| uruknet.info |
www.uruknet.info: a site gathering daily information concerning occupied Iraq: news, analysis, documents and texts of iraqi resistance available in Italian and English.
You receive this newsletter because you subscribed it. If you think it was an abuse, or simply if you don't want to receive it any more, click here to unsubscribe from the newsletter. |
Mexico's Lesson In The Dangers Of The Paper Ballot
By Greg Palast
for The Guardian, Comment is Free
Monday August 7, 2006
In the six years since I first began investigating the burglary ring we call "elections" in America, a new Voting Reform industry has grown up. That's good. What's worrisome is that most of the effort is focused on preventing the installation of computer voting machines. Paper ballots, we're told, will save our democracy.
Well, forget it. Over the weekend, Mexico's ruling party showed how you can rustle an election even with the entire population using the world's easiest paper ballot.
On Saturday, Mexico's electoral tribunal, known as the "TRIFE" (say "tree-fay") ordered a re-count of the ballots from the suspect July 2 vote for president. Well, not quite a recount as in "count all the ballots" -- but a review of just 9% of the nation's 130,000 precincts.
The "9% solution" was the TRIFE's ham-fisted attempt to chill out the several hundred thousand protesting supporters of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador who had gathered in the capital and blocked its main Avenue. Lopez Obrador, the Leftist challenger known by his initials AMLO, supposedly lost the presidential vote by just one half of one percent of the vote.
I say "supposedly" lost because, while George Bush congratulated his buddy Felipe Calderon on his victory, the evidence I saw on the ground in Mexico City fairly shrieks that the real winner was challenger AMLO.
President Bush should consider some inconvenient truths about the Mexican vote count:
First: The exit poll of 80,000 voters by the Instituto de Mercadotecnia y Opinion showed that AMLO bested Calderon by 35.1% to 34.0%.
Second: The precinct-by-precinct returns were quite otherworldly. I used to teach statistics and what I saw in Mexico would have stumped my brightest students.
Here's the conundrum: The nation's tens of thousands of polling stations report to the capital in random order after the polls close. Therefore, statistically, you'd expect the results to remain roughly unchanged as vote totals come in. As expected, AMLO was ahead of the right-wing candidate Calderon all night by an unchanging margin -- until after midnight. Suddenly, precincts began reporting wins for Calderon of five to one, the ten to one, then as polling nearly ended, of one-hundred to one.
How odd. I checked my concerns with Professor Victor Romero of Mexico's National University who concluded that the reported results must have been a "miracle." As he put it, a "religious event," but a statistical impossibility. There were two explanations, said the professor: either the Lord was fixing the outcome or operatives of the ruling party were cranking in a massive number of ballots when they realized their man was about to lose.
How could they do it? "Easy pea-sy," as my kids would say. In Mexico, the choices for president are on their own ballot with no other offices listed. Those who don't want to vote for President just discard the ballot. There is no real ballot security. In areas without reliable opposition observers (about a third of the nation), anyone can stuff ballots into the loosely-guarded cardboard boxes. (AMLO showed a tape of one of these ballot-stuffing operations caught in the act.)
It's also absurdly easy to remove paper ballots, disqualify them or simply mark them "nulo" ("null," unreadable).
The TRIFE, the official electoral centurions, rejected AMLO's request to review those precincts that reported the miracle numbers. Nor would the tribunal open and count the nearly one million "null" votes -- allegedly "uncountable" votes which totaled four times Calderon's putative plurality.
Mexico's paper ballot, I would note, is the model of clarity -- with large images of each party which need only be crossed through. The ruling party would have us believe that a million voters waited in line, took a ballot, made no mark, then deliberately folded the ballot and placed it in the ballot box, pretending they'd voted. Maybe, as in Florida in 2000, those "unreadable" ballots were quite readable. Indeed, the few boxes re-counted showed the "null" ballots marked for AMLO. The Tribunal chose to check no further.
The only precincts the TRIFE ordered re-counted are those where the tally sheets literally don't tally -- precincts in which the arithmetic is off. They refuse even to investigate those precincts where ballot boxes were found in city dumps.
There are other "miracles" which the TRIFE chose to ignore: a weirdly low turnout of only 44% in the state where Lopez Obrador is most popular, Guerrero (Acapulco), compared to turnouts of over 60% elsewhere. The votes didn't vanish, the ruling party explained, rather the challenger's supporters, confident of victory, did not bother to vote. Confident ... in Mexico?
In other words, despite the right to paper ballots, the election was fiddled, finagled and fixed.
Does this mean US activists should give up on the fight for paper ballots and give in to robo-voting, computerized democracy in a box. Hell, no! Lopez Obrador has put hundreds of thousands in the street week after week demanding, "vota por vota" -- recount every vote. But AMLO's supporters can only demand a re-count because the paper ballot makes a recount possible. Were Mexico's elections held on a Diebold special, there would be no way to recount the electrons floating in cyberspace.
Paper ballots make democracy possible, but hardly guarantee it. "Null" votes, not voters, have chosen Mexico's president. The only other nation I know of with such a poisonously high percentage of "null" votes is the "Estados Unidos," the USA.
And just as in Mexico, the "null" vote, the trashed, spoiled, rejected ballots, overrode the voters' choice, so it was north of the Rio Grande in 2000 and 2004. Ballot spoilage, not computer manipulation, stole Ohio and Florida in those elections -- and will steal Colorado and New Mexico in the 2008 election.
In other words, my fellow gringo activists, we'd better stop fixating on laptop legerdemain and pledge our lives and fortunes to stopping the games played with registration rolls, provisional ballots, absentee ballots, voter ID demands and the less glamorous, yet horribly effective, methods used to suppress, invalidate and otherwise ambush the vote.
*****
Greg Palast is the author of the just-released New York Times bestseller, "ARMED MADHOUSE: Who's Afraid of Osama Wolf?, China Floats Bush Sinks, the Scheme to Steal '08, No Child's Behind Left and other Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War." Go to www.GregPalast.com.
See Palast's July 12 investigation of the Mexican election on Democracy Now!
| |||||
|
imra Mon Aug 7 02:20:09 2006 Volume 2 : Issue 1484
In this issue of the imra daily Digest:
[And still}Weekly Commentary: The Timely War?
Text: Secretary Rice: IDF remains temporarily in Lebanon,
implies Hezbollah can attack it
MEMRI: Debate in the Arab Countries
- Is Hizbullah a "Resistance" Organization or Not?
Lebanon: IDF kills 3 terrorists and destroys 7 rocket launchers near
IDF ditches plans to reach Litani River [before
National Security Advisor Hadley: IDF forces in Lebanon
will only have right to defend themselvees if Hezbollah attacks them
Agriculture Minister Shalom Simchon [Labor]
blasts government for not being aggressive in Lebanon
IDF releases names of 10 of 12 reservists killed
Rocket hits Arab anti-war newspaper in Haifa
Olmert waiting for UN rather than
extending operations to distance rockets
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: [And still}Weekly Commentary: The Timely War?
Weekly Commentary: The Timely War?
Aaron Lerner Date: 13 July 2006 [distributed again on 6
August]
Assuming that the Olmert team doesn't blink (or perhaps more accurately,
that Hezbollah continues to create a situation that makes blinking domestic
political suicide) there is a genuine chance that Israel may actually
succeed in ridding itself of a dangerous threat to the Jewish State before
circumstances make such a move considerably more expensive.
Today Iran has no nuclear bomb. Egypt is neither lead by a radical Islamic
regime nor does Egypt's leadership appear to feel compelled to divert public
attention from its current domestic difficulties via an open clash with
Israel. Ditto for Jordan.
Add to this that since Israel has yet to retreat from most of the West Bank
thus apparently leaving its most populous central area out of immediate
massive rocket exposure (with a national budget not yet burdened with the
debt such a retreat would cost) and it can certainly be said that Hezbollah
has picked a good time for a mini-war for Israel.
And what if, indeed, Mr. Olmert declines to blink and then goes on to apply
the same newly found intestinal fortitude to the challenge he faces today in
the Gaza Strip?
Will the episode then give him the credibility to push through his retreat
plan or, alternatively, will it be seen as evidence of the folly of retreat?
Regardless of how ideal the outcome, Mr. Olmert's spin team can certainly be
counted on to try to achieve the former.
Far fetched?
Hardly.
Thanks to Israel's then considerably greater strategic depth at the time of
the horrific surprise Yom Kippur War of 1973 and a generous serving of good
fortune, it was able to absorb the devastating opening invading attacks and
ultimately conclude the war 101 kilometers from Cairo and on the road to
Damascus.
One would think that the experience of the Yom Kippur War would be seen as
proof positive that retreat is a mistake, but retreat proponents point to
Israel's ultimate victory in '73 as some kind of proof of the IDF's
invincibility regardless of the opening conditions.
