It seems Michel Aoun is back to proving why he is so good for Lebanon.

All and sundry flay Aoun for bid to curb premier’s powers

Daily Star staff
Thursday, June 19, 2008

BEIRUT: Sunni leaders from across the political spectrum slammed Christian opposition leader MP Michel Aoun for demanding that the authorities of the premier be amended. Former Prime Minister Omar Karami, a staunch opposition supporter, criticized Aoun for seeking to transform the prime minister into “a junior aide.”

Karami made the remark during a news conference on Wednesday to express opposition to a call that Aoun made one day earlier to amend the premier’s powers.

He said Aoun’s call aims at “stripping the prime minister of all the powers gained by the Taif Accord.”

“This is totally unacceptable,” Karami added.

Read the rest: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=93306

In addition to Karami, Hoss and Miqati also slammed Aoun for this pulpit preaching. It seems the opposition also has little patience for a megalomanical spoiler.

I’m beginning to think that, but for Aoun, HA, Amal, and the FM would have solved all of their problems back in 2006.

Meanwhile, relations are not so good between the Arab League and Israel:

“A sharp verbal exchange occurred yesterday in Petra between Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa and Israeli President Shimon Peres, When Peres gave a speech at a working lunch, he called upon Arabs to “follow the path of peace in the example of Anwar Sadata and the late King Hussein of Jordan”. Mr. Moussa stood up and chastised Peres, “We haven’t heard anything about Israel’s opinion on peace. All you talked about was King Hussein and Anwar Sadat. What is your opinion on the Arab peace initiative? Oh, yes, you’re a master talker but you can’t go on fooling us forever, we’re not dumb!…Stop building those colonies!…Mr. Moussa then left the room….”

Via L’Orient-LeJour

The paper also reported that according to opposition leader Mohammad Raad, Condoleeza Rice, having flown to Beirut unexpectedly, has urged a delay in forming the government for “pending a certain event”

norman said:

Ausamaa,

I agree with you , they asked Hafez Assad that , He said the conflict is not psychological but on the basic human rights for the Palestinians and on the return of our land and when these principles are there then all options for CBM can be there too.

They asked Hafez Assad that , He said the conflict is not psychological but on the basic human rights for the Palestinians and on the return of our land and when these principles are there then all options for CBM can be there too.

Nur,

I’m glad Amr Moussa react that way to Mr. Peres who still issues challenges to Arab leaders to demonstrate their compatibility and serious intentions regarding peace .. yet he does not state his clear position approving Arab peace initiatives or the return of the Golan to Syria …

Peres, was known in Israel as “Mr. ABC” in the 80’s when he used to be considered the smoothest Israeli politician to appear on ABC’s very popular daily news show “nightline” … let’s say that he lost that charm… he is a hawk who wants more settlements, not peace.

UN atom watchdog faces tough search mission in Syria

Alex,

I beg to differ. Peres doesn’t want more settlements. He does want peace. But, he wants to enjoy the supporting voices of as many Israelis as possible, and to feel like a true “king-of-Israel” in his last post as a leader, even MORE. As President of Israel, he wants to win over the trust of the people, half of which have never given him a chance (were always against him). In this position now, he is supposed to represent “all” Israelis, not just the Left. So his tone is becoming more hawkish than ever. But he’s still dreaming of a New Middle East, he’s still working in various ways toward that goal. In a way, Barak is trying to imitate Peres now… by being both dovish and hawkish at the same time. He’s for peace with the Palestinians, but maintains the hundreds of roadblocks in the West Bank. He’s for peace with Syria, but still believes in an inevitable clash with HA and Hamas.

God knows what his platform will look like in the upcoming elections…

Nur,
Condi Rice had to suddenly postpone, because she was invited to Talansky’s grandson’s Bar Mitzvah in Brooklyn… 😉 Olmert would have shown up, but it wouldn’t have been clear whether he’s supposed to TAKE the envelope, or GIVE one…

