Doc's Talk: Obama and Assad praise success of Lebanese polls

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Obama and Assad praise success of Lebanese polls

Therese Sfeir
Daily Star staff (Lebanon)
Thursday, June 11, 2009

BEIRUT: US President Barack Obama reiterated his country's support to Lebanon's sovereignty and independence on Wednesday during a phone call with President Michel Sleiman. Obama also praised the country's recent elections, which he described as "calm, free, democratic and away from pressures. He also expressed his hope that the new Cabinet would be formed soon and would abide by international resolutions.

Sleiman also received a phone call from his Syrian counterpart, Bashar Assad, in which the latter praised the success of consensus among the Lebanese.

In a statement issued on Wednesday, Assad told Sleiman that "this spirit is necessary to face and deal with the forthcoming challenges."

Separately, Sleiman said on Wednesday that "Lebanon should continue the implementation of electoral law reforms, which the Supervisory Commission on Electoral Campaign had initiated, after forming the cabinet and parliament."

Sleiman also said that the reforms "would save a large part of the Lebanese community, specifically the youth and expatriates, from the sectarianism of the 1960 electoral law," which was used in the 2009 parliamentary elections.

Future Movement leader MP Saad Hariri said on Wednesday that he was no longer "afraid to become prime minister."

In an interview with Rai Uno television, Hariri said: "Today, I was no longer afraid to assume this role; I had no political experience and was going through a difficult period following my father's assassination."

"Today, four years after [the killing], I am no longer afraid, but I will work for the sake of my country's interests," he added.

In a separate statement, Hariri stressed that his hands were stretched out toward his political opponents for "unconditional dialogue."

During interviews with the BBC Arabic and pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat, he also praised the latest speech by Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, describing it as "very positive." He stressed the need to meet with Nasrallah and Speaker Nabih Berri to "discuss the next phase which poses many challenges."

"We'll see how we can unite our efforts during consultations with the president, who will have a say in the [new] cabinet that will be formed," he said.

Prime Minister Fouad Siniora said he hoped that the new cabinet would be formed quickly and said the experience of veto power in the previous government was not successful.

"The international and regional atmosphere is a primary factor to any change in the next stage," Siniora said Wednesday.

"The veto power experience wasn't successful. I hope the term of the caretaker cabinet wouldn't be long," he added.

In other developments, Berri said Wednesday that Israel was trying to "stir strife in the country by pretending to support the victory of a certain party in the June 7 elections," a reference to the March 14 alliance.

Berri urged the Lebanese to ignore Israeli officials' speeches, "because they aim to reassure their people that the new government in Lebanon wants to disarm the resistance."

Meanwhile, Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) leader MP Michel Aoun said Wednesday that the opposition's share in the new cabinet should be "based on the principle of relativity."

In his first public appearance following Sunday's legislative polls, Aoun said: "Before the elections, we had the support of 70 percent of Christians at a time when we had nothing in the government. Now we have 27 deputies."

The FPM leader also said that he "supported granting veto power to Sleiman within a constitutional framework." He insisted he was "not opposed to either the president or Bkirki."

Aoun expressed hope that Sleiman would "support our platform for reform," adding that the president should play a "reconciliatory role."

He also said that he planned to contest MP Michel Murr's membership in Parliament before the Constitutional Council.

"We will file a contestation before the Constitutional Council against MP Michel Murr on charges of intimidation and threats," Aoun said.

On June 7, OTV broadcast a video showing Murr threatening clerics by making use of his son's position as defense minister.

In another incident, OTV reported that Syriac Orthodox priest Elias Akari filed a complaint with the attorney general's office against armed supporters of Murr for detaining him.

Murr said Wednesday that he would contest all elected FPM candidates in the Metn.

Also on Wednesday, Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea criticized Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's latest stances that his party had the most popular support, despite its loss in the elections.

According to Geagea, Nasrallah's statements were "a violation of the Taif Accord, which stipulates the equal division of parliamentary seats between Christians and Muslims, regardless of numbers," Geagea said.

Geagea, however, praised Nasrallah's acceptance of the official results with "sportsmanship and in a democratic spirit."

He also said that the March 14 coalition received more than 50 percent of Christian votes in Sunday's elections.

Meanwhile, former President Amin Gemayel said the Lebanese showed their support to the army and state institutions through the parliamentary elections.

In a news conference on Wednesday, Gemayel said: "The Lebanese people said their word, and they have granted the March 14 alliance their confidence."

"The elections proved that the choice of the Lebanese people is to arm the Lebanese Army alone, support the legal state institutions, and reject the hampering of constitutional institutions," the former president added.

The March 14 Forces said on Wednesday that the elections showed "where the real majority lies."

In a statement issued following its regular meeting on Wednesday, the March 14 Forces' general secretariat urged the opposition forces to "adopt a democratic behavior."

"Ballot boxes showed where the real majority lies," the statement said, adding: "We call on the minority not only to accept the results, but also to commit to democratic behavior."

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk