

The construction site is adjacent to Pakistan's only plutonium production reactor, a modest, 50-megawatt unit that began operating in 1998. By contrast, the dimensions of the new reactor suggest a capacity of 1,000 megawatts or more, according to the analysis by the Institute for Science and International Security. Pakistan is believed to have 30 to 50 uranium warheads, which tend to be heavier and more difficult than plutonium warheads to mount on missiles.

"South Asia may be heading for a nuclear arms race that could lead to arsenals growing into the hundreds of nuclear weapons, or at minimum, vastly expanded stockpiles of military fissile material," the institute's David Albright and Paul Brannan concluded in the technical assessment, a copy of which was provided to The Washington Post.

The assessment's key judgments were endorsed by two other independent nuclear experts who reviewed the commercially available satellite images, provided by Digital Globe, and supporting data. In Pakistan, officials would not confirm or deny the report, but a senior Pakistani official, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged that a nuclear expansion was underway.

"Pakistan's nuclear program has matured. We're now consolidating the program with further expansions," the official said. The expanded program includes "some civilian nuclear power and some military components," he said.

The development raises fresh concerns about a decades-old rivalry between Pakistan and India. Both countries already possess dozens of nuclear warheads and a variety of missiles and other means for delivering them.

Pakistan, like India, has never signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. One of its pioneering nuclear scientists, Abdul Qadeer Khan, who confessed two years ago to operating a network that supplied nuclear materials and know-how to Libya, Iran and North Korea.

U.S.-India cooperation
The evidence of a possible escalation also comes as Congress prepares to debate a controversial nuclear cooperation agreement between the Bush administration and India. The agreement would grant India access to sensitive U.S. nuclear technology in return for placing its civilian nuclear reactors under tighter safeguards.

No such restrictions were placed on India's military nuclear facilities. India currently has an estimated 30 to 35 nuclear warheads based on a sophisticated plutonium design. Pakistan, which uses a simpler, uranium-based warhead design, has sought for years to modernize its arsenal, and a new heavy-water reactor could allow it to do so, weapons experts say.

"With plutonium bombs, Pakistan can fully join the nuclear club," said a Europe-based diplomat and nuclear expert, speaking on condition that he not be identified by name, after reviewing the satellite evidence. He concurred with the Institute for Science and International Security assessment but offered a somewhat lower estimate -- "up to tenfold" -- for the increase in Pakistan's plutonium production. A third, U.S.-based expert concurred fully with the institute's estimates.

Pakistan launched its nuclear program in the early 1970s and conducted its first successful nuclear test in 1998.

The completion of the first, 50-megawatt plutonium production reactor in Pakistan's central Khushab district was seen as a step toward modernizing the country's arsenal. The reactor is capable of producing about 10 kilograms of plutonium a year, enough for about two warheads.

Construction of the larger reactor at Khushab apparently began sometime in 2000. Satellite photos taken in the spring of 2005 showed the frame of a rectangular building enclosing what appeared to be the round metal shell of a large nuclear reactor. A year later, in April 2006, the roof of the structure was still incomplete, allowing a unobstructed view of the reactor's features.

"The fact that the roof is still off strikes me as a sign that Pakistan is neither rushing nor attempting to conceal," said Albright of the institute.

Slow pace of construction
The slow pace of construction could suggest difficulties in obtaining parts, or simply that other key facilities for plutonium bomb-making are not yet in place, the institute report concludes. Pakistan would probably need to expand its capacity for producing heavy water for its new reactor, as well as its ability to reprocess spent nuclear fuel to extract the plutonium, the report says.

After comparing a sequence of satellite photos, the institute analysts estimated that the new reactor was still "a few years" from completion. The diameter of the structure's metal shell suggests a very large reactor "operating in excess of 1,000 megawatts thermal," the report says.

"Such a reactor could produce over 200 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium per year, assuming it operates at full power a modest 220 days per year," it says. "At 4 to 5 kilograms of plutonium per weapon, this stock would allow the production of over 40 to 50 nuclear weapons a year."

