 |
Contents:
DR. BERNARD LEWIS: Placing the Current Conflict Into Perspective
It seems increasingly likely that the Iranians either have or very soon will have nuclear weapons at their disposal, thanks to their own researches (which began some 15 years ago), to some of their obliging neighbors, and to the ever-helpful rulers of North Korea. The language used by Iranian President Ahmadinejad would seem to indicate the reality and indeed the imminence of this threat. Would the same constraints, the same fear of mutual assured destruction, restrain a nuclear-armed Iran from using such weapons against the U.S. or against Israel? * * * There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present rulers. This worldview and expectation, vividly expressed in speeches, articles and even schoolbooks, clearly shape the perception and therefore the policies of Ahmadinejad and his disciples. Muhammad's night flight on Buraq. Even in the past it was clear that terrorists claiming to act in the name of Islam had no compunction in slaughtering large numbers of fellow Muslims. A notable example was the blowing up of the American embassies in East Africa in 1998, killing a few American diplomats and a much larger number of uninvolved local passersby, many of them Muslims. There were numerous other Muslim victims in the various terrorist attacks of the last 15 years. The phrase "Allah will know his own" is usually used to explain such apparently callous unconcern; it means that while infidel, i.e., non-Muslim, victims will go to a well-deserved punishment in hell, Muslims will be sent straight to heaven. According to this view, the bombers are in fact doing their Muslim victims a favor by giving them a quick pass to heaven and its delights -- the rewards without the struggles of martyrdom. School textbooks tell young Iranians to be ready for a final global struggle against an evil enemy, named as the U.S., and to prepare themselves for the privileges of martyrdom. A direct attack on the U.S., though possible, is less likely in the immediate future. Israel is a nearer and easier target, and Mr. Ahmadinejad has given indication of thinking along these lines. The Western observer would immediately think of two possible deterrents. The first is that an attack that wipes out Israel would almost certainly wipe out the Palestinians too. The second is that such an attack would evoke a devastating reprisal from Israel against Iran, since one may surely assume that the Israelis have made the necessary arrangements for a counterstrike even after a nuclear holocaust in Israel. The first of these possible deterrents might well be of concern to the Palestinians -- but not apparently to their fanatical champions in the Iranian government. The second deterrent -- the threat of direct retaliation on Iran -- is, as noted, already weakened by the suicide or martyrdom complex that plagues parts of the Islamic world today, without parallel in other religions, or for that matter in the Islamic past. This complex has become even more important at the present day, because of this new apocalyptic vision. In Islam, as in Judaism and Christianity, there are certain beliefs concerning the cosmic struggle at the end of time -- Gog and Magog, anti-Christ, Armageddon, and for Shiite Muslims, the long awaited return of the Hidden Imam, ending in the final victory of the forces of good over evil, however these may be defined. Mr. Ahmadinejad and his followers clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced. It may even have a date, indicated by several references by the Iranian president to giving his final answer to the U.S. about nuclear development by August 22. This was at first reported as "by the end of August," but Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement was more precise. What is the significance of August 22? This year, August 22 corresponds, in the Islamic calendar, to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to "the farthest mosque," usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1). This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for August 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind. A passage from the Ayatollah Khomeini, quoted in an 11th-grade Iranian schoolbook, is revealing. "I am decisively announcing to the whole world that if the world-devourers [i.e., the infidel powers] wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all them. Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom. Either we shake one another's hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom. In both cases, victory and success are ours." In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead -- hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement. How then can one confront such an enemy, with such a view of life and death? Some immediate precautions are obviously possible and necessary. In the long term, it would seem that the best, perhaps the only hope is to appeal to those Muslims, Iranians, Arabs and others who do not share these apocalyptic perceptions and aspirations, and feel as much threatened, indeed even more threatened, than we are. There must be many such, probably even a majority in the lands of Islam. Now is the time for them to save their countries, their societies and their religion from the madness of MAD. Bernard Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton, is the author, most recently, of "From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East" (Oxford University Press, 2004). URL for this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115500154638829470.html
f BESA Conference at Bar Ilan University- 1 August 2006