One can only hope that Israel will soon find itself focused on debating the
lessons of its victory in the conflict now unfolding.
Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
(Mail POB 982 Kfar Sava)
Tel 972-9-7604719/Fax 972-3-7255730
INTERNET ADDRESS: imra@netvision.net.il
Website: http://www.imra.org.il
------------------------------
From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Text: Secretary Rice: IDF remains temporarily in Lebanon,
implies Hezbollah can attack it
[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA: While the draft resolution reads:
"OP1. Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular,
the immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks and the immediate
cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations;"
it is important to note that Secretary Rice repeatedly uses the formulation
" the rocketing into Israel" for Hezbollah operations that must stop at once
and "the major offensive military operations" for IDF operations that must
stop at once.
The implication is that while Ms. Rice see the IDF remaining in Lebanon
("forces stop in place") she also see Hezbollah attacking them and IDF
forces defending themselves but not advancing.]
=======================
Press Briefing by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Crawford Middle School
Crawford, Texas
August 6, 2006
Released by the White House Office of the Press Secretary
www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/70015.htm
8:00 A.M. CDT
SECRETARY RICE: Good morning. I'll take a few questions.
QUESTION: Secretary Rice, who or what are you counting on to bring Hezbollah
on board, to get them to agree with this resolution?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, first of all, let me say that it's important that we
vote the resolution in the Security Council, and we expect that to happen in
the next day or two. And at that point, the international community will
have put forward its views of how this war can abate, and then we'll see who
is for peace and who isn't. The world is really watching now to see.
Everyone has been talking about a cease-fire, an immediate cease-fire. I
think even Hezbollah has from time to time talked about an immediate
cease-fire.
This is a basis on which a cease-fire will take place, cessation of
hostilities will take place so that there can't be a return to the status
quo ante, which is extremely important to all the parties, because we don't
want to create a situation in which we get out of this, and then you create
the conditions in which Hezbollah, a state-within-a-state, goes across the
line again, abducts soldiers, and we get another war.
And so we will ask everyone who has any influence with all the parties to
talk to them about the importance of taking this opportunity. I just want to
note that these things take a while to wind down. It is certainly not the
case that probably all violence is going to stop, but the kind of
large-scale violence that is really so hard on the Lebanese and Israeli
people, the rocketing into Israel, the major offensive military operations,
it's important to get those stopped, but it's a first step. We've then got
to get to the second resolution, and the formation of an international force
that can help the Lebanese government extend its authority throughout the
country. So this is a first step.
QUESTION: Can I just follow up, something you said on the morning talk
shows. How could it possibly be that the Lebanese government didn't know
that thousands and thousands of rockets came into their territory? You gave
the indication that they were oblivious to this.
SECRETARY RICE: No, I said that they did not know about the attack across
the Blue Line for the abduction of Israeli soldiers. They have said that,
and I believe them on that. The military wing of Hezbollah did this
apparently without any authorization of the Lebanese government, which had
an obligation to respect the Blue Line.
The real situation in Lebanon is that the south has had a vacuum in which
Hezbollah has been operating. And the solution to this over the next several
months is going to be to flow the authority of the Lebanese government and
Lebanese forces with the help of international forces into the south, so
that you don't have that vacuum.
Steve.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SECRETARY RICE: Well, I would hope that you would see, very early on, an end
to the kind of large-scale violence, large-scale military operations, firing
of rockets, that we've been seeing. That needs to stop so that the situation
can clear for the next phase, and the bringing in of international forces to
help.
But I can't say that you should rule out that there could be skirmishes of
some kind for some time to come. This isn't meant to be a permanent
condition, it's meant to create conditions on which a more permanent,
enduring cease-fire can be built.
QUESTION: Prime Minister Siniora says that the U.N. resolution, as in the
draft, is inadequate, that they're looking for Israeli troops to withdraw
from Lebanese territory immediately. Have you spoken with him, and what is
the administration willing to offer in the first resolution? Are you willing
to make some changes in that to include that in that resolution?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, again, we need to keep this in face. Yes, I've spoken
to Prime Minister Siniora a couple of times, as a matter of fact, yesterday.
I'm also speaking with the Israelis, as are others. The United States has
been very much, with France, in the lead on this, but there are a number of
countries that are talking to all the parties.
The way to think about this is that you need to have, in effect, forces stop
in place, so that you don't have the large-scale military operations that
really are so devastating to the country and so devastating to the people.
There will have to be a phase of the flowing of Lebanese security forces
into the south. Everybody wants to have that happen as quickly as possible,
but they need international assistance to do it. No one wants to see Israel
permanently in Lebanon, nobody wants that. The Israelis don't want it, the
Lebanese don't want it.
And so I think there's a basis here for moving forward. We are not in a
position to stop after the first resolution, people are absolutely right
about that. That would not be a stable equilibrium. So we need to get the
first resolution, get the large-scale violence stopped, get the Lebanese
forces ready to flow in, get security -- international forces to help them,
and do that really rather quickly. So I want to emphasize this is a first
step, not the only step.
QUESTION: Can you tell us about what the President has had to say about
this, and what interactions you've had with him since you've been here?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, I've been, obviously -- and before we left
Washington -- in constant contact with the President; came back from the
meetings that I'd had in the Middle East and came directly to talk to him.
Obviously, yesterday we've been in fairly intensive conversation about this,
as we've been moving forward toward the resolution.
But his view is very strong on this, and it's not unlike what he stated at
the very beginning of this crisis, when we were in, I think, Germany, when
this really started, which is that this is really now an opportunity to
extend the authority of the Lebanese government throughout its own
territory. That really has to be the goal. Everybody is focused on the
international forces, but the international forces are there to assist in
the important work of getting the Lebanese to fill the vacuum that has
developed in the south. That's, in large part, why you have a kind of
state-within-a-state operating there. The Lebanese have also been very
clear -- Prime Minister Siniora, for instance, when he was in Rome, that the
Lebanese understand their responsibilities under the Taif Accords, which
were signed in 1989, and under resolution 1559, which says that there should
be no armed groups outside the authority of the Lebanese government.
The very fact that that Taif Accord was signed in 1989 lets you know how
longstanding this problem is in Lebanon, and it goes well back before that.
It took some almost 10 years to get to the Taif Accords. So you have to
understand that we're trying to deal with a problem that has been festering
and brewing in Lebanon now for years and years and years.
And so it's not going to be solved by one resolution in the Security
Council. This is one step to stop the large-scale violence so that we can
begin to then address these underlying problems. But what this resolution
has in it that would not have been there if we had done this a couple weeks
ago is a kind of political basis for creating those conditions in which the
parties -- in which Lebanon can flow its authority south.
QUESTION: Are you expecting a unanimous vote in the U.N., and what can you
tell us about any work that's being done on the second resolution?
SECRETARY RICE: I would, obviously, always hope for a unanimous vote.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SECRETARY RICE: All that I know is that both the French permanent
representative, Jean-Marc de La Sabliere and John Bolton, our permanent
representative, represented the conversations in the Security Council
yesterday as positive. We will see -- there will be further discussions
today. I would urge, and I think we are urging all states of the Security
Council now to back this resolution as a first step toward not just an end
to the crisis, but as a first step to moving to a more stable set of
solutions. So that's -- the mood in the Council has been very good, and I
think you will see support for the resolution.
Yes.
QUESTION: What about the second resolution?
SECRETARY RICE: Oh, the second resolution. This resolution anticipates a
second resolution. I think work will begin on that very, very quickly.
People have, obviously, ideas, and have been talking about it. There's been
some work done, but it's not been done in a setting with the United States
and other parties.
QUESTION: Madam Secretary, Hezbollah has indicated that it will not cease
its attacks until every last Israeli soldier is out of Lebanon, not to be
prepared -- but out of Lebanon. Is that a necessary, in your mind, first
step at ending the immediate violence, is for a complete Israeli withdrawal?
SECRETARY RICE: The resolution does not anticipate and does not expect a
complete Israeli withdrawal in the first phase, no, because this is a
resolution that ceases hostilities with forces in place, but requires that
the major military operations, offensive military operations, the firing of
rockets -- the kind of violence that really is so hard on civilian
populations -- that that's got to stop.
Now I know Hezbollah has said all kinds of things. I've heard, "we should
have an immediate cease-fire," I've heard, "we'll keep fighting," I've heard
all of those things. What we need to focus on, when this Security Council
resolution is passed, we're going too know who really did want to stop
violence and who didn't. We've had an awful lot of calls over the last
couple of weeks for an immediate cessation of hostilities, an immediate
cessation of hostilities. The United States has been very clear that we did
have to have some political basis to make clear that that cessation of
hostilities was not going to countenance a return to the status quo ante.