There was no immediate reaction to the report from the Bush administration. Albright said he shared his data with government nuclear analysts, who did not dispute his conclusions and appeared to already know about the new reactor.

"If there's an increasing risk of an arms race in South Asia, why hasn't this already been introduced into the debate?" Albright asked. He said the Pakistani development adds urgency to calls for a treaty halting the production of fissile material used in nuclear weapons.

"The United States needs to push more aggressively for a fissile material cut-off treaty, and so far it has not," he said.

Pakistan builds plutonium reactor

[Shammu]

Israel, Iran and the US: Who Will be Blamed for Nuclear War?

By Prof. Jorge Hirsch

July 24, 2006

The war on Lebanon [current flare-up between Israel and Hezbollah] may well escalate to the point where the US will use nuclear weapons against Iran, in what would be the first use of nuclear weapons in war since Nagasaki. And the world may well blame the Jewish State.
 
Israel's bombing campaign is causing immense suffering, is in blatant violation of the Geneva conventions, and deserves the strongest of condemnations. It is especially important for the Jewish community today to distance itself from Israel's immoral government policies and US's support for them. Many Jews are doing this, unfortunately, many are not. "Thousands of American Jews clogged the streets" in New York and elsewhere in the US in support of Israel's actions, reports the Jerusalem Post. Both Houses of the US Congress have just passed solidly backed bipartisan resolutions supporting Israel's actions in Lebanon, to "solidify long-term backing of Jewish voters" according to the Washington Post.
 
The irony is, Israel's war crimes are going to be dwarfed in comparison to the crime against humanity that would [will] take place if the US uses nuclear weapons against Iran. Israel, by its disproportionate reaction and by accusing Iran (without proof) of being behind Hezbollah's actions, will be seen as having played a key role if the conflict escalates to engulf Iran and the United States. Yet the motivation for those that want this to happen is not to ensure Israel's hegemony in the Middle East, rather it is to ensure US hegemony in the world.
 
Israel's Interests
 
It goes without saying that Israel would benefit from the destruction of Hezbollah. Yet it is hard to see how the indiscriminate attack against Lebanon that is taking place will achieve anything other than strengthening the already strong support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and elsewhere in the Arab world. Shmuel Rosner argues in a Haaretz OpEd that Israel is "America's deadly messenger", being used to promote Bush's "democracy agenda". It certainly appears that Israel's current actions are irrational and self-destructive. Unless their real aim is to draw Syria and Iran into the conflict, following directions from Washington. At the very least it is clear that Israel would not be doing this in the absence of a guarantee from the US that it will intervene if the conflict widens, which in any event Bush has already publicly announced.

If Iran enters the conflict and shoots a single missile against Israel, the US will step in and destroy the military infrastructure of Iran by aerial bombardment. As suggested by Seymour Hersh and others, this is likely to involve the US use of nuclear "bunker busters".
 
It has been predicted that if the US or Israel attack Iran, Iran will unleash Hezbollah who will carry out devastating attacks against Israel. "Hizbollah was also seen as a means of tying our hands on the Iranian nuclear threat," says an Israeli official. Well, we are in the dress rehersal, and we are seeing that despite all the hype, Hezbollah is a paper tiger. Green light for the Iran attack.
 
Iran's Interests
 
What is really unusual about the current flare-up in the Middle East is the barrage of strident denunciations against Iran, from the Bush administration, politicians from across the political spectrum, and the mainstream media, that uniformly accuse Iran (without presenting evidence) of being behind the Hezbollah actions. This has never happened before when there was conflict in Lebanon where Hezbollah was involved, why now?

One argument is Ahmadinejad's stated animosity against Israel. However, that has been Iran's stated position since 1979.

The other argument is that Iran is trying to "divert attention" from the nuclear issue. That defies the most elementary logic. If Iran was really intent in getting nuclear weapons and destroying Israel, it would try to keep things as quiet as possible until it gets those nuclear weapons, several years into the future.
 
