And the real Winner is ... Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

...Khamenei is right to think Rowhani’s victory will be interpreted by many in the Western foreign policy establishment as a chance to see if Iran is taking a step back from the nuclear precipice. But as with past “moderates” who won the presidency, Rowhani may be the new face of the regime but it won’t change a thing about who runs Iran, its support for Bashar Assad and Hezbollah terrorism, or its drive for nuclear weapons. The alleged moderate—whose views on those issues don’t deviate a whit from those of Khamenei anyway—won’t have any influence on those matters.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary/Contentions..
16 June '13..

Say what you will about Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He may lead a totalitarian theocracy that squelches freedom and threatens the region with its nuclear program and spews anti-Western and anti-Semitic filth at the world. But he is not incapable of learning a simple lesson about international politics. Four years ago, he stood back and allowed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to steal the country’s presidential election thus consigning Iran to four more years of being represented to the world by a vulgar buffoon. The violent suppression of protesters in Tehran worsened Iran’s already terrible reputation and Ahmadinejad’s role as the regime’s most visible figure made it easier to rally international support for sanctions against Iran to force it drop its nuclear ambitions. But this time around, Khamenei wasn’t going to make the same mistake. Rather than taking action to ensure the election of a candidate more closely identified with him, he allowed a cleric who is a strong supporter of the Islamist government but not one of his personal followers to breeze to an easy victory in Friday’s election. It’s the smartest thing he’s done in years.

Hassan Rowhani is the new president of Iran, but though the vote is seen as a setback for Khamenei, the supreme leader is actually the big winner. Having seen how Ahmadinejad’s antics and open expression of hatred made it easier to sell Western governments on the necessity of taking the Iranian threat seriously, Khamenei is right to think Rowhani’s victory will be interpreted by many in the Western foreign policy establishment as a chance to see if Iran is taking a step back from the nuclear precipice. But as with past “moderates” who won the presidency, Rowhani may be the new face of the regime but it won’t change a thing about who runs Iran, its support for Bashar Assad and Hezbollah terrorism, or its drive for nuclear weapons. The alleged moderate—whose views on those issues don’t deviate a whit from those of Khamenei anyway—won’t have any influence on those matters.

Arlene Kushner From Israel - The Speeches

Arlene Kushner..
27 September '12..

It's the season of speeches at the UN. As some of what has been going on coincided with my preparations for and observance of Yom Kippur, I will need to back-track a bit before moving forward. And forward is where I truly want to go (see the last of this posting!).

Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad actually spoke twice at the UN this week. He kicked off his visit with an address on Monday at a UN session on the rule of law -- itself a travesty of everything fair and reasonable. And his comments there were every bit as vile as might have been expected. He said that Israel had "no roots" in the Middle East. "We don’t even count them [Israelis] as any part of any equation for Iran,” he declared. "They represent minimal disturbances that come into the picture and are then eliminated." Eliminated.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/iran-president-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-ramps-hate-eve-u-n-talk-article-1.1167163#ixzz27fbctK2F

~~~~~~~~~~

This should have elicited denunciation by every Western democracy and a determination to fully ostracize him. But such was not the case. Of course.

In point of fact, when the president of one UN member speaks about the "elimination" of another UN member, he should not be provided with a UN podium at all:

Among the principles of the UN, as outlined in its Charter, Chapter I, Article 2 (1), "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members." (2) "All Members...shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter. (4) "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat...against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

But, hey, who pays attention to all of this?

~~~~~~~~~~

When Ahmadinejad spoke at the General Assembly yesterday, the delegations of only three nations were absent. That of Israel, of course. They would have stayed away in any event, but were additionally observing Yom Kippur. Canada's delegation was in the hall but left when Ahmadinejad came forward to speak -- and bravo to them for doing this.

The US was not present at all, having made the announcement in advance that it would not be attending. On the one hand, the reason given for why the US would not be present was quite excellent.

Explained a spokesperson for the US Mission to the UN: "Over the past couple of days, we’ve seen Mr. Ahmadinejad once again use his trip to the UN not to address the legitimate aspirations of the Iranian people but to instead spout paranoid theories and repulsive slurs against Israel."