This resolution does that. And now we're going to see who is for peace and
who isn't.
QUESTION: Who should rebuild Lebanon after the violence has ceased? Is it
the U.S. role?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, the U.S. will certainly play a role in the rebuilding
of Lebanon. We have committed to that. The Rome declaration commits to an
international effort to rebuild Lebanon -- not just a U.S. effort, not just
a French effort, a complete international effort. And let's remember, too,
that the Saudis have already made known that they're going to make a very
large donation to the rebuilding of Lebanon. So I think the rebuilding of
Lebanon will be well underway when the violence stops and when the political
constituents are there.
QUESTION: Madam Secretary, two questions. The first, a couple of weeks ago,
when there were calls for an immediate cessation of violence, you said you
wanted to provide a permanent solution. Why shouldn't we see this two-state
solution as precisely what you were arguing against then? And second, how is
that you came up with agreement that didn't have fundamentals that the
Lebanese wanted, like an immediate cessation of violence, a withdrawal of
the Israeli troops and a return of displaced civilians?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, there's a very simple answer to the second: there are
things the Israelis wanted and things the Lebanese wanted, and everybody
wasn't going to get everything that they wanted. This is the international
community's effort to bring about an equitable, reasonable basis for a
cessation of hostilities of the kind that are so devastating to civilian
populations. And so I would expect that there is going to be a lot of
discussion on how to move forward. But I would hope that the parties are all
going to take the opportunity before them to stop the kind of terrible
violence that we've been seeing against Israeli populations, against
Lebanese populations.
On the first point, we do insist that there is -- that when there is a
cease-fire, that it's going to have to be on an enduring basis, which is why
bringing forces in to support Lebanon's flow of its own forces to the south
and to support conditions where there can't be a return to the status quo
ante is so important.
But what we wanted to do was to not have an unconditional cease-fire with no
political principles, no view of what the south is going to look like when
this is finally resolved. It took some time -- the G8 statement was the
first step. It then took some time going out to the region, talking to the
Lebanese, talking to the Israelis. Let me remind that at the Rome
conference, Prime Minister Siniora did a lot of work in his council of
ministers to get backing, including of the two Hezbollah ministers in his
cabinet, of a set of a principles that could move this forward. Now, Lebanon
isn't going to have all of the principles there, or the full principles
there that they would like; Israel, I'm sure, is not going to have all of
them there that they would like.
But this is a first step. It's a good basis for ending large-scale violence,
it's a good basis for creating conditions in which there can't be a return
to the status quo ante, and it's a good basis for beginning to flow the
authority of the Lebanese government into the south so that this can't
happen again.
Last question.
QUESTION: Madam Secretary, what role have China and Russia played in this
latest negotiations. Did we (inaudible.)
SECRETARY RICE: Well, yes. I know that there have been conversations with
the Russians, including conversations with the Russian leadership about
this. And we have talked with the Russians, as well as have others, and so
far we've gotten positive soundings from Russia, but I don't want to speak
for them. This is an important meeting today, to take account. Yesterday the
meeting was simply to have Jean-Marc de La Sabliere and John Bolton go
through the resolution with the other permanent representatives, let them
know what was in it, the thinking behind each of those steps. I'm sure that
overnight instructions were then passed to delegations. They then will have
discussion today.
We will see where we are at the end of the day, but the urgency now is on
this basis, which we and the French think is a very good basis, and which we
heard very favorable remarks about yesterday, to try to vote this resolution
in the next day or two days, and then to allow a stop to the large-scale
violence, so that we can move to the next step, which is starting to flow
the authority of the Lebanese government and the Lebanese forces into its
own territory.
I'm sorry, last question. Yes.
QUESTION: Same region, different problem. Israel has arrested the speaker of
the Palestinian parliament overnight. Was that a helpful step?
SECRETARY RICE: You mean, in the Palestinian Territories. We've expressed
concerns about what may be going on in the Palestinian Territories, too, as
you know. I went there and saw Abu Mazen. It would be a very good step if,
as they have been told to do by everybody in the region, if the military
wing of Hamas would release that abducted Israeli soldier. That needs to be
done.
It's probably not surprising that this took place by the military wing of
Hamas at the time that Abu Mazen was moving towards some understandings with
the political -- the people who were elected from Hamas about how they might
move toward Quartet principles. It's also, perhaps, not surprising that it
took place at a time when there was anticipation that there might be a
meeting between Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas.
There is a method to what these terrorists and extremist groups are doing --
they are trying to destroy the foundation for democratic and moderate states
in Lebanon, in Iraq, in the Palestinian Territories. That's what they're
trying to do. And so it's not surprising that people who have no future in a
moderate and democratic Middle East would try to destroy it. So that's
really the way forward. We're continuing to work with both the Israelis and
the Palestinians, as well, even as the situation in Lebanon unfolds.
QUESTION: Are you -- go to New York?
SECRETARY RICE: I will go to New York when and if necessary. My
understanding is that we really believe that we can, as I said last week, we
really now -- were within days. I think we said that when I came back from
the Middle East. I think we're still within a couple of days. And I would
expect that there will be a meeting in New York very shortly, probably
within the next couple of days.
All right. Thanks. Thank you very much.
END 8:18 A.M. CDT
Released on August 6, 2006
------------------------------
From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: MEMRI: Debate in the Arab Countries
- Is Hizbullah a "Resistance" Organization or Not?
Special Dispatch - Jihad & Terrorism Project
August 7, 2006
No. 1234
Debate in the Arab Countries - Is Hizbullah a "Resistance" Organization or
Not?
Cracks in the United Arab Position on Hizbullah's Right to "Resistance"
Against Israel
The war between Israel and Hizbullah has revealed profound disagreement in
the Arab world concerning the legitimacy of Hizbullah's activities against
Israel. Two major camps have emerged. The first camp, led by Saudi Arabia,
opposed Hizbullah's activities and called them "uncalculated adventures,"
not "resistance," and said that in order for a group to be considered a
resistance organization it must meet certain criteria that Hizbullah does
not meet. The second camp, headed by Syria, has supported Hizbullah and has
considered it a true resistance organization that is conducting "glorious
national resistance" that brings honor to the Arabs. They contend that
resistance is always legitimate, and that its legitimacy is not dependent on
any particular conditions.(1)
In a speech at the emergency summit of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo, on
July 15, 2006, Lebanese Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh observed that there
was a shift in Arab perceptions: "There has been a development in the
concepts and criteria employed in the international arena. [These concepts]
are crystallizing in a manner that is contrary to the Arab interest.
[According to these criteria,] resistance is terrorism, but [Israel is seen
as employing] self-defense, which gives it a free hand to destroy and kill
without any limitation."(2)
The following are excerpts from statements by Saudi and Syrian officials and
media, as well as the Egyptian press.
Senior Saudi Officials: Hizbullah's Actions "Uncalculated Adventures"
The contention that Hizbullah's actions were not resistance was first heard
July 12, 2006, from a senior Saudi official who stated: "There is no choice
but to differentiate between legitimate resistance and the uncalculated
adventures that some elements in the country [i.e. Hizbullah] are carrying
out - they and those who stand behind them - this without their having had
recourse to the legitimate sovereign authority in their country, and without
any coordination or consultation with the Arab countries. Saudi Arabia sees
this as a very dangerous situation that is bringing destruction to the Arab
countries and to their achievements, without these countries being able to
express their opinion [on the matter]. The time has come for these elements,
and they alone, to bear full responsibility for their irresponsible
behavior, and they alone need to bear the burden of the crisis they
caused."(3)
Similar statements were made by Saudi Foreign Minister Sa'ud Al-Faisal, in a
speech at the emergency summit of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo on July
15, 2006: "A decision made [independently] by a single country is not
acceptable - all the more so when irresponsible elements who do not
recognize the supremacy of the state make decisions on their own that not
only entangle that country, but also push the other countries to
uncalculated adventures."(4)
*"The Land Has Been Liberated; the Role of the Resistance Must End"
Saudi Ambassador to the Arab League Ahmad 'Abd Al-'Aziz Qattan explained the
Saudi position: "No one is opposed to resistance everywhere in the Arab
world, but the true aim of any resistance must be the liberation of land. If
the land has [already] been liberated, then the role of the resistance must
end, and it must be dissolved into the melting pot of the country..."(5)
Saudi Daily: "[Hizbullah] Cannot Be Considered Legitimate National
Resistance if it is Loyal to Anyone Other than Lebanon... [if it is]
Unilateral... And if it Disregards [Arab] Reactions"
An editorial in the Saudi daily 'Okaz claimed that Hizbullah does not meet
the criteria to be considered legitimate resistance: "There exists a
consensus concerning the definition of an 'occupier': he is one who uses
force to illegitimately steal land that is not his own from its residents.
