Posted on 08/07/2006 3:43:15 PM PDT by DAVEY CROCKETT
Tehran & Damascus Move to Lebanon Lebanon-born Walid Phares is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Author of the recent book Future Jihad, he was also one of the architects of 2004’s United Nations resolution 1559, which called for the disarming of Hezbollah. NRO editor Kathryn Lopez recently talked to Phares about what’s going on in the Mideast, what happened to the Cedar Revolution, and this war we’re all in.
Kathryn Jean Lopez: What is “Future Jihad”? Are we seeing it in the Mideast now?
Walid Phares: “Future Jihad,” which has already begun, refers to a new and potent form of Islamic terrorism, characterized by a Khumeinist-Baathist axis. These are the two trees of jihadism, so to speak — the Salafism and Wahabism embodied in al Qaeda and the sort of jihadism led by Iran and also including Syria, Hezbollah, and their allies in Lebanon.
The alliance has not been in entire agreement as to strategy. The al Qaeda branch began its “Future Jihad” in the 1990s; its efforts culminated on 9/11 and have continued explosively since then. The international “Salafists” aimed at the U.S. in the past decade in order to strengthen their jihads on various battlefields (Chechnya, India, Sudan, Algeria, Indonesia, Palestine, etc.). “Weaken the resolve of America,” their ideologues said, “and the jihadists would overwhelm all the regional battlefields.”
As I argue in Future Jihad, bin Laden and his colleagues miscalculated on the timing of the massive attack against the U.S. in 2001. While they wounded America, they didn’t kill its will to fight (as was the case, for instance, in the Madrid 3/11 attacks). I have heard many jihadi cadres online, and have seen al Jazeera commentators on television, offering hints of criticism about the timing. They were blaming al Qaeda for shooting its imagined “silver bullet” before insuring a strategic follow up. But bin Laden and Zawahiri believe 9/11 served them well, and has put a global mobilization into motion. Perhaps it has, but the U.S. counter strategy in the Middle East, chaotic as the region currently appears, has unleashed counter jihadi forces. The jury is still out as to the time factor: when these forces will begin to weaken the jihadists depends on our perseverance and the public understanding of the whole conflict.
The other “tree” of jihadism, with its roots in Iran, withheld fire after 9/11. They were content to watch the Salafists fight it out with the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention within the West, as terror cells were hunted down. Ahmedinejad, Assad, and Nasrallah were analyzing how far the US would go, and how far the Sunnis and Salafis would go as well.
The fall of the Taliban and of the Baath in Iraq, however, changed Iran and Syria’s patient plans. The political changes in the neighborhood, regardless of their immediate instability, were strongly felt in Tehran and Damascus (but unfortunately not in the U.S., judging from the political debate here), and pushed the Khumeinists and the Syrian Baathists to enter the dance, but carefully. Assad opened his borders to the jihadists in an attempt to crumble the U.S. role in Iraq, while Iran articulated al Sadr’s ideology for Iraq’s Shiia majority.
A U.S.-led response came swiftly in 2004 with the voting of UNSCR 1559, smashing Syria’s role in Lebanon and forcing Assad to withdraw his troops by April 2005. In response, the “axis” prepared for a counter attack on the Lebanese battlefield by assassinating a number of the Cedar Revolution leaders, including MP Jebran Tueni. In short, the attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah and the kidnappings of soldiers were the tip of an offensive aimed at drawing attention away from Iran’s nuclear weapons programs and Syria’s assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri. Hezbollah was awaiting its moment for revenge against the Cedar Revolution too.
What we see now is 1) a Syro-Iranian sponsored offensive aimed at all democracies in the region and fought in Lebanon; 2) Israel’s counter offensive (which it seems to have prepared earlier); and 3) an attempt by Hezbollah to take over or crumble the Lebanese government.
Lopez: So…did the Cedar Revolution fail?
Phares: Actually, it would be more accurate to say that the Cedar Revolution was failed. The masses in Lebanon responded courageously in March 2005 by putting 1.5 million people on the streets of Beirut. They did it without “no-fly-zones,” expeditionary forces, or any weapons at all, for that matter, and against the power of three regimes, Iran, Syria, and pro-Syrian Lebanon, in addition to Hezbollah terror. The “revolution” was for a time astoundingly successful; since then it has been horribly failed, and first of all by Lebanon’s politicians themselves. One of their leaders, General Michel Aoun, shifted his allegiances to Syria and signed a document with Hezbollah. Other politicians from the “March 14 Movement” then stopped the demonstrations, leaving them with the support of God knows what. They failed in removing the pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud and brought back a pro-Syrian politician to serve as a speaker of the house, Nabih Berri. Meanwhile, even as they were elected by the faithful Cedar Revolution masses, they engaged in a round table dialogue with Hezbollah, a clear trap set by Hassan Nasrallah: “Let’s talk about the future,” he said — with the implication, of course, that they forget about the Cedar Revolution and the militia’s disarming. While political leaders sat for months, enjoying the photo ops with Hassan Nasrallah, he was preparing his counter offensive, which he unleashed just a few days before the Security Council would discuss the future of Iran’s nuclear programs.
The Lebanese government of Prime Minister Seniora also abandoned the Cedar Revolution. His cabinet neither disarmed Hezbollah nor called on the U.N. to help in implementing UNSCR 1559. This omission is baffling. The government was given so much support by the international community and, more importantly, overwhelming popular support inside Lebanon: 80 percent of the people were hoping the Cedar Revolution-backed government would be the one to resume the liberation of the country. Now Hezbollah has an upper hand and the government is on the defensive.
The U.S. and its allies can be accused of certain shortcomings as well. While the speeches by the U.S. president, congressional leaders from both parties, Tony Blair, and Jacques Chirac were right on target regarding Lebanon, and while the U.S. and its counterparts on the Security Council were diligent in their follow up on the Hariri assassination and on implementing UNSCR 1559, there was no policy or plan to support the popular movement in Lebanon. Incredibly, while billions were spent on the war of ideas in the region, Lebanese NGOs that wanted to resume the struggle of the Cedar Revolution and fighting alone for this purpose were not taken seriously at various levels. Policy planners thought they were dealing with the “Cedar Revolution” when they were meeting Lebanon’s government and Lebanese politicians. The difference between the high level speeches on Lebanon and the laissez-faire approach from lower levels is amazing. Simply put, there was no policy on supporting the Cedar Revolution against the three regimes opposing it and the $400 million received by Hezbollah from Iran.
The Cedar Revolution was basically betrayed by its own politicians and is now essentially without a head. Nevertheless, as long as the international support remains, the Revolution will find its way and will face the dangers. The one and a half million ordinary citizens who braved all the dangers didn’t change their minds about Hezbollah’s terror. The resistance and counter-attack was to be expected. Unfortunately, thus far Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah have outmaneuvered the West and are at the throats of the Cedar Revolution. The international community must revise its plans, and, if it is strongly backed by the U.S. and its allies, including France, the situation can be salvaged. The good seeds are still inside the country.
More at link...
Report: Israel Freed Five Lebanon Captives
IAF Hits Home of Islamic Jihad Terrorist
Israeli soldiers shoot three Hizbollah gunmen: army
No, they will never have enough Good FBI, with all that is going on in the country today, we will need many more.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,20211682-421,00.html?from=rss#
Bomb scare on Sydney bound flight
August 22, 2006 06:55am
A PASSENGER has reported a bomb scare on board a flight from China to Australia.
A note warning that a bomb would explode on the China Southern Airlines flight from Guangzhou to Sydney was found one hour into the journey, Channel 9 reported.
The note forced the pilot to take emergency action and return to Guangzhou.
Australian passenger Jason Harper said, "They dumped all the fuel. Then all the lights went out. But no one knew what was happening".
"Then we landed and there about 20 police cars and fire engines and stuff everywhere."
The passengers were disembarked from the plane and interviewed by authorities for two hours before being allowed to reboard the flight and resume the journey, Nine said.
I think the point is that IF Hezbollah and Syria are defeated, then ther Cedar Revolution still has a chance. If not....
August 21, 2006 PM Anti-Terrorism News
Federal Judge drops Padilla terror charge - Other terror conspiracy
counts remain
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/21/padilla.charge/index.html
August 22: Iran's Day of Terror?