This is to the point I made above, precisely! But then there was more:

"It's particularly unfortunate that Mr. Ahmadinejad will have the platform of the UN General Assembly on Yom Kippur, which is why the United States has decided not to attend."

http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-boycotts-ahmadinejads-speech-canadians-walk-out/

So what does this mean? That "repulsive slurs" against Israel are tolerable when it is not Yom Kippur? I was left scratching my head, and feeling an unease with this rationale.

Why is The White House handing Iran's Ahmadinejad a global megaphone?

Anne Bayefsky..
Eye on the U.N..
11 September '12..

Just a few days after the 9/11 anniversary, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will travel to New York City. Once he arrives he will be handed a platform to incite violence and hostility from the center of the UN universe, but a few miles from Ground Zero.

This is a man who openly advocates genocide, brazenly endeavors to commit terrorist attacks on American soil, kills and kidnaps Americans abroad, brutalizes his own people, sponsors terrorism around the world, and is on the verge of acquiring a nuclear bomb.

On 9/11 we need to ask why. Why is he being given this global megaphone?

In September of 2010 Ahmadinejad used the podium of the United Nations General Assembly to make this claim about the 9/11 terror attacks: “some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy…”

In September of 2011 he complained that “colonial powers…threaten anyone who questions the Holocaust.”

It is a moral outrage that the Obama administration is facilitating Ahmadinejad’s return to the United States in September of 2012.

Many argue that the 1947 Headquarters Agreement between the UN and the U.S. leaves no room for the White House to maneuver on this point. The deal that was struck states that the U.S. government “shall not impose any impediments to transit to or from the headquarters district” (a defined area in New York City’s east side) to a representative of a UN member state.

But the same agreement also says the following: “It is agreed that no form of racial or religious discrimination shall be permitted within the headquarters district.”

Iranian leader says he knows how to "solve entire world problems" and it involves annihilation (his word). Guess whom?

Frimet/Arnold Roth..
This Ongoing War..
02 August '12..

Over the years, apologists for the political head of the government of Iran have played down the violence and aggression of his words. This time he was quoted out of context. The next time, the translation from the Persian language was faulty. And so on and on, ad nauseum.

With those soft-hearted individuals in mind, we are copying a slab of extraordinary text here directly and verbatim from the Islamic Republic of Iran's official press service. It's called "Islamic Republic News Agency", and it publishes in English. Earlier today, under the headline "Ahmadinejad: Qods Day to liberate Palestine, solve entire world problems", it pulled the mask from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's face. Incidentally, Quds (or Qods) Day is an Iranian 'contribution' to civilization, taking place annually on the last Friday of Ramadan [Wikipedia]. This year, that means the 24 hour period starting at sunset on Thursday, August 16 according this source.

Ahmadinejad: Qods Day to liberate Palestine, solve entire world problems

Daphne Anson - "This Despicable Vitriol Is Left Unchallenged":

Aussie Parliamentarian Highlights The Greens' Moral Bankruptcy Regarding Israel and Iran

Daphne Anson..
14 February '12..

Clearly, O'Dwyer is Golden, while Silence is Green.

For what a magnificent speech by Australian legislator Kelly O'Dwyer, Liberal member for Higgins, in yesterday's debate in the House of Representatives concerning Human Rights (or rather, the lack of them) in Iran.

All praise to to her for highlighting so ably and comprehensively the unconscionable hypocrisy of the Greens:

"In Australia during this time one must ask the questions 'Who stands conspicuously quiet? Who stands silent while these human rights are abused?' .... It is ... the Greens, those people who suggest that they are the champions of human rights and the keepers of the moral chalice, those professed keepers of all that is right and ethical. Where, I ask you, is Senator Brown in condemning these actions? Where is Senator Hanson-Young on her soapbox demanding justice? Where is the member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, in this chamber supporting this motion? Where are the Greens protests in the streets? Most importantly, given all that we have learned about the Boycott, Divestments and Sanctions scheme that grew from the Greens local council movement in Marrickville, where are the calls for the boycotts of Iranian companies or even of Syrian ones, to be truly consistent? No, all that is simply reserved for Israel.