However, there is disagreement concerning the definition of 'legitimate
resistance.' In the case of the resistance in southern Lebanon and the
degree of legitimacy [given] to Hizbullah as national resistance, we find
ourselves before an interpretation that is different [than the standard one
in support of resistance movements]... The Hizbullah organization's being a
defense [organization] on Lebanese soil is not sufficient for it to be
considered a legitimate resistance movement, if it acts outside of the
umbrella of the Lebanese government. Actions that some [i.e. Hizbullah]
consider quality actions against the Israeli enemy are actually [actions]
that bring disasters and troubles on all of
Lebanon.
"Likewise, [Hizbullah's] resistance cannot be considered legitimate national
resistance if it is loyal to anyone other than Lebanon, for any reason, and
it cannot be [considered] legitimate national resistance as long as it does
not receive the blessing of the government and the people. It also cannot be
considered legitimate resistance that enjoys the support of Arab and Muslim
public opinion if [it undertakes] unilateral actions whose consequences are
uncalculated, and if it disregards the [Arabs'] reactions to this..."(6)
*"When Injustice is Done, This is No Longer Resistance"
Egyptian columnist 'Abdallah 'Abd Al-Salam also claimed that Hizbullah's
actions can no longer be considered resistance. In an article in the
Egyptian daily Al-Ahram he wrote: "Isn't it strange that Hizbullah
disregarded even to the need to inform the Lebanese government about the
operation before it happened - and then afterwards demanded that it attest
that it had seen nothing, that it lend its signature to [Hizbullah's]
strategy being correct, and that it got Lebanon entangled in a declared war
with Israel - this after Hizbullah expropriated the decision to go to war
from the government, and made it into its own decision...
"One of the most important goals of resistance is to eliminate injustice and
to restore to the people their stolen honor. But when [the resistance]
becomes a tool that gives the enemy an excuse to violate the country's
sovereignty, wipe out installations on the ground, and murder innocent
Lebanese - and even worse, when other countries can take advantage of the
resistance for the sake of escalation - then the resistance fully ceases to
be resistance."(7)
*The Sovereignty of the Government "Has Been Expropriated"
Yahya Rabbah, former PLO Ambassador to Yemen and columnist for the
Palestinian Authority daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, wrote: "The Palestinian
resistance forces [i.e. Hamas] took political decision[-making] hostage from
the Palestinian political framework [i.e. the PLO]; the Lebanese resistance
forces - Hizbullah - took political decision[-making] hostage from the
Lebanese [government]. The resistance forces here [in the PA] and there [in
Lebanon] led to both of the political regimes, the Palestinian and Lebanese,
having to pay a high price, even though they did not know what was going on,
and even though they were not given even the smallest chance to manage the
crisis that was caused by the two actions.
"In other words, the roles of the two regimes were expropriated, their
legitimacy was sidestepped, and they were left irrelevant to what was going
on. The resistance forces here and there took hostage the role of the
regimes in the Arab states, and left them [i.e. the regimes] standing
confused and impotent, almost completely paralyzed... All of this [was
carried out] via a regional coalition axis, stretching from Gaza to southern
Lebanon, to Damascus, to Tehran."(8)
Top Syrian Officials: Criticism for Hizbullah's Critics; "We Support the
Resistance"
The countries supporting Hizbullah's activities - and first and foremost
Syria - claimed that Hizbullah was carrying out legitimate resistance, and
denounced its Arab critics. At the Cairo summit of Arab foreign ministers,
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Al-Mu'allem defended "Hizbullah's right, and
the right of the Lebanese people, to put up resistance against Israel's wild
behavior, which is not in need of excuses [in order to attack]," and
expressed criticism of any Arab element providing "Arab backing for
[Israeli] aggression."(9)
Mahdi Dakhlallah, former Syrian information minister and current head of the
Syrian leadership's research department, said: "We are proud of our support
for Hizbullah and the resistance, wherever it is being conducted. It is a
great source of pride, not shame. We support the resistance with all our
force and with all our capabilities, whether in southern Lebanon or in
Palestine... The Arab people has taken matters into its own hands. The issue
is no longer in the hands of official institutions, governments, and armies.
It is rather the people who decide. This is a positive development for the
Arabs."(10)
Syrian Dailies Praise the "Resistance"
*"The Resistance... is the True Face of the Nation, Whose History is Full of
Glorious Deeds"
An article in the Syrian government daily Al-Thawra read: "The brave
resistance of today, as Hassan Nasrallah said, is leading the nation's
battle, and this is a historic opportunity for the nation to achieve victory
over its enemy. The resistance... is the true face of the nation whose
history is full of glorious deeds. This face will never agree to [accept]
the denigrating blows, and it has freshness and vitality that allow it to be
the face of the new East."(11)
*"Resistance is Always a Legitimate Act"
Another article in Al-Thawra fiercely attacked those who cast doubt on
whether Hizbullah was a resistance organization: "It is unthinkable that, at
a time when the nation is facing the boundless Israeli hatred and is subject
to these mad crimes, the criteria are being turned inside out in the
dictionary of some of the Arabs, and the resistance [i.e. Hizbullah] is
being blamed for what is happening...
"The strange thing is that these voices... still do not understand that
resistance is always a legitimate act for which there is no need to receive
permission from anyone or to consult anyone. In light of this, the quality
operation that the Islamic resistance carried out in southern Lebanon is a
moment of glory and victory for this nation whose honor has been destroyed
by the Arabs' traitorous positions, and the open conspiring with the
nation's enemies..."(12)
*"The Arab Public... Is Stunned by These Voices [Critical of Hizbullah]"
A third article in Al-Thawra read: "It would have been better if these
voices [of criticism], which remained silent for a long period of time and
did not do the slightest thing in the face of what is going on in Gaza and
the cities of the West Bank... had continued to remain silent, so long as
they do not understand the meaning of the action of the capture of the two
Israeli soldiers... Indeed, the Arab public, which expected [to hear]
positions in support of the Islamic resistance, is stunned by these voices,
about which the least that can be said is that they justify Israel's
barbaric aggression and its wild crimes, and give it a green light to pursue
its attacks and its open war on all fronts... Those who are saying these
things should have listened to the pulse of the Arab public..."(13)
The Arab Press: The Lebanese Have the Right to Resist the Occupation
The Syrian position, that Hizbullah is a true resistance organization, has
been echoed in numerous other articles in the Arab press. For instance,
columnist and former editor-in-chief of the Egyptian government daily
Al-Akhbar, Galal Duweidar, wrote: "As is known to all - and to Israel as
well - Israel's refusal to sit at the negotiating table led to despair among
the Palestinian people. Likewise, its determination to persist in its
occupation of Lebanese territories and to apply pressure, through the U.S.,
to lay siege to the legitimate resistance to this occupation [i.e.
Hizbullah] - these are among the factors that encouraged the outbreak of
this crisis. It is impossible to separate the aggression and the destruction
planned in advance that is occurring in Lebanon from what is happening in
the Palestinian territories. Did Israel think that the Palestinians and the
Lebanese should surrender and accept the occupation and the [territorial]
expansion? In fact, the international
conventions grant peoples the right to resist occupation and to confront
military forces..."(14)
Columnist Ahmad Bahjat wrote in the Egyptian daily Al-Ahram: "Nasrallah did
nothing wrong when he took two Israeli soldiers prisoner. The capture took
place on Lebanese territory that is occupied by Israeli forces. The meaning
of this is that he [i.e. Nasrallah] has the right to take prisoner or to
kidnap any Israeli soldier who places foot on Lebanese land, as part of the
legitimate resistance.
"International, human, and religious [i.e. Muslim] law grant him this
right... Southern Lebanon is occupied land, and following this logic, the
residents of the occupied south can resist the occupying army."(15)
Endnotes:
(1) The last major split in the Arab world on an issue related to fighting
Israel was over suicide attacks. See:
MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 53, " Debating the Religious, Political and
Moral Legitimacy of Suicide Bombings Part 1: The Debate over Religious
Legitimacy," May 2, 2001,
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA5301;
MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 54, " Debating the Religious, Political and
Moral Legitimacy of Suicide Bombings Part 2: The Debate over Political and
Moral Legitimacy" ,
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA5401 ;
MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 65, " Part 3: Debating the Religious,
Political, and Moral Legitimacy of Suicide Bombings"
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA6501 ;
MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 66, "Part 4: Debating the Religious,
Political, and Moral Legitimacy of Suicide Bombings: Part"
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA6601 .
(2) Al-Nahhar (Lebanon), July 16, 2006.
(3) Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), July 14, 2006.
(4) 'Okaz (Saudi Arabia), July 16, 2006.
(5) Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), July 21, 2006.