The reality is that, whether one ascribes to Iran evil or benign intentions, Iran draws no benefit whatsoever from the current turmoil in Lebanon. Neither does Syria. Consequently the rhetoric from the US and Israel suggests a deliberate attempt to draw Syria and Iran into the conflict.
 
US Interests
 
A US attack on Iran has been predicted by analysts for several years. The US policy vis-a-vis Iran is clearly directed towards confrontation rather than accommodation. There are many reasons for the US to attack Iran, including the control of energy resources, suppression of a regional power opposite to US and Israeli interests, etc. However I have argued for many months that the key reason for the US to seek a military confrontation with Iran is that it will "force" the US to cross the nuclear threshold and use low yield nuclear weapons against Iranian installations. And this is seen as essential to further US geopolitical goals.

The United States used nuclear weapons against Japan not because it had to. It did so to demonstrate to the world that it was in possession of a new weapon that packed the destructive power of thousands of bombing missions into a single one. To tell the rest of the world, beware.

Since then, it has spent over 5 trillion dollars in building up its nuclear arsenal, but nuclear weapons have become "unusable" after 60 years of non-use. America has achieved nuclear primacy but it is useless, until it shows that nuclear weapons are usable again.
 
Low yield B61-11 nuclear bunker busters have already been deployed, just in case "surprising military developments" give rise to "military necessity". Once Iran is drawn into a conflict and shoots a single missile against Israel or US forces in the region, the US administration will argue that the next Iranian missile could carry chemical or biological warheads and cause untold casualties among Americans, Iraqis or Israelis. A low yield nuclear bunker buster will be touted as the most "humane" way to prevent further loss of life.
 
cont'd next post

[Shammu]

What could happen
 
In 1941, a vast military effort was started by the United States to create nuclear weapons, culminating in the Trinity test and subsequent bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The effort was shrouded in secrecy and any moral qualms were set aside. When it succeeded, it was argued that many American and Japanese lives had been saved by nuking Japan into surrender.
 
Any speculation during the period 1941-1945 that the United States had 100,000 people devoted to create a secret weapon million-fold more powerful than any known weapon would have been dismissed as the ultimate "conspiracy theory".
 
Similarly, much evidence indicates that a deliberate project, shrouded in secrecy, exists today that will culminate in the nuking of Iran, to "save lives". Many are privy to parts of the plan, as Seymour Hersh revealed, only a few know the plan in its entirety. Low-yield nuclear bunker busters would  be used, untested but as reliable as the untested "Little Boy" that leveled Hiroshima. Americans will buy the "military necessity" argument because it will be true: American troops in Iraq will be sitting ducks facing Iranian missiles, with or without WMD warheads.
 
After the US uses nuclear weapons again, it will have established the usability of its nuclear arsenal against non-nuclear countries. It will be possible to wage war "on the cheap", saving many American lives in future conflicts. "Support the troops" is the one thing all Americans, no matter how diverse their views are, agree on.
 
It should not be allowed to happen. The President has sole authority to order the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. We know from previous actions of this administration what Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are capable of. There have been radical changes in US nuclear weapons policies and in preemption "doctrine", and the Bush announcement that the nuclear option is "on the table". In response, there needs to be a strong groundswell call to restrict the absolute presidential authority of this President to order the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. By the general public, by "antinuclear" organizations, by scientific, political and professional organizations. To push Congress into action before it is too late. Without a "nuclear option", the US will be more interested in negotiation than in confrontation with Iran.

Cui Bono?
 
In the short term, Israel certainly will benefit from the destruction of Iran's military capabilities.
 
But Israel will not enjoy peace as a result, because the nuking of Iran will create enormous animosity against Israel in the Muslim world and beyond. To the extent that the world buys the US fable that the nuking of Iran was required by "military necessity" and not premeditated, Israel (and Jews worldwide) will bear a heavier than deserved brunt for having contributed to "precipitate" these events.

