Biblical countries, in the news.

[Shammu]

Our World: As Ahmadinejad watches
Caroline Glick, THE JERUSALEM POST    Jul. 31, 2006

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the man to watch these days. And yet it would seem that those in positions of power are paying him little heed.

Ahmadinejad, whose proxy army Hizbullah is now waging war against Israel, has promised to respond to European and American demands to cease his country's illicit nuclear programs on August 22. As Robert Spencer, a noted expert on Islam, has explained, August 22 corresponds with the 27th of Rajab on the Muslim calendar. According to Islamic tradition, that is the day after Muhammad made his nighttime journey to Jerusalem and then flew to heaven from the Temple Mount, lighting up the skies over the holy city in his wake.

This week the UN Security Council is supposed to pass a resolution giving Iran until August 31 to end its nuclear programs. The obvious meaning of the new deadline is that until then, in spite of Iran's direction of Hizbullah's war against Israel - a state which Iran daily threatens to destroy - no action will be taken against Teheran.

Indeed, in all the talk of Security Council resolutions regarding the war that Iran's proxy force Hizbullah is waging against Israel, no one has mentioned the possibility of condemning Iran, or Syria, for their sponsorship of Hizbullah.

AS THE STAKES of the war against Israel rise by the day, we find the international community, led by the US, and willingly followed by the Olmert government, scope-locked on a diplomatic agenda that is irrelevant to the imminent dangers Israel and the world now face in the midst of this Iranian sponsored jihad.

Indeed, it is worse than irrelevant. It is counterproductive.

For if the aims of the ongoing diplomatic blitzkrieg are all met, Israel will find itself denied its right to self-defense; with its legal right to secure and recognized borders in tatters; and with Hizbullah sitting pretty behind a protective shield of the Lebanese military and an international force that will not attack it.

On Wednesday the UN Security Council will vote to approve a resolution under Chapter VII of the UN Charter that will mandate a cease-fire and the establishment and deployment of a multinational force to Lebanon. The tasks of the proposed force will be to man a buffer zone in southern Lebanon; enable the deployment of the Lebanese army along the border with Israel; and control Lebanon's international border with Syria.

The purpose of the force is to prevent Hizbullah from attacking Israel and to cut it off from its logistical base in Syria while barring Israel from continuing the fight.

THERE ARE several basic problems with this approach. First, Chapter VII resolutions are the only UN resolutions that enable the Security Council to use force and other coercive tools against UN member states. Any state breaching them is considered an international lawbreaker.

Israel's enemies have for decades sought to have Israel come under the authority of Chapter VII resolutions, but the US has blocked all such attempts, understanding that they are aimed at denying Israel the right to defend itself.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her colleagues claim that the proposed multinational force would protect Israel. Yet it is already clear that this will not be the case. As things now stand, the proposed force will be led by France. Indonesia and Turkey have reportedly offered to participate. With France leading the international community in condemning Israel for defending itself; with some 40 percent of Indonesians telling pollsters that they wish to participate in jihad; and with Turkey led by an Islamist government, can anyone believe that this force will neutralize Hizbullah? None of these countries even accept that Hizbullah is a terrorist organization.

OBVIOUSLY this force will not fight Hizbullah. But it will prevent Israel from attacking Hizbullah. And given that the force is to be mandated under a Chapter VII resolution, were Israel to take independent measures to defend itself, it would immediately become an outlaw state open to arms embargoes and other sanctions.

Moreover, the planned multinational force is supposed to facilitate the Lebanese army's deployment along the Lebanese border with Israel. This is supposed to be a good thing. Yet, since the outbreak of the war, the Lebanese army has been actively fighting with Hizbullah. Its radars have been used to lock in Israeli targets for Hizbullah missile crews. It is paying pensions to the families of fallen Hizbullah fighters. On Sunday its soldiers reportedly shot at IDF helicopters in the Bekaa Valley.But. to date, the US-led international community refuses to recognize the Lebanese army as a combatant, and similarly insists that the aim of the postwar settlement should be to strengthen both the Lebanese government that includes Hizbullah and the Lebanese army that fights by Hizbullah's side.

IN HER discussions with Israeli leaders, Rice has proposed that in the framework of a settlement of the current crisis, Israel give Mt. Dov on the Golan Heights to Lebanon. There has been almost no public debate about the reasonableness of the US position. Yet even the most superficial analysis makes it clear that such a move would be catastrophic for Israel's long-term viability.

Mt. Dov, which Hizbullah refers to as the Shaba Farms, is not and has never been Lebanese territory. In 2000, following Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon, the UN certified that Israel had removed itself from all Lebanese territory.

The UN further confirmed that Mt. Dov was territory Israel wrested from Syria during the course of the 1967 Six Day War. The UN stated that the fate of the territory would be determined in the course of negotiations toward a peace treaty between Israel and Syria.

Hizbullah cut the Lebanese territorial claim to Mt. Dov out of whole cloth as a pretext for continuing its war against Israel after Israel left Lebanon. Its claim that Mt. Dov is Lebanese territory has been rejected by the international community. Yet today, the US is prodding Israel to give Mt. Dov to Lebanon as a confidence-building gesture toward the Lebanese government, which of course supports Hizbullah's demand. By adopting this Hizbullah demand, the US is breaching the decades-old foundation of the Law of Nations, which stipulates that states cannot win territory from other states through armed aggression.