(6) 'Okaz (Saudi Arabia), July 15, 2006.
(7) Al-Ahram (Egypt), July 15, 2006.
(8) Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (PA), July 14, 2006.
(9) Al-Nahhar (Lebanon), July 16, 2006.
(10) Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), August 2, 2006.
(11) Al-Thawra (Syria), July 18, 2006.
(12) Al-Thawra (Syria), July 17, 2006.
(13) Al-Thawra (Syria), July 17, 2006.
(14) Al-Akhbar (Egypt), July 14, 2006,
http://www.elakhbar.org.eg/issues/16920/0203.html.
(15) Al-Ahram (Egypt), July 21, 2006.
*********************
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is an independent,
non-profit organization that translates and analyzes the media of the Middle
East. Copies of articles and documents cited, as well as background
information, are available on request.
MEMRI holds copyrights on all translations. Materials may only be used with
proper attribution.
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)
P.O. Box 27837, Washington, DC 20038-7837
Phone: (202) 955-9070
Fax: (202) 955-9077
E-Mail: memri@memri.org
Search previous MEMRI publications at www.memri.org
------------------------------
From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Lebanon: IDF kills 3 terrorists and destroys 7 rocket launchers near
Lebanon: IDF kills 3 terrorists and destroys 7 rocket launchers near Tyre
Efrat Weiss YNET 6 August 2006
www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3287398,00.html
A special IDF force operating in the Tyre area succeeded, since Sunday
morning, in destroying seven rocket launchers in villages adjacent to the
city. Likewise, they killed three terrorists south of Tyre.
Forces from the IDF 'Steel Chariots' reserves unit killed eight terrorists
and demolished an armaments warehouse in the Lebanese village of Yarun.
(08.06.06, 22:46)
------------------------------
From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: IDF ditches plans to reach Litani River [before
IDF ditches plans to reach Litani River
yaakov katz, THE JERUSALEM POST Aug. 5, 2006
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525810067&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
[IMRA: Not clear when this article was actually written and if what
transpired later in the day changed matters]
After completing the creation of a security zone in southern Lebanon and
with diplomatic pressure mounting, the IDF, senior defense officials
revealed Sunday, did not plan to move ground troops northwards towards the
Litani River - a line initially named as the IDF's final destination in this
current ground incursion.
Meanwhile Sunday, five Golani soldiers were wounded after a bomb went off
when they stormed a home in the Lebanese town of Mahbeeb. The wounded
soldiers were evacuated to safety and then taken to Rambam Hospital in Haifa
for further medical treatment.
Five other soldiers were wounded, one moderately and four lightly, during
heavy clashes between IDF reservists and Hizbullah guerillas in the southern
Lebanese village of Ras al-Baida. The troops from Brigade 609 killed over 35
Hizbullah gunmen since Friday and succeeded in destroying at least three
Katyusha rocket launchers hidden in the village. Another soldier suffered
moderate wounds when an anti-tank rocket hit his D-9 bulldozer near the
village of Kila, west of Metulla. IDF troops took three Hizbullah guerrillas
captives during operations in southern Lebanon overnight Saturday.
The fighting that continued on Sunday took place in the 20 some villages IDF
troops had taken up positions in over the weekend as they finished
recreating the 10-kilometer-deep security zone Israel held during its
18-year presence in Lebanon which ended in 2000.
While the IDF initially had planned to send troops north to the Litani
River - a line from which officials said it would be easier to prevent
rocket attacks - high-ranking military sources told The Jerusalem Post on
Sunday that due to the mounting diplomatic pressure the plan had been
deferred for the time being.
An incursion up to the Litani - some 30 km from Israel - would require, a
high-ranking source in the Northern Command said Sunday, the insertion of an
entire new division into Lebanon. The IDF already has eight brigades on the
ground in Lebanon made up of 10,000 troops. The source said that it would
take several days to reach the Litani.
"This is not a simple mission," the source explained. "We cannot move north
until we finish clearing out the area currently in the security zone. That
will take us another few days."
The source said that IDF troops were making huge headway in southern Lebanon
and were close to clearing the area out of Hizbullah guerrillas and terror
infrastructure. According to the UN draft resolution, the IDF would not be
forced to withdraw from southern Lebanon even after a ceasefire was
announced and would be permitted to remain at the line it was currently
maintaining.
A high-ranking defense source said that Israel was not interested in finding
itself at the Litani when the ceasefire was announced.
Special Forces also continued operating in the city of Tyre - raided by navy
commandos on Friday - and destroyed seven rocket launchers, a Hizbullah
bunker, three weapons warehouses, and three cars used to transport rockets.
The IAF also renewed its bombardment of the Shi'ite quarter of Dahiya in
southern Beirut on Sunday afternoon. Among the targets were homes and
offices of Hizbullah officials.
On Sunday evening, the Jerusalem Post was informed that the IDF destroyed
two rocket launchers that had been used to fire rockets at Israel. A third
launcher was destroyed by the army earlier in the evening.
------------------------------
From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: National Security Advisor Hadley: IDF forces in Lebanon
will only have right to defend themselvees if Hezbollah attacks them
[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA: "if Hezbollah does not cease all attacks, as the
resolution will call for it to do, and does attack Israeli forces in
southern Lebanon, they're going to have to have the right to defend
themselves"
Mr. Hadley graciously agrees that the IDF does not have to turn the other
cheek when attacked but it isn't clear what the meaning of "defend
themselves" means.
Strictest definition: Hezbollah forces can prepare to attack IDF positions
to their heart's desire free from concern that the IDF will pre-empt their
attack. Once Hezbollah does in fact attack, the IDF can return fire only as
long as the firefight continues. The moment that the Hezbollah forces
disengage the IDF force is no longer engaged in self defense if it continues
firing or chasing the retreating Hezbollah forces.
The above description may sound incredible to those reading this who are now
familiar with some of the more bizarre arrangements Israel has found itself
involved in with the Palestinians. The "hudna" that many in Washington were
so fond of allowed the Palestinians to "lock and load" as long as they
didn't pull the trigger - and when they did pull the trigger it was
explained that it was the activity of forces not part of the mainstream and
thus had no significance vis-a-vis the "hudna" as a whole.]
==========
Press Briefing by National Security Advisor Steve Hadley
Crawford Middle School
Crawford, Texas
9:00 A.M. CDT
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060806.html
MR. HADLEY: Good morning. I'd be glad to answer any questions you folks
have.
Q Steve, how are you going to get Hezbollah to sign on to this cessation of
hostilities?
MR. HADLEY: The resolution will call for the Lebanese government and the
Israeli government to accept the framework of a political arrangement that
will be set out in this first resolution. And also, of course, to accept
this call for a cessation, a full cessation of hostilities, which means
Hezbollah attacks to stop and Israeli offensive operations to stop.
It's really going to be the Lebanese government that is going to have to set
out and accept the arrangement on behalf of the Lebanese people. As you
know, Hezbollah is a part of that government. They will have to take on that
responsibility. In addition, of course, we are asking those countries with
influence on Hezbollah to send a clear message, and that would be
particularly Iran and Syria, to send a clear message to Hezbollah that it
needs to accept the will of the international community and support the
decision made by the Lebanese government.
I think it's interesting if you have a situation where the international
community is calling for a full cessation of hostilities supported by the
Lebanese government -- it was supported by the Israeli government, and
Hezbollah says no, that will tell you something about who wants peace and
who does not, and that will be a clarifying moment.
I think it's important to say that if, when this first resolution is
adopted -- which we hope will be tomorrow afternoon or Tuesday morning -- I
don't think you'll see an instantaneous end to the violence. As you know,
historically, these cease-fires take some time to go into effect,
particularly if, unfortunately, Hezbollah were to reject it.
But we would want, in any event, to move towards a second resolution,
because everybody, I think, understands how this needs to end up -- which is
that the Lebanese government needs to be able to exert it's authority
throughout the country; the Lebanese army needs to be able to move south and
take control of that territory, which it has not done and has not had for
the last several years; and that it is going to need help to do so. And
that's what the UNIFIL force, the United Nations force that is now there can
do -- but also, the multinational force is so important to strengthen the
hand of the Lebanese army when it moves into southern Lebanon, and to give
Israel some assurance that if Israel then pulls out, Hezbollah will not come
back in.
So everybody knows that's where that needs to end up. We need a second
resolution to get there, and that's why once the first resolution is
adopted, we will try and move very quickly towards a second resolution.
Q Steve, is the administration now going to talk to Iran and Syria to make
this point, and try to have some back-and-forth with them? As you know, many
of your critics say you haven't been talking to your enemies, who actually
hold the key to this.
MR. HADLEY: Well, in some sense, you know, every time someone like me gets
up and talks and says what they've just said, we've sent a message to Syria
and Iran. I mean, it's not as if they don't hear what has been said.