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23533
Is Europe a Hub for Homegrown Terror?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209626,00.html
U.S. resolution would disarm Hezbollah
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060821/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_un_2
MPs call for Canada to drop Hezbollah from terror list
http://www.canada.com/cityguides/winnipeg/info/story.html?id=db7e1277-f49f-4b69-8239-1815009e22b9&k=47496
(Canada) Hezbollah won't be dropped from terror list, Day says
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060821.whezbo0821/BNStory/Front/home
Bomb-making equipment found in Britain - Eleven people were charged
Monday with conspiracy to commit murder in the alleged plot to blow up
trans-Atlantic jetliners, and investigators found bomb-making equipment
and martyrdom video
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060821/ap_on_re_eu/britain_terror_plot_16
(British Terror Plot) Pakistan denies arrest of Al Qaeda militant
Matiur Rehman
http://www.khaleejtimes.ae/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/subcontinent/2006/August/subcontinent_August810.xml§ion=subcontinent&col=
British Terror plot: full text of Met statement
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2322650,00.html
(Afghanistan) Nine suspected Taleban killed in NATO airstrike
http://www.khaleejtimes.ae/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/subcontinent/2006/August/subcontinent_August818.xml§ion=subcontinent&col=
Pakistanis arrest two over US consulate blast
http://www.khaleejtimes.ae/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/subcontinent/2006/August/subcontinent_August816.xml§ion=subcontinent&col=
Illegal Pakistani radio broadcasts fanning violence
http://www.khaleejtimes.ae/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/subcontinent/2006/August/subcontinent_August813.xml§ion=subcontinent&col=
U.N.: Iran turns away inspectors
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/21/iran.inspectors.ap/index.html
Three Iranian factories 'mass-produce bombs to kill British in Iraq'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/20/wirq20.xml
Commentary: Suicide of the West - Denial is a British pathology.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTI2ZTRmYjg1OTA2ZjM1NGFhMDFjMDQ3ODJmYzA2MWE=
(Sri Lanka) Tamil Tigers sympathizers in New York accused of terror
support
http://www.silive.com/newsflash/metro/index.ssf?/base/news-20/1156191258191570.xml&storylist=simetro
Italy: IDF Hostages Alive, Not in 'Great' Condition
Arutz Sheva - Israel
... Senate Defense Committee, Sergio de Gregorio, told the Reuters news
service that Iran wants Italy to negotiate with Hizbullah for the
release
of the hostages. ...
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=110523
Hizbullah Deputy Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem's Interview on Al-Manar TV
Special Dispatch - Lebanon
August 22, 2006
No. 1257
Hizbullah Deputy Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem: Bush is "Either
Hitler
of 21st Century or No. 1 Int'l Criminal"; Lebanese Army "To Defend
South
Lebanon From Israel" While UNIFIL to "Serve Lebanese Army"
To view this Special Dispatch in HTML, visit:
http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD125706 .
The following are excerpts from an interview with Hizbullah Deputy
Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem, which aired on Al-Manar TV on
August 15,
2006.
TO VIEW THIS CLIP: http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1242 .
"To Those Who Say: 'Look At The Destruction,' I Respond: Who Caused
This
Destruction? Israel"
Interviewer: "Some people in Lebanon hold you responsible, because you
initiated the capture of the two soldiers, which led to this war."
Naim Qassem: "The capture of the two soldiers is worth about 500
sorties, the
destruction of about 200 homes, the attacking of 10-12 posts of the
resistance, the targeting of three or four leaders. It has its limits.
But
when there is a war of this kind - a war which Rice called the war of
the New
Middle East, and with which [Israeli Prime Minister] Olmert said he
wanted to
change the rules of the game... Even in Resolution 1701 the two
prisoners are
not mentioned."
[...]
"To those who say: 'Look at the destruction,' I respond: Who caused
this
destruction? Israel did. Unless they believe that instead of the
Israelis
continuing to threaten like this, when we took the two prisoners, we
should
have returned them, and said 'OK.'
"Let me tell you a joke. A man was teaching his son. He said to him,
'Let's
start with the alphabet. Say A.' The son said: 'I can't.' The father
smacked
him, and said: 'Say A.' The son said: 'I can't.' So he smacked him a
second
time. Eventually he said: This is no solution. If I keep on smacking
him like
this, I'll finish him off. Let's see what his story is. He said to him:
'Son,
why won't you say A?' The son answered: 'Father, If I say A, you'll
read me
all the letters of the alphabet, and I don't want to reach the end.'
"As for those who now say: Let's give up... When they said: Give up the
1948
territories, we ended up with the 1967 territories. They said: Come on,
let's
give up the 1967 territories - we ended up with the Oslo Accords. They
said:
Come on, let's give up Oslo - we ended up with the road map. They gave
up the
road map - we ended up with the Tenet plan. They gave up Tenet - we
ended up
with the wall. They gave up the wall... There is no end to it. These
people
have no limits. This logic of surrender means that we will lose
Lebanon."
[...]
Bush is "Either Hitler of the 21st Century or No. 1 International
Criminal"
Interviewer: "American President George Bush sees things differently.
He
believes Hizbullah was defeated in this war. What do you have to say to
him?"
Naim Qassem: "I was looking for a suitable description for George Bush.
I came
up with two descriptions: either Hitler of the 21st century or the
number one
international criminal. He's nothing but a pharaoh who thinks the world
can be
run by force, and he does not realize that nations have feelings and
concerns."
[...]
"We declared from the outset that Resolution [1701] is unfair and
unjust,
because it places the responsibility on us, while ignoring Israel, as
if it
bears no responsibility for what happened, even though Israel was the
aggressor, which wreaked this tremendous destruction, and violated
human
rights."
[...]
"Nobody can impose terms on us, or commit us to anything we do not
believe in.
Let me be clear: Israel won't get through politics what it didn't get
through
war, even if the UN resolution gave this to Israel - in spirit only,
not in
the details. We have an interpretation and understanding of our own,
and we
believe that this issue should be handled by the Lebanese state, and
that we
must reach an understanding within the government."
[...]
"We should negotiate all issues among ourselves, and reach an
understanding.
That is the right path, not to wave a stick. What they couldn't do
through
war, they want to do by peaceful means? It doesn't work like that."
[...]
Lebanese Army to "Defend South Lebanon from Israelis"; UNIFIL to "Be at
the
Service of Lebanese Army"
Interviewer: "But don't you think that the Lebanese government is
committed
vis-à-vis the international community to implement this resolution? As
a
party, you can 'evade' this resolution, so to speak, but the government
has
pledged to implement this resolution, and is committed vis-à-vis the
international community to implement it."
Naim Qassem: "The government has relations with the international
community,
and it can convey the domestic state of affairs in Lebanon to the
international community, and can say to it: We want to reach an
understanding
among ourselves."
[...]
"The basic mission of the army, as we understand it, is to defend South
Lebanon from the Israelis."
Interviewer: "That's the Lebanese army, but what about UNIFIL, the
international forces? Does Hizbullah have any specific conditions
regarding
the international forces that will come to Lebanon? In other words,
will you
veto certain nationalities, or certain tasks that these forces could
fulfill?"
Naim Qassem: "UNIFIL, according to the U.N. resolution and according to
the
implementation, will be at the service of the Lebanese army. In other
words,
whenever the Lebanese army needs them, it will ask for their help. They
will
not carry out missions on their own."
Interviewer: "Is that your interpretation, or does it appear in the
resolution?"
Naim Qassem: "It appears in the resolution."
Interviewer: "Article 12 states that UNIFIL is authorized to take all
necessary action to ensure that its area of operations is not utilized
for
hostile activities, and to resist attempts by forceful means to prevent
it
from discharging its duties."
Naim Qassem: "This refers to hostile activities that Israel might
commit,
because we do not carry out hostile activities."
[...]
Interviewer: "Will the operations in the Shaba' Farms continue?"
Naim Qassem: "This requires some consideration, and I would prefer not
to
respond right now, because this is a sensitive issue that requires
deliberation, according to the developments. Allah willing, we will
give our
response soon."
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:06:05 -0400
Subject: IRANIAN THREATS
Identical to al-Qaeda's threats...interesting?
It's out in the open and they aren't joking
http://jewishworldreview.com/0804/memri_iran_attack.php3
http://www.jewishworldreview.com
| There are growing indications that
Iran
may be planning an attack on American soil. These indicators are not
secret
- they appear in speeches, newspaper articles, TV programs, and sermons
in
Iran by figures linked to the supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei, and other government officials, all discussing potential
Iranian
attacks on America, which will subsequently lead to its destruction.