The US will reap enormous benefits. Flexing its nuclear muscle, it will establish its absolute hegemony in the Middle East and Central Asia and beyond, and gradually squeeze China and Russia into nuclear disarmament and complete submission.

In the end of course we will all lose. Because the nuclear genie, unleashed from its bottle in the war against Iran, will never retreat. And just like the US could develop nuclear weapons in only 4 years with completely new technology 60 years ago, many more countries and groups will be highly motivated to do it in the coming years.

Think about the current disproportionate response of Israel, applied in a conflict where the contenders have nuclear weapons. 10 to 1 retaliation, starting with a mere 600 casualties, wipes out the entire Earth's population in eight easy steps. Who will be willing to stop the escalation? The country that lost 60,000 citizens in the last hit? The one that lost 600,000? 6 million?
 
As the nuclear holocaust unfolds, some will remember the Lebanon conflict and subsequent Iran war and blame it  on Israel. Others will properly blame Americans, for having allowed their Executive to erase the 60-year old taboo against the use of nuclear weapons, first in doctrine and then in practice, despite having the most powerful conventional military force in the world. Others of course will blame "Muslim extremism".
 
And then the blaming will wither away as a three-billion-year old experiment, life on planet Earth, comes to an end.  

Israel, Iran and the US: Who Will be Blamed for Nuclear War?

I would suggest that he pick up a Bible......

[Shammu]

South Korea, Indian rank first in UN leader poll

By Evelyn Leopold and Irwin Arieff 1 hour, 57 minutes ago

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki Moon and U.N. official Shashi Tharoor received the most endorsements in the Security Council's straw poll for the next U.N. secretary-general, diplomats said on Monday.

In a novel procedure, the 15 council members, in a secret ballot, checked one of three boxes next to each of the four announced candidates: "encourage," "discourage," and "no opinion."

Each of the four announced candidates were informed of their rankings and the race is far from over, with other names expected to emerge.

But diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the ballots, said Ban received the most favorable votes followed by Tharoor, an Indian novelist and the head of the U.N. Department of Public Information.

Ban received 12 "encouragements," one "discourage" and two "no opinions." Tharoor followed with 10 "encouragements," two "discouragements" and three "no opinions."

The other two, whose countries have nominated them, came in third and fourth place. Thai Deputy Prime Minister Surakiart Sathirathai received seven "encouragements," three "discouragements" and five "no opinions." The vote for Sri Lankan, Jayantha Dhanapala, a former U.N. disarmament under secretary-general, was five "encouragements," six "discouragements" and four "no opinions."

"As the various candidates consider what the votes were compared to what they received, there may now be decisions either for additional candidates to enter the race or for one or more candidates in the race to drop out," U.S. Ambassador John Bolton told reporters.

"That is obviously a question for the candidates themselves to decide, based on their own assessment of how the vote went," he said. The candidates are to be informed their rankings.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, the seventh secretary-general in the 61-year-history of the United Nations, ends his 10 years in office on December 31. A secretary-general is elected for a five-year term but can be re-elected.

Monday's ballots made no distinction between permanent members with veto power and the other 10 elected members.

Asian nations have contended that tradition requires rotating the job between regions and that it is their turn for the post. Even President Bush conceded the next secretary-general would come from Asia. Bolton said the door should be open to candidates from all regions.

Other names floated in U.N. corridors but not nominated include Kemal Dervis, the Turkish chief of the U.N. Development Program; Jordan's Prince Zeid al-Hussein, who is his country's U.N. ambassador; and Goh Chok Tong, former prime minister of Singapore.

In the past, decisions on picking the secretary-general have been made at the last minute after haggling among the five permanent veto-bearing members: the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China.

The United States 10 years ago was instrumental in getting Annan elected after it vetoed his predecessor, Egyptian Boutros Boutros-Ghali.

Tharoor said that he was gratified by the support. "I have the highest personal regard for Mr Ban but believe I offer a genuine alternative, of a candidate from the South who can articulate a positive vision for a U.N. of the 21st century."

"I believe this result marks a good beginning on which I hope to build in subsequent ballots," Tharoor said.