Mordechai Keidar- BESA: The conflict began 1350 years ago when Islam was sub-divided into Sunni and Shi'a. Hezbollah is part of the Shi'a sect. The name Hezbollah means a group of people devoted to G-d who will therefore be victorious. There are those who side with the devil who will lose. The "other" is commonly referred to as Sunni Muslims or Jews, and any other group the Shi'a Muslims deem outside their sect. What we are fighting right now is not against missiles and rockets, but a larger issue. The issue is the ethos of the Shi'a Muslims; we are fighting against a religion. Zeev Magen- BESA: There is a lack of involvement on the part of Iran with Hezbollah. Iran has not put itself into this war because they are wary of what Israel will do to them if Israel wins the war. Iran was surprised at Israel's ability to defend itself. Israeli attacks on Lebanon are in size disproportionate to the Lebanese attacks on Israel. Iran is anti-pluralism. Iran hates the idea of more than one belief in G-d. They see only truth and non-truth. Israel and the United States represent pluralistic beliefs not only in religion but also in liberalism in politics. Neither of these two countries have one stand or platform that everyone stands behind. In order for Israel to win the war they need to wipe out the Hezbollah power. Hillel Frish- BESA: The difference between the war right now and wars Israel fought in the past is the platform of the Arab nations. In the past it was always Israel against the entire Arab world. Today we see Israel fighting with one Arab country with no other Arab country assisting outright. Israel must try to unravel the connection between Hezbollah, Syria and Iran, recognizing: 1. American hegemony- things only get done through Washington. 2. Fear of Egyptian reaction- Egypt may turn its back on the Palestinians with Jordan on its side. 3. Solution is in Teheran and Damascus. Meir Rosen- Former Israeli Diplomat: Israel is not connected to any bloc, it acts alone. 1. Nuclear power in Iraq - 1981 – Israel blows up the reactor, acting on its own. 2. Israel goes to Entebbe alone to save the hostages. Phenomenon in Middle East where political bodies are also terrorist organizations (e.g. Hamas, Hezbollah). Green Light from US - What are US interests? 1. To strengthen democracy in Lebanon- not to disrupt government of Lebanon at the same time. 2. Stop Hezbollah from acting as a state within a state. How can Israel just sit by while Iran is building a nuclear program? The nuclear program is the problem of the whole world and not just Israel's. If Hezbollah loses, it will be a significant blow to Hamas and the Palestinian cause. Terror not just problem in Israel. 12% France is Muslim. World has seen many terrorist actions- London, Madrid, etc. If Hezbollah wins there will be a greater collaboration between world terror organizations. This will be a very perceptible danger. Need to involve the European countries more. Yackov Amidror- Major General, ex-commander of IDF National Defense College: A. There are several different threats in this war. 1. Rockets- air force. 2. Short range missiles- ground force. Bunkers in southern Lebanon, where 80% of the missiles are fired from. B. The IDF is divided into sections in order to deal with the different threats. The must deal with the infrastructure, the bunkers and the launchers. However, once those are destroyed, new ones pop up. The IDF can't take a break from fighting, the Hezbollah infrastructure. Goal: Conquer and clear out Southern Lebanon. After the war, ask what price we should pay to fight a ground war. Make sure the IDF did not damage the strength of the reserve force. Can only destroy whatever Hezbollah brings out of storage. Anything inside is harder to find. How do we know if we are winning? If we can hit only Hezbollah and make sure the rockets do not reach anywhere in Israel. We need to get rid of Hezbollah. An international force is bad for Israel. Hezbollah is a terror organization and has no accountability. Need to: 1. Create a serious international force that is willing to put in time and money. Understands issues in Middle East, not one-sided. 2. Can't end war until this force arrives. 3. Can't be only in south Lebanon, get rid of Hezbollah and prevent Syrian attack on Lebanon. 4. UN to decide if Syria or Lebanon gets the Shebaa farms. Radical Islam (this would include Hamas and Hezbollah) is a major threat in the war. Until now each group got power from another group's success. Israel will win when the cities of Kiryat Shemona, Tel Aviv, Afula and Haifa are not under threat anymore. Yiftach Ron Tal- Major General and former Commander of IDF Ground Forces: No issue about army's size. Change in modern battle. It is no longer one nation's army against another nation's army. We are fighting a guerilla war, our army fighting a guerilla army. In order to achieve greater goals in battle, the IDF has changed its tactics. IDF in recent years has changed its tactics from a strong ground force to more strategic battle planning. Have ability to get close to them whether it is logistics, intelligence or fire. Israel is fighting guerilla organizations; it takes time to beat them. Need to remember that all this is temporary. Hezbollah can come back even though they suffered major setbacks so far. They get help from Syria and Iran. Rockets are meant to threaten Israel. Freeing the kidnapped soldiers has become secondary in the goals meant to be achieved through the war. Another goal is to carry out UN Resolution 1559. Centers on strong international force and preventing the Hezbollah force. There are not many countries volunteering to be this force. If we win it will be good for Israel. If it is only a partial win, it will still be a small improvement to the region. We were not able to finish the problem in Gaza, and we are therefore facing a war on two fronts. If Israel wins and can stop the rockets from Lebanon, it can lessen the chance of an Iranian attack. If we don't attack Iran then maybe the US will. The other address is Damascus. We need to give Syria an ultimatum to stop its help to Lebanon. IDF has to remember Syria also has their own rockets. Need to get rid of this threat as well. This is a chance to deal with Syria too. International border between Lebanon and Israel. Syria and Lebanon never had a normal border, a remnant from the days when the French were in power. Giora Eiland- FORMER HEAD OF ISRAEL NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: The nature of this war is between a nation and an organization and not two nations against each other. Result of battle: 1. Military accomplishments are high, but it is not possible to kill the last of the terrorists or get every single rocket. 