A report on May 28 in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat reported that an Iranian
intelligence unit has established a center called "The Brigades of the
Shahids of the Global Islamic Awakening."The paper claimed that it had
obtained a tape with a speech by Hassan Abbassi, a Revolutionary Guards
intelligence theoretician who teaches at Al-Hussein University. In the
tape,
Mr. Abbassi spoke of Tehran's secret plans, which include "a strategy
drawn
up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization." In order to
accomplish
this, he explained, "There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in
the
West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going
to
attack them."
It was reported that America expelled two Iranian security guards
employed
by Tehran's U.N. offices on June 29, after the mission was repeatedly
warned
against allowing its guards to videotape bridges, the Statue of
Liberty, and
New York's subway system.This was the third time the Iranians have been
caught in such activities, which could be connected to the sites
mentioned
in potential plans to attack America.
Mr. Abbassi's speech further detailed that "[Iran's] missiles are now
ready
to strike at their civilization, and as soon as the instructions arrive
from
Leader [Ali Khamenei], we will launch our missiles at their cities and
installations." In fact over the past few months, Mr. Khamenei has been
vocal about the impending "destruction of the U.S." In May, he was
quoted in
the Iranian paper Jomhouri-Ye Eslami as saying that "the world will
witness
the annihilation of this arrogant regime." On July 5, in front of a
crowd
chanting, "Woe to the enemy if Khamenei commands me to wage jihad," Mr.
Khamenei said, "If someone harms our people and invades our country, we
will
endanger his interests anywhere in the world."
Other Iranian religious leaders have also called for the destruction of
America. The secretary general of the Guardian Council, Ayatollah Ahmad
Jannati, appeared on Iran's Channel 1 TV on June 4 and said, "Every
Muslim
and every honorable man who is not a Muslim must stand against the
Americans, English, and Israelis, and endanger their interests wherever
they
may be." When he added "They must not have security," thousands in the
audience repeated chants of "Islam is victorious, America will be
annihilated." On June 25,Mr.Jannati also led prayers and promised,
"Anyone
who confronted the revolution, the Imam [Khomeini], and our dedicated
people
eventually collapsed. America is the last one, and Allah willing it
will
collapse..."The following week Ayatollah Mohammad Emami-Kashani
delivered
the Friday sermon live on Channel 1, saying America will collapse like
Genghis Khan's empire, "I say to you the American people.you will
collapse,
America will collapse."
"Time bombs within America" is how Iranian lawmaker Hamid-Reza
Katoziyan
described Muslims within America, who could be behind future terrorist
attacks here. Speaking on Iranian TV channel Jaam-E-Jam 2 on July 27,
Mr.
Katoziyan warned: "The whole group of people belonging to the Arab
community
and.Muslims living in the U.S. are currently, in my opinion, in a
special
situation. Perhaps they do not walk the streets with weapons in their
hands
or attach bombs to themselves in order to carry out a suicide
operation, but
the thought is there."
Just as statements from Iranian religious and political leaders, as
well as
TV programs, have focused on attacking America, so has the print press.
An
editorial in the July 6 edition of the Iranian daily Kayhan, the
conservative paper affiliated with Mr. Khamenei, issued another warning
for
the future: ".the White House's 80 years of exclusive rule are likely
to
become 80 seconds of hell that will burn to ashes.That very day, those
who
resist [Iran] will be struck from directions they never expected. The
heartbeat of the crisis is undoubtedly [dictated by] the hand of Iran."
The report by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the
United
States asks: "September 11 was a day of unprecedented shock.The nation
was
unprepared.How can we avoid such tragedy again? "Taking seriously
Iran's
threatening words and actions is an important first step.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington
and in
the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update.
It's
free. Just click here.
Steven Stalinsky is Executive Director of The Middle East Media
Research
Institute (www.memri.org). Click here to comment on this column.
I am so glad you are doing a bit better.
Don't get over tired and go backwards.
Yes, much news and more coming in by the minute.
Thanks for the link.
Your site looks good, very good.
Google Alert - free arab voice
AT&T MICHIGAN ADDS ARABIC-LANGUAGE OUTREACH TO MULTICULTURAL ...
dBusinessNews Detroit (press release) - Detroit,MI,USA
... through Language Line, the call is free of charge ... International
Arab Festival and the Arab and Chaldean ... Internet, local and long
distance
voice, and directory ...
http://detroit.dbusinessnews.com/shownews.php?newsid=89639&type_news=latest
Return of the Syrian option Monday, August 21, 2006
By Robert Rosenberg in Tel Aviv at http://www.ariga.com
Updated exclusively for subscribers
http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?fr=yalerts-keyword&c=&p=%22Syria%22&ei=utf-8
Monday, August 21, 2006 2:34 PM PDT
Olmert rules out negotiations with Syria
AP via Yahoo! News Mon, 21 Aug 2006 9:28 AM PDT
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Monday ruled out a resumption of negotiations with Syria at this time, saying Damascus must first end its support for militant groups.
Israeli PM says no talks with Syria, but possible with Lebanon
AFP via Yahoo! News Mon, 21 Aug 2006 8:53 AM PDT
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has ruled out any resumption of peace talks with Syria as long as Damascus supported "terrorism," but said negotiations were possible with Lebanon.
Turkish FM to visit Syria for Lebanon talks
AFP via Yahoo! News Mon, 21 Aug 2006 3:47 AM PDT
Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul is to make a brief visit to Syria to discus the conflict in Lebanon, his ministry has said.
Olmert Rules Out Peace Talks With Syria
San Francisco Chronicle Mon, 21 Aug 2006 5:56 AM PDT
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Monday ruled out a resumption of negotiations with Syria at this time, saying Damascus must first end its support for militant groups. Olmert spoke just hours after a minister in his Cabinet urged a resumption of...
Report: Iran, Syria re-arming Hezbollah
UPI Mon, 21 Aug 2006 2:29 PM PDT
TEHRAN, Aug. 21 (UPI) -- Iran and Syria are working to replenish weaponry and funding for Hezbollah militants in Lebanon, a London Arabic newspaper reported Monday.
No Talks With Syria As Long As It Supports Terror, Israel Says
Crosswalk.com Mon, 21 Aug 2006 8:45 AM PDT
Jerusalem (CNSNews.com ) - Israeli planes flew over the Mediterranean coastline of Lebanon and its border with Syria on Monday, as Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that Israel has no intention of negotiating with Syria as long as it supports terrorist groups.
Israeli PM rules out talks with Syria
AFP via Yahoo! UK & Ireland News Mon, 21 Aug 2006 3:53 AM PDT
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has ruled out resuming peace talks with Syria as long as Damascus continues to support "terrorism".
Israel's vice premier says time is not right to resume peace talks with Syria
Boston Herald Mon, 21 Aug 2006 5:44 AM PDT
KIRYAT SHEMONA, Israel - Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Monday ruled out a resumption of negotiations with Syria at this time, saying Damascus must first end its support for militant groups. Olmert spoke...
Foreign Minister Gul Due To Syria
TurkishPress.com Mon, 21 Aug 2006 9:59 AM PDT
ANKARA - Turkish FM & Deputy PM Abdullah Gul will pay a working visit to Syria on Tuesday. Turkish MFA said on Monday that Gul was scheduled to meet President Bashar al-Asad and FM Walid Mualem.
Turkish FM to visit Syria for Lebanon talks
TurkishPress.com Mon, 21 Aug 2006 10:05 AM PDT
ANKARA - Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul is to make a brief visit to Syria to discus the conflict in Lebanon, his ministry said Monday. A statement said he would meet Tuesday Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his counterpart Walid al-Muallem, returning to Ankara the same day.