Secondly, in terms of both of these countries, there are a number of
countries that are sending the same message. That's really been an approach
we have had both with respect to Syria and Iran, to try and get the
international community and as many countries as we can sending the same
message to Syria and Iran.
In terms of Iran, as you know, we are very anxious to enter into a
discussion with Iran on their nuclear program. And we have proposed to do so
if they will simply do what the international community, what the Europeans,
who have been handling the diplomacy with them have called for, what the
IAEA Board of Governors have called for, which is to suspend their nuclear
enrichment programs.
So we would like very much to be entering into a discussion with Iran on
that issue and potentially other issues. But they've got to take a step to
show that they are willing to come into compliance with the international
community.
Q On this particular issue, though, I know Syria says they don't want to be
just sent messages, they want to have a conversation about that. Is the
administration open to that?
MR. HADLEY: Throughout the firs term of this administration and into the
second, we have had ongoing, very high-level discussions with Syria. They
involved Secretary of State Powell, they involved Deputy Secretary Armitage,
they involved Bill Burns, who was then Assistant Secretary of State. Those
were a bit interrupted after the murder of Rafik Hariri, and evidence that
the Syrian government may have been responsible for that. And at that point,
we withdrew our ambassador. But we continue to have an embassy there, we
continue to have a charg who does have -- attempt to have conversations with
the Syrian government.
So the problem really is not that we haven't had conversations; the problem
is we have not had action out of the Syrian government. It has been very
clear what the international community has asked it to do. For example, with
respect to Lebanon, there are three Security Council resolutions -- 1559,
1595*, 1680 -- all make clear what the parties need to do, including Syria.
The problem isn't that Syria doesn't know what the international community
is requiring of it -- the problem is Syria isn't doing it, that Syria is not
acting.
Syria has a choice to do what the international community has asked -- to
come into increasing relations in the international community, or to defy
the international community and to continue to isolate itself and to become
a handmaiden of Iran, which is really what they've become. And so the
problem is not that Syria doesn't know what's being asked of it, it's not
that a lot of people aren't talking to them, it's not that we haven't been
talking to them over the years -- the problem is they're making choices,
they're making bad choices. They need to make different choices.
Q Mr. Hadley, you say the first resolution won't bring about an
instantaneous end to the violence, it's going to take a second resolution
that will bring in this international force. Given that, when do you
anticipate that we'll get a vote on the second resolution? And how soon do
you expect a force to be able to get in there to back up the Lebanese army?
MR. HADLEY: We would hope -- let me just be clear: We would hope that the
first resolution would, over time, result in the cessation of violence. It
will call on the parties to do what I said: Hezbollah to stop its attacks,
Israel to stop its offensive military operations. But I'm just saying as a
practical matter, as you sort of look forward and try and anticipate what
might happen, we know, historically, that even if all parties agree to the
cease-fire, it takes time for it to come into place. And we want to move
very quickly, in any event, towards the second resolution. Our hope is that
it would be days, not weeks. The long pole in the tent, as they say, of
course, is the formation of this multinational force that takes some time.
And, quite frankly, that's why we had to divide it into two resolutions, so
that we could get the violence down, while we took the time that's going to
be required to put together this multinational force. We hope we're going to
do it as quickly as we can, but these things are difficult. We also hope,
let me just say, that the adoption of the first resolution will free up the
international community and a number of folks who may contribute to that
force to be able to focus on that effort and put together the force as
quickly as we can.
Q And just so we understand, the U.S. still has no intention of contributing
forces to that force?
MR. HADLEY: We have talked about supporting that force, and there are things
that we may be able to do with those kinds of unique capabilities the United
States has -- you know, we've done this before with other forces -- lift,
intelligence, command and control, logistics and those things. But, you
know, given the history, we think that the idea of putting U.S. ground
combat forces on the ground, this probably doesn't make sense; it isn't
going to be something that will be designed to advance the objectives that
the international community and that the President has set for us. So we
think that wouldn't really advance the cause.
Q The resolution calls for Israel to stop its offensive military operations.
But Israeli officials have always said these are defensive maneuvers against
Hezbollah's attacks. So how do you reassure the Lebanese that, short of
having Israeli forces withdraw from Lebanese territory, that Israel would
stop its attacks and stop the violence?
MR. HADLEY: It will be called on to stop its offensive activities. And I
think the choice of that word is to recognize, of course, that if Hezbollah
does not cease all attacks, as the resolution will call for it to do, and
does attack Israeli forces in southern Lebanon, they're going to have to
have the right to defend themselves. That's what that's trying to do.
Q Has Israel had any offensive attacks yet?
MR. HADLEY: I'm sorry?
Q -- described anything so far as being offensive that they've been doing?
Or this has all been defensive, right?
MR. HADLEY: Well, when people talk about offensive military actions they
would be thinking about the air strikes that have occurred out of the
southern area, and they would be thinking about the military operations that
the ground forces have been undertaking. Those, I think, would be, in common
parlance, viewed as offensive military operation.
Q Can you talk to us a little bit about the time you spent with the
President yesterday? How much time did you spend briefing him? And, also,
are there any plans for the President to call any of the other foreign
leaders involved to, perhaps, move things along?
MR. HADLEY: Yes. The Secretary of State and I flew down on an airplane
yesterday, spent most of the time on the phone with Israeli leaders, with
those folks on the ground talking to the Lebanese leaders, because,
obviously, we want to come up with a resolution that is acceptable to the
Security Council and will work, in terms of Lebanon and Israel.
When we got down, we sat down with the President and reported on those
conversations, so he knew exactly where we were. We also reviewed with him
the situation, and, quite frankly, got some pretty clear guidance from him
on the way forward as to how he wanted to proceed in not only the second
resolution, but beyond. He's in the process, obviously, of developing an
overall strategy for the Middle East as to sort of what comes next -- which
is something that the President is good at and encourages us to do: How does
this fit into an overall strategy? We had an opportunity to talk about that
at lunch.
We then went off and did a number of things, in part carrying out what the
President had directed us to do and then to get some additional information.
Before dinner that evening we had another discussion and, in some sense, had
a sort of strategic discussion of: Okay, let's assume we get through the
first and second resolution, where do we head, in terms of the Middle East,
more generally? This kind of a brainstorming session.
He has been in touch with world leaders on this issue, where it is
appropriate and where it will advance the diplomacy. A lot of what's
happening in New York right now is now into the details of draft language,
which is not appropriate for heads of government to be negotiating Security
Council text over the phone.
He did have a good discussion with Prime Minister Blair of the United
Kingdom today. It was comparing notes on where we are, in terms of this
first and second resolution; again, beginning to talk a little bit about the
strategy for the Middle East more generally, after we get through this
current crisis. It was a good conversation; it's a conversation they've had
from time to time, for some time.
Q But no calls on the horizon, either to the Lebanese or Israeli Prime
Minister?
MR. HADLEY: If it will advance diplomacy, the President will do it.
Q Mr. Hadley, given the ultimate goal of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah -- which
is the destruction of Israel -- what's in it for them to go along with this
resolution at this point in time?
MR. HADLEY: Well, they're going to have to make a decision about how far
they're prepared to go in defying the international community. I think
what's interesting is that the attack by Hezbollah came on the 12th of July,
and by the 16th of July, four days later, you had a G8 statement by the
leaders, the G8 leaders -- these are major industrialized countries -- that
were meeting in St. Petersburg.
And, it's interesting, if you go back and look at that document, it sets out
the framework that we have really been pursuing since then. One of the
things that's very interesting is that it made clear -- unanimously adopted
by France, the U.K., Germany, Italy, Japan, Canada, the United States and
Russia -- it made clear that Hezbollah was the offending party. It was an
unprovoked attack on Israel. It was in a position -- it did it in defiance
of the Lebanese government, without informing the Lebanese government, and
it had been able to do so because the Security Council resolutions that I
referred to have not been carried out. And it also made clear that they were
supported by Syria and Iran.
So the international community has made very clear who the offending party
here is. It will now make clear in the Security Council resolutions what
needs to happen to get out of this crisis. It will be calling on all states
to facilitate that process. And Syria and Iran are going to have a choice to
make as to whether they are prepared to try and confront and defy the
international community.
Q Again, what is the incentive for them? Despite all of the language that
came out of the G8, the weapons have continued to flow into Lebanon from
Iran, probably elsewhere. So what's, you know, the carrot out there?
MR. HADLEY: Well, part of it is do they want to be increasingly isolated by
the international community; do they want to be in a situation where there
are financial measures and, ultimately, international sanctions imposed
against them. There are sanctions that are available for violations of arms
embargo, for example. There are penalties -- and we've made it clear,
particularly, for example, in the nuclear discussions, that there are two
paths, and if they defy the international community there will be
consequences and sanctions, increasing isolation and increasing difficulty
in doing business and being part of the international community. And the
question is whether they want to walk down that road.