ADDITIONALLY, by supporting Hizbullah's demand, the US is in effect suing for a Hizbullah victory in this war. Hizbullah has never demanded Mt. Dov for itself. It demands the vast territory that connects the Syrian Golan to the Upper Galilee for Lebanon. And the Lebanese government, which the US seeks to strengthen, supports this Hizbullah demand just as it supports all of Hizbullah's demands. If Lebanon receives the territory, Hizbullah will be the clear victor in this war.

Moreover, by even suggesting that Israel consider giving Mt. Dov to Lebanon, the US is undermining the very notion that Israel has a right to recognized borders. If after Israel removed itself to the international border Lebanon can receive support for additional territorial claims against Israel, that means there is no line to which Israel can remove itself in the Golan, or in Jerusalem, or in Judea and Samaria or Gaza and safely assume that its borders will be recognized by the rest of the world.

In short, by backing Lebanese claims to Mt. Dov, the US is paving the way for future territorial claims for West Jerusalem, the Galilee, Haifa, indeed for all of Israel.

Israel will never be able to trust that any peace treaty it signs is final. An act of aggression by its enemies may pave the way for additional claims, which in the interests of strengthening the Palestinian, Egyptian, Jordanian, or Syrian governments the international community is liable to support.

IT WOULD seem that, in spite of themselves, both the US and the Israeli government have managed to maneuver themselves into diplomatic positions that undermine their own national interests. Somehow, between the US's early and misguided decision to ignore the Lebanese government's support and responsibility for Hizbullah and the Olmert government's clearly halfhearted prosecution of the war, both governments have gotten lost. The goals that now form the basis of their diplomatic agendas serve only to advance the interests of their enemies.

A clear break from the current path must be made immediately. Ahmadinejad is looking on and laughing.

Our World: As Ahmadinejad watches
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wait till God wipes that laughter from ImagineAdud.

[Shammu]

EU president: Israel unlikely to dent Hizbullah
BRUSSELS, Belgium, THE JERUSALEM POST    Aug. 1, 2006

The European Union's presidency warned Tuesday that Israel's offensive in southern Lebanon was unlikely to bring success and was instead bound to increase support for Hizbullah.

Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja, whose country holds the EU presidency and who will chair an emergency EU foreign ministers' meeting later Tuesday, said the offensive was "unlikely to bring military success." The conflict was instead "certain to increase support for Hizbullah in the region."

EU president: Israel unlikely to dent Hizbullah

[Shammu]

The Axis of Terror Acts

Israel has once again been dragged into a war it did not want and did not start. Just as was predicted in May’s Australia/Israel Review editorial, Iran’s rulers have apparently used their control over Hezbollah and influence over Hamas to create a crisis and divert attention from their illegal attempts to develop nuclear weaponry.

However, the reactions to the Hezbollah-Israel war are different from other wars foisted on Israel by its enemies. Just a few days after the conflict began on July 12, the editor of a Kuwaiti newspaper argued that, "The operations of Israel in Gaza and Lebanon are in the interest of people of Arab countries and the international community."

Statements blaming Hezbollah for the current violence have also come from the governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, as well as many Arab commentators.

These actors have not suddenly become Israel’s friends. Instead, they recognise that, as the veteran leader of Lebanon’s Druze community, Walid Jumblatt, put it, "The war is no longer Lebanon’s - it is an Iranian war. Iran is telling the United States: You want to fight me in the Gulf and destroy my nuclear program? I will hit you at home, in Israel." Iran, assisted by Syria, is attempting to assert its power in the region, and the Arab states are worried.

There seems little doubt that the Hezbollah attack was designed, at least in part, to draw attention away from the ongoing controversy surrounding the Iranian nuclear weapons program. Just before the crisis erupted, the issue was again referred to the UN Security Council for consideration of possible sanctions.

Hezbollah, a terrorist organisation banned in the UK, US, Australia and elsewhere, was founded, trained, armed, funded and, in part, directed, by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

All this was done in front of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), a peacekeeping force created in 1978 — some four years before Hezbollah’s creation. UNIFIL not only failed to keep the peace, it frequently allowed Hezbollah to locate its forces just outside their own posts.

This almost certainly contributed to the tragic accident on July 25, where Israel unintentionally struck a UN observers’ post at Khiyam, killing four UN peacekeepers.

There was absolutely no justification, either in law or in ethics, for Hezbollah’s blatant violation of sovereign Israeli territory to kill and kidnap Israeli soldiers and fire rockets at civilian targets, which triggered the current conflict.

In May 2000, Israel withdrew from Lebanon in a move recognised by the international community as ending any territorial quarrel between Lebanon and Israel. The same can be said of Hamas attacks from the Gaza Strip, which was also completely evacuated by Israel last year.

In the face of Lebanese and UN paralysis, Israel can only prevent Hezbollah attacks by disarming it and moving it away from the border. The Israeli Government has even concluded that suffering the hundreds of rocket attacks and dozens of civilian casualties still occurring throughout its north is a price worth paying - if it prevents even worse attacks later.

Israeli attacks are concentrated on Hezbollah bases, command centres, rocket launchers and storage warehouses, most of which are illegally situated in the middle of civilian areas. But Israel has also sought to isolate Hezbollah by cutting off transportation links - air travel, roads, bridges, ports and the like. This is a perfectly legal and justified military tactic because it serves a genuine military purpose - to prevent Hezbollah’s rearming by its patrons Syria and Iran.

Israel is doing what it can to minimise civilian casualties- for example by dropping leaflets warning civilians to evacuate places about to be attacked, even though this also allows Hezbollah fighters to flee.