See more news stories that match my keyword
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=com.netscape%3Aen-US&q=wiki+pages%2C+collectively+know+as+the+&btnG=Search
http://www.gcn.com/print/25_25/41673-1.html
Interesting reading on using the wiki, seems it should be useful for good and not good purposes.
http://www.google.com/search?q=cia+wiki+pages&client=netscape-pp&rls=com.netscape:en-US
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kryptos
CIA front companies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Central_Intelligence_Agency
Engine explosion blamed for April F-16 crash near Luke AFB
KVOA.com - Tucson,AZ,USA
PHOENIX An engine explosion is blamed for the crash last spring of an
Air
Force F-16-C fighter jet in a Glendale cornfield. The ...
http://kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=5306930&nav=HMO6
See all stories on this topic:
http://news.google.com/news?ie=utf8&oe=utf8&persist=1&hl=en&client=google&ncl=http://kvoa.com/Global/story.asp%3FS%3D5306930%26nav%3DHMO6
Wrongful-death lawsuit filed over Carlinville house explosion
Belleville News-Democrat - Belleville,IL,USA
EDWARDSVILLE, Ill. - Survivors of three people killed in a Macoupin
County
house explosion that police suspect was caused by leaking natural gas
are suing the ...
http://www.belleville.com/mld/belleville/news/politics/15326631.htm
See all stories on this topic:
http://news.google.com/news?ie=utf8&oe=utf8&persist=1&hl=en&client=google&ncl=http://www.belleville.com/mld/belleville/news/politics/15326631.htm
Special Dispatch-Syria
August 22, 2006
No. 1256
Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad Praises the Resistance, Harshly
Criticizes
Arab Leaders, and Threatens Israel
To view this Special Dispatch in HTML, visit:
http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD125606 .
In an August 15, 2006 speech at the fourth conference of the Syrian
Journalists' Union, in Damascus, Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad
praised the
resistance as "essential for the achievement of peace" and for the
restoration
of Arab territories and rights, and threatened that "[Israel's]
weapons...
will not protect [it] in the future" from Arab vengeance. He also
accused the
Arab leaders of serving Israel's and America's interests.
The following are excerpts from the speech, published in English by the
Syrian
news agency SANA.(1)
"In the Lexicon of Some Arabs, 'Victory' is Equivalent to 'Adventurism'
and
'Recklessness'"
"Ladies and gentlemen, [participants in] the fourth general conference
of the
Journalists' Union, it gives me pleasure to meet you at the opening of
...
your fourth conference and to express my appreciation for you... and
for [all]
the honest and honorable journalists who have been fighting a media
battle no
less ferocious and dangerous than the battles fought by your brothers
on the
fields of honor and dignity.
"Your battle aims at preserving the intellect and the spirit of the
nation,
and at protecting its identity and heritage against the systematic
invasion
which violates its dignity, tears apart it[s] unity, distorts its
cause, and
strikes at its will to resist by promoting a culture of defeatism,
submission,
and blind adherence to agendas set by the enemy and by those who
support it
and promote its projects.
"I am glad to meet you in this new Middle East - new in the sense that
we
understand and in the shape we want, although it is not yet complete.
It is
new with the achievements of the resistance; new in that it has drawn
clear
lines between the different forces; new in uncovering the games and
conspiracies and in lifting their masks and fake terminology in an
unprecedented manner. This is the new Middle East which Syria has been
repeatedly promoting as the only hope for the Arabs if they are to have
a
place under the sun in the political and material sense. You all know
that it
was not easy for us to convince many people of our vision of the
future. We
had to wait for the future to become the present and to speak for
itself.
Today the facts speak for themselves, not only as we imagined them in
the past
but in a clearer and more expressive manner.
"We meet today, when the Middle East they aspire to, and which is based
on
submission, humiliation and on depriving peoples of their identities
and their
rights, has become an illusion. It has actually turned into a popular
uprising
throughout the Arab world, an uprising which is pan-Arab by nature, and
is
characterized by dignity and by rejection of all pretexts and excuses
[which
aim to] keep us submissive, so that we will be killed in silence, like
the
sacrifices that were once offered to avoid the wrath of the gods. In
the past,
offering sacrifices was considered a form of wisdom. So are we supposed
to
adhere to that wisdom today? And does wisdom have a meaning when it has
been
separated from courage?
"If we are supposed to follow the example of the invasion of Iraq,
which
reminds us of dark periods in mankind's past,... [then it appears that]
some
of our Arab sages still adhere to that wisdom today. For wisdom to
exist, it
must be coupled with courage in order to give people the stability that
[is]
necessary in order to make them wise. But when fear exists, there is no
place
for fake wisdom which leads... to defeat and humiliation disguised as
wisdom.
"In our present Arab world, we might achieve victory under another
false
label, namely 'adventurism' or 'recklessness.' If 'wisdom' has come to
mean
'defeat' and 'humiliation' in the lexicon of some Arabs, it is natural
to find
that, in their lexicon, 'victory' is equivalent to 'adventurism' and
'recklessness.'"
"Throughout the Peace Process, We Arabs Adopted Peace as the Only
Choice, and
Abandoned All the Other Choices"
"In order not to become absorbed in theoretical discourse, let us ask
ourselves what we have achieved by being led - unwisely, irrationally
and
recklessly - by some of our supposed Arab sages over many decades. We
have
achieved a great deal, but against our interests. Let us take the peace
process, for example, and ask whether it has succeeded or failed.
Recently, we
have been constantly talking about the failure of the peace process.
All this
talk about the failure and the death of the peace process is absolutely
true,
but it is more accurate to say that the Arabs are the ones who failed
in the
peace process since they did not understand the meaning of making peace
a
strategic choice. They did not distinguish between making peace a
strategic
choice and making it the only choice. When a certain strategic choice
exists,
that does not mean that there are no other strategic choices, or that
there
are no other tactical, but not necessarily strategic, choices.
"Throughout the peace process, we Arabs adopted peace as the only
choice, and
abandoned all the other choices. Later, we then replaced this single
choice
with the choice of peace given cheaply or for no reward at all.
According to
this choice, we offer Israel everything and get very little in return.
In fact
and in practice, we have offered a great deal, and some of us have
offered
everything, and have gotten nothing in return. That is why we see the
Palestinians paying the price now, and this is why Syria refused, based
on its
vision, to relinquish any of its rights. When we say that we have made
peace
our strategic choice, it does not mean that we have rejected all other
choices. On the contrary, as the realization of peace becomes more and
more
elusive, other ways and methods of regaining our rights become more
important
and necessary. On the other hand, we in Syria have stressed this choice
- the
choice of peace - from the very beginning of the peace process, but we
adhered
to
the choice of resistance as long as peace has not been realized,
particularly
since the assumed partner in peace does not believe in this theory in
the
first place, and has provided us with one proof after another in
confirmation
of this fact.
"Leaving aside the many massacres perpetrated by Israel against the
Arabs, and
other [pieces of] evidence, there is the clear evidence of the
statement
[made] by former Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Shamir at the beginning
of the
peace process, in 1991, when he said they will make the process last
for ten
years, which means that peace would not be achieved. That is what
happened.
Today, 15 years later, peace has not been achieved. Before the
[beginning of
the] peace process, Israel used to say that it wanted peace while Arabs
wanted
war. It surprised them that the Arabs agreed to become involved in the
peace
process. That is why they reacted by making this public statement.
"But the accepted Arab wisdom used to be that we have to close our eyes
in
order to embarrass Israel before the international community, which has
been
reduced to a few states which support Israel, ignoring and neglecting
the rest
of the world which mostly supports our causes. The result was that we
have
embarrassed [ourselves] in front of our Arab people. We lost our
respect and
credibility in front of our friends and enemies alike. This was the
Arab
responsibility for the failure of the peace process."
"[Israel] is an Enemy... It Does Not Want Peace"
"But what about the responsibility of others, with the exception, of
course,
of Israel and the United States? The whole world became interested in
the
Middle East after the 1973 war. They focused all their attention on our
region
and started to talk about peace. This continued until we started the
peace
process in Madrid. This [process] went through different stages. When
most of
the countries of the world were assured that peace negotiations had
been
launched, they handed the whole process over to the United States,
which
remained its sole sponsor. [The United States], in turn, handed the
process
over to Israel. So every proposal made to the Arabs during that period
was
either an Israeli proposal or a proposal approved by the Israelis.
"When most countries realized that the Arabs had dropped the real
choice for
peace, and replaced it with peace at the pleasure of Israel and the
United
States, they turned their back on the peace process and on us. Only
today,
during these battles, they remembered the peace process and remembered
us. Of
course we have to exclude Israel and the United States from this
category,
because Israel is an enemy, and as I have said, it does not want peace.
To
achieve peace, Israel must return the occupied land and restore the
usurped
rights, but it is an enemy [state] which was built on the basis of
aggression
and expansionism. We have always said that the United States is
necessary and
essential to the peace process owing to its position as a superpower
and its
relations with different parties. But not just any United States. This
administration adopts the principle of preemptive war that is
absolutely
contradictory to the principle of peace. This administration has been
in power
for six
years, and there is [still] no peace. Consequently, we do not expect
peace
soon or [any time] in the foreseeable future.
