JANUARY 16^th 2008

 

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75620

Rabbo: Qatar has no right to name who will represent Palestinians

January 16, 2009

Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Executive Committee Secretary Yasser Abed Rabbo told Al-Arabiya television on Friday that he hoped Qatar would not manipulate the Palestinian legitimate representation, adding it had no right to name who should represent the Palestinian people.

“[There is ] no need to consolidate any Arab division in the Doha consultative meeting on Gaza,” he added.

He also said progress was made on the international level to end the Israeli offensive on Gaza.

-NOW Staff

 

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75617

Daily Star shut down by court order

January 16, 2009

Lebanon’s only English-language daily was shut down by a court ruling on Thursday.

The Daily Star closed its doors after a financial dispute between the paper’s management and a bank over a debt.

The daily’s editor-in-chief Jamil Mroueh told his staff, “The execution of the sentence came faster than was expected, as I was about to contact the plaintiff, and then the newspaper’s offices were closed with red wax,” according to the Kuwaiti al-Anbaa daily.

Mroue was also quoted as saying contacts with the plaintiff were ongoing.

-NOW Staff

 

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75614

Arabic press summary

January 16, 2009

The articles written by most political analysts in Lebanese newspapers during the week of January 9 to January 15 focused on the repercussions of the Gaza events on Lebanon, as well as on the prospects of a solution and the results of these events. The resulting analysis is mainly summarized in the following:

- The fact that Lebanon was not dragged into a new war is, to a great extent, positive news and reflects a concurrence of domestic and foreign interests in securing Lebanon’s stability. Nevertheless, there are concerns regarding a premeditated decision to get Lebanon involved in the inferno of conflict due to the potential emergence of new regional factors and to the fact that Hezbollah has not definitely confirmed that the southern front will not be reopened.

- The future of Hamas following the war on Gaza has yet to be clearly outlined at a time when Israel seems determined to achieve its goals in light of the existential challenge with which it is confronted. Meanwhile, any new resolution on Gaza may be linked to a return to the border crossings agreement concluded a few years ago through Egyptian mediation, or to the deployment of an international force, which would call for a new Security Council resolution.

On the repercussions of the Gaza events on Lebanon, Al-Mustaqbal’’s Nassir al-Assaad said that the political unanimity in Lebanon over Palestine has confirmed two facts: First, political bias in favor of Palestine and its people, unity and cause, which is forming a basis for [subsequent] action; and second, “military neutrality”, i.e. the rejection of any military involvement in support of the Palestinians. According to Assaad, Lebanon has stood out during the past two weeks as a model for this delicate equation. This “model” is a realistic choice that must be examined and used as a basis for further action, if Lebanon is to play a serious role in any regional peace process.

An-Nahar’s Roseanna Bou Mounsef wrote that the developments accompanying the Israeli war on Gaza have led to a series of results, some of which pertain to Lebanon and may play an influential role at some point in the near future. Indeed, the unanimous Lebanese decision not to involve Lebanon in any new war was, to a great extent, a positive one that reflects a concurrence of domestic and foreign interests in securing Lebanon’s stability at this point. This comes as reassuring news on the domestic level, as well as for those who view Lebanon as a potential economic and financial stage in the wake of the world financial crisis.

In this context, Al-Anwar’s Elham Freiha spoke of two steps to be taken, in order to alleviate prevailing concerns among the Lebanese regarding a new war with Israel following the missile launches from South Lebanon. “The first such step is to lead investigations into who fired the rockets to the fullest and expose the party responsible for this shady incident aiming to drag Lebanon [into a conflict], whereas the second such step is to reinforce the measures taken from the south of the Litani to the border in order to prevent the reoccurrence of such an incident.” Therefore, Freiha reckoned, the international community will understand the Lebanese message, whereby Lebanon is serious about not getting involved [in a conflict with Israel]. However, if such measures are delayed, “there are concerns regarding a premeditated decision to get Lebanon involved; thus, throwing us again in the inferno of conflict and allowing for complications that would be open to all possibilities and losses.”

On the missile launch from South Lebanon, Al-Akhbar’s Ibrahim al-Amin argued that, regardless of the party behind the operation, the main practical consequence is that ‘the missiles have undermined the efforts made by some Lebanese to offer Israel free reassurance, whether directly or indirectly. This, as such, represents the achievement that Israel is fearful, at this particular moment, even if it is making preparations for a broad-scale aggression on Lebanon, and when it does take this decision, it will wait for no pretext.

On the declarations made by Hezbollah, Al-Mustaqbal’s Nassir al-Assaad wrote that the party refuses to provide Israel with a pretext [to attack Lebanon], but it does not mind sending political signals via “the southern mail,” in order to deliver a certain political message without opening a military front. Nevertheless, Hezbollah is careful to avoid elaborating on its position any further, rather seeking to leave it pending between one of two options: “First, it is abstaining from adopting any clear position so as not to grant Israel free reassurance; and second, it has not definitively settled that the southern front will not be opened, as it is waiting for certain regional developments.”

On the prospects of a solution and the results of the Gaza war, As-Safir’s Sateh Noureddine argued that Hamas will either become in the future the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, or it will be similar to al-Qaeda, and its leaders will be outlawed. Noureddine noted that Hamas can still exit this war like Hezbollah did with the 2006 July War, adding that the sensitive character of the Palestinian cause and its status within the Arab and Islamic world “can still spare Hamas a fate similar to that of al-Qaeda, but it cannot guarantee its maintenance in power.”

On another level, Al-Mustaqbal’s Wissam Saadeh reported Israel’s determination to achieve its goals in this war, since the current events “are actually an existential challenge it set for itself, even before their being an existential confrontation with the land’s original occupants or with the surrounding Arab and Islamic world.” This challenge is primarily linked to an essential concept derived from the Baker-Hamilton report, namely that “Israelis, for the most part, are a nation tired of always being in a state of war.” This is ground for optimism regarding chances for settlement in the region, starting with the Syrian-Israeli track. Saadeh further remarked that Israel is now fighting this concept precisely, adding that it is “torpedoing the Baker-Hamilton diagnosis of its crisis a few days prior to Barak Obama’s inauguration in Washington.”

According to Al-Anwar’s Elham Freiha, the war on Gaza “is being influenced by the negotiations,” as proven by several indicators, such as the promulgation of UN Security Council Resolution 1860, which called for a ceasefire, the renewal of Turkey’s mediation endeavors through its coordination with Egypt, and the fact that the Egyptian-French initiative remains on the table, even if stumbling. In Freiha’s opinion, all this “means that the war on Gaza, violent though it is, is about to come to an end, and that efforts are being made in order to close this front rather than seek to open another one.”

Still, the promulgation of a new resolution regarding Gaza hinges on the nature of the agreement that was concluded through the Egyptian Initiative, according to An-Nahar’s Roseanna Bou Mounsef. She went on to say that two main possibilities have emerged: “First, the agreement on border crossings, which was concluded a few years ago through Egyptian mediation, would be revived, knowing that it had acknowledged the deployment of observers along the border with Egypt, albeit with new parties, such as Turkey or other parties or countries that would be accepted by the Palestinians and Israel alike. Second, an international force would have to be deployed, but in case of an agreement on it, this would imply another application to the Security Council so that it is formed in accordance with a new resolution.”

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75612

Defeating Hamas will not defeat Iran

Dalia Dassa Kaye (Foreign Policy) , January 14, 2009

In the absence of clarity of what Israel hopes to leave behind in Gaza, some observers speculate that the offensive against Hamas has a second target: Iran. According to this logic, Hamas serves as Iran’s proxy; its fortunes are Iran’s in defeat or victory. Some even imagine a domino effect, with Hamas’s defeat a defeat for radicalism across the region.

Don’t count on it. Although Hamas surely benefits from Iranian support, Iran’s regional position has little to do with Hamas. Iranian influence and regional alliances have far deeper roots than the current turmoil in Gaza.

In the first place, Iranian influence, though not unlimited, has expanded throughout the Middle East during the past seven years as a result of U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that removed serious adversaries. An unfavorable outcome in Gaza for Israel might enhance this perception of rising influence, but it certainly is not responsible for it. Although Sunni Arabs push back against Iranian influence, Iran’s reach has expanded beyond its natural sphere of influence in Shiite Iraq and well into the heart of the Arab Gulf and the Levant. An Israeli win is unlikely to alter that course.

Moreover, a perceived defeat of Hamas will not fundamentally change Arab stances toward Iran or their positions on the nuclear issue. To be sure, Arab regimes are extremely concerned about Iran’s rising influence and its nuclear ambitions. Arab rulers despise the way Iranian leaders talk over their heads to “the street” and accuse them of being lackeys of the West, boasting about Iranian support for the Palestinians. Iran has displayed this strategy to great effect during the current Gaza crisis, bitterly attacking Egypt’s position on Gaza.

Yet Arab states have not adopted a confrontational stance toward Iran. Nor have they signed up to the U.S. policy of isolation. They have preferred to hedge rather than balance Iranian power. The United States may desire a tight alignment of so-called moderate regional states to contain Iranian power, but such an alignment simply does not exist. A Hamas defeat is unlikely to change that dynamic.

Regional policies toward Iran are based on myriad interests distinct from Arab-Israeli diplomacy, and these positions will not shift merely because of a perceived Hamas defeat. To varying degrees, all of Iran’s neighbors engage in regular diplomatic and economic relations with Tehran. In the case of Turkey, the Iraq war has created new reasons for military coordination with Iran, in particular to curb Kurdish militant activity stemming from northern Iraq. Arab states aligned with the United States, such as Egypt and Jordan, will no doubt be pleased if Hamas’s power is diminished. But they fear the power of Hamas’s example for their own Muslim Brotherhood opposition groups more than they fear Iran benefiting from a Hamas victory.

Finally, Hamas and Iran are not as wedded as some suggest. Hamas is a part of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood movement, not a natural partner with Shiite Iran. To be sure, Iran has shown great flexibility in choosing allies based on interests as much as ideology, which explains Iranian symbolic and material support for Hamas. But Iran has many other non state allies in the region with which it is much more closely aligned and in areas of greater strategic concern (such as Iraq and Lebanon).