Interestingly, the Greens also profess to be strong champions of human rights, particularly for those who are homosexual. Yet it is the country of Israel, the only democracy in the region, that legislates rights for women and homosexuals. In fact, in a recent poll conducted by GayCities.com in conjunction with American Airlines, Tel Aviv was rated the best gay travel destination of 2011. Yet here the Greens condemn Israel and not Iran.

Could you imagine if the Prime Minister of Israel had prayed for the ‘annihilation’ of the Palestinians? How many motions would the Greens have moved by now? How many press releases, demonstrations and media conferences would they have called? I conducted a search on the Greens website. I typed ‘Iran’ into their search feature, 23 results were returned and in those results there was not one mention—not one, single, solitary mention—of the atrocities that have taken place, of the abhorrent preachings of the President of Iran or of the blatant human rights abuses posed against ethnic minorities, women and homosexuals. However, if you type in ‘Israel’ you will find pages and pages and pages—in particular pages as to how you can be involved as well in the BDS movement. This is a truly sad state of affairs and it is of great concern in particular to me that the Greens do not stand with us in this chamber against such violence against human rights workers, women’s rights activists, journalists and government opponents.

And the Winner is ...

Love of the Land..
13 February '12..





International jurist Prof. Irwin Cotler met with Jerusalem Post staff recently, and restated his view

"that Ahmadinejad is a “clear and present threat” not only to international peace and security but also to his own people. The Iranian president embodies “four distinct yet interrelated dangers,” in Cotler’s words: “the nuclear threat; the genocidal incitement threat; state-sponsored terrorism; and the systematic and widespread violations of the rights of the Iranian people.” Liat Collins/JPost

In the OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) to the Canadian House of Commons, Wednesday, February 16, 2011, Human Rights Situation in Iran, Prof. Irwin Cotler elaborates on these four points:

.... Recent developments have served only to expose and magnify this critical massive threat. For example, in the matter of Iran's nuclear weaponization program, the International Atomic Energy Agency has expressed concern that Iran was “advancing in its efforts to construct a nuclear warhead, to develop a missile delivery system for such a warhead, and a mechanism to detonate such a weapon”. Simply put, the IAEA and arms control experts have reported that Iran has enriched enough nuclear fuel to build these dreaded nuclear bombs.

In the matter of state-sanctioned incitement to genocide, Iranian leaders have continued their incendiary calls for Israel's destruction. Underpinning this state-sanctioned incitement are the dehumanizing and demonizing epidemiological metaphors characterizing Israel as a “cancerous tumour” that must be excised and the Jewish people as “evil incarnate”, the whole as prologue to and justification for Israel's impending demise.

Gordon - Ignoring Ahmadinejad’s Calls for Jewish Genocide is a Grave Mistake

Evelyn Gordon..
Commentary/Contentions..
25 January '12..


The run-up to International Holocaust Remembrance Day on Friday has produced some excellent articles drawing parallels between the Holocaust and the threat posed by an Iranian nuclear bomb. But there’s another parallel that’s equally disturbing: the world’s indifference to the relentless incitement to genocide of both Hitler and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The Holocaust-denying Ahmadinejad never misses an opportunity to call for “wiping Israel off the map.” Since there’s no way to eradicate Israel without also slaughtering a large number of its 7.8 million inhabitants, that is a blatant call for mass murder. Yet he has never, for instance, been declared persona non grata by the EU or investigated for incitement to genocide by the International Criminal Court; indeed, he has been feted in many parts of the “enlightened” West, from lecture invitations at Columbia University to joint press conferences with a fawning Swiss foreign minister, Micheline Calmy-Rey.

IMRA - Can We Bet On The Messianics Not Controlling The Button In Iran?

Dr. Aaron Lerner..
IMRA..
Weekly Commentary..
19 January '12..



Professor Meir Litvak is the director of the Center for Iranian Studies at Tel Aviv University. He recently participated as the Iranian leadership in a simulation reported in "Iran: A Strategic Simulation" by Yoel Guzansky and Yonathan Lerner, Institute for National Security Studies.

As the Iranian in the simulation he acted to use the possession of nuclear weapons as a source of leverage rather than as a device with which to incinerate Israel.

I asked Professor Litvak if, as the "Iranian" in the simulation, if being a "Twelver" had any influence on his decision making process.