2. Look at the map of the interests of all players, everyone has to compromise on something. 3. Internal Lebanon: Lebanese and its connection to the terrorist organization of Hezbollah. Hezbollah has other interests and the Lebanese government will need to deal with them. Kana- reverted Hezbollah back many steps. One more week or two and there will be a break in combat. See how fast international force will get here. Israel can't leave until they come. Even if they come in 3 months we will need to wait until they get there. And even then it will take a long time for them to get set up. Don't see goal of other actors to get rid of Hezbollah.
Human Rights Council Session on Lebanon Violates Charter
The Geneva-based non-governmental organization condemned the loss of innocent life on both sides of the conflict, and urged all nations to support the Security Council's efforts to end the hostilities, return abductees and disarm Hezbollah as required by Resolution 1559. However, because the Security Council is already treating the dispute, Article 12 of the UN Charter expressly prohibits the Human Rights Council, as a subsidiary of the General Assembly, from entering the fray, said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch. He called on Secretary-General Kofi Annan to "fulfill his obligations under the Charter and notify the Geneva rights panel that the Security Council is seized of the matter." Neuer said the convening of the session in violation of the Charter followed a worrying pattern during the recent Hezbollah-Israel war, whereby key UN human rights institutions are being subverted, blatantly ignoring the limits of their mandates to make statements on the crisis. Worse, each of these statements has entirely ignored the role of Hezbollah in igniting the war, as well as the death, injury and suffering that its 3000 missiles has caused on the Israeli side. Recent examples of such trespassing include: Statements by UN independent human rights experts having no nexus to the conflict, such as the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, Mr. Ambeyi Ligabo. It is difficult if not impossible to discern the war's apparent connection to issues of freedom of speech. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination suspended its work for a special session last Thursday where members said Israel's targeting of Hezbollah was a "mass genocide" motivated by "blatant racism." The Danish and American members argued that the issue was beyond the panel's mandate, but to no avail. Yesterday's meeting of the Subcommission on Human Rights, by condemning "the massive denial and violation of human rights in Lebanon," openly flouted its prime directive to refrain from addressing country-specific situations. The members expressly agreed to omit any reference to Israeli suffering. Member Francoise Jane Hampson warned her colleagues that they would be "breaking the rules," since its supervisory body had given "express instructions that the Sub-Commission was not to pass country-specific resolutions." Again, to no avail. "It is astonishing that these and other egregious breaches of mandate are being ignored by the responsible U.N. leadership," said Neuer. "With the basic credibility of the UN human rights system at stake, where is Secretary-General Kofi Annan, High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, Human Rights Council Chair Luis de Alba? How can the UN speak in the name of international law while its own institutions act as rogue agents, openly flouting the terms of their own authority?" For the UN to be credible and effective as a peacemaker and human rights promoter with both sides, said Neuer, it had to show a balanced approach. "Instead, Geneva's human rights bodies now seem to be operating according to an unwritten 'Israel clause', whereby the issuance of one-sided condemnations of Israel is considered a matter of inherent jurisdiction." But the greatest loser, said Neuer, will be human rights victims around the world. "By diverting all of its resources to denouncing the Jewish state, the Human Rights Council has forgotten that its power to call special sessions was designed to address gross and persistent abuses of human rights around the world, and not just one country repeatedly." "Don't other world crises—mass rape in Darfur, four million killed in Democratic Republic of Congo, repression and strife in Burma, East Timor, Colombia, Somalia—deserve special sessions?" UN Watch noted that Canada, Japan, and E.U.-affiliated countries opposed the resolution of the last special session, for its failure to condemn the role of Hamas and other Palestinian terror organizations. The NGO urged democracies once again to reject the misuse of the Council by speaking out forcefully and opposing any one-sided resolutions. www.unwatch.org UN Watch is a Geneva-based human rights organization founded in 1993 to monitor UN compliance with the principles of its Charter. It is accredited as a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) in Special Consultative Status to the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and as an Associate NGO to the UN Department of Public Information (DPI). Remove yourself from this mailing.