Iran and Hamas pursue their own agendas and value survival above all, diversifying their portfolios of allies across the region. Thus, a serious setback for Hamas is unlikely to undermine Iranian influence elsewhere in the region. If anything, a different U.S. relationship with Iran is more likely to affect dynamics in Gaza than Gaza changing the equation with Iran. Iran is likely to stop obstructing Arab-Israeli peace efforts only if it sees a larger potential gain. It is conceivable that Tehran might come to see a need to improve relations with Washington and to negotiate with the United States and Europe over a lifting of international sanctions. Discussions about Iran’s support for Hamas could be part of that conversation. Absent such a sea change in Iranian policy, however, there is no reason to assume that decimating Hamas would also defeat Iran.

 

 

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75611

Israeli airstrikes continue on Gaza despite decision taken for a temporary ceasefire.

January 16, 2009

 

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75609

From Gaza to Tehran: Looking toward the Obama Administration and the Middle East

Robert Satloff (Washington Institute) , January 12, 2009

On January 9, 2009, David Brooks, Peter Beinart, and Robert Satloff addressed a Policy Forum luncheon at The Washington Institute to discuss the Obama administration and its likely approach to the Middle East. Dr. Satloff is executive director of the Washington Institute; the following is a summary of his remarks. A summary of David Brooks and Peter Beinart’s remarks will be distributed separately. Listen to complete audio of their conversation.

Timing of a Gaza Conclusion

The Gaza Strip crisis will be the first issue addressed by the Obama-Clinton foreign policy team. The necessary elements for a cessation of hostilities are well known: an effective system to curtail arms smuggling into Gaza, a total halt to rocket attacks emanating from the Strip, and a mechanism to secure border crossings that expands the humanitarian supplies into Gaza while denying Hamas any claim to sovereignty or legitimacy. Most observers believe this should come into being before January 20 so the new team has a clean slate on which to define U.S. foreign policy. In fact, it would be far better for this to occur after January 20. Only then would the Obama-Clinton team own the endgame, rather than just inherit it. If they own it, chances are much better that they would take full responsibility for ensuring the execution and implementation of its terms.

The Centrality of Egypt

Lost in the fog of war is the “Gaza Great Game” — and it is all about Egypt. This conflict is, in reality, a fight for the soul of the waning days of the Hosni Mubarak presidency and the direction of Egypt in the early post-Mubarak era. Hamas and its allies are whipping up public pressure on Egypt to open the border crossings and to give Hamas an outlet to the world, much like Hizballah has via Syria. Israel is using military pressure on Hamas to pressure Egypt to finally take the issue of smuggling with appropriate seriousness. Israel’s strategy seemingly is to raise fears in Cairo of an all-out offensive against Gazan cities that could trigger a wave of Palestinian refugees surpassing the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who came streaming into northern Sinai a year ago. So far, Mubarak has hedged; he has kept the borders closed to keep the Hamas virus from infecting his own country, thumbing his nose at Arab popular criticism in the process, but still has not begun to do what is necessary about the smuggling. Which way will he turn? Or will Egypt remain firmly on the fence until it is too late?

It bears noting that this is a moment of great opportunity for Egypt. After years of being eclipsed by Saudi Arabia and even Qatar for leadership of moderate Arab states, as well as years of strained relations with Washington, Egypt could use the current crisis to change the regional calculus firmly in its favor. Cairo could reassert its role as the leading moderate force in the region, strike a severe blow against an agent of Iran, prevent the spread of radical Islamism on its border, and in the process turn a new page with Washington with the arrival of a new U.S. president. And given that Mubarak is facing the most important issue of his presidency — succession — restoring health and vibrancy to the U.S.-Egyptian relationship is critical. The Gaza crisis presents an opportunity that Egypt should not miss, and if Egypt pursues a wise course in this crisis, it is a win-win for Cairo, Jerusalem, Ramallah, and Washington.

When the Gaza Dust Settles

Once the immediate crisis comes to an end, the Obama-Clinton team will face a choice in how to fulfill the new president’s commitment to invest heavily and early in the Arab-Israeli peace process. Although there are glimmers of hope on the Israel-Syria front, given current events, , the peace process refers — for all intents and purposes — specifically to the Israeli-Palestinian track. On this track, there are two principal schools of thought, reflected in two sets of studies produced in Washington in the last few weeks: The Washington Institute studies Prevent Breakdown, Prepare for Breakthrough: How President Obama Can Promote Israeli-Palestinian Peace and Security First: U.S. Priorities in Israeli-Palestinian Peacemaking on the one hand and, on the other, an impressive report produced jointly by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Brookings Institution Restoring the Balance. On Israeli-Palestinian issues, the difference is clear: the Washington Institute studies call for a combined top-down/bottom up approach toward strengthening the Palestinian Authority (PA) and enhancing prospects for Israeli-PA negotiations; the relevant chapter in the CFR/Brookings study calls for findings ways the United States can engage Hamas.

Each approach has a certain logic, but it is important to recognize that these are “either/or” options. It is not possible to engage Hamas and build up the PA at the same time. Engaging Hamas would undermine whatever popular support remains for the Mahmoud Abbas-Salam Fayad government, bring an abrupt end to the Dayton (U.S. security coordinator, Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton) effort to “train and equip” PA security forces, compel Egypt and Jordan to change course in terms of their own approach toward the PA, and buoy radical actors from Gaza to Beirut to Tehran.

Given both personnel choices and strategic imperatives, it is unlikely that the Obama-Clinton team will choose to engage Hamas. Indeed, even tactically, if the new administration is committed to a wholly new approach toward Iran, it makes little sense to waste capital and credibility — both here and abroad — on an early tilting at Hamas’s windmills.

Iran: the Bigger Picture

If Gaza is a fight for the soul of Egypt, the Obama team cannot let Gaza distract from the even bigger test confronting them: the challenge of Iran. On Iran, the new administration faces a near-term policy decision of when to launch an international initiative to build leverage vis-a-vis Iran and open a direct engagement with Tehran. Some argue that Washington should wait several months, lest U.S. diplomacy itself become an issue in Iran’s June presidential election and somehow help the incumbent win a second term by letting him boast that his hardline policies compelled America to talk on his terms. Even Israeli president Shimon Peres has reportedly made this case. But in view of key players in the new administration, this argument is unlikely to carry the day. The reason is simple: as Washington dithers, centrifuges spin. If Washington waits until after Iran’s election to launch an engagement strategy with Iran, the Iranians will be close to — if not already at — the point where they have amassed enough low-enriched uranium to convert into weapons-grade material. So, timing is at the top of the agenda.

Expecting the Unexpected

Middle East officials in the Bush administration expected to coast to a quiet end, but because of Gaza, they will now be burning the midnight oil until inauguration day. The unexpected could very well occur in the early days of the Obama presidency, too. There are many possibilities: the passing of a key regional leader like Egypt’s Mubarak or Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah; a spectacular Hamas terrorist attack inside Israel or against the PA, changing the dynamics of the current conflict; a decision by Hizballah and its Iranian patron to truly open a second front; terrorism against U.S. interests or installations; an unexpected outcome to the Israeli election; or a declaration by Iran that it had passed a nuclear threshold months before U.S. intelligence thought it was possible. The list goes on. These are just a few of the “what ifs” that, in the Middle East, are more often “whens” than “whethers.”

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75608

Israel’s Goals in Gaza?

Thomas L. Friedman (The New York Times) , January 13, 2009

I have only one question about Israel’s military operation in Gaza: What is the goal? Is it the education of Hamas or the eradication of Hamas? I hope that it’s the education of Hamas. Let me explain why.

I was one of the few people who argued back in 2006 that Israel actually won the war in Lebanon started by Hezbollah. You need to study that war and its aftermath to understand Gaza and how it is part of a new strategic ballgame in the Arab-Israel arena, which will demand of the Obama team a new approach.

What Hezbollah did in 2006 — in launching an unprovoked war across the U.N.-recognized Israel-Lebanon border, after Israel had unilaterally withdrawn from Lebanon — was to both upend Israel’s longstanding peace strategy and to unveil a new phase in the Hezbollah-Iran war strategy against Israel.

There have always been two camps in Israel when it comes to the logic of peace, notes Gidi Grinstein, president of the Israeli think tank, the Reut Institute: One camp says that all the problems Israel faces from the Palestinians or Lebanese emanate from occupying their territories. “Therefore, the fundamental problem is staying — and the fundamental remedy is leaving,” says Grinstein.

The other camp argues that Israel’s Arab foes are implacably hostile and leaving would only invite more hostility. Therefore, at least when it comes to the Palestinians, Israel needs to control their territories indefinitely. Since the mid-1990s, the first camp has dominated Israeli thinking. This led to the negotiated and unilateral withdrawals from the West Bank, Lebanon and Gaza.

Hezbollah’s unprovoked attack from Lebanon into Israel in 2006 both undermined the argument that withdrawal led to security and presented Israel with a much more vexing military strategy aimed at neutralizing Israel’s military superiority. Hezbollah created a very “flat” military network, built on small teams of guerrillas and mobile missile-batteries, deeply embedded in the local towns and villages.

And this Hezbollah force, rather than confronting Israel’s Army head-on, focused on demoralizing Israeli civilians with rockets in their homes, challenging Israel to inflict massive civilian casualties in order to hit Hezbollah fighters and, when Israel did strike Hezbollah and also killed civilians, inflaming the Arab-Muslim street, making life very difficult for Arab or European leaders aligned with Israel.

Israel’s counterstrategy was to use its Air Force to pummel Hezbollah and, while not directly targeting the Lebanese civilians with whom Hezbollah was intertwined, to inflict substantial property damage and collateral casualties on Lebanon at large. It was not pretty, but it was logical. Israel basically said that when dealing with a non state actor, Hezbollah, nested among civilians, the only long-term source of deterrence was to exact enough pain on the civilians — the families and employers of the militants — to restrain Hezbollah in the future.

Israel’s military was not focused on the morning after the war in Lebanon — when Hezbollah declared victory and the Israeli press declared defeat. It was focused on the morning after the morning after, when all the real business happens in the Middle East. That’s when Lebanese civilians, in anguish, said to Hezbollah: “What were you thinking? Look what destruction you have visited on your own community! For what? For whom?”