Some have argued that the religious desire to bring about the return of the Mahdi - even if via the creation of apocalyptic conditions - could cause an Iranian actor to take steps that in the absence of the faith would appear to be completely illogical.

Professor Litvak replied that while Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, does indeed have such a strong belief as a "Twelver" that he might detonate a nuclear weapon to bring on an apocalypse that would herald the return of the Mahdi, that Ahmadinejad doesn't have his finger on the button.

Levick - Tin-Pot Pravda: Guardian editorial scolds Israel for taking Iranian nuclear threat seriously

Adam Levick
CiF Watch
06 November '11

I’m not sure which is more interesting, the very notion of the Guardian giving national security advice to Israel “Israel is unwise to raise the nuclear stakes“, Nov. 6, or the following passage in the editorial which represents one of the most surreal understatements I’ve read in a long time.

The Guardian, after sternly lecturing Israel on the folly of even considering a preemptive attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, writes:

“It is true that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has voiced a profound antipathy for Israel, which has been interpreted in many quarters as threatening the existence of the Jewish state.”

So, Ahmadinejad has voiced an “antipathy” towards Israel “which has been interpreted…as threatening the existence” of Israel”?!

In fact, Ahmadinejad has repeatedly and quite explicitly called for its destruction, has engaged in crude antisemitism, and called the Holocaust “a myth”.

Here are just a few examples:

(Read full "Tin-Pot Pravda: Guardian editorial scolds Israel ...")

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Iran Steps Up Incitement Against Israel

Jonathan S. Tobin
Commentary/Contentions
15 June '11

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/06/15/iran-incitement-against-israel/


As the International Atomic Energy Agency continues to compile evidence of Iran’s intent to build a nuclear weapon, the leader of that country is stepping up incitement against the intended target of that program: Israel. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used the meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to launch a tirade against Zionism as well as the West.

The SCO is a creation of Russia and China who have attempted to use it as a counter-force to NATO. In addition to Ahmadinejad, Chinese President Hu Jintao, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, and the leaders of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, India, Pakistan and Mongolia attended the meeting of the group in Astana, Kazakhstan. In his speech, Ahmadinejad blasted 60 years of Zionism as well as the United States and the West whom he blamed for most of the world’s ills. Ironically, among his litany of American sins was its use of the first atomic weapons that ended the Second World War.

While such screeds are nothing new for Ahmadinejad, his speech is yet another indication efforts to pressure Iran via mild international sanctions are not having a moderating effect on the Islamist tyranny. Iran has thumbed its nose at the West and President Obama for the last two and a half years, and the U.S. push for sanctions appear to be meeting with the same indifference in Tehran as Obama’s previous desire for “engagement” with the regime.

But despite the growing international consensus about Iran’s nuclear intent, perhaps Ahmadinejad is hoping those Western apologists for his country will ultimately prevent concerted action to stop it from obtaining nukes. The most prominent of those apologists, the New York Times’s Roger Cohen, wrote earlier this week to say all the evidence about Iran’s nuclear program should be ignored because the Iranians are too incompetent to actually build a bomb. Of course, this is the same writer who earned infamy two years ago saying the regime was too cosmopolitan to be anti-Semitic. That’s not very flattering for the Iranians (as well as vaguely reminiscent of conspiracy theories about 9/11 that posit Arab and Muslims were not clever enough to pull off such a diabolical scheme), but since Cohen’s main goal is to diminish concern for the security of Israel, I’m sure they’ll take it.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

How much antisemitism is too much?

Anne Bayefsky
January 16, 2011
info@eyeontheun.org

This article by Anne Bayefsky appears today in The Jerusalem Post.

Recent WikiLeaks cables reveal that diplomats at the United Nations are haunted by a thorny question: how much UN-driven antisemitism is too much? The original UN was built on the ashes of the Jewish people and owes its human rights foundations to the victims of the Holocaust. At today’s UN, we have now learned, diplomats hunker down near the General Assembly hall “listening outside with headphones on” trying to figure out the extent of the hate-speech that those on the inside should endure before walking out.