There is much talk of the supposed lack of "proportionality" of the Israeli response, and comparisons of casualty figures. But it should be remembered that Israel is entitled to respond in proportion to the threat, not just to the specific illegal cross-border kidnapping and rocket attacks that sparked its counter-actions. And that threat is indeed very grave, given the thousands of Hezbollah rockets, the declared intent to use them against Israeli cities and towns, and the promise of further "surprises".

It should also be remembered that Hezbollah is deliberately and cynically using civilian shields to confront Israel with a no-win situation. If Israel doesn’t strike back, Hezbollah is free to plan and arm for further attacks whenever this suits Iran. But if Israel does retaliate and civilians are injured or killed, the Jewish state can be pilloried for its supposed brutality.

The obvious resolution of the problem is for Lebanon to regain control over its own foreign policy and all its territory, and thus obviate any need for Israel to respond militarily to Hezbollah attacks. UN Security Council Resolutions 1559, 1566 and 1680 demand just that. Lebanon needs international assistance and encouragement to do so.

Hezbollah must be significantly weakened, so that it has no ability to seriously interfere with the extension of Lebanese sovereignty.

No one wants the current violence and suffering on both sides to continue. But if the problem of Hezbollah’s anomalous Iranian-backed state-within-a-state in Lebanon is not resolved, not only will Lebanon remain unable to gain full democratic sovereignty, the violence and civilian deaths will certainly return repeatedly in coming months and years.

That is why everyone of goodwill should be hoping and working for a sustainable ceasefire as soon as possible, but not one second before it is crystal clear that the conditions for stability and quiet will follow - Hezbollah dismantled as a military force and Lebanon in control of its own southern border.

The Axis of Terror Acts

[Shammu]

Never Quit the Fight
By Jamie Glazov
August 2, 2006

Interview’s guest today is Ralph Peters, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel who served in infantry and intelligence units before becoming a Foreign Area Officer and a global strategic scout for the Pentagon. He has published five books on strategy and military affairs, as well as hundreds of columns for the New York Post, Armed Forces Journal, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, and other publications.  He is the author of the new book Never Quit the Fight.

Peters:  Always a pleasure, always an honor.

FP: In this new book you draw on all your worldly experiences to take on the most critical issues of our time. So why don’t we begin with Israel’s attempt to dislodge Hezbollah right now in southern Lebanon. What do you make of it? And what do you make of the international community condemning Israel on the assumption that Jews don’t have a right to defend themselves?

Peters: I've been terribly discouraged by the weakness of the Olmert government -- it tried to make war on the cheap, which never works. Bewildering to me is that the myth of immaculate war through technology endures, even though it never works.  The Israelis tried Shock-and-Awe Part II.  Hezbollah responded with Cain-and-Abel warfare -- while leading Israeli intelligence around by the nose -- the Qana set-up was brilliantly executed, at a terrible cost to Israel.

I've feared that this would be the first shooting war Israel lost.  That said, as I write there's cause for hope at last.  The Olmert government has, belatedly, authorized the broader use of ground troops.  If the Israeli leadership doesn't waver, the IDF still can cripple Hezbollah--but it must not hesitate now, even in the face of serious friendly casualties.

The stakes are immeasurably high -- Hezbollah, Iran and Syria cannot be allowed to win this one on the ground, sadly, they've already won the information/propaganda war in the Middle East.  Also on the positive side, the Bush administration has been steadfast in buying time for Israel to finish the job.  The problem has been that the Olmert cabinet --the weakest wartime government in Israel's history -- has squandered the time Bush bought them at no little expense.  But the IDF looks like it's going in hard now.  Better late than never.  Message to politicos everywhere: War is never a cheap date.

FP: So where do we stand on Iraq right now? Has a civil war broken out there?

Peters:  No, but civil war is closer than it was.  Our soldiers and Marines have done a remarkable job -- but we've never fully recovered from the decision to try to do our war, too, on the cheap in terms of troop strength, as well as the foolish, tragic failure to impose the rule of law the moment we reached Baghdad.

I supported toppling Saddam, and I believe it's still too early to walk away from Iraq -- much too early.  That said, here's the crux of the issue:  We gave the Iraqis a unique opportunity to build the first true rule-of-law Arab (and Kurdish) democracy.  But, while we can force the Iraqis to do many things, we can't force them to succeed -- never underestimate the Arab genius for screwing things up.

The Iraqi government and its supporters must seize this opportunity.  That means fighting – fighting -- for their own country.  While the Iraqi army has made great progress, the police are still incapable, partisan and corrupt.  But the police are the key to long-term internal stability.  While the Sunni-Arab insurgents and the Shia militias are ready, even anxious, to die for their respective causes, we see far less commitment and spirit of self-sacrifice on the government's side.  The leaders squabble, the death squads rule the neighborhoods.

While we should never publicize a troop-withdrawal timetable, behind closed doors we should give the Iraqi government leaders an ultimatum:  Either start pulling your weight in this fight, or we leave and you can save your sorry backsides as best you can.  Now, even if the Iraqis do carry more of the load, it won't be an instant process, and they'll need our support for years to come.  But if we continue to provide generous military welfare, the Iraqi government will gladly become addicts.

It's time for tough-love and realism.  We can't keep the training wheels on the Iraqi bicycle forever.  They've got to ride it themselves at some point -- sooner, rather than later.  And I can't help adding that Paul Bremer, utterly the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time, did incalculable damage to the new Iraq.  Soldiers know how to conduct occupations; self-important, self-adoring civilians who punch their tickets and run back home to write their memoirs do not.