Here’s what Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader, said the morning after the morning after about his decision to start that war by abducting two Israeli soldiers on July 12, 2006: “We did not think, even 1 percent, that the capture would lead to a war at this time and of this magnitude. You ask me, if I had known on July 11 … that the operation would lead to such a war, would I do it? I say no, absolutely not.”

That was the education of Hezbollah. Has Israel seen its last conflict with Hezbollah? I doubt it. But Hezbollah, which has done nothing for Hamas, will think three times next time. That is probably all Israel can achieve with a nonstate actor.

In Gaza, I still can’t tell if Israel is trying to eradicate Hamas or trying to “educate” Hamas, by inflicting a heavy death toll on Hamas militants and heavy pain on the Gaza population. If it is out to destroy Hamas, casualties will be horrific and the aftermath could be Somalia-like chaos. If it is out to educate Hamas, Israel may have achieved its aims. Now its focus, and the Obama team’s focus, should be on creating a clear choice for Hamas for the world to see: Are you about destroying Israel or building Gaza?

But that requires diplomacy. Israel de facto recognizes Hamas’s right to rule Gaza and to provide for the well-being and security of the people of Gaza — which was actually Hamas’s original campaign message, not rocketing Israel. And, in return, Hamas has to signal a willingness to assume responsibility for a lasting cease-fire and to abandon efforts to change the strategic equation with Israel by deploying longer and longer range rockets. That’s the only deal. Let’s give it a try.

 

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75606

President Michel Sleiman meets with his Syrian counterpart Bashar al-Assad at the Sheraton Hotel in Doha, before the consultative meeting begins.

January 16, 2009

 

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75605

Ban from Ramallah: it is time for an immediate ceasefire

January 16, 2009

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said, in a press conference in Ramallah on Friday, that the number of “victims” in the Gaza Strip was no longer acceptable.

He added that it was time to reach an agreement between disputing parties and announce an immediate ceasefire.

-NOW Staff

 

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75602

Poukine: Russia is concerned about security deterioration between Lebanon and Israel

January 16, 2009

Russian Ambassador Serge Poukine said, after meeting with Prime Minister Fouad Siniora on Friday at the Grand Serail, Russia was concerned about the security situation deteriorating between Lebanon and Israel and called on both countries to be cautious. He added that any clashes would not be in favor of Lebanon or Israel.

He also said that Russia supported the Lebanese people, cabinet and leaders’ stance in avoiding any confrontation with Israel.

He urged all parties to make efforts to push a ceasefire in Gaza as an implementation of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1860, which, he said was approved by Russia. He also supported the role Egypt was playing concerning this issue.

-NOW Staff

 

 

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75600

Qatar stealing the show

Bechara Charbel , January 16, 2009

There is nothing new in an Arab summit becoming an issue rather than addressing one. But this is the first time that the urgent matter of saving Gaza is turned by an Arab state aiming to steal the show into an opportunity to deepen Arab division.

Qatar is right to explore every opportunity, and it makes sense for Qatar to call for a summit soon after the beginning of the Israeli aggression against Gaza, in the name of the Arab-Iranian “Axis of Rejectionism,” since Syria’s call for taking similar steps would surely have been rejected. However, in light of Resolution 1860 and the apparent limits of international diplomacy, it is shocking, if not suspicious, that Doha wanted to hold a summit whose agenda and content were not agreed upon ahead of time by the Arab countries attending. Moreover, the summit was to be held just three days from Kuwait’s Economic Summit, which will be broken into two segments, one for Gaza and the other for the economy, and will include all the Arab countries anyway.

Everyone knows that Qatar has gained much political experience in the past few years and built up “credit” based on opposing Saudi Arabia and on maintaining ties with both Israel and Iran. But Qatar cannot always steal the show. The conditions that allowed Qatar to broker the Doha Accord after the “rejectionist axis” occupied Beirut on May 7 are completely different from those in Gaza. The conditions surrounding Gaza are more complex and will require more than simply bridging differences among feuding domestic groups. It is strange that Doha’s overly “realistic outlook” does not stop it from calling for a summit even after having been told during the Muscat Gulf Summit that such a step was not welcome. Still, Qatar rushed into calling for its emergency summit after the announcement of the Arab Foreign Ministers meeting in Kuwait on Friday.

Qatar should not be reproached for its extreme “flexibility,” which allows it to negotiate totally conflicting differences. It supports “rejectionist movements” and, at the same time, embraces Israeli representative office. It criticizes the United States while welcoming the largest American military base in the region. It organizes dialogue between the various civilizations and religions while providing safe havens for extremists and “takfiris.” Yet what distinguishes Doha is its ambition to play roles that would otherwise be characteristic of bigger, more important Arab countries. Qatar’s repeated attempts to detract from Cairo and Riyadh have turned its ambitions to defiance and caused it to forget its place, losing the “distinctiveness” it had acquired playing the role of pragmatic mediator by implementing “business” principles in the world of politics and conflicts…

Now is not the time to express sarcasm or shock at Doha’s rush to hold half a summit for heads of state so long as its ally Khaled Meshaal still claims victory. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to ask Doha about what resolutions it expects to issue from this summit, even if the quorum is attained, knowing that Resolution 1860 was passed by the Security Council after much efforts and that the ball is still in Hamas’ court regarding the “Egyptian Initiative,” which Mahmoud Abbas openly declares to be the only chance of stopping the bloodshed and resuming Palestinian dialogue and the path of politics.

Qatar is nowadays waiting impatiently for the right moment to issue a founding Arab statement on the Arab conflict with Israel. However, Qatar appears enterprising by proxy rather than using direct diplomatic tactics. It is as if Qatar is attempting to imitate other Gulf States and attempting to steal the show. It is neither able to justify its “emergency summit” to any Gulf country leader, nor has it received unanimous Palestinian approval that can be used as a weapon against apathy, nor is it even on the verge of a historic “Doha Statement” to be added alongside the Doha Accord to its list of achievements, which is constantly shown off in diplomatic circles. It would be unthinkable for the Arabs to withdraw the Arab initiative just to please Tehran, while Jordan and Egypt are not prepared to end all relations with Israel under the pressure of popular demonstrations instigated by rejectionists who follow Meshaal and Haniyeh, who want to end the truce and bring about fighting while sacrificing children.

Qatar is currently in the beginning of a new phase. No sooner had it repaired its relations with Saudi Arabia after years of tension, in addition to gaining recognition on the international stage as a skilled mediator, than it is gambling once again with this credit. It is a gamble to insist on this summit, which not only threatens its reputation, but also endangers the possibility of Arab reconciliation and implementing Resolution 1860, exposing the people of Gaza to even more bloodshed and destruction … If only Qatar would realize that exploiting opportunities while the conflicts worsen is not sound policy, especially when those same countries have the weight and experience to beat Qatar in this game of stealing the show.

This article has been translated from its original Arabic as it appeared on the NOW Lebanon Arabic site.

 

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75599

Youssef accuses PFLP-GC of implementing Syria’s interest

January 16, 2009

Future Movement MP Ghazi Youssef said that some parties were persistent in their trails to implicate Lebanon in the military conflict in Gaza, adding he supported the patriotic decision of preventing any new venture, especially after Lebanon succeeded in rebuilding what was destroyed during the 2006 July War.

In an interview with the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Anbaa on Friday, he called on the Lebanese army and UNIFIL to intensify their efforts to prevent the repetition of the rocket-launching incidents.

He accused the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command of attempting to expand the military fronts in favor of Syria’s interest by propagating the war between Hamas and Israel. Syria, he said, might try to use this war as a bargaining card to enhance its position during the negotiations with Israel. He added that if this should happen, it would be at the expense of Lebanon, Palestine and any unified Arab stance.

He called to prohibit the Palestinian weapons, at least outside the refugee camps in Lebanon.

Youssef concluded that Iran had succeeded in breaching the Palestinian and Arab stance through its support for Hamas.

-NOW Staff

 

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75596

Report: IDF terminates Hamas unit trained in Lebanon

January 16, 2009

Palestinian sources have confirmed that most members of Hamas’ “Iranian Unit,” a military wing trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, were killed in fighting in the Zeytoun quarters, according to an Israeli daily.

Haaretz reported Friday that the same sources had said that Iran was “preparing for an end to the fighting, at which point they want to send money to the Gaza Strip in order to assist Hamas in rebuilding destroyed homes – but also restore its military capabilities.”

The unit destroyed in Thursday’s attacks numbered approximately 100 men who had traveled to Iran and Hezbollah camps, mostly in the Bekaa Valley, where they were trained in infantry fighting tactics, according to the report. Most of them returned to Gaza through underground tunnels at the Rafah border crossing.

-NOW Staff

 

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75594

Why Israel Can’t Make Peace With Hamas

Jeffrey Goldberg (The New York Times) , January 14, 2009

In the summer of 2006, at a moment when Hezbollah rockets were falling virtually without pause on northern Israel, Nizar Rayyan, husband of four, father of 12, scholar of Islam and unblushing executioner, confessed to me one of his frustrations.

We were meeting in a concrete mosque in the Jabalya refugee camp in northern Gaza. Mr. Rayyan, who was a member of the Hamas ruling elite, and an important recruiter of suicide bombers until Israel killed him two weeks ago (along with several of his wives and children), arrived late to our meeting from parts unknown.

He was watchful for assassins even then, and when I asked him to describe his typical day, he suggested that I might be a spy for Fatah. Not the Mossad, mind you, not the C.I.A., but Fatah.

What a phantasmagorically strange conflict the Arab-Israeli war had become! Here was a Saudi-educated, anti-Shiite (but nevertheless Iranian-backed) Hamas theologian accusing a one-time Israeli Army prison official-turned-reporter of spying for Yasir Arafat’s Fatah, an organization that had once been the foremost innovator of anti-Israeli terrorism but was now, in Mr. Rayyan’s view, indefensibly, unforgivably moderate.

In the Palestinian civil war, Fatah, which today controls much of the West Bank and is engaged in intermittent negotiations with Israel, had become Mr. Rayyan’s direst enemy, a party of apostates and quislings. “First we must deal with the Muslims who speak of a peace process and then we will deal with you,” he declared.