"We ask: Have they remembered us lately because of the death and
destruction
that the Israeli terrorism has caused in Lebanon? Of course not. The
Palestinians have been subjected to killing and destruction for years,
yet we
did not hear of initiatives, solutions or extensive activity of the UN
Security Council, like we see today. Have they [finally] acted because
they
are afraid of chaos or because they are concerned for the security of
the
region which affects them directly? The region's security is a
sufficient
reason for them to act, but the region has been on the verge of
explosion for
years, and they did not act. So why are they acting at this stage?
"The fact is that they act only when Israel is in pain. And Israel is
never in
pain except when we have power. This means, in the final analysis, that
the
world does not care about our interests, feelings and rights except
when we
are powerful... With their words, they push us towards peace, but with
their
actions they push us towards war. Hence, the countries concerned with
the
peace process, which are mostly European, are responsible for what is
happening.
"We might wonder what motivates some officials in these countries to
convey
messages and make statements concerning [some] ill prisoner [imprisoned
in
some Arab state]. They are so concerned about the medical condition of
this
prisoner. What nobility! What humanity! What greatness! [But] we might
ask:
Where were these same officials when massacres were perpetrated in
Lebanon?
All those women, children and elderly people [killed], and all this
destruction, yet we have not heard anything from them - no messages and
no
protests, only some timid statements. I say that this has [completely
undermined] their credibility. This means that their messages have
other
objectives. We know these objectives, but things have now become very
clear.
"We might also ask that French official, [who is so full of]
enthusiasm,
particularly when it comes to Syria, whether he is going to call for an
international investigation committee to investigate the massacre of
Qana, not
to mention the other massacres, the way he called for an investigation
into
the assassination of [former Lebanese] prime minister Hariri. [Does he
treat
the two cases differently] because, in the first case, the suspect was
Syria,
and this is a sufficient motive and justification [for an
investigation],
while in the second case the suspect is Israel, so nothing should be
done? Or
[perhaps] the children of Qana and the other poor people do not deserve
this
official's attention?"
"Resistance Does Not Stand in Contradiction to Peace"
"We are convinced that the natural way to achieve peace is through
negotiations. But when this option fails, or when it is not available
in the
first place, resistance, in its different forms, is the alternative
[way] to
restore rights. Resistance does not necessarily or exclusively [mean]
armed
[resistance] - it could be cultural or political [resistance], or other
forms
of opposition. So the aim of supporting the resistance is not to
achieve war
but to achieve peace by deterring aggression. If this does not work, it
can be
through war in order to liberate the land. Resistance does not stand in
contradiction to peace, and is not an alternative to it. In our
circumstances
at least, it is necessary for the achievement of peace. Otherwise, the
result
will be that we will lose [both] the war and the battle for peace -
particularly since Israel and those standing behind it have totally
turned
towards the military option based on preemptive war, while we Arabs
have
remained in our place,
debating and negotiating among ourselves, based on our belief in the
promised
peace with an illusory partner that prepares itself on a daily basis
for its
next [act of] aggression against the Arabs.
"The issue of resistance and its importance has been a subject of long
discussions with foreign and Arab officials for over a decade now. In
the
period before the liberation of most of the Lebanese territories in
2000, we
discussed this issue with Arab and foreign officials. It did not
surprise us,
of course, that foreigners were unable to understand our reasoning, but
in our
deliberations with Arabs, which are of interest to us, we used to tell
them
that this resistance will liberate Lebanon, and they - I mean some of
them, of
course - used to answer that [the operations of the resistance] were
more like
cat scratches [i.e. ineffective]. In 2000, Lebanon was liberated thanks
to the
resistance, which proved they were wrong and we were right. After 2000,
we
again started to have the same kind of discussions, since we Arabs are
sometimes fond of repeating history with all its details without
[making any]
progress. The same discussion took place, and pressure was exerted on
Syria
with
regard to the same issue. Our answer was that the resistance is a
deterrent
to any Israeli aggression, reasoning that they once again rejected. The
recent
battles now prove the [validity of] this reasoning..."
"[Certain] Lebanese Groups Failed to Implement Their Pro-Israel Scheme,
so
They Incited Israel to Carry Out a Military Invasion"
"The latest developments in Lebanon have proven the validity of that
reasoning. The aggression against Lebanon is not primarily linked to
the
abduction of the two soldiers, but was planned in advance with the
objective
of [mending] the Israeli scheme that has suffered several setbacks such
as the
defeat of the Israeli army by the resistance and its withdrawal [from
Lebanon]
in 2000, and the failure of its allies in Lebanon to carry out the
missions
that were delegated to them in the recent past. As for the abduction,
it was
merely a justification for starting this aggression, [meant to appease]
world
[opinion]. However, the result was another failure for Israel, for its
allies
and for its masters, and greater [determination on the part of] the
national
forces that support the resistance, rooting the concept of resistance
more
firmly in the minds and hearts of hundreds of millions in the Arab and
Islamic
region.
"Everyone now knows that the plan was prepared in advance, and many
have
written about the fact that this war had been planned years before. In
the
Western and Arab media, it is said... that the scheme took its final
shape
last June and was supposed to be implemented next fall. Some say that
[one of
Israel's] considerations [in choosing the timing] was the tourism
season, but
of course Israel could not have been worried about the tourism season -
perhaps they were concerned about the interest of their agents in
Lebanon.
"This reminds us of what I said in my speech before the Parliament on
March 5,
2005, [namely] that what is happening now is similar to what happened
on May
17. Many [members] of the young generation do not recall what took
place on
May 17, 1983. Before the [Israeli] invasion of Lebanon in 1982, there
were
Lebanese forces that worked as agents for Israel. Those forces failed
in their
plans to strike the joint Palestinian-Lebanese resistance, so they
started to
incite [Israel] and called on it to save them by waging a war. And the
war
indeed took place with the objective of hitting the resistance and
incorporating Lebanon into the Israeli convoy. May 17 failed. Today,
there are
similar repercussions: Lebanese groups failed to implement their
pro-Israel
scheme, so they incited Israel to carry out a military invasion in
order to
save them from their predicament and attack the resistance, thereby
[forcing]
Lebanon to join the Israeli camp.
"In both cases there was Arab backing. That is why I stressed the May
17
incident. When a product fails in the world of business, it is
reintroduced
into the market with a new brand-name, with certain superficial
changes.
Similarly, no matter what name we give to those groups - whether we
call them
February forces or March forces - I stress that their product is the
May 17
product, which is an Israeli product. This [statement] will naturally
provoke
many attacks on TV, which will be helpful in assessing the impact of
this
speech. The more violent the attack, the better the speech, I think. Of
course
we will laugh a lot because there is a lot of political comedy today in
the
Lebanese political scene.
"Now we can establish the connection between [U.N.] Resolutions 1559,
1780 and
1701, Hariri's assassination, and the recent war on the one hand, and
the role
of [the aforementioned] Lebanese forces and certain Arab forces on the
other.
The link has now become clear. You remember that, two years ago or
maybe even
less, we used to say that Resolution 1559 had nothing to do with the
extension
of President Lahoud's term in office. At the time, it was quite
difficult to
convince people of that. Now the same thing is happening again. The war
has
nothing to do with the capture of the two soldiers, and the whole world
acknowledges this. Therefore, nothing has anything to do with anything.
There
is a preplanned scheme and whoever fails to see this reality, after all
these
events, when matters are so clear, must be suffering from a vision
problem - I
mean vision of the mind rather than of the eye."
"The Resistance is Essential... Natural and Legitimate"
"Therefore, this resistance is essential in as much as it is natural
and
legitimate. Its legitimacy stems from the fact that the Israeli
aggression did
not stop in 2000 - it takes the form of almost daily invasion of
Lebanese
airspace by Israeli warplanes. Add to this [the fact] that Israel is
still
occupying some Lebanese territories and is still holding Lebanese
prisoners
who have been [kept] in Israeli jails for a long time.
"As for why this resistance is essential, let us just think of the
direct
achievements of the most recent battles on the ground. The greatest
achievement of those battles is that they constituted a national
response to
the cowardly propositions that have been circulating throughout our
region,
especially since the invasion of Iraq. What made them [even] more
glorious was
the reaction of the Arab people in general, which was a purely pan-Arab
response to the abominable and seditious propositions that we have
recently
heard and to those who stand behind [these propositions]. It is as
though
these people are saying to [those who make the propositions]: 'We are
Arabs
and this is our resistance and those who do not support it are against
us.'