FP: What should our next steps be in our war with Islamism?

Peters:  "Never Quit the Fight."  The book's title sums it up for me.  Our strength of will must be stronger than that of our enemies.  We have to be steadfast, to accept that this truly is a long process, one that may never end completely -- certainly not in our lifetimes.  I take a long view of history and, while I take no pleasure in it, I can't help viewing our violent encounter with extremist Islam as an extension of the unbroken thirteen-century conflict between Islam and the West -- we think it's a new phenomenon, but I see it as part of a long continuum.  Religions compete, and religious civilizations, especially monotheist "one-God, one-way" civilizations, compete violently.  Sad to say, it's as natural as the changing of the seasons.

We're back in Old Testament times.  And trust me: The Geneva Convention was not applied to the Midianites.

Certainly, Islam is as various as Christianity -- and I'm encouraged by the humanity of Islam in places as diverse as Senegal, Indonesia and Michigan, despite the nuts who always get the headlines. But Islam in the Middle East is sick and degenerate -- even at its best, it's bad.  Based on a "barracks religion" (to borrow from Claude Levi-Strauss), the civilization of the Middle East, Arab and Persian -- but, especially, Arab -- is a grotesque, inhumane failure:  A vast prison masquerading as a civilization.  Islam in the Middle East, Wahhabi, Salafist and the street-corner varieties, cripples the human spirit, squanders human talent, and chokes human societies.  Our civilization is brilliantly dynamic, theirs is stagnant.  Their hatred, their sense of injury (self-inflicted, although they can't admit it) is predictable.  Their entire system of belief and behavior has failed.  And there is no reason to hope that Middle-Eastern Islam will grow healthier soon.

What must we do?  Fight hard abroad, remain tolerant at home--and win.  There's no such thing as "noble failure."  We must win.  And we will.  Even if it takes several generations.

FP: What is the situation with the nuclear Mullahs?

Peters:  I spend a lot of time thinking about this.  Frankly, it may be inevitable that Iran will strike Israel with nuclear weapons in the future.  The international community is a joke -- and disgracefully, irrationally anti-Semitic.

Who will stop Iran?  Israel can't do it -- the IDF doesn't have the range or resources to do more than temporarily interrupt some of the processes, and they'd need our acquiescence to do even that much.  Even the U.S. military would have a very difficult time locating and destroying Iran's dispersed network of nuclear facilities -- many of them deep underground or purposely located in populated areas.

Oh, if Israel is ravaged by the nuclear bombs of fanatics, the Europeans will weep afterward -- they're always ready to cry over Jewish corpses. The Europeans are really quite fond of dead Jews -- but they won't risk a thing to stop Iran in the first place.  Just the other day, the French foreign minister was in Beirut, smooching with Iran's foreign minister and publicly calling Iran "a force for stability in the Middle East."

Can you believe it?

I hope I'm wrong, but I'm worried -- and appalled at the world's indifference. As for the French, well, the only consolation is that they're headed for a domestic train-wreck with their homegrown Islamist terrorists.

We must recognize that our wonderful civilization is in a fight to the death with the new barbarism.  Our naivety is our greatest weakness.

FP: Ralph Peters, thank you. It is always a pleasure and privilege speaking to you and hearing your wisdom.

Peters: Jamie, wisdom is for God.  All I've got is a little experience--and, I hope, a few shreds of integrity left (despite living in the Washington, D.C. area).  Let me thank you for the great work you do and for fighting for the truth.

Never Quit the Fight

[Shammu]

Zapatero: "Stages of peace process are being fulfilled"

08/01/2006
In his opinion, last year's scenario, "with violent acts of street fight," is different from the current one. The Spanish president made these statements after meeting King Juan Carlos in Palma Monday evening.

The president of the Spanish Government, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, assured Monday in Palma after meeting King Juan Carlos that in the process to win peace in the Basque Country "stages are being fulfilled." Loyal to his "compromise of discretion" on the issue, he didn't want to unveil any more details, but warned that the scenario has changed since he met King Juan Carlos last summer, as at that time there were "violent acts of street fight."

Rodríguez Zapatero spoke with King Juan Carlos about the situation in the Middle East, the "most serious crisis" Lebanon is living, illegal immigration, and the prospects of Spanish economy, very optimistic, according to the president of the Government.

With regard to the war conflict in Lebanon, the president ratified everything he has said since the day it erupted. "Israel has the right to defend itself, but victims also have the right to be defended," he noted.

"Incomprehensible and unacceptable"

The president of the Spanish Government also referred to the incidents at EL Prat airport in Barcelona, blocked by Iberia's ground staff protesting for the fear to lose their job posts. He addressed all of them: "I hope they regret what they did." In his opinion, the events were "incomprehensible and unacceptable."

"The citizens who have suffered the conflict have reasons to complain and voice their uneasiness because their rights have been violated," the president noted. He announced the Ministry of Public Works is writing a report on Iberia's behaviour in the conflict

Zapatero: "Stages of peace process are being fulfilled"

[Shammu]

Saudi Arabia seeking to acquire private schools in Spain to set up Islamic centers

Madrid, Jul. 31, 2006 (CNA) - The government of Saudi Arabia is working through its embassy in Madrid to acquire numerous private schools in Spain in order to turn them into Islamic formation centers, where the Koran and Islamic law would be taught.