But we spoke that day mainly about the hadith, the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, that specifically concerned Jews and their diverse and apparently limitless character failings. This sort of conversation, while illuminating, can become wearying over time, at least for the Jewish participant, and so I was happy to learn that Mr. Rayyan had his own sore points.

“Hezbollah is doing very well against Israel, don’t you think?” I asked. His face darkened, suggesting that he understood the implication of my question. At the time, Hamas, too, was firing rockets into Israel, though irregularly and without much effect.

“We support our brothers in the resistance,” he said. But then he added, “I think each situation is different.”

How so?

“They have advantages that we in Gaza don’t have,” he said. “They have excellent weapons. Hezbollah moves freely in Lebanon. We are trapped in the Israeli cage. So I don’t like to hear the sentence, ‘Hezbollah is the leader of the resistance.’ It’s a very annoying sentence. They are heroes to us. But we are the ones fighting in Palestine.”

“And they’re Shia,” I said. Mr. Rayyan, who was educated by Wahhabi clerics in Saudi Arabia, was known in Gaza as a firm defender of Sunni theology and privilege, and sometimes lectured at the Islamic University of Gaza on the danger of Shiite “infiltration.”

“Yes! There are many different secret agendas,” he said. “We have to be aware of this.”

Hamas men across Gaza were of two minds on the subject of Hezbollah: One night, I met the members of a Hamas rocket team in the town of Beit Hanoun, on Gaza’s northern border with Israel. The group’s leader, who went by the name of Abu Obeidah, said that he, too, was frustrated by Hezbollah’s success against Israel; he even asked if Hamas’s rocket attacks that summer were featured on television in America, and seemed to deflate physically when I told him no.

“Everyone, all the media, says that Hezbollah is wonderful,” he complained. “We stand with our brothers of Hezbollah, of course, but, really, look at the advantages they have. They get all the rockets they will ever need from Iran.”

Hamas is not a monolith, and opinions inside the group differ about many things, including engagement with the Shiites of Hezbollah and Iran. The former Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi told me shortly before he was assassinated by Israel in 2004 that it would be “uncharitable” to find fault with Iran.

“What do the Arab states do for us?” he asked. “Iran is steadfast against the Jews.”

Today, there is no doubt that Rantisi’s view holds sway inside the organization, and many in Hamas wish for even closer ties with Tehran, particularly over the past month as they have absorbed a battering from Israel. Even those who believe that Iran is secretly trying to bring Sunni Palestinians to Shiism acknowledge anti-Israel Shiites as ideals of resistance.

As the Gaza war moves to a cease-fire, a crucial question will inevitably arise, as it has before: Should Israel (and by extension, the United States) try to engage Hamas in a substantive and sustained manner?

It is a fair question, one worth debating, but it is unmoored from certain political and theological realities. One irresistible reality grows from Hamas’s complicated, competitive relationship with Hezbollah. For Hamas, Hezbollah is not only a source of weapons and instruction, it is a mentor and role model.

Hamas’s desire to best Hezbollah’s achievements is natural, of course, but, more to the point, it is radicalizing. One of the reasons, among many, that Hamas felt compelled to break its cease-fire with Israel last month was to prove its potency to Muslims impressed with Hezbollah.

Another reality worth considering concerns theology. Hamas and Hezbollah emerged from very different streams of Islam: Hamas is the Palestinian branch of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood; Hezbollah is an outright Iranian proxy that takes its inspiration from the radical Shiite politics of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. But the groups share a common belief that Jews are a cosmological evil, enemies of Islam since Muhammad sought refuge in Medina.

Periodically, advocates of negotiation suggest that the hostility toward Jews expressed by Hamas is somehow mutable. But in years of listening, I haven’t heard much to suggest that its anti-Semitism is insincere. Like Hezbollah, Hamas believes that God is opposed to a Jewish state in Palestine. Both groups are rhetorically pitiless, though, again, Hamas sometimes appears to follow the lead of Hezbollah.

I once asked Abdel Aziz Rantisi where he learned what he called “the truth” of the Holocaust — that it didn’t happen — and he referred me to books published by Hezbollah. Hamas and Hezbollah also share the view that the solution for Palestine lies in Europe. A spokesman for Hezbollah, Hassan Izzedine, once told me that the Jews who survive the Muslim “liberation” of Palestine “can go back to Germany, or wherever they came from.” He went on to argue that the Jews are a “curse to anyone who lives near them.”

Nizar Rayyan expressed much the same sentiment the night we spoke in 2006. We had been discussing a passage of the Koran that suggests that God turns a group of impious Jews into apes and pigs. The Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, among others, has deployed this passage in his speeches. Once, at a rally in Beirut, he said: “We shout in the face of the killers of prophets and the descendants of the apes and pigs: We hope we will not see you next year. The shout remains, ‘Death to Israel!’”

Mr. Rayyan said that, technically, Mr. Nasrallah was mistaken. “Allah changed disobedient Jews into apes and pigs, it is true, but he specifically said these apes and pigs did not have the ability to reproduce,” Mr. Rayyan said. “So it is not literally true that Jews today are descended from pigs and apes, but it is true that some of the ancestors of Jews were transformed into pigs and apes, and it is true that Allah continually makes the Jews pay for their crimes in many different ways. They are a cursed people.”

I asked him the question I always ask of Hamas leaders: Could you agree to anything more than a tactical cease-fire with Israel? I felt slightly ridiculous asking: A man who believes that God every now and again transforms Jews into pigs and apes might not be the most obvious candidate for peace talks at Camp David. Mr. Rayyan answered the question as I thought he would, saying that a long-term cease-fire would be unnecessary, because it will not take long for the forces of Islam to eradicate Israel.

There is a fixed idea among some Israeli leaders that Hamas can be bombed into moderation. This is a false and dangerous notion. It is true that Hamas can be deterred militarily for a time, but tanks cannot defeat deeply felt belief.

The reverse is also true: Hamas cannot be cajoled into moderation. Neither position credits Hamas with sincerity, or seriousness.

The only small chance for peace today is the same chance that existed before the Gaza invasion: The moderate Arab states, Europe, the United States and, mainly, Israel, must help Hamas’s enemy, Fatah, prepare the West Bank for real freedom, and then hope that the people of Gaza, vast numbers of whom are unsympathetic to Hamas, see the West Bank as an alternative to the squalid vision of Hassan Nasrallah and Nizar Rayyan.

 

 

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75593

Gaza Tunnels: No path to peace

David Schenker (The Boston Globe) , January 14, 2009

Egypt has long been considered a “bridge” between the East and West. Yet, two weeks into the Israeli campaign against Hamas in Gaza, Egypt is probably better known for its role as a tunnel, serving as the primary smuggling route for Hamas weapons into militant-controlled territory. As pressure mounts for a cease-fire, the disposition of these tunnels – and specifically, what actions Cairo is prepared to take to close them – seems likely to prove the difference between war and peace.

Given the circumstances, Cairo should be anxious to end the smuggling. Egypt has been at peace with Israel since 1979 and has strong ties with the more moderate Palestinian Authority led by President Mahmoud Abbas. Hamas, with its historic links to the anti-government Islamist Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, represents a significant threat to Cairo.

For decades, Egypt fought the Muslim Brotherhood, eventually getting the upper hand; today, while the Brotherhood remains quite popular, it ostensibly abjures violence. For Cairo, the prospect of Hamas hooking up with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood raises serious concerns of ideological contagion. Also troubling is Hamas’s close ties to Iran, Egypt’s foremost regional rival and detractor.

Egypt’s security concerns hit home in January 2008, when Hamas destroyed the fence between Gaza and Egypt, allowing an estimated 700,000 Palestinians to cross the border. By March it was reported that Egypt had accepted $23 million from Washington to help secure the border and detect tunnels.

In June, Egypt brokered a cease-fire agreement between Israel and Hamas. But during the six-month period of relative calm that ensued, Hamas capitalized, improving its military capabilities by smuggling in some 80 tons of weapons from Egypt, including longer-range Iranian-made rockets that brought 10 percent of the Israeli population within striking distance.

It’s unclear exactly what Egypt was doing while Hamas was engaged in this smuggling. According to Egyptian sources, its capacity to counter Hamas’s extensive tunnel network was hampered by the peace treaty with Israel, which limits the number of troops allowed to be deployed in the Sinai. Or perhaps Cairo tolerated a certain extent of smuggling to demonstrate sympathy for Palestinians and maintain a modicum of goodwill with Hamas.

Despite what appears to have been a relatively laissez-faire attitude toward the tunnels, since the onset of the Israeli military campaign Cairo has kept the Gaza frontier closed, against Hamas’s expressed wishes.

Today, as calls for a cease-fire reach fever pitch, a clear convergence of interest has emerged among Egypt, Israel, and the Palestinian Authority. All parties would like to see Hamas weakened. While it may be overly ambitious to hope the Israeli operation will result in regime removal in Gaza, ending the pipeline of weapons to the militant group would be an important step toward clipping its wings.

Given the dynamics on the border, any meaningful step toward curbing tunnel smuggling is likely going to have to occur on Egyptian territory. This will require Israeli flexibility and a commitment on Cairo’s part. Although Cairo would likely be hesitant to accept additional foreign troops on its soil – multinational force observers are already in the Sinai monitoring the Israel-Egypt peace agreement – some element of international forces may be required to interdict the tunnels and seal the cease-fire deal.

Cairo has a clear interest in stopping the smuggling. By closing the tunnels, Egypt stands to temporarily stall if not reverse the regional trend toward “resistance” being promoted by Tehran. For Cairo, which has seen relations with Washington deteriorate during the Bush administration, seriously dealing with the tunnels would also present an opportunity to get off on the right foot with the Obama administration.

Countering the smuggling tunnels is the key to an enduring cease-fire. Should Cairo take a tough stand on the tunnels, Iran and its allies will no doubt be critical. But if Egypt is determined to stop the bloodshed, it will have to work with Israel and the Palestinian Authority to find an effective strategy to stem the flow of weapons. On Gaza, Cairo is the lone bridge to a solution.