This means that the national feeling is still there, and has not been
weakened
as some might claim. On the contrary, this feeling is now at its peak,
thus
surpassing all the destructive thoughts that suspicious parties with
well-known ends are
seeking to market among the Arab citizens.
"The glorious battles fought by the resistance with uncommon faith and
competence have demonstrated a number of facts: The first is that
military
force, no matter how great, meets with defeat when it does not have
faith and
morals, and when it is not based on legitimate rights and principled
policy.
The second [fact] is that resistance which has faith, determination and
steadfastness, and which endorses the vision, principles and goals of
the
people and is [itself] endorsed and adopted by [the people] achieves
victory.
In these circumstances, the victory of the heavily armed is reduced to
destruction of [buildings] and to killing of civilians. And since any
occupation is an immoral act, it is doomed to fail and to be defeated.
Israel
is the best example of this. Military force is not everything and the
destructive force of weapons is not everything.
"The only thing Israel possesses is destructive force at the military
level,
and some additional [advantages] on the international level. But it
does have
one very big advantage, namely the weakness of the Arabs, both moral
and
physical. When we decide to close this gap, a decision that is only up
to us,
the balance is undoubtedly in our favor. This is the third fact which
stresses
the limited [nature] of the Israeli force despite its superiority. This
limitedness is determined by the intensity of our faith, our
steadfastness and
our will to fight, and that should enhance our self-confidence and
erase all
traces of psychological defeat fostered by the enemy's propaganda...
This fact
should further motivate Israel to consider the future outcomes of its
terrorist policy against the Arabs.
"Here we can draw a comparison between... the war [in Lebanon] in 1982,
24
years ago, and the last war in Lebanon a few days ago. In 1982, Israel
started
its war or ground invasion on June 6, and reached Ba'abda, overlooking
Beirut,
on June 13. In other words, on the seventh day [of the war] Israel was
very
close to Beirut. Then they resumed the process of surrounding and
occupying
Beirut. Today, after almost five weeks, Israel is still struggling to
occupy
several hundreds of meters here and several hundreds of meters there,
and they
are trying to reach the point closest to the Litani River, which is
only six
kilometers [away], and yet they fail. [In fact,] I am sure that if
there had
been some spring or tributary of the Litani on the Palestinian-Lebanese
border, they would have put their feet in the water and said 'we have
reached
the Litani!' They have become an object of ridicule and have lost the
credibility which they never had in the first place. They say 'we have
occupied a
location,' and then they say 'we have bombed the location.' It is
supposed to
happen in the opposite order. It is common sense that you first bomb a
site,
then occupy it.
"In any case, what is the difference between the first war and the
second? In
1982, the material gap between the Israeli [side] and the
Palestinian-Lebanese
side in [terms of] military resources was smaller than the gap [that
exists]
today. Israel's power has doubled several times during this period and
today
there is a wide gap between [the Israeli army] and the resistance. But
the
[real] difference between them lies in the will to fight. As a matter
of fact,
in 1982 there were tough Palestinian and Lebanese fighters who fought
in the
real sense of the word. But this was not enough, since in those days,
certain
leaderships did not have any will to fight at all, whereas now the will
to
fight is there, both among the lower [ranks] and at the top, and there
is
popular support for the resistance that helped it to succeed. This is a
major
difference between the two wars that we need to be aware of."
"[This War] Exposed the [Arab Leaders as] Half-Men and [as] People With
Half-Positions"
"Another positive aspect of this war is that it has revealed the [real]
situation of the Arabs. Before this war, if we had asked any Arab
citizen
about the situation of the Arabs, he would have said that [the
situation] is
bad, which is true. But the Arab citizens used to have a [distorted]
image of
the Arab situation. Now they see it as it really is, without any
cosmetics.
This war prevented the use of such cosmetics in that it shed light on
[people's] positions in a very clear way. There was no room for
half-solutions
in this war. It exposed the half-men and the people with
half-positions, and
exposed all the [people with] 'delayed' positions, i.e. those who were
waiting
to see where the scale of strength would settle before aligning their
positions [with those of the victorious side]. This is one of the very
important qualities of this war.
"For all the above-mentioned reasons, Israel regarded this battle as a
matter
of life or death - because it causes Israel to lose its dignity and its
moral
influence on us, and thus [causes it] to lose the historical role and
the
mission for which it was created by the West. That is why they have
been
working so hard to make up for their military defeat and for their
failure to
achieve their objectives on the ground. [They have been trying to
compensate
for their defeat] by means of any political or international
achievement that
could justify Israel's continued existence and its role in the eyes of
its
citizens, leaders, and allies.
"As usual, their only outlet is the Security Council, which the U.S.
has
transformed from a council that preserves security into one that
destroys it
by issuing a resolution that responds to Israel's demands and saves it
from
its predicament at the expense of Lebanon, paving the way for further
division
and instability.
"If we examine the Security Council resolutions issued in the last two
years,
i.e. Resolutions 1559, 1860 and 1701, and the resolutions concerning
Darfour,
for instance,... we will completely understand where the Security
Council is
headed. It is headed towards interfering in the domestic affairs of
member
countries and towards generating unrest. Some people say the Security
Council
is impotent, but this is not true. The Security Council was impotent
when an
international balance existed. Had the Security Council been impotent
now, the
United States would not have relied on it to harm different places
around the
world.
"The truth is that the rest of the world, or perhaps most of it, has
become
impotent in the face of the Security Council. We used to refer to 'the
international community.' The international community is a group of
countries,
some of which are members of the Security Council, and some of which
are their
allies outside the Security Council. They fight us with or without the
Security Council resolutions, which means they will fight us in any
event. Yet
the Security Council resolutions give them more freedom of action in
this
battle. Our weakness also stems from the fact that, whenever we speak
of the
Security Council, some people in the Arab World and in the world at
large say
'this is a Security Council resolution,' or 'this is what the Security
Council
wants', as if it were a council with divine power, or as if its
resolutions
are sacred or revealed by God, and this is certainly dangerous."
"The National Decision [Must] Always Take Precedence Over any
International
Decision, Even if it Leads... to War"
"The solution, therefore - as I said in earlier stages when I talked
about
Resolution 1559 at Damascus University - is that the national decision
[must]
always take precedence over any international decision, even if this
leads to
fighting and war. We have no other option. This is what we recently
said to
whoever contacted us, to everybody we contacted and to everybody we met
with
during the hostilities. We said that any resolution issued by the
Security
Council - whether under Chapter VII or under any other chapter - will
either
remain unimplemented or will lead to instability if they try to
implement it
by force, against the will of the countries of the region, or - in the
case of
Lebanon - outside the Lebanese consensus. [If we take this decision],
the
Security Council will be in a different position. When all the
countries
decide that the national decision takes precedence [over the Security
Council
resolutions], we will no longer have to be afraid of the Security
Council
because
it will reflect the balance of power. We have decided to be weak. When
we
decide to be strong, this balance will change with or without
resolutions.
"So we shouldn't waste time and speak of a good or bad resolution in
light of
this international balance. Here I will move away from the diplomatic
expressions used by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs... and say that,
when a
resolution concerns Israel and the Arabs, it can [only] be a bad
resolution, a
worse resolution, or a [slightly] less bad resolution. Since the United
States
is the antagonist and the arbitrator at the same time, the assessment
will
[always] be like this.
"But does this mean that Resolution 1701 contains no positive elements
at all?
No. It does contain some positive elements. For us, the most important
element
is [the call to] stop the war, stop the destruction of Lebanon and stop
the
killing of innocent civilians, children, women, elderly people and
others.
This is an essential goal for the Arabs, for Lebanon and for Syria, and
also,
I believe, for many [other] countries and peoples around the world."
"[Resolution 1701] Held the Resistance Movement Accountable [for the
War]...
We Cannot Accept [This]"
"Yet experience has taught us that the form may be positive while the
content
is negative. This is the only problem with this resolution. It held the
resistance movement [i.e. Hizbullah] accountable. I don't want to go
into the
details, but this point is one of the striking and stark facts that we
cannot
accept. Who should be held accountable? I'm not expressing a position
here,
but everybody [believes] - even outside the Arab and Muslim region -
that
Israel is the party who should be held accountable. We still have to
say that
those who encouraged Israel to attack Lebanon, and who stood by and
supported
[Israel], should be held accountable as well.