The strategy to purchase schools was revealed by the Spanish daily "ABC", which discovered that Saudi Arabia had unsuccessfully tried to purchase school buildings operated by the Sisters of Our Lady of Mercy. The Saudi plan was to offer $17 million for a school in Madrid capable of holding 350 students. ABC reported that the offer was rejected "because the religious congregation was opposed to selling the buildings to the Saudis because of their intention to convert them into an Islamic school."

The Saudi embassy is now looking to purchase Our Lady of Mercies Catholic school-which is not affiliated with the religious order-also located in the Spanish capital.

ABC reported that the type of Islam which Saudi Arabia would promote in the schools would not directly encourage "jihad" against the West, but it would discourage integration by teaching that "the West corrupts, which in the long term could result in the breeding of future radicals that could be exported to other countries."

"We could find ourselves in two or three generations with even Spanish citizens who reject the Catholic King and Queen and embrace the reclaiming of Al Andalus-the name Muslims gave to Spain," the article warned.

Saudi Arabia seeking to acquire private schools in Spain to set up Islamic centers

[Shammu]

EU: No intent yet to add Hizbullah to terror list

Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja says, ‘Given the sensitive situation, I don't think this is something we will be acting on now’
News Agencies

The European Union does not intend to place Hizbullah on its list of terrorist organizations for the time being, EU President Finland said on Tuesday.

"Given the sensitive situation, I don't think this is something we will be acting on now," Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja, told a news conference following an emergency meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels.

Tuomioja's comments were in response to a letter signed by 213 members of the United States Congress sent to EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana asking that the EU add Hizbullah to its terrorist list.

Russia recently published a list of 17 groups it regards as terrorist organizations and did not include the Palestinian movement Hamas or Lebanon's Hizbullah group, both of which are regarded as terrorists in Washington.

Groups on the list, published in the official daily Rossiiskaya Gazeta, included al-Qaeda and the Taliban as well as the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, a rebel group fighting for Kashmir's independence from India, and Egypt's banned Muslim Brotherhood.

EU: No intent yet to add Hizbullah to terror list

[Shammu]

Wednesday's papers see a Europe divided at the EU's meeting on the Middle East crisis.

 France's  Le Nouvel Observateur magazine says that the EU foreign ministers' meeting on the Middle East crisis came at a time of division for the Europeans.

The international community is divided on the question of an immediate ceasefire, "which France has specifically called for", the paper says.

It quotes Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja as saying that the EU's credibility on the international stage is at stake: "If we fail, we can say goodbye to the EU's influence on international matters."

Austria's Die Presse praises the Finnish EU presidency for its position on the Lebanon crisis.

The paper commends Mr Tuomioja for making "clear, courageous and frank statements on the Lebanon war and on Israel's actions".

"Please," it enthuses, "do not let them get you down, continue along recent lines!"

But it adds that some of Mr Tuomioja's European counterparts did not appreciate his outspokenness.

The paper says this is true of the EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, whom it describes as "the embodiment of meaningless stock diplomatic phrases".

However, it says, it is even more true of British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett, who, as the paper puts it, "regards herself as the vermiform appendix of the Americans".

Harsh measures The feeling that time has come for the EU to take action is shared by

Sweden's Aftonbladet , which argues that the EU should "show its European muscles" by breaking off its free-trade agreement with Israel.

 "Sweden should push for the EU to suspend free trade with Israel for as long as the country breaches human rights and international law", it recommends.

"Here the EU has a financial instrument" which it should use in one of the most serious Middle East conflicts "in a long time", it says.

But Berlin's Der Tagesspiegel says it is Germany's responsibility to help Israel in the Lebanon crisis, even militarily.

The paper argues that Germany has an historic responsibility to guarantee Israel's right to exist and must do everything to help its government.

"So if Prime Minister Ehud Olmert really asks Germany for help," it says, "then no German government must hesitate, even if it is asked for soldiers."

Wednesday's papers see a Europe divided at the EU's meeting on the Middle East crisis.

[Shammu]

 News blackout imposed on American arms flights refuelling at British bases
By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 02/08/2006)

The Government refused last night to give details of the flights entering Britain containing American arms destined for Israel.

There was also a suggestion that all arms flights via Prestwick airport, near Glasgow, were suspended following pressure from Scottish Labour MPs afraid of the political impact in their constituencies.

Although Government officials have admitted that two flights, carrying GBU28 bunker-busting bombs, arrived at Prestwick the weekend before last and several others came in last week, a news blackout has now been enforced on reporting any new arrivals.

After hundreds of protesters gathered at Prestwick last weekend, at least two flights from Texas were diverted to RAF Mildenhall, in Suffolk.

The US air force has leased three bases in Britain - Mildenhall and Lakenheath in Suffolk, and RAF Fairford, Glos - for refuelling purposes.

During the initial flights into Prestwick, the American planes apparently violated normal procedures and President George W Bush had to apologise to the Prime Minister.

The Foreign Office said it was "not commenting on the handling of any flights" but so long as proper procedures were followed "permission will be granted".

However, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has claimed that a large cargo plane, reportedly bearing Hebrew markings, was seen by an activist at RAF Brize Norton, in Oxfordshire.

The BBC's Newsnight programme said that six aircraft carrying military supplies for Israel passed through British airports at the weekend. Three carried munitions and the rest had "associated equipment".

The programme also suggested that the use of English bases came as a result of a Cabinet row over the issue. Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, allegedly offered their use after protests to Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, by Douglas Alexander, the Scottish Secretary, about the use of Prestwick.