Q But what changes that now? I mean, Iran has been dealing with sanctions
and isolation since --
MR. HADLEY: No, they haven't. On the contrary. Iran is very much integrated
into the international community. We have had sanctions on Iran, but the
international community has not, the Europeans have not. It's interesting,
Iran is a different case than North Korea, which has already isolated
itself. Iran has not. Iran has commercial relations, it has diplomatic
relations, it sees itself as a regional power and a global power. And the
question is whether it wants to go in a situation where the international
community basically turns its back on Iran. That would be a situation we've
never had before.
And, indeed, one of the things that has been, I believe, this President's
achievement has been if you look at where we were with the Europeans in the
1990s about our views on Iran, it was not a shared conception. The
Europeans, the Russians did not view Iran as a threat, let alone the
strategic threat that it has become. And one of the things this President
has done is get to the point where we have now the whole international
community saying Iran is making a strategic challenge to us all by its
support for terror, by its supporting Hezbollah, for the kinds of things we
see in Lebanon, by the way it treats its own people, by its pursuit of
nuclear weapons. Think about how difficult this crisis would be now if Iran
had a nuclear weapon.
And what we're heartened by is the international community is beginning to
understand what is at stake in the broader context of this current struggle.
That's why the G8 report and statement was so important. That's why it's
been interesting that Russia has gone from supporting Iran's nuclear program
to, in recent years, cooperating with the rest of us in trying to rein that
program in.
So there has been a sea change, and Iran needs to take that into account. It
is really confronting the international community. And the international
community is wakening to the challenge.
Q Steve, two quick ones for you. One is, have you had explicit conversations
with Japan and Germany about ultimately imposing international sanctions on
Iran? And the other is, do you need this second resolution -- you said in
days, not weeks, do you need this second resolution to start talking with
the logistics of an international force, or has that already begun?
MR. HADLEY: There have been some conversations, but there's been a
reluctance to do it until we could get and be sure that the international
framework is in place. And so we hope that this first resolution will hasten
that.
Secondly, in terms of sanctions on Iran, as you know, there was an agreement
in the nuclear context that if Iran did not suspend its enrichment
activities and reprocessing activities and come back to the negotiating
table, that there would be action in the U.N. Security Council. There was a
resolution, as you know, adopted a week ago, that says that if Iran does not
comply with what the international community has asked of it by August 31,
it will return to the Security Council under Chapter 7 and under a provision
of Chapter 7 that envisions economic sanctions. So that is already on the
table, with respect to Iran.
Q So you think this consensus will hold, moving out of a nuclear context and
into the Lebanon/Israel context?
MR. HADLEY: We would hope that it would. And we think it's interesting that
in the middle of this Lebanese crisis we did have, I think, the United
Nations Security Council did adopt, by a vote of 14-1 ,the resolution on
Iran's nuclear program. And I think it was, in a way, fortuitous, that it
was a signal to Iran, even in the Lebanese crisis, that the international
community is united on the broader issue of Iran.
Q Mr. Hadley, is there any sense that Hezbollah's military capability has
been weakened as a result of all this fighting?
MR. HADLEY: It's hard to know. I think the answer is that it has been
weakened. That's certainly, I think, what the Israelis think. I think what
is important is that the diplomacy now makes clear that we're not going back
to the status quo ante; that a situation where Hezbollah controls the south,
continues to be armed, basically has a kingdom within a kingdom -- that is
not
acceptable anymore to the Lebanese government or to the international
community.
And that's what, of course, getting the Lebanese army into the south,
getting the multinational force to support it is all about, to send that
message to Hezbollah that the rules of the game have changed. And we think
that will be a great setback to Hezbollah and a great thing that will
strengthen the Lebanese government, and to become really a sovereign,
democratic government in charge of all of its territory. That's where we
want to go.
Q Can you talk about your plans and Secretary Rice's plans -- how long are
you guys planning to stay here? And she had mentioned that she may not go to
New York.
MR. HADLEY: I'm not aware that she said she may not go to New York.
Q She would go if and when it was necessary. Do you know --
MR. HADLEY: Well, I think what we hope is that we've had a good opportunity
to speak with the President yesterday; we will today. We've also been on the
phone pretty constantly working the diplomacy. Our hope would be that in New
York there is agreement on this resolution. And then, of course, the issue
will be whether the foreign ministers will come and sit in the Council to
vote on it or not. I think that's still an issue that's' being worked. But
we would like to get to the point where the resolution could be voted on, on
Monday or Tuesday.
Steve Holland, last question.
Q You've said that the international force is the long pole in the tent.
What are the complications in setting that up?
MR. HADLEY: It's the normal stuff: Who's going to contribute forces, when
will they be ready to move, who's going to lift them to get them into the
theater; once they're in the theater, where do they go. I mean, it's all the
nuts and bolts of moving people and heavy equipment; getting a command and
control, taking disparate pieces and integrating them into a single force
with a unified command and control.
You know, these things are things militaries do -- they just take time,
because they're big movements.
Thanks very much.
Q What is the timeframe for the force? When do you think the force might
come in?
MR. HADLEY: We'd like to do it in days, not weeks, but it's going to take
some time. We're going to try and move it as soon as we can, but I can't
give you a timeframe.
Q So by the end of the week?
MR. HADLEY: I can't give you a time.
Q Wait, Steve. Days, not weeks -- that's for the deployment of the force, or
the second resolution?
MR. HADLEY: We would like to have days not weeks for the second resolution,
which would authorize the force. And, obviously, as soon after that as the
force can move, the better, because it's what we all want -- it's what the
international community is going to want, what the Lebanese and the
Israelis -- how many days that is, how long that will take, I can't tell
you. That's what the force planners are going to have to come up with, in
putting this force together.
Q That's what my question was --
MR. HADLEY: I'm sorry.
Q -- the logistics of getting that force together.
MR. HADLEY: I got you. I didn't give you a good answer, I'm sorry.
Thank you.
END 9:23 A.M. CDT
* The correct resolution is 1559.
------------------------------
From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Agriculture Minister Shalom Simchon [Labor]
blasts government for not being aggressive in Lebanon
Agriculture Minister Shalom Simchon [Labor] blasts government for not being
aggressive in Lebanon
Aaron Lerner Date: 7 August 2006
Agriculture Minister Shalom Simchon [Labor] severely attacked the Olmert
Administration this morning in a live interview broadcast on Israel Radio
for failing to instruct the IDF to be more aggressive in Lebanon.
Simchon called for the IDF to be instructed to use its full force to silence
the rockets instead of subjecting itself to limitations out of concern for
human shields. He also called for the IDF to go as far north as necessary to
push the [short range?] rockets out of range, noting that almost all of them
are being launched in the area between the Litani River and the area now
under Israeli control.
"Do we have to wait for North Tel Aviv to be hit before we take our gloves
off"? Simchon asked, saying that it is unacceptable that Hezbollah still
enjoys re-supply from Syria. "This is war"
"Our security won't be assured at cocktail parties," Simchon said, in an
apparent jab at VPM Shimon Peres' activities.
Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
(Mail POB 982 Kfar Sava)
Tel 972-9-7604719/Fax 972-3-7255730
INTERNET ADDRESS: imra@netvision.net.il
Website: http://www.imra.org.il
------------------------------
From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: IDF releases names of 10 of 12 reservists killed
IDF releases names of 10 of 12 reservists killed
JPost.com Staff, THE JERUSALEM POST Aug. 7, 2006
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525819800&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
The IDF released the names of 10 of the 12 reserve soldiers killed on
Sunday's rocket attack on Kfar Giladi in the Upper Galilee.
The victims are: Eliyahu Elkariaf, 34, of Granot; Yosef Karkash, 41, from
Afula; Shlomo Buchris, 36, of Sde Yitzhak; Yehuda Greenfeld, 27, from Ma'ale
Michmash; Ziv Balali, 28, from Kfar Saba; Daniel Ben David, 38, from Ahitub;
Marion Berkovitch, 31 of Ashdod; Ro'I Yaish, 27, from Herzliya; Shaul Shai
Michlovitch, 21, from Netanya; and Shmuel Halfon, 41, of Bat Yam.
The names of the other two soldiers have yet to be released.
------------------------------
From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Rocket hits Arab anti-war newspaper in Haifa
Haifa: Rocket hits anti-war newspaper
One of rockets which landed in Haifa Sunday evening hits historical building
of Arab daily al-Ittihad. Newspaper editor blames Israel, 'which fights in
service of Americans'
Roee Nahmias YNET 7 August 2006
www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3287416,00.html
One of the rockets which landed in Haifa Sunday evening hit the old offices
of the one of the only dailies in the Arab sector.