David Schenker is director of the Program on Arab Politics at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

 

 

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75591

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

January 16, 2009

In the second week of January, extending from the 9th to the 15th, foreign press analysis of Lebanon and the region continued to be dominated by Israel’s war in Gaza, with the focus moving toward discussion of essential elements required for a ceasefire. The main points can be summarized below:

- Israel, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority should work together on an effective strategy to end the flow of weapons into Gaza. Egypt would have to close the tunnels and stop the flow of weapons to Hamas so as to reverse the regional trend toward resistance being promoted by Tehran.

– The following elements are required to end hostilities: stopping the smuggling of arms into Gaza, ending the rocket attacks, securing the border crossings for humanitarian aid and denying Hamas legitimacy and sovereignty.

- It falls on Israel, along with the US and other moderate states, to help Fatah prepare the West Bank for real freedom, so that the people of Gaza can see an alternative to their present situation.

On the elements needed to end Hostilities in Gaza, David Schenker writes in the Boston Globe that to stop the bloodshed, Israel, Egypt, and the Palestinian Authority should work together on an effective strategy to end the flow of weapons into Gaza. He sees Cairo as the “lone bridge” to a solution in Gaza. Schenker explains that although Egypt has been dealing with a “laissez faire” attitude toward the tunnels, it has kept the crossings closed, against Hamas’s wishes, since the start of the incursion. Schenker argues that as calls for a cease-fire heighten, there seems to be a “clear” convergence of interests between Egypt, Israel and the Palestinian Authority that they’d like to see Hamas “weakened.” To that end, the writer stresses, Egypt would have to close the tunnels and stop the flow of weapons to Hamas so as to not just stall but reverse “the regional trend toward resistance being promoted by Tehran.”

In an interview with the late Nizar Rayyan, Jeffrey Goldberg, writing in the New York Times, questions if Israel should consider engaging with Hamas. Goldberg writes that when he asked Rayyan if he would agree to anything more than a “tactical” ceasefire, the assassinated Hamas leader replies that “it will not take long for the forces of Islam to eradicate Israel.” Based on this quote, Goldberg notes that Israel might be capable of deterring Hamas militarily, but it cannot defeat its “deeply felt belief,” making the notion that Hamas can be “bombed” into moderation seem rather “false.” In this sense, “the small chance” for peace today has not changed since the onset of the current conflict. Goldberg adds that it is up to Israel, along with the US and other moderate states, to help Fatah “prepare the West Bank for real freedom.” The hope is that the people of Gaza would then see the West Bank as an “alternative to the squalid vision of Hassan Nasrallah and Nizar Rayyan.”

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman whether the Israeli war in Gaza is meant to eradicate or educate Hamas. He compares the casualties in the present conflict to those of the 2006 July war with Hezbollah, noting that in 2006 Israel meant to educate Hezbollah, and make them responsible, in the eyes of Lebanese, for the war’s destruction. Such goals for Hezbollah are probably all Israel can achieve with a “non state actor,” Friedman contends while asserting that more can be done with Hamas. Friedman argues that the Obama administration must present Hamas with a clear choice: are they “about destroying Israel or building Gaza?” Friedman adds that for diplomacy to kick in Israel would have to recognize “Hamas’ right to rule,” and Hamas would have to “to signal a willingness to assume responsibility for a lasting cease-fire and to abandon efforts to change the strategic equation with Israel.”

Robert Satloff addressed a Policy Forum luncheon at The Washington Institute, where he argued that “the Gaza Strip crisis will be the first issue addressed by the Obama-Clinton foreign policy team.” Satloff stressed that the elements needed to end hostilities are the following: curtail arms smuggling into Gaza, end rocket attacks from the Strip, secure the border crossings so that humanitarian aid can enter Gaza and deny Hamas legitimacy and sovereignty. Satloff told the Luncheon that if Egypt pursues a “wise course” in the crisis, it would be a “win-win for Cairo, Jerusalem, Ramallah, and Washington.” It is unlikely that the Obama-Clinton team will engage with Hamas, he said, given that the act would undermine “popular support” for the PA. Moreover, Satloff points out that it makes “little sense to waste capital and credibility on an early tilting at Hamas’s windmills,” before the administration has committed to a new approach with Iran. It is important according then that the Gaza crisis not distracts Obama’s team from the “bigger test confronting them: the challenge of Iran.”

Dalia Dassa Kaye, an expert writing in Foreign Policy, notes that given the uncertainty of Israel’s intentions in Gaza, some observers see the offensive as targeting Iran. The writer argues, however, that “Iran’s regional position has little to do with Hamas.” She explains that Hamas and Iran are “not as wedded” as some think, noting that Hamas is part of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood movement, and not a natural partner with Shiite Iran. The two also pursue different agendas and have diversified portfolios across the region. On that account she stresses that “a serious setback for Hamas is unlikely to undermine Iranian influence elsewhere in the region.” On the other hand, Kaye contends that “different US relations with Iran are more likely to affect dynamics in Gaza than Gaza changing the equation with Iran.” Iran would likely stop “obstructing” peace efforts in the region only when the country’s leaders see larger potential gains, and there is no reason to assume that destroying Hamas would lead to Iran’s defeat.

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75588

Hamas proposes truce if Israel withdraws, Israeli convoy returns to Cairo for talks

January 16, 2009

Hamas proposed a yearlong truce with Israel, if it pulled its troops from Gaza as a senior Israeli defence official was due back in Cairo on Friday to discuss an Egyptian plan to end the offensive.

Moussa Abu Marzuk, the Damascus-based deputy head of Hamas’s powerful politburo, told AFP the offer was made by a Hamas delegation during talks in Cairo with Egyptian officials.

“Those were the movement’s remarks on the Egyptian initiative, this is what we proposed,” Abu Marzuk said in a telephone interview when asked about reports that Hamas had proposed a one-year-long renewable truce with Israel.

Hamas was waiting for Israel’s response, he said early Friday.

“We are waiting for an answer from Egypt after they talk to (Israeli envoy) Amos Gilad,” Abu Marzuk said.

Gilad, a senior aide to Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak, was due back in Cairo on Friday for further discussions on the Egyptian truce plan.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert held talks with senior ministers and defense officials late on Thursday after Gilad returned from Egypt, and he decided to send Gilad back to Cairo for further discussions, a statement from Olmert’s office said.

-AFP

 

 

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75586

Salloukh says there is no Arab summit in Doha, only consultative meetings

January 16, 2009

Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh said that there were only consultative meetings in Doha, which would allow foreign and economy ministers to prepare for the Kuwait Summit to be held on Monday. The latter summit would also discuss the situation in the Gaza strip.

Speaking to As-Sharq newspaper and the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Dar on Friday, he said he hoped that the underway calls would put an end to the current debate about the Doha Summit.

He added that Lebanon would define its stance toward the participation in any meeting, if the Qatari invitation failed to reach the quorum of 15 members.

Salloukh said that the Arab Economic Summit in Kuwait was likely to be transformed into a political one.

-NOW Staff

 

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75581

Russian Foreign Minister Serge Putin says Russia called on Syria and Iran to convince Hamas to accept the Egyptian Initiative.

January 16, 2009

 

 

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75574

Marouni says criticizing Sleiman is like launching rockets on Lebanon

January 16, 2009

Minister of Tourism Elie Marouni told the Future News on Friday that the slogans shouted out by demonstrators, who gathered outside the United States embassy on Thursday in Awkar, were like rockets, because “Lebanon will fall due to such slogans and critics.”

Marouni affirmed that President Michel Sleiman was not subject to any pressure and noted that the cabinet supported him.

-NOW Staff

 

 

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75572

US may cut $1b in loan guarantees to Israel over West Bank settlements

January 16, 2009

Israeli newspaper website Haaretz reported on Thursday that the United States administration planned to cut about $1 billion from the balance of its loan guarantees to Israel because of its investments in the settlements. The balance stood at $4.6 billion.

Washington did not officially inform Jerusalem of the cut. The assumption was that the announcement, and the decision over the exact extent of the cut, would come only after Barack Obama was sworn in as president next Tuesday, according to Haaretz.

The paper said that the loan guarantees arrangement specified that the U.S. would reduce the guarantees by the amount the Israeli government spends on settlements in the West Bank. The U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv monitored that spending and the administration informed Jerusalem of the amount it would hold back from the guarantees.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert considered asking President George W. Bush to absolve all or part of the reduction, but no such request was made in the end, partly because Washington did not inform Jerusalem about a reduction in the guarantees, Haaretz reported.

The assessment now is that the Obama administration would weigh the political situation carefully before deciding on a cut to the guarantees, and it may try to link the cut with Israeli measures beyond the Green Line, the paper concluded.

-NOW Staff

 

 

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75567

Former MP Salah Hnein speaks to LBC

January 16, 2009

- Lebanese state authorities should make any decision concerning major issues. All decision should be made within the parliament and the cabinet.

-The disagreements among Arabs is in favor of Israel.

-I support any Arab initiative, which will be in favor of the Palestinian people.

-President Sleiman, among Arab disagreements, has good intentions to end the massacres in the Gaza Strip, but he is confused.

-I am not a supporter to any party or bloc, and my decision is clear and independent.

-I am an ally to the March 14 alliance.

 

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75565

Livni heads to Washington to prevent Hamas rearmament

January 16, 2009

Reuters reported on Friday that Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni headed to Washington late Thursday to finalize an accord designed to prevent Hamas from rearming, a key Israeli condition for a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip.

“Prime Minister Ehud Olmert authorized this evening the trip of Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni to the United States to promote an American-Israeli outlined agreement intended to deal with weapon smuggling,” Olmert’s office said in a statement.

Israeli officials said Livni was tentatively scheduled to meet with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at the State Department at 11 a.m. (1600 GMT), according to Reuters.

The statement made no mention of a proposal by Hamas, relayed by Egypt, for a yearlong ceasefire in the Gaza Strip. A spokesman for Olmert also declined to comment on any ceasefire proposal, the agency said.

Hamas told Egypt it would agree to a yearlong renewable ceasefire, if Israel pulled out all its forces within five to seven days and reopened border crossings immediately, Hamas and diplomatic sources said, according to Reuters.

-NOW Staff

 

 

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75563

Faisal: reaching tangible results is more important than summit’s location

January 16, 2009

Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said late Thursday that the quorum was not reached to hold the Doha Summit and noted that same discussions would be conducted during the Kuwait Summit.