A spokesman for Mr Browne said the Government as a whole made all decisions on the flights. "Newsnight is wrong," she said.

News blackout imposed on American arms flights refuelling at British bases

[Shammu]

UN's resolution linked to Lebanon events: Iran

Wednesday, August 02, 2006
 
Chairman of the Expediency Council Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said that the recent events in Lebanon along with the praiseworthy resistance of Hizbollah is not unrelated to the ratification of UNSC's resolution against Iran, IRNA reported.

LONDON, August 2 (IranMania) - Chairman of the Expediency Council Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said that the recent events in Lebanon along with the praiseworthy resistance of Hizbollah is not unrelated to the ratification of UNSC's resolution against Iran, Iran's State News Agency (IRNA) reported.

In a meeting with members of the 'Fronts to Consolidate Democracy', he said the current plots of the big powers in Lebanon will not be limited to Hizbollah or Lebanon, they have various scenarios for the world Muslim along with those stand against their interests.

In current circumstances, the society strongly needs solidarity, he said adding, "If we show solidarity in the society and respect peoples views, the existing threats would be weak."

Keeping away from moderation would be regarded as a lethal poison for any society, he said adding, "Under current conditions and recent developments in the region we should exercise vigilance against our opportunist enemy."

Highlighting the importance of the Constitution in the national history, he called for further active role of political tendencies in administrating the society, IRNA added.

It is not possible to properly administer peoples affairs without active presence of political parties, he underlined.

The meeting continued with an exchange of views on recent domestic and international developments, the report added.

UN's resolution linked to Lebanon events: Iran

[Shammu]

Iranians throng donation camps

By Alireza Ronaghi

TEHRAN: Retired Iranian labourer Mehdi Jokar, 67, did not give a second thought to handing over a third of his monthly pension to those wounded and made homeless by Israel’s offensive against Lebanon’s Hezbollah guerrillas.

“I did nothing important, our Muslim brothers in Lebanon have given their blood,” he said at a gathering in a Tehran mosque on Tuesday, where some 200 people were milling round tents making donations for Lebanon and the Palestinians.

Such donation centres, run by a government foundation, were set up across the Islamic Republic for a heavily-publicised one-day collection drive.

Israel has been fighting Hezbollah since July 12, in response to the seizure of two of its soldiers in a cross-border raid. The conflict’s casualties have mainly been Lebanese civilians.

Iran’s state television broadcast images of Iranians queuing up in various parts of the country to slip banknotes into the blue and yellow collection boxes.

“I have seen a woman donating her bracelet worth ten million rials ($1,100)... that was so nice,” Mohammad Pazand, an official at Iran’s Charity Committee, told Reuters.

Iranians throng donation camps

[Shammu]

Iran Hangs in Suspense as War Offers New Strength, and Sudden Weakness
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN

TEHRAN, July 29 — These should be heady days for Iran’s leaders. Hezbollah, widely regarded as its proxy force in Lebanon, continues to rain down rockets on Israel despite 17 days of punishing airstrikes. Hezbollah’s leader is a hero of the Arab world, and Iran is basking in the reflected glory.

Yet this capital is unusually tense. Officials, former officials and analysts say that it is too dangerous even to discuss the crisis. In newspapers, the slightest questioning of support for Hezbollah has been attacked as unpatriotic, pro-Zionist and anti-Islamic.

As the war in Lebanon grinds on, Iranian officials cannot seem to decide whether Iran will emerge stronger — or unexpectedly weakened.

They are increasingly confident of an ideological triumph. But they also believe the war itself has already harmed Hezbollah’s strength as a military deterrent for Iran on the Israeli border.

And foreign policy experts and former government officials said that Iran had come to view Israel’s attack on Lebanon as a proxy offensive. They now view the war as the new front line in the decades-old conflict with Washington.

“They are worried that what’s happened in Lebanon to Hezbollah is the United States’ revenge against Iran,” said Hamidreza Jalaipour, a sociologist and former government official. “The way they are attacking them and fighting against them is like waging a war against Iran.”

Iran’s relationship to Hezbollah is both strategic and ideological. The Islamic Revolution in 1979 was viewed by its clerical leaders as a part of a pan-Muslim movement. Linking up with the Shiite Muslims of southern Lebanon was part of Iran’s efforts to spread its ideological influence. But in building up Hezbollah, the ideological motivation fused with a practical desire to put a force on Israel’s northern border.

No matter how this conflict is resolved, Iranian officials already see their strategic military strength diminished, said the policy experts, former officials and one official with close ties to the highest levels of government. Even if a cease-fire takes hold, and Hezbollah retains some military ability, a Lebanese public eager for peace may act as a serious check.

In the past, Iran believed that Israel might pause before attacking it because they would assume Hezbollah would assault the northern border. If Hezbollah emerges weaker, or restrained militarily because of domestic politics, Iran feels it may be more vulnerable.

“This was God’s gift to Israel,” said Nasser Hadian, a political science professor at Tehran University and an expert in Iranian foreign policy. “Hezbollah gave them the golden opportunity to attack.”

He said that Iran does not have the military ability at home to fight an aggressive offensive war against Israel from so far away. He said its only offensive tool would be a missile, which he said would be of limited effect and accuracy.

“If Israel attacked us tomorrow, what are we going to do?” he said.