"The May 17 Group is responsible for the destruction, the massacres,
and the
war, from beginning to end. Resolution 1701 came as a political lever
for this
group, aimed, of course, at providing Israel with the political gains
that it
failed to achieve by military means. The resolution was also an
international
political lever. Why international? Because these people no longer have
any
national lever, so they were forced to find an international one. They
will
use this lever to start attacking the resistance, and we have already
seen
that. Before the blood of the victims was dry... and even before the
displaced
[people] headed back to their villages, the May 17 Group members were
already
starting to talk about disarming the resistance movement. This means
that one
of their tasks, now that the war has failed, is to save the current
Israeli
government and Israel's domestic front, either by instigating internal
strife
in Lebanon, thereby transferring the internal political struggle from
Israel to Lebanon, or through the option of disarming the resistance.
But I
say to those people that they have failed and that their fall is
imminent.
"The battles have also proved that the Arabs' words have no weight or
significance in international forums. Only rarely have we Arabs come to
a
complete agreement on anything, but we did achieve that in the Beirut
meeting,
and [then] the Arab delegation, representing all the Arab countries
without
exception, flew to New York [only] to face rejection and indifference.
This
indifference obviously wasn't directed at the delegation members, but
rather
at those who stood behind it, i.e. the Arab countries.
"Indeed, it was the situation on the ground, and the steadfastness of
the
Lebanese people and of the resistance, rather than the Arabs' political
performance, which [caused] the previous draft resolution to be
modified into
the current version, which is not as bad. This is an important fact we
must
realize. We have come to the conclusion that, in all these matters,
relying on
the international situation does not yield fruitful results. As Arabs,
if we
do not search for points of strength, we have no weight or political
impact,
and all this talk is mere illusion.
"I believe that the real battle has only started, but not in military
terms.
Now that the post-war positions have been revealed, the real battle has
just
started in Lebanon. But we all heard the speech of Hizbullah
Secretary-General
Mr. Hassan Nasrallah, who answered them. He who reads the messages
understands
the content. We believe that not only the Syrians, but all the Arab
people
stand by the resistance completely and unequivocally."
"In Military Terms, the Resistance Achieved a Victory, Whereas Israel
was
Defeated; We Must Translate the Military Victory Into a Political
[One]"
"In military terms, the resistance achieved a victory, whereas Israel
was
defeated by any military standards - not at the end of the war but from
its
very beginning. Yet wars bring woes, and Lebanon paid a heavy price in
material [damage] and from a humanitarian [point of view]. The Arabs
must
therefore stand by Lebanon and rebuild what was destroyed. Yet the
question
is: Will the blood of the martyrs and civilians be shed in vain? The
bottom
line is that we must translate the military victory into a political
victory,
at least in [terms of] the peace process. On the political level, the
first
result of the battles was renewed talk about the necessity of achieving
peace,
of returning lands to their owners and of restoring rights. We have
been
consulted on the issue as Arabs, after such a long time. This means
that part
of this issue has now come to lie in our hands, albeit a small part.
This is
of course thanks to the resistance. Hence, standing by the resistance
and
supporting it
will help us to have a larger say in this issue, which in turn will
lead the
countries involved [in the peace process] to take our opinion and
interests
into account.
"In other words, resistance and peace constitute one route rather than
two,
and he who supports one has to support the other. Those who claim to
have the
experience and vision of peace,... [should] come and show us their
achievements in the field of resistance. Their experience is incomplete
[and
cannot] be learned from. And since we are living in an exceptional
historical
period, there is no room for courtesies, bargains or settlements.
Rather, we
have to speak frankly: We, in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, still have
occupied territories; this means we are the ones concerned with war and
peace.
In the first place we want our Arab brothers to stand with us, and we
welcome
anyone who wants to do so, but only if they share our vision and take
our
interests [into consideration]. We were the ones who suffered in war
and in
peace negotiations throughout the last decades. As for those who do not
share
our vision, we ask them only to stand aside and let us do what we have
to do.
We are not
asking anyone to fight with us or for us."
"[The Arab Countries] Must Not Adopt the Enemy's Vision on Issues That
Concern
Us"
"I say this because every time there is unrest, we hear some official
saying
'why did they drag us into this?' Nobody is dragging anyone into
anything. The
truth is that every country is responsible for itself. Naturally, they
didn't
say this to us, they said it to the resistance. But as a general
principle,
everyone is responsible for his own country. Yet the bottom line is
that they
must not adopt the enemy's vision regarding issues that concern us, and
their
roles shouldn't be at the expense of our interests. We say this because
one
who has had no experience in war is not entitled to assume the role of
a guide
or an instructor in peace[-making]. Resistance today will shape the
political
directions of tomorrow, and the position towards it today will
determine the
roles to be played tomorrow.
"In other words, the era of political opportunism and political
interference
has come to an end, especially now, after these battles. If anyone
wants to
play a role for domestic reasons, at the expense of the issues that
concern
us, we reject this. And if anyone wants to play a role in order to
appease the
West, we reject this as well. We in Syria haven't yet decided to sell
out our
cause in the international market or in any other market. I don't think
that
the Palestinians have decided to sell their cause either, after the
Oslo
[agreement], the Wye River [agreement] and the Wye Plantation
[agreement],
among others; nor do we see such a phenomenon in Lebanon.
"At the next stage, the resistance will have a fundamental role in the
Arab
arena. I don't mean the Lebanese resistance, but rather resistance as a
[general] concept that has spread significantly, especially in the
recent
[period]. But let's consider the role played by the resistance in the
last
meeting of the Arab foreign ministers. Three weeks before this meeting,
the
ministers met in Cairo in an atmosphere similar to the one that
preceded the
U.S. invasion of Iraq: almost absolute division among Arab countries.
But
then, within three weeks, without the ministers having been replaced
and
without any reshuffling of the governments, we suddenly come to a
unanimous
agreement. But on what did we agree? Or rather why did we agree? The
reason is
the Lebanese consensus.
"The essence of this Lebanese consensus is the position of the
resistance. Had
the resistance said 'we won't accept these points' or 'we have
reservations
about this or that point,' the ministers' meeting would have had no
significance, or would not have even take[n] place. And if, after the
meeting,
but the resistance had said 'we reject your ideas,' the meeting would
have
failed and everything else would have failed with it.
"This is only one role of the resistance. There is yet a bigger role
that will
be part of the domestic situation in the Arab countries. All of us Arab
officials want our countries to be stable, but such stability cannot be
realized or maintained when there is constant contradiction between the
official positions and the public positions. This contradiction reached
its
peak in the present period."
"The International Hegemonic Powers... Use [Arab] Officials and
Governments
[to Promote] Their Own Interests,... [and Even to Promote] the
Interests of
[the Arabs'] Enemies"
"Most of the Arab people have clearly and completely - or almost
completely,
since nothing is ever absolute - taken the side of the resistance and
challenged us as officials. They challenged the silence of some
[officials]
and the bias of others, and decided to move in this direction.
Therefore, I
call upon all Arab officials to stand by their people, and thus stand
by the
resistance - for the people are the key to the stability that we are
constantly evoking and seeking to achieve, especially in the present
circumstances, after the war on Iraq and the schemes to partition the
region.
"Experience has taught us that the international hegemonic powers...
use
[Arab] officials and governments [to promote] their own interests,
[acting]
against the interests of those same officials and governments and
sometimes
[even promoting] the interests of their enemies. When they have
exploited them
to the utmost, those powers even throw these officials into the pit at
the
first opportunity, so that [these officials] lose both their external
and
domestic [support].
"Ladies and gentlemen, during the last war there were many statements
in the
air which sometimes exceeded the limits of acceptability, and were very
close
or even exceeded the limits of what is permitted nationally and
morally. This
may indicate either dubious background [of those who made the
statements] or
enormous ignorance of the facts. Thus, it is wrong to consider this war
from a
narrow perspective which separates this confrontation from the general
context
of the Arab-Israeli conflict and of the peace process and its setbacks.
This
narrow perspective separates this confrontation from the content of the
Western and American plans and from what has been happening in Iraq,
Palestine
and Lebanon over the last few years. All these points confirm that this
aggression was preplanned, and clarify that the aggression was carried
out by
Israel, which was the tool, but that the decisions were taken by
America,
along with certain other Western countries. If others think that [the
war
broke out in] reaction to the abduction of two soldiers, then this is
silly
to an unprecedented degree."