The particular subject of the WikiLeaks cable from US officials in Stockholm was a September 2009 Assembly speech of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Sweden held the EU’s rotating presidency, and it fell upon Swedish diplomats to decide when Ahmadinejad had crossed pre-arranged “red lines.” As it turned out, some EU members walked out of the speech, while Sweden stayed put. According to the cable, the Swedes were upset by the “embarrassing” “lack of EU coordination” – not by the bigotry broadcast over the UN global megaphone.

What had the Europeans confused would seem to be Jewish conspiracy theory 101. Ahmadinejad had used his UN platform to describe Jews as “a small minority [who] dominate the politics, economy and culture of major parts of the world by its complicated networks, and establish a new form of slavery…to attain its racist ambitions.” Yet this roused a mere eleven of the UN’s 192 members from their seats, including the United States. Israel had chosen not to attend.

Five months earlier in April 2009, Ahmadinejad had mounted another UN-provided stage in Geneva and began by denying the Holocaust, claiming that the "Zionist regime" had been created “under the pretext of Jewish sufferings.” At this “anti-racism” gathering (dubbed “Durban II”) he continued: “The word Zionism personifies racism that falsely resorts to religion and abuses religious sentiments to hide their hatred and ugly faces.” This time UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon remained glued to their chairs. Nine states, including the United States and Israel, had decided to boycott beforehand, while the remaining EU states and a few others belatedly got up and left.

In September 2010 Ahmadinejad used his UN invitation to New York to suggest that 9/11 was an inside job – “segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack” for the sake of “the Zionist regime.” On this occasion seven countries, including the United States, headed for the doors. Israel had previously figured out it was not worth going.

Why Do Iranians and Turks Want Arabs To Fight Jews?

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
08 December '10

If you want to understand how the debate goes in the Arabic-speaking world and the ways liberals there try to get across their message, there’s nothing better to read than Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed’s article, “Erdogan...Fulfill Your Promises.” It’s also very easy to misunderstand this kind of talk so let’s go through it together.

Rashed is one of the Arab world’s best journalists and is a liberal-minded reformer, as much as one can be while working for media owned by Gulf Arab shaykhs. He is now general manager of al-Arabiya television network, set up by the United Arab Emirates partly to counter the more radical (and Qatar-owned) al-Jazira network. He is also former editor-in-chief of the Saudi-owned al-Sharq al-Awsat which may be the best Arab-language newspaper nowadays.

Yet so powerful is the dominant radical ideology that here’s what Rashed has to do in order to express his views:

He must pretend to champion the radical argument: Yes, Israel is a terrible aggressive state. We must be ready to fight! But, wait a minute. Who are the real cowards here, the ones who won’t stand up against the enemy? They are the ones who promise to be brave warriors and don’t do anything! Let us not listen to these people and be lured into battle only to be betrayed and defeated by their hypocrisy and treason.

I’ve put the argument into my own words but it’s an accurate reflection of his writing. How do I know Rashed is pretending to believe this? Because I’ve followed his work carefully and the note of sarcasm is also clear to me.

OK, let’s go through the article. He begins:

“We have gotten used to hearing Iran and the eager Arab countries threatening Israel whenever there is a glimmer of a threat to Lebanon or the Palestinians....We have been driven to despair from this; these slogans have been exhausted and we have never seen – not even once – any application of this on the ground to the point that some people believe that the objective of these slogans is to revive the conflict, rather than deter Israeli aggression.”

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Ahmadinejad On Israel Over The Years--In His Own Words

Daled Amos
24 October '10

Europe strongly condemned Iran's president on Thursday for saying Israel should be wiped out and said the call raised concerns about the aims of a country the West suspects is planning to build an atomic bomb.

..."Calls for violence, and for the destruction of any state, are manifestly inconsistent with any claim to be a mature and responsible member of the international community," EU leaders said in a statement issued at a one-day summit outside London.

"Such comments will cause concern about Iran's role in the region, and its future intentions," they said.

Reuters, October 2005

Meanwhile, 5 years later, The Israel Project has collected 81 quotes from Ahmadinejad from over the years--most of them dealing with Israel. Nothing has changed--except that neither Europe, nor anyone else for that matter, bothers to condemn what Ahmadinejad says anymore.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

The Guardian’s Matthew Cassel feels A-Jad’s pain

Israelinurse
CiF Watch
19 October '10

Chicago-born Matthew Cassel – assistant editor for the Hamas groupie site ‘electronic Intifada’, and enthusiastic supporter of BDS against Israel - complained, in a CiF article on October 18th, that “[Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad deserves fair reporting.”