In a press conference after the meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in Riyadh, he announced that the GCC Summit discussed the situation in the Gaza Strip and brought back the Gulf stance together.

“The place does not really matter, because tangible results and recommendations are more important,” he added.

Faisal called for expressing solidarity and unity among Arabs or else challenges would be more difficult. He noted that the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1860 was important, but it would not stop the fighting, adding that it would increase Israel’s isolation on the political level.

He also called for trying to close the gap among Palestinians and affirmed that Arab Peace Initiative was still on the table, but the other party should approve it in order for it to be productive.

-NOW Staff

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75551

Israel to lock down West Bank as Hamas calls for day of ‘wrath’

January 16, 2009

Israeli army said it would lock down the occupied West Bank on Friday, as Hamas called for a day of “wrath” against the deadly offensive on Gaza.

The West Bank would be closed off for 48 hours from midnight Thursday, the army said in a statement.

The announcement came after the Islamist movement Hamas called on Palestinians to observe a “day of wrath” on Friday by staging anti-Israeli protests after the weekly Muslim prayers.

Fatah followers of Western-backed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas were also called for demonstrations to take place on Friday against the Israeli offensive.

-AFP

 

 

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75549

Al-Arabiya reports Israeli top negotiator Gilad Amos to go back to Egypt on Friday.

January 16, 2009

 

 

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75548

Three’s a crowd

The number of summits and meetings called for by Arab leaders highlights their divisions.

Mona Alami, NOW Contributor , January 16, 2009

The Arabs have once again openly displayed their dissent over how to react to the Gaza crisis. Instead of adopting a unified stance against the Israeli offensive on the territory in the three weeks since it was launched, Arab leaders have called for three separate gatherings, one in Riyadh on Thursday, another in Kuwait Friday focusing primarily on the economy but also broaching the Gaza situation, and one in Qatar on the same day.

Early this week, Arab leaders agreed to discuss the Gaza situation at the Arab Economic Summit, set to be held in Kuwait on Monday. Among much bickering, it was decided that, as Arab foreign ministers are travelling to Kuwait on Friday, if there are enough of them to hold the summit, it will convene on Monday.

Qatar, the only Gulf state that maintains ties with Israel, renewed its calls for an extraordinary Arab summit to be held in Doha on Friday, but Egypt and Saudi Arabia rejected the proposal, the latter calling Wednesday for an urgent meeting of GCC countries in Riyadh on Thursday January 22. Any heads of state who travelled to Doha in the hopes of a summit being held, including Lebanese President Michel Sleiman, will gather there Friday for an unofficial Arab meeting.

These disparate calls for summits and meetings, despite the recently-successful Egyptian Initiative, mark the divisions that have been growing between those states that support Hamas and those that back Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, head of the moderate Palestinian Authority. With the popular protests heating up the streets in almost all Arab capitals over the past three weeks, the absence of a unified Arab action in response to the Israeli aggression on Gaza has been hard to conceal.

“Arab countries have remained on the sidelines of the Gaza conflict,” said Dr. Hilal Khashan of the American University of Beirut. “I highly doubt that the Doha Summit, which requires the written approval of two-thirds of Arab League members, will take place due to the absence of a quorum.” Indeed, Arab League Secretary General Hisham Youssef announced on Thursday that the quorum could not be achieved, with only 11 of the 22 member countries endorsing the Qatari proposal.

Khashan told NOW Lebanon that he believed the Doha Summit could not be held without American approval and said he believed pressures were brought to bear on Arab League member states to reject Qatar’s invitation. Kamal Medhat, a PLO representative in Lebanon, agreed, citing Morocco’s initial acceptance and then withdrawal from the summit.

Medhat noted that the recent Arab divisions did not stem from the Palestinian issue but rather reflected conflicts of interest among Arab states.

Regional political heavyweights such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt as well as Tunisia made clear they would boycott the Doha Summit, especially in light of Wednesday’s successful negotiations between Hamas delegates and Egyptian Intelligence Chief Omar Suleiman, who communicated Hamas’ agreement to the terms of the Egyptian Initiative to the Israelis Thursday. “These countries would like to see Hamas neutralized,” explained Khashan. “Other countries, such as Syria, have tried cornering Arab countries on the Gaza issue, without taking any active measure to put an end to the offensive.” Those heads of state who showed up in Doha Friday include the Qatari emir, Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, Mauritanian President Mohammad Ould Abdel Aziz, Algerian President Abdel Aziz Bouteflika and Lebanese President Michel Sleiman.

But while Arab leaders continue their back-and-forth, blood is still being spilled in Gaza, where over 1,105 Palestinians have died and more than 5,150 – at least 1,500 of whom children – have been wounded. Images of dead children have been aired regularly on television screens around the globe, especially in the Arab world, where resentment toward Israel is boiling over. “The calling of Arab countries for separate summits is the worst thing that could happen to the Palestinian people,” said Medhat. “It is something very sad and distressful for those being slaughtered in Gaza. Arabs should be instead supporting Palestinians politically. This sad reality is providing Israel with an extra time margin to pursue the killing of innocent Palestinians.”

Lebanese Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh told NOW Lebanon he did not believe the call for separate summits was indicative of Arab dissension. He noted that the Kuwait Summit was scheduled over a year ago, while Qatar called for its summit after the failure of the United Nations to implement Security Council Resolution 1860, calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, last week. “We hope Arabs will take a unified stance against the Israeli offensive on Gaza,” said Salloukh. “Most Arab countries support Palestine and would like to put an end to the killing of civilians and children.”

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75546

23 bodies pulled out in Gaza, which raises death toll to 1,133

January 16, 2009

At least 23 bodies were pulled from the rubble in Gaza City and its environs on Friday after a day that saw heavy clashes between Israeli troops and Hamas fighters, Gaza medics said.

Most of the bodies were found in the rubble in Tal Al-Hawa, a southwestern neighborhood of Gaza City, after Israeli tanks pulled out of the area in the pre-dawn hours, the medics said.

Since Israel unleashed Operation Cast Lead on December 27, at least 1,133 Palestinians were killed and another 5,130 wounded, according to Gaza medics. They said some 600 of the victims were civilians, including 355 children.

-AFP

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75542

Cabinet committed to keeping Lebanon from turning into rocket launch-pad

January 16, 2009

Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, who presided Thursday’s cabinet session at the Grand Serail, condemned the rocket-launching from South Lebanon toward northern Israel and affirmed that these incidents did not represent the will of the Lebanese. He added that what happened would harm Lebanon’s interests and sabotage its stability.

Siniora noted Lebanon’s political and national consensus to commit to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, as well as the determination of the Lebanese government and its people to stop their country from turning into a launch-pad for rockets to serve as a proxy for regional messages.

PM also said that Israel was committing “war crimes” without any restrictions, and he urged the international community to hold Israel accountable under the International Humanitarian Law.

He added that Lebanon expressed willingness to participate in any urgent Arab summit as stated by the Arab League Charter in order to reduce disparities and disagreements among Arabs, which would only serve Israel’s interests.

The defense minister, in turn, informed the cabinet about the measures taken by the Lebanese army, in cooperation with UNIFIL troops in the South, to identify those responsible for the rocket-launching and prevent the repetition of such acts.

The cabinet called again for stopping the war on Gaza, ending the siege, opening the border crossings and expressing a unified Arab stance to confront the Israeli offensive.

After the session, Information Minister Tarek Mitri told reporters that President Michel Sleiman flew to Qatar to participate in the “consultative meeting” in Doha, because the quorum was not reached to hold an official summit.

-NOW Staff

 

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75539

Grenade targets army checkpoint in Tripoli

January 16, 2009

Free Lebanon radio station reported on Friday that unidentified people threw a grenade near an army checkpoint late Thursday in the area between Bab al-Tabbaneh and Jabal Mohsen in Tripoli in North Lebanon.

No casualties were reported.

-NOW Staff

 

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75534

Shamseddine states Arab division provides Israel with opportunity to attack Palestinians

January 16, 2009

Minister of State for Administrative Reform Ibrahim Shamseddine said Lebanon approved the participation in the Doha Summit before any other Arab country, noting that the Arab stance was “very bad.” He added that this division had given Israel the opportunity to attack the Palestinians.

In an interview with the Voice of Lebanon radio station on Friday, he said there was no problem with President Michel Sleiman’s participation in the “consultative meeting” in Qatar, because the constitution approved the president attending such a meeting.

He also criticized the attacks made on President Michel Sleiman during the demonstrations on Thursday, because he said the president was not in fault.

-NOW Staff

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75517

Lebanese press round-up: January 16, 2009

Note: There is no press round-up on Sundays.

January 16, 2009

Press round-up for Friday, January 16th from the morning edition of Lebanon’s An-Nahar, Al-Akhbar, As-Safir, and Ad-Diyar newspapers.

An-Nahar Newspaper

·         Opening Titles

Gulf leaders supported the Egyptian Initiative; the “emergency meeting” is held today in Doha with “whomever attends” it.

The most violent day of the war: Siam assassinated and UNRWA warehouses bombed.

Appeasement hinges on US-Israeli agreement on monitoring arms smuggling.

Sleiman to Doha amidst controversy following criticism leveled at him in the Awkar protest.

The UN General Assembly calls for abiding by UNSCR 1860.

·         Local News

Contacts led to an agreement elaborated by Washington with Israel and “regional partners” on having the United States provide technical support and expertise in order to prevent Hamas from rearming itself. However, it seems that the conclusion of the agreement has yet to be announced.

Israel assassinated yesterday the minister of the interior in the Hamas government, Said Siam, along with his brother, his son and three other people, who perished in an airstrike on a rented house in the Jabaliya camp.

Hamas vowed to avenge Siam’s death, asserting that “his blood will be a curse on our enemies” and calling for “a day of anger” today in the West Bank and Jerusalem.

Israel killed more than 70 Palestinians yesterday. UNRWA warehouses in Gaza City were not spared, not to mention Israel’s targeting of a tour used by foreign journalists and a hospital.

Arab leaders are heading to Doha today based on Qatar’s invitation to hold an “emergency meeting of the Arab League Council.” Meanwhile, GCC leaders held yesterday an extraordinary summit in Riyadh, which reiterated its support of the Egyptian Initiative.