Analysts and former government officials said Iran has focused on trying to preserve Hezbollah’s influence and deterrence capability. They said Iran has counseled Hezbollah not to show its full military ability to preserve Israeli uncertainty. That may prove difficult for Hezbollah to agree to, given that it is in the midst of a war, and may lead to a divergence of agendas, analysts and former government officials said.

Iran has also worked hard to convince the Lebanese, and Muslims around the world, that Hezbollah is not to blame for the destruction in Lebanon and that it is a legitimate resistance force. That is viewed here as essential to preserve Hezbollah’s influence in Lebanon after the war, and with it Iran’s in the region.

Even as Iranian officials fret about the potential risks, they are savoring the ideological boost. If Hezbollah emerges as the primary political force in Lebanon, Arab governments, which have not pressed hard for a cease-fire, may find that in order to deal with Hezbollah they will have to work through Iran.

One foreign policy expert who is a sometime consultant to the government said that if Hezbollah continued to lob missiles into Israel for another six months to a year, the resulting turmoil in the region could make Iran a power to reckon with in Lebanon as it is in Iraq.

The expert, a professor of international relations at a university in Tehran who is an occasional consultant to the foreign ministry, spoke on the condition he not be identified because he was afraid of retribution.

On the domestic front, the war has promoted officials here to begin to assess how the outcome might require that they retool policies and strategies involving everything from the nuclear issue to diplomatic relations with Arab countries.

Power in Iran is not concentrated in any one hand, not even that of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but is spread out among many levels. Major decisions, like the nuclear policy, are often a result of consultation and compromise among many forces among Iran’s clerical and political elite.

Confidence in Iran’s ideological gains since the war broke out has buoyed Iran’s hard-liners, and has influenced an internal debate that has been running since the revolution, over whether Iran should focus on domestic economic and political development or on its role as a pan-Islamic leader hoping to spread its revolutionary ideas, political analysts here said.

Even before the war, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was trying to position Iran as the leader of the pan-Muslim world, to unite all Muslims, whether Arabs or Indonesians or Indians, behind the leadership of Tehran. The analysts said that Mr. Ahmadinejad, who was elected on a populist economic message, is the most ideologically driven of Iran’s presidents since the revolution.

“Iran is now playing to its strength,” said a foreign policy expert affiliated with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who like many people here said he was afraid to be identified for fear of retribution.

Iran is the only nation in the Muslim world controlled by members of the Shiite sect of Islam, and its push to be a regional leader had raised concerns among the area’s Sunni leadership.

Iran has used the war in Lebanon to try to prove that talk of a Shiite threat is a fiction created by Arab leaders and Americans seeking to maintain power in the hands of American friends in Cairo, Amman and Riyadh.

It has pointed to Israel’s destruction of Lebanon’s infrastructure to promote the idea that this war is not against Hezbollah but against all Muslims. And Iran’s leaders have sought to burnish their own image, at the expense of their Sunni rivals.

“It is inconceivable for anyone who calls himself a Muslim and who heads an Islamic state to maintain relations under the table with the regime that occupied Jerusalem,” said President Ahmadinejad in an interview on Iranian television this week, in a clear dig against governments like Egypt’s. “He cannot take pleasure in the killing of Muslims yet present himself as a Muslim. This is inconceivable, and must be exposed. Allah willing, it will.”

He posed an even more direct challenge in comments broadcast last week on Iranian television: “A bunch of people with no honor rule some countries in the region. People are being killed before their eyes, while they play games, giving compliments to one another. They think they can let time go by until this issue is forgotten, and then return to the scene. No, they are mistaken.”

The moment Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers, the United States and Israel complained that Iran and its ally, Syria, played a role in sparking the crisis.

Both have denied any advance knowledge of Hezbollah’s raid on July 12. It is hard to know here if analysts and former officials say they accept that notion because they believe it — or because they are afraid to contradict the government.

Only one influential person, Muhammad Atrianfar, publisher of the newspaper Shargh, said in an interview that Hezbollah would never stage such a significant operation without at least notifying Tehran.

“Officially, Iran is not aware of what Hezbollah does,” he said. “Logically and unofficially Iran is always aware. The reason is clear, because of all that Iran has done for Hezbollah. Hezbollah is Iran in Lebanon. When Iran looks at Hezbollah, it sees Iran.”

In fact, the accepted wisdom here is that the Israeli assault was pre-planned, and that the capture of the two soldiers was simply its excuse. Further, people here believe that the true target was Tehran, and that Israel, the United States and Arab governments in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are hoping to roll back Iran’s influence in the region.

“They want to cut one of Iran’s arms,” said the Iranian official with close personal ties to the highest levels of government.

“Israel and the U.S. knew that as long as Hamas and Hezbollah were there, confronting Iran would be costly,” said Mohsen Rezai, former head of the Revolutionary Guards, said in an interview with the Baztab website. “So, to deal with Iran, they first want to eliminate forces close to Iran that are in Lebanon and Palestine.”

Iran Hangs in Suspense as War Offers New Strength, and Sudden Weakness

[Shammu]

 IDF Going All the Way to the Litani River
20:00 Aug 01, '06 / 7 Av 5766

(IsraelNN.com) The Israel Defense Forces will fight their way to the Litani River, 18 miles from Israel’s northern border, according to The Associated Press.

Senior Israeli officials said Tuesday that the IDF will clear away Hizbullah terrorist nests and enforce a security buffer zone until an international peacekeeping force is deployed in the area.

IDF Going All the Way to the Litani River

[Shammu]

EU issues call for 'cessation of hostilities' rather than cease-fire
By News Agencies

European Union foreign ministers called for an immediate end to Israel-Hezbollah hostilities, watering down demands for an immediate ceasefire at the insistence of Britain, Germany, and the Czech Republic.