He’s right of course. The world should be made aware exactly what Ahmadinejad stands for and what he believes in. The readers of ‘Comment is Free’ should not have the Iranian president’s views censored or distorted by coy journalists.

So why does Cassel continue in the same vacuous vein as the rest of CiF’s coverage of the Iranian President’s recent visit to Lebanon which completely glossed over the content of both his major speeches?

Contrary to Cassel’s claims, some of the Western media were doing their jobs last week in Beirut and Bint Jbeil.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Ahmadinejad Shields Hezbollah

Ryan Mauro
frontpagemag.com
18 October '10

Last week, Iranian President Ahmadinejad took a two-day trip to Lebanon where he basked in the glory heaped upon him by hordes of Hezbollah supporters. Their turn-out is to be expected. Hezbollah is going to be indicted by the U.N. Special Tribunal investigating the 2005 assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, and the Iranian despot’s visit is part of an overall campaign to rescue the terrorist group.

“Lebanon is an example…for the unwavering resistance to the world’s tyrants and a university for jihad,” Ahmadinejad proclaimed in Lebanon. He also made it clear that Iran’s ambitions aren’t limited to the Middle East, saying that “Our world today stands on the verge of change, a change that is starting from our region.”

Ahmadinejad’s visit is just one part of an overall strategy with Syria and Hezbollah to shield the terrorist group from prosecution. The U.N. Special Tribunal is reportedly planning on indicting three to five members of Hezbollah, followed by a second round of indictments of about 20 of the group’s officials. The evidence appears solid, as the cousin of Imad Mugniyeh is thought to have been the brains behind the assassination of Rafiq Hariri. The U.N. has identified a total of 28 phones used by those involved in the plot, all of which belonged to members of Hezbollah. Syria may also have been involved, as the first U.N. report in 2005 suggested, but the tribunal has since backed off of making such allegations.

When news of these pending indictments first broke, elements of the Lebanese Army provoked a border clash with Israeli forces. A pro-Hezbollah journalist who was suspiciously present during the clash was killed during the fighting, strongly indicating that the terrorist group planned the incident. This clash may have been a way of stirring up support for Hezbollah in order to frighten the Lebanese government into inaction against them. This move, along with Ahmadinejad’s trip, the first by an Iranian president in seven years, show that Hezbollah and its state sponsors are seriously concerned about the affect indictments from the tribunal may have.

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

The Battleground That Is - Or Used To Be - Lebanon

JINSA
Report #: 1,031
18 October '10

Secretary of State Clinton spoke of Lebanon from Bosnia without apparent irony. "The United States supports the integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. We reject any efforts to destabilize or inflame tensions within Lebanon," she said, according to the BBC. "We would hope that no visitor would do anything or say anything that would give cause to greater tension or instability in that country." "We" who supported the devolution of Yugoslavia into its ethnic parts and now support the independence of Kosovo on the grounds that it is (primarily) Muslim and therefore cannot be expected to be part of Serbia, which is (primarily) Orthodox Christian.

The Obama administration wants to restore $100 million in military aid to Lebanon's army that Congress suspended over concerns it could be used to target Israel. A senior U.S. official said a review concluded that resuming the aid was in the interest of U.S. security and Middle East stability. And Lebanese unity as well, we assume.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also wants a unified Lebanon and he appears close to having one on his terms. The most striking part of his visit there was not the usual, but nonetheless disconcerting, claim that, "Grounds are being prepared for the Zionist regime to go to hell" but that his war cry came:

After he shook hands with Lebanon's Sunni Prime Minister Saad Hariri, who is under enormous pressure to pull out of the UN tribunal investigating his father's murder, mainly because the tribunal is focused on Hezbollah and Syria.

After he stood with Lebanon's Christian President Michael Suleiman and said, "We seek a unified, modern Lebanon, and we stand by the Lebanese government and people."

After tens of thousands of Lebanese turned out to greet Ahmadinejad's motorcade, cheering enthusiastically about the billions of dollars Iran has spent in the south and calling him, "our president." Shades of Austria circa 1938.