"When I heard that our historical building was hit, I felt a lot of anger.
This is a place we all grew up, which contains real treasures," al-Ittihad
Editor, Dr. Ahmed Saad, told Ynet on Sunday.
About a year and a half ago, the newspaper decided to renovate the
historical building and the editorial staff moved to another place about 100
meters (about 328 feet) away from the old building. While it was being
renovated, the building continued to serve as an archive of the newspaper
editions and the valuable material which has accumulated since the newspaper
was first published in 1944.
The editor, Dr. Saad, spoke about the significance of the building: "It was
the historical place of al-Ittihad and we decided to renovate it in order to
go back and work there. Many great Palestinians were in it, such as authors
Emil Habibi and Samih al-Qassem and poet Mahmoud Darwish. This is not just a
house, but a place with history which we all grew up in. Therefore I felt a
lot of anger when it was hit."
Dr. Saad and his colleagues heard the blast from their current office and
immediately went out to see what caused it. When they approached the place,
they were shocked.
"I got phone calls from across the country because everyone thought we were
there," he said.
Speaking about the newspaper of the Israel Communist Party, the editor said:
"Our newspaper is the only daily in the Arabic language which has been
published for 62 years. It was published even before the State was
established and it reflects the policy of the Israel Communist Party."
'Stop this war'
When asked about his newspaper's stance in light of the fighting in Lebanon
, he answered: "We are against the war and this cruel aggression. This is a
war run by Israel in the service of the Americans."
The newspaper's editorial staff fears that many items from its valuable
historical archive were destroyed in the rocket attack and plan to start
removing the parts of the archive that were not hit on Monday morning.
"I would like to turn to Haifa Mayor Yona Yahav and ask him not to destroy
the building. There is no similar archive in the entire
Middle East. We have historical photos there and a very rich archive,
volumes of the newspaper from before the State was established, and
certificates which in fact belong to the entire nation and not only to the
Communist Party. Already this morning we will try and find a way to remove
what was preserved from the building which suffered a direct hit," Saad
said.
Asked whether he had a message to convey to Hizbullah Secretary-General
Hassan Nasrallah , Saad replied: "I am an Israeli citizen and am interested
in conveying a message to the Israeli government to stop this war which is
not achieving a thing apart from victims."
(08.07.06, 02:43)
------------------------------
From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Olmert waiting for UN rather than
extending operations to distance rockets
Despite difficult day: Israel waiting for UN
Death of three civilians, 12 reserve soldiers fails to serve as cause for
accelerating military activity in southern Lebanon. Israel prefers to wait
for decision of Security Council, which is set to convene in coming days,
but also takes into account possibility that resolution will be rejected
Attila Somfalvi YNET 7 August 2006
www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3287433,00.html
Three civilians and 12 reserve soldiers were killed Sunday in Hizbullah 's
attacks on the northern communities, but in spite of the grave consequences,
it appeared Sunday night that the political echelon does not plan to step up
Israel 's military operation.
On Sunday evening, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert spoke to Defense Minister Amir
Peretz , IDF Chief of Staff Lieutenant-General Dan Halutz and his military
secretary, but according to sources in the Prime Minister's Office, any
decision on a continuation of the military operation has yet to have been
made.
The defense establishment tends not to refer to the Sunday's grave events in
Haifa and the north as unusual, but as events which could have taken place
in any given moment since the onset of the fighting.
Based on this perception, it appears that in the meantime Israel is not
expected to respond in an unusual manner to Sunday's events, but rather to
continue with the planned military operation.
At this stage, Israel will wait for developments in the United Nations
Security Council, and for its decision after it convenes in the coming days.
Simultaneously, discussions are being held ahead of a possibility that there
will not be a ceasefire for any particular reason (a failure to approve the
resolution at the Security Council or a rejection of the resolution by
Hizbullah.)
Israeli officials view the coming days as an intersection, and therefore
Sunday's events are not expected to influence the military operation. Among
other things, plans presented by the military in terms of bombing
electricity infrastructures in southern Lebanon will be frozen for now.
On Sunday night, the five permanent members of the Security Council convened
for an urgent discussion following the fighting in Lebanon, but failed to
reach an agreement on adding the Lebanese demand to the resolution formed by
the United States and France.
A diplomatic source on behalf of one of the countries said at the end of the
meeting that the failure to reach an agreement eliminated the possibility
that the Council would vote on Monday and that a Tuesday voting sounded like
a more reasonable scenario.
Olmert is expected to convene another security consultation at his office in
Jerusalem at 8 a.m. Monday, which will be attended by Peretz and heads of
the defense establishment. During the consultation, the prime minister and
the defense officials are expected to evaluate the situation in order to
examine the continuation of Israel's operation in Lebanon .
Olmert's associates said Sunday evening that "a widespread military activity
is expected in the next two days. Hizbullah is also boosting its activity,
ahead of the meeting of the UN Security Council. Now they are trying to
reach as many accomplishments as possible."
The activity the prime minister's aide was referring to, however, was not an
unusual activity stemming from Sunday's grave events.
The prime minister's aides refused to say whether he supports an escalation
of the military operation following Hizbullah's fatal attacks, but cabinet
ministers told Ynet they estimate Olmert would wait for the decision made by
the Security Council, which will convene in the coming days.
Referring to the Security Council meeting, a source at the Prime Minister's
Office said that "there could be a Security Council decision that will
oblige us to end the operation, although Hizbullah is in the meantime
rejecting it."
No change in plans
Peretz also held consultations with heads of the Israel Defense Forces,
including the army chief, following the great blow suffered by Israel in the
north Sunday. The officials failed to reach a decision during the
consultation, and at this stage the IDF will not progress to the Litani
River, but will rather limit itself to a distance of 8 to 12 kilometers
(about 5 to 7.5 miles) from the border.
"At this stage there is no plan to progress toward the Litani, unless a
decision is received from the political echelon," senior military sources
said.
The same sources added that at this stage the IDF was "cleaning" the
villages on the security zone of Hizbullah terrorists, weapons, ammunition,
as well as operating to locate launchers and destroy them.
A surprising remark was made Sunday evening by a minister who is a member in
the political-security cabinet, who told Ynet: "No one knows what is going
to happen. We are endlessly shooting, operating, and they continue to fire
rockets. It's amazing. It is unclear what can be done anymore."
Sources at the Olmert's office rejected the claims that the prime minister
rushed to declare that Israel had won the war in interviews to foreign media
outlets.
"We did not say there was a victory," a senior official said. "We said that
Hizbullah suffered a blow."
The cabinet minister said he believes "the prime minister will try to
operate to reach a diplomatic agreement that will cease the fire. At the
moment we really don't know what is going to happen, because everything we
have tried to do didn't help and the fire continues."
Arab foreign ministers to meet in Beirut
The foreign ministers of the Arab League are expected on Monday to arrive in
Beirut aboard an Egyptian military plane for a special conference that will
be held in the city.
Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri referred to the convention during a
press conference Sunday, and said that Lebanon expected the Arab foreign
ministers to take a firm stand which will save the country.
"We are not asking you to take part in the fighting, but you must take a
stand in our favor," he said.
Similar messages have also been heard in Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah
's speeches and in remarks made by Hizbullah supporters.
As part of a preliminary tour, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Mouallem
arrived in Beirut on Sunday on a first official visit by a Syrian official
since last year's withdrawal from Lebanon and expressed his support of
Hizbullah. It is difficult, however, to see all Arab foreign ministers
standing by Hizbullah in public.
In the meantime, Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa called on UN
Secretary-General Kofi Annan to amend the draft resolution formed by France
and the US, which is aimed at halting the acts of hostility between Israel
and Hizbullah. The Arab League statement said that Israel must be demanded
to withdraw its forces from all of Lebanon's territories.
Efrat Weiss, Roee Nahmias and AFP contributed to the report
(08.07.06, 01:57)
------------------------------
From: imra-owner@imra.org.il
Subject: IMRA Subscription Info
--------------------------------------------
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis
Website: www.imra.org.il
For free regular subscription:
Subscribe at no charge: imra-subscribe@imra.org.il
Unsubscribe: imra-unsubscribe@imra.org.il
For free daily digest subscription:
Subscribe at no charge: imra-subscribe-digest@imra.org.il
Unsubscribe: imra-unsubscribe@imra.org.il
For a copy of all reports distributed for a given day please send a
message to:
monday@imra.org.il tuesday@imra.org.il wednesday@imra.org.il
thursday@imra.org.il friday@imra.org.il
saturday@imra.org.il sunday@imra.org.il
--------------------------------------------
------------------------------
End of [imra] Daily digest - Volume: 2 Issue: 1484 (10 messages)
**********