South Korea, Indian rank first in UN leader poll

[Shammu]

Completing the arrangement
By Zvi Bar'el

The Lebanese government is pleased with itself, and Syria, too, has reasons to smile. As the fighting continues, Lebanese government officials are coming up with new definitions for what is known as "the complete arrangement," the one that is supposed to replace the arrangement that existed before July 12.

And so July 12 is joining the long line of historical dates that mark the stages of Lebanon's "new" independence just like February 14, the date of Rafik Hariri's assassination in 2005; or May 25, the date of the Israel Defense Forces withdrawal from Lebanon.

Saturday saw another development in the status of Fuad Siniora's government versus the strength of Hezbollah. After the government received "a franchise" to enter into negotiations on a prisoner-exchange deal, Energy Minister Mohammed Fneish, a Hezbollah representative, announced that once the IDF withdrew from the Shaba Farms area, Hezbollah's role as a "liberating" army would be over, and it would stick to a purely a defensive role.

   Advertisement

This is a very significant statement, because it begins to define the conditions for Hezbollah's disarmament.

The government of Lebanon, Hezbollah, the United States, France and the United Nations have all realized now that the key to achieving a long-term and sustainable cease-fire by means of the deployment of the Lebanese Army in the south lies in a resolution to the Shaba Farms dispute.

At this stage, however, it is not enough for only Hezbollah and the Lebanese government to agree that the return of the Shaba Farms area would spell an end to the movement's "liberating" role. Syria is no less an important player in this regard. In keeping with maps approved by the UN, the Shaba Farms area lies in Syrian territory, so an official document in which Damascus relinquishes the area would be required too. For years now, Damascus has refused to provide such a document.

Will Syria agree to grant one now? An agreement to this end may be reached later in the week, when Syria learns both that it is the only one standing in the way of a settlement, and more importantly, according to Lebanese sources, that Washington is likely to offer Damascus a generous benefits package and a warm return to the "family of nations."

The next stage would have to be securing Israel's consent to withdraw from the Shaba Farms area, as this would then be a withdrawal from Lebanese territory; and only then could the Lebanese Army take up positions in the south, perhaps with the assistance of a multinational force if Hezbollah gives its okay.

Completing the arrangement

[Shammu]

Pontificating Against Israel
By Joseph D'Hippolito
July 25, 2006

As Israel began its latest campaign of self-defense, the Vatican’s leading government official rushed to join his peers on the speeding bandwagon of international disapproval.

Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican’s secretary of state and effectively its prime minister, condemned Israel’s attack against Hezbollah’s positions in Lebanon and the resources the terrorist group could exploit.

“In particular, the Holy See deplores right now the attack on Lebanon, a free and sovereign nation, and assures its closeness to those people who already have suffered so much to defend their independence,” he told Vatican Radio on July 14. “The right of defense on the part of a state does not exempt it from its responsibility to respect international law, particularly regarding the safeguarding of civilian populations.”

Perhaps someone should ask the good cardinal how Israel should respond to enemies who have publicly expressed their desire to destroy it, who have rejected various peaceful settlements, ignored concessions and who continue to murder and maim Israeli civilians. Perhaps someone should ask the cardinal how any nation facing a similar situation should respond.

In any event, Sodano’s words expose three facts of life in Rome. One is the Vatican’s remarkable lack of empathy or compassion for Israeli victims of terrorist atrocities. Another is a policy toward Israel that has outlived its usefulness. The final fact is Sodano’s pending obsolescence.

Sandro Magister, the veteran Vatican correspondent for Italy’s L’Espresso, pointedly described on July 19 the hypocrisy concerning Israel – especially considering Pope Benedict XVI’s warm outreach to Jews: “…it is striking that Benedict XVI is not defending the existence of Israel – which its enemies want to annihilate as the final aim of the conflict underway – with the same explicit, strong determination with which he repeatedly raises his voice in defense of the ‘non-negotiable’ principles concerning human life.”