"[The Resistance] Needs No Permission From the Government; The Fighters
of the
Resistance [Were Characterized as] 'Adventurous'... This is Not
Acceptable"
"Most of these propositions were made in certain documents and
statements,
like the proposition that the resistance should [only act with]
permission
from the government. In fact, resistance movements receive backing and
legitimacy from the government and the people; they do not ask
permission from
the government... there would be no resistance if it had to depend on
the
government. The word 'adventurers' was mentioned; if the fighters of
the
resistance are adventurous, then should we say that Yusuf Al-A'zma,
Sultan
Basha Al-Atrash, Hassan Al-Kharat, Ibrahim Hanano and Sheikh Salah
Al-Ali are
all adventurous as well?! Should we say that Sa'd Zaghlul in Egypt,
Suleiman
Al-Halabi, a Syrian who killed the British high commissioner in Egypt,
and
Joul Jamal, another Syrian who blew himself up on a French ship and
thus
conducted the first martyrdom operation in the Arab region, were also
adventurous?! If this is the case, then we should ask the education
ministries
throughout the Arab
World to change the curricula and all the terminology.
"Of course, this is not acceptable. We always notice the biased
[nature] of
certain Western propositions which are still being made against the
Arabs.
They say that the Israeli reaction is 'disproportionate' and
'unbalanced,'
which implies that if Israel had reacted according to a certain
proportion,
its aggression would have been acceptable. They are not against
aggression in
principle; they are against the extent of this aggression. There will
come a
day when they give us charts specifying what degree of Israeli killing
and
destruction is acceptable and cannot be considered as a violation of
any
political, human, or moral principles, or of the various international
conventions.
"It was also stated that Israel has the right to defend itself in the
face of
the aggression of the resistance. Here we see the policy of double
standards.
[Let us] apply the same concept... to the Palestinians: If they want to
react
[to Israel's aggression], to what extent [do] they have the right to
destroy
and kill in Israel?! If we apply this concept in practice, nothing will
remain
in Israel.
"At any rate, what the recent events have revealed - [namely] the
interrogations of the agent network recently captured in Lebanon, along
with
the positions of May 17th group before and after the aggression -
confirm that
this scheme, as I said before, was planned in advance, and we divide it
into
three parts:
"The first part is [U.N.] Resolution 1559, the assassination of [former
Lebanese] prime minister Hariri and the pressures on Syria and on the
resistance to comply [with Western demands].
"The second part is the failure of American occupation in Iraq.
"The third part is burying the peace process, and replacing it with the
military option in order to subjugate Arabs and, as a natural result,
to
absolve Israel of all its obligations towards the Arabs. Faced with
this
tragic reality, the resistance movements emerged in the Arab arena as
the only
way to restore the usurped rights."
"There Will Come a Generation Which Will Be [Even] More Determined to
Hit
Israel and to Avenge its Past Actions; When That Time Comes, Israeli
Children
Will Pay the Price"
"After all that has been said, Israel should come to certain
conclusions, but
is seems that they are not assessing [the situation]; they did not
[correctly]
assess the situation and power of the resistance. It seems that when a
person
becomes very strong, he loses balance and cannot see reality rationally
and
accurately. Israel has tried for decades to be a part of this region
through a
scheme which was once called 'the Greater Middle East' - I don't know
if this
is the same as the 'New Middle East' or if it's the same [plan] with
some
modifications. But, [in any case], the [concept] is an old one: Israel
is the
dominant power in the Arab region and the Arabs are just slaves, [a
source of]
money, and satellites orbiting Israel. They relied on a basic
assumption that
each new Arab generation would accept Israel more than the previous one
did,
and would thus be more obedient. Therefore, it is just a matter of
time, and
time is on Israel's side! Let us examine the [actual] reality: if
we assume that a generation is 15-20 years, I consider myself as
representing
the third generation since the occupation of Palestine. Now, some
[members] of
the fourth generation are present with us in this hall, they represent
that
portion of the youth that has become politically mature. The fact that
Israel
needs to realize is that each new generation will hate Israel more than
the
preceding generation.
"The word 'hatred' is not a good one; we do not hate or encourage
people to
hate, but Israel did not leave room for any feeling but hatred. For
example,
we have read about the massacre of Dir-Yassin and other massacres
perpetrated
by Israel against Arabs, but I and other members of my generation lived
and
witnessed the Sabra and Shatila massacres and the first Qana massacre,
and now
we have witnessed the second Qana massacre. The fourth generation
remembers
the first Qana massacre and the second Qana massacre. Children now are
asking
'why are those children dying?!' They are developing their awareness
through
the second Qana massacre. Therefore, Israel should know that time is
not on
its side. On the contrary, there will come a generation which will be
[even]
more determined to hit Israel and avenge all its past actions. When
that time
comes, Israeli children will pay the price."
"[Israel,] your Weapons, Warplanes, Rockets and Even Your Atomic Bombs
Will
Not Protect You in the Future... Future Generations of the Arab World
Will
Find the Way to Defeat Israel"
"I would like to speak about the reality we live in. If Israel wants to
[engage in] analysis, it should analyze the Arab-Israeli wars in 1948,
1956,
1967, 1973, 1982, the confrontations with the resistance in 1993 and
1996, and
the last war. If they analyze these wars, they will notice that they
represent
the four generations. They will notice that the Arab fighter has become
more
determined, and that these battles and wars reflect the Arab attitude
towards
Israel. Therefore, we say to them: You have experienced humiliation in
the
recent battles in Lebanon. Your weapons, warplanes, rockets and even
your
atomic bombs will not protect you in the future. [New] generations are
coming,
and the future generations of the Arab world will find the way to
defeat
Israel in a fiercer manner. Thus, the Israeli leadership should stop
its
foolishness and arrogance, and should know that it is now standing at a
historic juncture: it can either turn towards peace and restoration of
rights,
or it can
[opt for] constant instability - until one of the future generations
puts an
end to this.
"Ladies and gentlemen, the heroic Lebanese national resistance has
written in
its blood and in its people's sacrifice an eternal epic in the history
of our
nation. It has destroyed the legend of [Israel's] invincible army,
trampled
under its feet the policy of surrender and humiliation, and proved that
the
power of faith in the land and in the homeland can defeat the power of
weapons.
"I express my appreciation and admiration for the men of resistance; I
salute
with great reverence our noble martyrs and I salute the brotherly
Lebanese
people whose steadfastness was the incubator of this resistance.
"We say to those who accuse Syria of standing by the resistance - and
this
accusation is not at all a new one - that if [they think that] standing
by the
resistance is a mortal sin, then it is an honor and a source of pride
for the
Syrian people. This resistance is a badge of honor on the chest of each
Arab
citizen not only in Syria. Each drop of sweat, each drop of blood, each
rocket
that destroys a tank and each Israeli soldier defeated in Lebanon is...
a
badge of honor on the chest of the Arab citizens."
"[The Syrians] Were [Always] the Beating Heart of Arabism... and [This]
Will
Increase When We Liberate the Golan by Our Own Hands, Will and
Determination"
"I would like to say to the Syrian Arab people that the word 'pride' is
hardly
sufficient to express what one feels towards the greatness of your
support of
our Lebanese brothers. You were great, when some people wanted you to
look
small and overwhelmed by the malevolence [of the enemy]. But the great
people
of Syria have always surprised the adversary in unexpected ways. You
dealt a
blow to those who wanted to create a division between Syria and
Lebanon. You
were magnificent in comprehending the magnitude of the conspiracy, and
you
were very strong in your reaction to this conspiracy. In brief, you
were
[always] the beating heart of Arabism in every sense of the word: the
heat
will intensify and the significance will increase when we liberate the
Golan
by our own hands, will and determination.
"Syria's destiny is to be proud of [its] Arabism and to defend and
maintain
it, because it is the only basis for building a bright and honorable
future
for our children. We have to plant in our hearts and minds [the idea]
that
there is a place in this world only for the strong. Strength starts in
one's
mind, will and faith, and this is the basis of resistance and the only
way to
achieve victory. However, waiting for others to solve our problems,
putting
our faith in the international community instead of relying on our own
abilities, and yielding to fear and to the will of others is not only
the
opposite of wisdom but is absolute ignorance.
"I would like to repeat my salutations to the journalists, and I wish
you
every success in your conference. Thank you."
Endnote:
(1) SANA, August 18, 2006. The text has been edited for style.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.