A joint statement adopted at a rare August crisis meeting of the 25-nation bloc said: "The Council calls for an immediate end to hostilities to be followed by a sustainable ceasefire."

The three opposing countries, at emergency EU foreign ministers' talks, offered an alternative draft calling for an eventual "cessation of hostilities," with no time frame given.

Meanwhile, the EU's Finnish presidency said Tuesday the organization will not add Hezbollah to its list of terrorist organizations.

"Given the sensitive situation where we are, I don't think this is something we will be acting on now," Finland's Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja said Tuesday after a ministerial meeting that adopted a proposal aimed at ending the conflict between Israel and Lebanon.

Although the EU, like the United States, considers Hamas a terrorist group, it has refused to add Hezbollah to the list despite recriminations from Washington.

The original EU cease-fire draft, circulated as ministers from the 25-nation bloc began a rare August meeting, also warned of breaches of international law in the three-week-old fighting between Israel and Hezbollah guerrillas.

"The Council called for an immediate cease-fire," the draft statement said. "Disregard for necessary precautions to avoid loss of civilian life constitutes a severe breach of international humanitarian law."

The bloc had been divided over whether to demand an immediate cease-fire and a united call spells out a difference with the United States, which has refrained from urging an immediate halt to the violence.

Earlier in the day, EU president Finland branded Israel's decision to step up military action against Hezbollah guerrillas unacceptable.

Organization of the Islamic Conference to seek unconditional cease-fire
The Organization of the Islamic Conference will press for an unconditional cease-fire in Lebanon at an emergency meeting in Malaysia this week, the Malaysian foreign ministry said on Tuesday.

Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, the current chairman of the OIC, called for the August 3 meeting after weeks of military aggression by Israel against Lebanon as well as the Palestinian Authority, the ministry said in a statement.

The meeting was also expected to urge the establishment of a United Nations peacekeeping force which must include OIC member states, the ministry said.

"The agenda of the meeting is to discuss the current situation and developments in Lebanon and Palestine for determining the action to be taken by the OIC countries," it added.

It said Egypt, Iran and Syria are among the 18 member countries attending the meeting.

At least 605 people have been killed in Lebanon, although the health minister puts the toll at 750 including bodies still buried under rubble. Fifty-one Israelis have also been killed.

The Israel Defense Forces has also killed 151 Palestinians, more than half of them civilians, in Gaza since it began an offensive to stop gunmen from firing rockets into Israel and to pressure militants to free a soldier armed groups captured on June 25.

The Saudi-based OIC is the world's largest Islamic body, gathering 57 countries with majority Muslim populations around the world.

French, Iranian ministers discuss Iranian role in resolving conflict
France said Tuesday that Iran has a role to play in ending the fighting in Lebanon, after a meeting between the French and Iranian foreign ministers.

Philippe Douste-Blazy and Manouchehr Mottaki both visited Beirut on Monday and arranged a meeting to consider "to what measure Iran could contribute to a de-escalation of the conflict," a Foreign Ministry spokesman said.

"Iran can play a role of stabilization," he said, but added that "Iran must assume all its responsibilities" before the international community.

France helped scuttle a UN meeting of potential contributors to an international force for Lebanon on Monday, apparently frustrated by continued U.S. resistance to a cease-fire. France, like many countries, has demanded a cease-fire before any force is deployed.

The French foreign minister said that such a force must be large, sufficiently armed and have precise guidelines for opening fire.

The force must be larger than the current UN Interim Force in Lebanon and be more than the 10,000 suggested by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said in an interview published on Tuesday.

Military officials in France have said the new Lebanon force should be 15,000-20,000 strong. "There is no question of it being a UNIFIL Mark Two," Alliot-Marie told the "Le Monde" daily.

"It must be a very large international force with very precise missions. It must be well-armed, have substantial firepower and armor. It must be credible and capable of making itself respected by everyone," she added.

Alliot-Marie repeated the French view that the Lebanon force could only deploy once a cease-fire had been established and a political accord reached between Israel and Hezbollah guerrillas.

Alliot-Marie said the Lebanon force must not repeat the mistakes of previous UN-backed missions.

She said it must have the right to open fire when necessary. "It's because they've been told that they don't have the right to open fire that all UN forces have had problems," she said.

"Remember ... what happened in Ivory Coast with ONUCI (United Nations Mission in Ivory Coast) or the UNIFIL in Lebanon: each time you have forces asked to enforce things that aren't very clear, without giving them a deterrent," she said.

Only countries with real military know-how should take part in the force, which should avoid becoming a kaleidoscope of nations that would lose its effectiveness, she said.

Military experts say France, which already has some 13,000 service personnel deployed abroad, could send around 5,000 troops to Lebanon, but the French daily "Le Figaro" said Monday that military planners felt the country was reaching its limit.

"It won't be easy. We've reached our deployment limit now, not so much in terms of numbers of personnel but in terms of command capacity," the paper quoted one officer as saying.

EU issues call for 'cessation of hostilities' rather than cease-fire

[Shammu]

Sirens Sounding in Haifa & Akko
10:26 Aug 02, '06 / 8 Av 5766

(IsraelNN.com) Air raid sirens are sounding in Akko and Haifa. Preliminary reports indicate a rocket slammed into an Akko home. Details to follow as they become available.

Sirens Sounding in Haifa & Akko