That silence reflects a position toward Israel revolving around support for civilian Arab populations – especially Palestinians and Arab Christians – as a counterweight to Israeli power. Vittorio Parsi, professor of international relations at the Catholic University of Milan, described that policy in 2003 for the Italian magazine Diritto e Libertà.

“Regarding the Arab-Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Vatican's political stance has been and remains directed by a cornerstone and long-held principle within Church tradition: that is, attention must be given to peoples and not their governments,” Parsi wrote. Given that cornerstone and the lack of a Palestinian state, which the Vatican supports establishing, “it is by the side of (the Palestinian) populace that the Vatican has decided to stand firm, without its choice implying any anti-Israeli discrimination.”

Parsi, who also serves as a columnist for the newspaper of the Italian bishops’ conference, further analyzed the Vatican’s policy toward Israel with respect to issues that are particularly relevant now.

Self-defense: “The Vatican’s concept of security is by definition one which refers to the notion of collective safety and multi-lateral ways of its realization. In addition, this notion tends toward a criteria of balance that, from Rome’s perspective, is an irrefutable aspect of Middle Eastern policy. What’s more, for the Holy See, security must be achieved while respecting the norms of international law.

“Israel, on the other hand, holds that security must be a prerequisite for any further step toward achieving a solution to the conflict and can be unilaterally guaranteed with all necessary means. In terms of international law, Jerusalem then is seen to have assumed an increasingly open critical position over the years.”

Syrian influence in Lebanon:  “…Lebanon is considered by Israel simply as a Syrian protectorate, especially because of the openly managerial role Damascus has played for more than two decades in Lebanon. For Israel, once the Syrian issue is resolved, the logical result will be the end of interference in Lebanon.

“For the Vatican as well, both Lebanon and Syria are connected, but in the sense that its strategy is to consolidate Lebanese integrity and independence in the Arab world with the goal of safeguarding the conspicuous Christian presence in the region. Perhaps it is in this sense that we can understand why the Vatican has maintained particularly prudent relations with Damascus - which, in actual fact, violates Lebanese sovereignty much more than Jerusalem does.”

Iran: “Israel maintains that the Islamic republic is even a more serious threat than was Saddam Hussein's regime. What is alarming to the Israeli government is not so much Iran's support of Hezbollah militia as much as it is the Iranian nuclear program.

“The Holy See appears, however, much more inclined toward Iran. Above all, it is particularly careful to exploit reformist efforts…At the same time, the Vatican greatly fears that Israel may opt for a preventive strike against Iranian nuclear reactors, thus provoking widespread conflict arising from unforeseeable consequences."

The Vatican’s stance regarding Israel, forged during the papacy of Pope John Paul II, has proven useless in mitigating geopolitical conflicts between Israel and its enemies. It has also failed on a moral level, not only by ignoring terrorism against Israeli civilians but also by failing to protect Arab and Palestinian Christians against Muslim oppression.

cont'd next post

[Shammu]

In a September interview with the Milan daily Corriere della Sera, Father Pierbattista Pizzaballa – who represents the Franciscan Custody of the Holy Land, which governs church property –bluntly described the difficulties Palestinian Christians face: “What do you mean by difficulties between Israel and the Vatican? We Christians in the Holy Land have other problems. Almost every day – I repeat, almost every day – our communities are harassed by the Islamic extremists in these regions. “And if it's not the members of Hamas or Islamic Jihad, there are clashes with the 'rubber wall' of the Palestinian Authority, which does little or nothing to punish those responsible. On occasion, we have even discovered among our attackers the police agents of Mahmoud Abbas or the militants of Fatah, his political party, who are supposed to be defending us.”

Sodano’s remarks also reflect what Parsi called the “pro-Arab prejudice” that “persists in some noteworthy exponents within Vatican hierarchy.” Few such exponents are more noteworthy than Sodano himself.

As secretary of state, Sodano is responsible for the Vatican’s communications outlets – including its newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, which constantly displays an anti-Israel attitude. The magazine from Sodano’s own office, Civilita Cattolica, complements L’Osservatore with anti-American rhetoric “after the fashion of the radical left of Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore,” Magister wrote.