(Read full report)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Nasrallah LIed To Ahmadinejad About Rifle He Gave As A Gift

Daled Amos
17 October '10

It's one thing for Yedioth Ahronoth to be reporting this, but I'm surprised that Lebanese papers are picking up on how Nasrallah Deceived Ahmadinejad About The Gun:

Hezbollah said its leader has given Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad an Israeli rifle captured from an Israeli soldier during the 2006 war with Israel as a gift to cap off his two-day visit to Lebanon.

But Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot reported Sunday that Hezbollah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah deceived the Iranian President.

The daily said the gun was a type of weapon that has not been used by the Israeli military since the early 1970s, meaning it could not have been taken from soldiers during the 2006 war.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Resisting What In Lebanon?

Eamonn McDonagh
Z-Word Blog
15 October '10

I don’t think many will contradict me if I say that the verb “resist” is usually transitive. That means, for example, that it doesn’t make sense for me to praise “Mike’s resistance” unless I am sure that my interlocutor knows about Mike’s attempts to stop his landlord from evicting him.

I make this statement of the obvious in the context of Ana Carbajosa’s report of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to south Lebanon in El País of Madrid. The story’s subheading reads,

Ahmadinejad praises Hezbollah’s resistance four kilometers from Israeli soil.

In the body of the text Carbajaosa herself speaks of,

Bint Jbeil, the epicenter of Lebanese Shiite resistance.

Nowhere in the text is direct mention made of what Hezbollah is supposed to be resisting so it seems reasonable to assume that the journalist and her newspaper believe that the object of Hezbollah’s resistance is obvious and doesn’t need to be spelled out.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Ahmadinejad’s Deadly Triumph in Lebanon

Rick Moran
frontpagemag.com
15 October '10

It would have been unthinkable just a couple of years ago: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was welcomed in Lebanon on Wednesday for a visit that demonstrated just how far the Lebanese democracy has fallen and how fast the enemies of freedom have risen.

Ever since the Doha Agreement of 2008, in which Hezbollah achieved with guns what it couldn’t achieve with the ballot box, the arc of power and influence of the democratic “March 14th Alliance” has been waning. In Qatar, the Western-friendly coalition made up largely of Sunnis, Christians, and Druze reluctantly agreed to give the Hezbollah-led opposition enough cabinet ministers in government to give them veto power over the majority’s policies. In effect, the hard-won election of 2005 that had given the democrats nominal control was canceled, and the wolf was invited inside where he then proceeded to make himself at home.

Even the parliamentary elections last year that saw another victory by the March 14th coalition was eventually watered down as the “Spirit of Doha” and once again brought the Hezbollah opposition into a government partnership. The political motto of Lebanon — “No victors, no vanquished” — rings hollow today as Hezbollah has bullied and threatened its way to dominance.

There is no doubt that Hezbollah has reached the zenith of its power and influence in Lebanon. By demonstrating a willingness to press its advantages, as well as hold the specter of violence over the heads of the March 14th Alliance, the government now marches to the beat of Hezbollah’s drums. There is something pathetic in all of this if one considers the high hopes of the Lebanese people when the March 14th Alliance first took power in 2005. Since that time, compromise after compromise with the enemies of freedom have sapped the will to resist the constant pressure of Hezbollah and its Iranian masters. In the end, most of the leaders of the March 14th forces have either resigned to the inevitable or are maintaining a lower profile.

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Oops! No One Knows Who Invited Ahmadinejad To Visit Lebanon, 20 Years After His First Trip

Daled Amos
14 October '10

Gee, don't you hate when that happens?

Judith Miller writes that no one is rushing to take credit for having invited Ahmadinejad to visit Lebanon:

No one in Lebanon seems to know who invited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Beirut for a two-day “official visit” -- his first since assuming office in Teheran five years ago. No Lebanese official has claimed credit for a trip that Israel and the U.S. have condemned as “provocative.” But it’s shaping up as a potential powder keg and a huge political embarrassment for Lebanon whose reverberations are being felt in many capitals, not just in the Middle East.

But then again, maybe Ahmadinejad isn't there by invitation--maybe he is just following up on the last time he visited Lebanon, 20 years ago.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.