A few hours following the return of Israeli envoy Amos Gilad from Cairo, the office of the Israeli prime minister released a statement, saying that Israeli PM Ehud Olmert has decided to send Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni to the United States.

According to Egyptian state TV, Hamas told Cairo that it was ready to declare a one-year renewable truce in Gaza if Israel agrees to an immediate cessation of military operations and withdraws from the Gaza Strip.

During the Awkar protest, criticism slogans targeted President Michel Sleiman for the first time since his election. Participants in the protest, which was held under Hezbollah sponsorship, included opposition and leftist parties.

President Sleiman headed to Doha while Speaker Nabih Berri concluded his visit to Turkey yesterday by meeting with Turkish President Abdullah Gül in Ankara.

The UN General Assembly expressed yesterday its “deep concern” over the Israel’s continuous use of excessive military force in Gaza, which has led to a dangerous humanitarian crisis. The General Assembly called for abiding by UNSCR 1860.

 

Al-Akhbar Newspaper

·         Opening Titles

Doha witnesses today the birth of an Arab axis; domestic pressure compels Sleiman to participate.

Hamas rejects truce without withdrawal; Israel is pondering a “unilateral move.”

·         Local News

Israel, which is apparently heading to a unilateral ceasefire, admitted that Hamas is adamant about rejecting any truce that is not bound to a definite schedule and does not include the withdrawal of occupation troops from Gaza.

Up until dawn today, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Western states had successfully torpedoed the quorum of the Doha emergency summit, while tragedy unfolded when PA President Mahmoud Abbas declared that he would not take part in it.

Doha is to host today a consultative meeting of Arab heads of states, most of whom arrived in Doha yesterday evening, to discuss a draft statement and an action plan which is to be submitted to the presidential consultative meeting set to be held in Kuwait on the fringes of the economic summit.

Doha is to witness a six-party restricted summit, which will encompass the Qatari emir, Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, Mauritanian President Mohammad Ould Abdel Aziz, Algerian President Abdel Aziz Bouteflika and Lebanese President Michel Sleiman.

President Sleiman received several phone calls from opposition figures who emphasized the need for Lebanon to take part in the Doha Summit. The director general of General Security, Major General Wafiq Jezzini, made contacts with key figures, notably Speaker Berri and the Hezbollah leadership, so as to prevent any deterioration of the [security] situation.

The Council of Ministers remained in session until midnight, as most ministers took part in the debate. PM Siniora quoted the president as informing him that he had received a phone call from the Qatari emir, who invited him to take part in a consultative meeting. Siniora commented, saying that “the constitution allows the president to hold consultative meetings.”

As-Safir Newspaper

1,105 martyrs; the resistance vows to avenge Siam and maintains its rocket launch power.

Israel depletes Gaza between the “support” summit and the “procrastination” summit.

As-Safir publishes the details of the meeting among the president, MP Ali Hassan Khalil and Hussein Khalil.

Sleiman relinquishes “constructive ambiguity” … and lands in Doha.

Local News

Israel noticeably stepped up its war on Gaza yesterday in an apparent attempt to ameliorate the conditions of indirect negotiations with Hamas through an Egyptian mediation.

The United Nations declared that the Israeli occupation targeted the UNRWA HQ with phosphorus bombs, while UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon held talks with high-ranking Israeli officials.

The Palestinian Ministry of Health declared that, according to a non-final count, the death toll was until yesterday evening 1,105 martyrs with more than 5,130 wounded, most of them civilians.

Hamas Politburo Chief Khaled Meshaal stressed once again that Hamas will not accept any ceasefire plan that does not guarantee an immediate cessation of the aggression and the immediate withdrawal of the Israeli army, in addition to lifting the siege and opening border crossings.

President Sleiman ultimately decided to recant his “constructive ambiguity” and declare his participation in the Doha Summit on [the situation in] Palestine, whether such a summit is held or becomes a “consultative meeting” among participating Arab heads of states.

The opposition had criticized the president for the first time in the media and on the streets for deciding not to take part in the Doha meetings. This was manifested in the opposition-sponsored Awkar protest.

The pro-government party, in cooperation with the Maronite Patriarchate, had pressured Sleiman into not going to Qatar. As usual, this position was illustrated yesterday by MP Walid Jumblatt who said that “it is not in Lebanon’s interest to participate in the Qatar Summit.”

As-Safir has learned that Hezbollah politburo member Hajji Hussein Khalil and MP Ali Hassan Khalil conveyed to President Sleiman two oral messages expressing their wish that Lebanon participates in the Qatar Summit because Lebanon is not a neutral country, but rather one at the heart of the confrontation with the enemy.

 

Ad-Diyar Newspaper

·         Opening Titles

Israel steps up its massacres; 1,105 martyrs and 5,130 wounded.

The Doha Summit [to be held] with whomever attends it, and Al-Faisal: There is no quorum for it.

The president in Qatar, and Lebanon is attached to the Arab League Charter.

·         Local News

President Sleiman decided to head to Doha today, and the matter of is participation in the Doha Summit reportedly hinges on whether a full quorum, i.e. 15 Arab states, is attained.

The president’s position is based on his wish to spare no effort in order to stop the [Israeli] aggression [on Gaza], while, at the same time, not widening the gap in the Arab position.

According to sources, President Sleiman will not participate in summit meetings held with a few participant states only; however, he will take part in the contacts and consultations to be held in Doha.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon failed yesterday to convince Israeli leaders to put an end to the war, even though he said: “The disastrous situation in the Gaza Strip has become intolerable.”

According to Egyptian sources, Israeli envoy Amos Gilad agreed in Israel’s name on the Egyptian Initiative. However, Israeli occupation leaders have yet to issue any official position on the issue.

 

JANUARY 15th 2008

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75504

EU presidency says Israeli attack on UN in Gaza is unacceptable

January 15, 2009

Israel’s attack on a UN compound in Gaza is “simply unacceptable,” the EU’s Czech presidency said on Thursday, demanding that the Jewish state take measures to prevent any recurrence.

The EU presidency “condemns today’s strike on a building of UNRWA in Gaza City by Israeli artillery,” a statement said.

“The (EU) Presidency demands that Israel undertake measures to prevent any recurrence of this attack on civilian or humanitarian targets, which is simply unacceptable,” it added.

-AFP

 

 

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75496

Italian Defense Minister says deploying a UN force in Gaza is impossible without ceasefire

January 15, 2009

Italian Defense Minister Iganzio La Russa said that deploying a UN force in Gaza was impossible until “the weapons are silenced…This drives us to emphasize ceasefire and paying attention to the innocent civilians’ destiny.”

In a televised interview on Thursday, La Russa said that Hamas had violated the truce first, and that he empathized with the Israelis “who were suffering..from thousands of rockets falling on their land–The demand for two states for two peoples must be strong.”

-NOW Staff

 

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75493

Siniora accuses Israel of war crimes in Gaza

January 15, 2009

Prime Minister Fouad Siniora said that Israel was committing war crimes, for which the Jewish state should be held accountable by the international community, as dictated by international law. However, Siniora asserted that in the past Israel had been able to evade such accountability, as demonstrated by the “crimes” it committed in Lebanon.

In his opening remarks at the Thursday cabinet meeting, Siniora urged the ministers to observe a moment of silence for the “martyrs in Gaza.” Assisting the Palestinians, at all levels was crucial, the prime minister said, before noting Lebanon’s participation in the UN Arab delegation that pushed forward UNSCR 1860, calling for an immediate ceasefire.

Siniora also said that all Arab efforts should be deployed to stop the massacres in Gaza. Lebanon was ready to participate in the Arab league summit scheduled for Doha on Friday, he said, before adding that he had briefed ministers on all the latest developments regarding the summit.

Siniora also emphasized the need to preserve the national political consensus on commitment to UNSCR 1701 in order to maintain Lebanon’s sovereignty, decision-making powers and authority over its territory. “Attempts to use Lebanon and its territories in ways that contradict the national will are rejected and condemned,” he said.

-NOW Staff

 

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75480

GCC meets amid differences over Gaza response as Sleiman readies to visit Qatar

January 15, 2009

Leaders of the six Gulf monarchies began an emergency meeting in Riyadh Thursday on the Gaza crisis amid differences over how to respond to the Israeli onslaught.

The extraordinary summit was hastily organized following a call by Saudi King Abdullah, while neighboring Qatar pushed to hold an emergency Arab summit on Friday to address the same issue, despite an apparent lack of quorum.

Leaders of Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, in addition to King Abdullah, are taking part in the Riyadh summit. Oman is represented by Vice Prime Minister Fahd bin Said.

The Saudi monarch called the Thursday summit due to escalating tensions “resulting from the Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people,” according to the official SPA news agency.

Saudi Arabia has accused Israel of “racist extermination” and sweeping human rights abuses.

Qatar meanwhile continued to prepare for its proposed summit, although Arab League chief Amr Mussa said in Kuwait on Wednesday that a quorum of 15 countries to hold the meeting in Doha had not been achieved, as only 13 of the 22 member states had agreed to attend.

Sudanese President Omar al-Bachir was the first leader to arrive, according to Qatar’s official news agency QNA, while Mauritanian state press agency AMI reported that General Ould Abdel Aziz, leader of the junta that seized power last August, had set off from Nouakchott for Qatar.

Members of a Syrian delegation which arrived Thursday in Doha said that President Bashar al-Assad was to arrive within hours, while Algerian diplomats said President Abdelaziz Bouteflika is expected to come.

In Lebanon, a government official told AFP that President Michel Sleiman was heading to Qatar but would attend the summit only if the 15-state quorum is achieved.

Doha’s persistence in pushing its own summit despite the rejection by regional heavyweights Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and its ability to get a 13 Arab states to sign on, underscored differences in the region on how to respond to Israel’s Gaza invasion and how far to support Gaza’s ruling Hamas faction.

Israel’s 20-day-old air and ground assault on Gaza, aimed at destroying Hamas’ military capability, has left more than 1,000 Palestinians dead and stirred outrage across the Middle East, sparking street protests and calls for Arab governments to take stronger action to help the Gazans and punish Israel.