Moreover, Magister describes Sodano as “a great admirer of Yasser Arafat” and “a supporter of the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, Michel Sabbah,” whose support for Palestinian extremists and opposition to Israel was explored in FrontPageMag.com's “Patriarch of Terror.”

Sodano has gone so far as to use duplicitous means to promote his agenda, even at the expense of the Vatican’s diplomatic credibility and Benedict’s dignity.

The secretary of state took advantage of the pope’s vacation in July 2005 to prepare a statement in Benedict’s name that condemned recent terrorist attacks “in various countries like Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, Great Britain.” Omitted was any reference to a suicide bombing in Netanya, an Israeli coastal resort. Five victims died and 90 were wounded.

Sodano publicized the statement July 24, 2005. One day later, Israel’s foreign ministry filed a protest. Tensions reached the point where Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon spoke directly with Sodano, who tried to shift the blame to the Vatican’s press secretary, Joaquin Navarro-Walls, who accompanied Benedict on vacation.

But mandatory retirement is forcing the 78-year-old Sodano out. Pope Benedict himself testified to Sodano’s rapidly diminishing influence by publicly contradicting him July 18, when the pope supported the G8 summit’s blaming Hezbollah and Hamas for hostilities.

Sodano’s replacement, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, will assume office September 15 as part of Benedict’s gradual, meticulous housecleaning of high Vatican offices. That housecleaning includes a subtle shift in policy regarding Israel.

Magister reported in L’Espresso on March 6 that Benedict plans to promote Pizzaballa and appoint him as the bishop for Hebrew-speaking Christians in Israel. Pizzaballa “is viewed very favorably by the Israeli authorities,” Magister wrote.

That move complements another that Benedict made last September. To mitigate Sabbah’s influence, the pope appointed Fouad Twal, the former Archbishop of Tunis, as Sabbah’s auxiliary. Twal – expected to replace Sabbah in two years – is “regarded in Israel as far more acceptable,” wrote Abdal-Hakim Murad, a Muslim commentator in Britain.

Father David Jaeger, a member of the Franciscan Custody and a canon lawyer who has advised the Vatican concerning Israel, implied the policy shift on Vatican Radio one day before Sodano made his remarks: “It is necessary to understand the depth and force of Israel’s anger. The Lebanese government has a choice: It can continue to allow Hezbollah to control southern Lebanon or it can show some courage, reaffirm Lebanese sovereignty and suppress Hezbollah.”

Pope Benedict also seeks a more confrontational approach toward Islam, especially regarding religious freedom for Christians in Muslim countries. In the process, Benedict seems to be less willing to disregard Islamic radicalism for the sake of ecumenical dialogue than his predecessor. Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo, the Vatican’s foreign minister, expressed this new direction in May during an address to the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants. Some excerpts:

    …one notices a recent general tendency of the Muslim-majority countries to promote, even outside their own borders, an increasingly radical form of conduct in conformity with Islamic precepts, and to assert a greater public presence of such conduct. This phenomenon … results in a religious fanaticism that exerts strong social and institutional pressure upon minorities of other faiths…In the realm of principle, it must be said that in the face of Islam the Church is called to live out its own identity to the full without drawing back, and to take clear and courageous positions in asserting the Christian identity. We know well that radical Islam takes advantage of anything that it interprets as a sign of weakness. It is evident that the initiatives for dialogue on religious topics do not belong to the states, but to religious leaders, although they can be facilitated by political officials.

But if the Vatican is serious about changing its policy toward Israel – and if it really believes its rhetoric about supporting peoples rather than their governments – it must forcefully and unequivocally offer the same support to Israeli victims of terror as it does to Arab victims of war and religious persecution.
 
Otherwise, intelligent people will recognize the Vatican’s support for the innocent as nothing but a cover for its own geopolitical interests and cynical personal agendas – as, unfortunately, it has been to this point.