Human Rights Council Session on Lebanon Violates Charter
The Geneva-based non-governmental organization condemned the loss of innocent life on both sides of the conflict, and urged all nations to support the Security Council's efforts to end the hostilities, return abductees and disarm Hezbollah as required by Resolution 1559. However, because the Security Council is already treating the dispute, Article 12 of the UN Charter expressly prohibits the Human Rights Council, as a subsidiary of the General Assembly, from entering the fray, said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch. He called on Secretary-General Kofi Annan to "fulfill his obligations under the Charter and notify the Geneva rights panel that the Security Council is seized of the matter." Neuer said the convening of the session in violation of the Charter followed a worrying pattern during the recent Hezbollah-Israel war, whereby key UN human rights institutions are being subverted, blatantly ignoring the limits of their mandates to make statements on the crisis. Worse, each of these statements has entirely ignored the role of Hezbollah in igniting the war, as well as the death, injury and suffering that its 3000 missiles has caused on the Israeli side. Recent examples of such trespassing include: Statements by UN independent human rights experts having no nexus to the conflict, such as the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, Mr. Ambeyi Ligabo. It is difficult if not impossible to discern the war's apparent connection to issues of freedom of speech. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination suspended its work for a special session last Thursday where members said Israel's targeting of Hezbollah was a "mass genocide" motivated by "blatant racism." The Danish and American members argued that the issue was beyond the panel's mandate, but to no avail. Yesterday's meeting of the Subcommission on Human Rights, by condemning "the massive denial and violation of human rights in Lebanon," openly flouted its prime directive to refrain from addressing country-specific situations. The members expressly agreed to omit any reference to Israeli suffering. Member Francoise Jane Hampson warned her colleagues that they would be "breaking the rules," since its supervisory body had given "express instructions that the Sub-Commission was not to pass country-specific resolutions." Again, to no avail. "It is astonishing that these and other egregious breaches of mandate are being ignored by the responsible U.N. leadership," said Neuer. "With the basic credibility of the UN human rights system at stake, where is Secretary-General Kofi Annan, High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, Human Rights Council Chair Luis de Alba? How can the UN speak in the name of international law while its own institutions act as rogue agents, openly flouting the terms of their own authority?" For the UN to be credible and effective as a peacemaker and human rights promoter with both sides, said Neuer, it had to show a balanced approach. "Instead, Geneva's human rights bodies now seem to be operating according to an unwritten 'Israel clause', whereby the issuance of one-sided condemnations of Israel is considered a matter of inherent jurisdiction." But the greatest loser, said Neuer, will be human rights victims around the world. "By diverting all of its resources to denouncing the Jewish state, the Human Rights Council has forgotten that its power to call special sessions was designed to address gross and persistent abuses of human rights around the world, and not just one country repeatedly." "Don't other world crises—mass rape in Darfur, four million killed in Democratic Republic of Congo, repression and strife in Burma, East Timor, Colombia, Somalia—deserve special sessions?" UN Watch noted that Canada, Japan, and E.U.-affiliated countries opposed the resolution of the last special session, for its failure to condemn the role of Hamas and other Palestinian terror organizations. The NGO urged democracies once again to reject the misuse of the Council by speaking out forcefully and opposing any one-sided resolutions. www.unwatch.org UN Watch is a Geneva-based human rights organization founded in 1993 to monitor UN compliance with the principles of its Charter. It is accredited as a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) in Special Consultative Status to the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and as an Associate NGO to the UN Department of Public Information (DPI). Remove yourself from this mailing.
The Israel Resource Review is brought to you by
the Israel Resource, a media firm based at the Bet Agron Press Center in
Jerusalem, and the Gaza Media Center under the juristdiction of the Palestine
Authority. |
Printer
friendly version of this article