However, both Saudi Arabia and Egypt have criticised Hamas for not cooperating with Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas, whose authority is confined to the West Bank since his Fatah faction was ousted by Hamas militants from Gaza in 2007.

The two countries see the hard-line Islamist Hamas as both a proxy for regional rival Iran and a barrier to achieving a peace deal between the Palestinians and Israel.

After Israel rejected the UN Security Council’s resolution for an immediate ceasefire last week and while Egypt pursued negotiations, Qatar stepped up its call for an emergency summit of the Arab League, proposing it for Friday in Doha.

Qatar pushed ahead with the initiative even after King Abdullah and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak again rejected the idea on Monday, saying the issue would be discussed anyway at the Arab League economic summit in Kuwait on January 19.

The Riyadh GCC summit now appears to have effectively scotched Qatar’s proposal.

But Doha, the only Gulf member with official trade relations with Israel, continued to push its hardline stance.

Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani called overnight on Wednesday for Arab nations to reconsider their diplomatic ties with Israel.

Egypt, Jordan and Mauritania are the only Arab states to have diplomatic ties with the Jewish state, while Qatar itself continues to host an Israeli commercial office.

Sheikh Hamad proposed “freezing the Arab peace initiative and the suspension of all forms of normalization with Israel, including the reconsideration of diplomatic ties.”

-AFP

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75479

Ministers speak before cabinet convenes

January 15, 2009

Defense Minister Elias al-Murr said on Thursday that he would brief cabinet ministers, during their meeting that evening at the Grand Serail, on measures taken by the Lebanese army in South Lebanon following the Wednesday rocket fire into Israel. Murr said that some of the rockets failed to reach Israel.

Tourism Minister Elie Marouni, for his part, said that discussion of the rocket fire in the meeting was intended to identify those responsible. “We will call for strengthening the army’s role,” he said.

Public Works and Transport Minister Ghazi al-Aridi said that the repercussions of Israel’s war in Gaza extended beyond the territory, adding that the positions put forward by Lebanon, particularly Hezbollah’s, were wise. “We should know how we can protect our country and let no one outdo us,” the minister said.

Minister of State Wael Abu Faour said that even if the quorum for the Arab Summit in Qatar was reached Lebanon was left with the choice of either participating in two rival summits [in Doha and in Kuwait] or boycotting both.

Culture Minister Tamam Salam called the current situation in Lebanon fragile and sensitive, before urging Lebanese to avoid one-upmanship.

-NOW Staff

 

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75478

Rice phones Israel over trouble with UN

January 15, 2009

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is “deeply, deeply concerned about the humanitarian situation in Gaza,” and spoke by phone early Thursday with Israeli leaders about the latest violence there, her spokesman said.

The high-level phone call followed Israeli strikes on the main UN compound in Gaza which wounded three employees, set fire to a warehouse filled with tons of aid and led the UN Relief and Works Agency there (UNRWA) to partially suspend operations.

“It is a dire situation on the ground,” said State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack, who said Rice early Thursday phoned Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni.

He said an Israeli envoy was due Thursday at the State Department to discuss the terms of a proposed ceasefire.

“We are working aggressively, seeking to help to bring about a ceasefire under the terms that we previously talked about, that is sustainable, that is not time limited,” McCormack told reporters, refusing to condemn the Israeli strike.

A UNRWA spokesman said tens of millions of dollars worth of humanitarian aid had been destroyed in the attack, which was condemned by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and a European Union commissioner.

The bombing took place shortly after UN chief Ban Ki-moon arrived in Israel, and spark his “strong protest and outrage.”

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that Israeli troops had shelled the compound in Gaza in response to fire coming from the building.

-AFP

 

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75474

Israel kills top Hamas leader

January 15, 2009

Israel killed one of Hamas’s top leaders in Gaza, interior minister Said Siam, the most senior Islamist to have been killed in the 20-day-old war in the enclave, a Hama-run television reported Thursday evening.

“Leader Said Siam, his son and his brother fell as martyrs in Gaza,” reported Al-Quds television, a Hamas station based in Beirut.

A Hamas website confirmed the report.

The three died in an Israeli air strike on the house of Siam’s brother north of Gaza City.

Siam belonged to the hardline wing of Hamas and had created the Executive Force, a force that played a key role in the Islamist takeover of Gaza in June 2007.

The Israeli military confirmed the strike.

“In a joint operation of the IDF and the Shin Beth (internal security) a short while ago, jets attacked a building” in Gaza while Said Siam was inside with his brother Iyad and a third person, an army spokeswoman told AFP.

“We identified hitting the target.”

-AFP

 

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75476

Meshaal: Hamas refuses to raise white flag

January 15, 2009

Hamas will refuse to “raise a white flag” to Israel, Hamas politbureau chief Syria Khaled Meshaal said Thursday.

At a press conference, Meshaal said Hamas was fighting a battle “which was imposed on us” and listed three demands of his faction. “First, the attacks should stop. Second, the enemy forces should withdraw from Gaza. Third, the blockade should be removed. It started the crisis. Border crossings should be opened, primarily Rafah. Then we will discuss the details.”

“Hamas refuses to surrender. However, Israel is the one refusing the ceasefire. We are in the most difficult phase today: regret,” he said.

Meshaal said Israel had “lost its mind” and would achieve nothing. “It will not defeat Hamas and it will not prevent the launching of rockets… I tell you that our loss of Jihadists [Hamas members] is much less than the loss of the Israeli army… Israel is begging for a diplomatic victory after its military loss,” he told reporters.

The Hamas leader said it was unacceptable that some Arab and Palestinian “voices” equated Hamas with Israel. “Gaza deserves more than a summit and it cannot be used as a card in the normalization [process] after what happened… Arab leaders need Gaza’s victory. Gaza deserves more than a summit and it cannot be used as a card in the normalization [process] after what happened,” he said.

-NOW Staff

 

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75470

Raad expects local repercussions of Gaza crisis

January 15, 2009

The head of the Loyalty to the Resistance bloc, MP Mohammad Raad, has said he expects repercussions of the Gaza crisis in Lebanon and voiced his belief that the only means to defend the country was through the Resistance.

The Israeli offensive on Gaza proved that Resistance was the only possible defense strategy, Raad said in an interview with the al-Ousbou al-Arabi (Arab Weekly) daily to be published Friday. The MP also said that the Israeli attack on Gaza had repercussions on Lebanon as well as on the Arab region. “I expect problems and nobody knows to where they may lead. The Arab people are angry at their regimes,” he said.

Hezbollah is to request the expansion of participants in the next round of national dialogue, after which the party would present its defense strategy, he added.

Raad said that the “Zionist enemy” was heading toward terminating the Palestinian cause. Yet once Israel failed, he said, they will resort to Jordan or to linking Gaza to Egypt.

Raad also said that Resistance in Lebanon added to the people’s self-confidence through their ability to confront Israel. “The Resistance does what conditions allow it to do without dispersing its points of strength,” he said.

And on Hezbollah’s stance against the launching of rockets from South Lebanon into Israel, he replied, “We adopted what was issued by the cabinet in this regard. The Resistance has enough maturity and wisdom to decide what serves the interest of the Lebanese situation and helps the Palestinian population.”

The MP clarified that Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah had not declared an attack on Egypt. “We request all Arab regions do their duties,” he said. However, he said, Egypt was the only state that could take quick action to help the people of Gaza.

Raad also voiced his belief in the need to hold Lebanon’s parliamentary elections on June 7, 2009, as scheduled.

-NOW Staff

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75461

Foreign Press Association calls for boycott of Israeli army photos in protest against IDF attack on media building

January 15, 2009

The Foreign Press Association on Thursday urged its members to boycott Israeli army photos and video footage to protest at the shelling of a media building in Gaza City that wounded two cameramen.

The move was also prompted by the Israeli army’s refusal to allow reporters to enter the territory to cover the conflict in which some 1,100 people have been killed in the largest Israeli offensive ever launched on the enclave.

“The FPA rejects and condemns the IDF policy of controlling the news coverage of the events in Gaza,” said the group – which represents foreign media outlets in Israel and the Palestinian territories, including AFP and Reuters.

“By preventing the entry of foreign journalists into Gaza and bombing buildings housing offices of international media – contrary to IDF assurances that these media buildings would be safe – the IDF is severely violating basic principles of respect for press freedom,” it said.

The group asked media outlets not to use any photos or video footage provided by the Israeli military until it issues a formal apology for the attacks and “offers assurances that no such event will occur in the future.”

The two cameramen, who worked for Abu Dhabi television, were wounded when an Israeli strike hit a building in Gaza City housing several international and Arab media outlets, witnesses and officials said.

Media outlets housed in the Al-Shuruq tower, located in the Rimal neighborhood in the center of Gaza City, include the Reuters news agency and television stations Fox, Sky and Al-Arabiya.

On January 2 Israel’s Supreme Court ordered the state to allow foreign reporters into the Gaza Strip, but no journalists have gone in amid disagreements between the FPA and the authorities.

In recent days some journalists have been embedded with Israeli troops but none have been permitted to operate independently.

-AFP

 

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=75459

UN General Assembly slams Israel for violation of international law

January 15, 2009

The UN General Assembly on Thursday kicked off an emergency session with its president accusing Israel of violating international law by pressing on with its deadly military assault on the Gaza Strip.

An Israeli delegate sought to block the session on procedural grounds by arguing that under the UN Charter, the 192-member assembly cannot inject itself on a matter already being tackled by the powerful Security Council.

But the Israeli complaint was dismissed and the assembly president, Nicaragua’s Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, opened the session which was requested by the 118-member UN member states which make up the nonaligned movement.

D’Escoto noted that the Security Council last week called for a Gaza ceasefire leading to the withdrawal of Israeli forces.

But he pointedly added that the Israeli offensive, launched to stop rocket firing by Palestinian militants and now in its 20th day, was continuing, with 1,073 Palestinians killed and at least another 5,000 wounded, according to Gaza medics.

“Gaza is ablaze. It has been turned into a burning hell,” D’Escoto said. “The violations of international law inherent in the Gaza assault have been well documented: collective punishment, disproportionate military force. Attacks on civilian targets, including homes, mosques, universities, schools.”

-AFP