Shai

Your perception that the IDF is ready to attack Gaza is probably right, but I doubt the politicians will this time again follow the army as they did in the 2006 Lebanon war. A failure there and too many israeli casualties will be a second and final disaster for the IDF credibility and will leave Israel more exposed then ever.
For the Palestinians, of course it is terrifying but they don’t have much to loose and they know that Israel won’t be able to eradicate Hamas. Do you think the palestinians in Lebanon will remain quiet while their brothers are butchered?
In the possible Gaza invasion, Israel has a lot to risk, this is why they have accepted now the deal proposed by Hamas a year ago that was immediately rejected.
As for the Iran war, you are very optimistic that the IDF would do better than in Lebanon. Iran has a formidable army, much more motivated than the IDF and they will not stop the war when they will have casualties. If Iran is attacked, fighting back will be a sacred duty for ALL iranians and the loss of lives will be an issue of pride not of deterrence.
As for the attack on the military site in Syria, it was foolish, yes, but I insist to say it was a cowardly act as Syria is known to have weak military equipment and it was a very easy target.
This attack for me was supposed to be a message of strength but on such easy target, it looks more to me as a sign of weakness.
Overall, the weakness of the US is clearly reflected in the disarray of Israel’s administration and the disillusion on the ability of the military force to solve problems.

Shai,

I understand, but I judge him by his actions … since Rabin died, Peres has been working against peace with Syria .. he has been working with the UN and with the “moderate Arabs” to weaken the Syrians… the past 4 years he used his influence too many times against Syria.. actually I would say he was one of the main figures working against Syria… together with Chirac and King Abdullah …

??????? – http://WWW.XINHUANET.COM
>>

——————————————————————————–

Olmert: Israel ready for major concessions on border dispute

JERUSALEM, June 19 (Xinhua) — Israel is ready to make major concessions on the redrawing of its borders in an effort to secure peace with Syria and the Palestinians, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in an interview broadcasted Thursday on BBC Arabic Television.

“There is no cause or reason to enter a war with Syria,” Olmert said during the interview, which was held in Olmert’s Tel Aviv office.

Olmert said his government was determined to continue efforts to resolve the conflict that has been going on for generations, and that he was working towards bridging the “historical gap” between Israel and Syria through negotiations.

On Wednesday, the prime minister said in an interview with French newspaper Le Figaro that Israel and Syria, which have recently renewed indirect talks under Turkish mediation, are not far away from direct peace talks.

Olmert said that direct peace talks could be opened once Israel and Syria agree on a precise agenda and issues to discuss, adding that better relations with Syria would alter the whole dynamic of the Middle East.

Turning to relations with the Palestinians, the prime minister told BBC that progress has been made on numerous issues in Israel’s talks with the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), including the dispute over the borders.

Despite boasting progress in many fields with the PNA, Olmert remains skeptical that a full agreement can be signed and delivered during the remaining months of U.S. President George W. Bush’s term.

The Bush administration sponsored an international meeting in Annapolis, Maryland, in November 2007 in a bid to restart Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas pledged at the Annapolis meeting to try to reach a deal before Bush leaves the White House in January 2009.

During the BBC interview, Olmert also touched on Hamas.

Olmert said the Islamic movement would be welcome to join peace negotiations after it accepted and complied with the demands of the international community, namely calling off terror attacks and recognizing Israel.

“I don’t think there can be reconciliation (with Hamas) without basic acceptance,” said the prime minister.

The conditions set by the Quartet, the Middle East peacemakers which consist of Russia, the United States, the UN and the European Union, also call for Hamas to observe past accords signed with Israel and release Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier who was kidnapped by Gaza militants in a 2006 cross-border raid.

Alex, I understand. Yes, Peres has been playing his cards wrong. So have most Israeli politicians. They bought into the whole Bush-Cheney us-versus-them theory, and in essence became puppets at their will. Historians will one day judge many of these “leaders”, and spell out the infinite missed opportunities. Shame so much bloodshed, and so many innocent people had to pay the price, for the foolishness and stubbornness of impotent leaders.

Why-Discuss, I am not at all optimistic about war with Iran. I don’t think their army will be fighting the IDF, I think their Shihab missiles, and their proxy militias in the form of HA and Hamas, will be hitting most major cities and towns in Israel, and will cause a great amount of damage, which will naturally be reciprocated tenfold. It will be a terrible war, and I wouldn’t want to see it happen, ever.

As for the recent decision to support the cease-fire, not all the politicians supported it. In fact, Olmert said on numerous occasions this past week that it is only Barak that is holding back the major operation into Gaza. Ya’ani, if Barak as Defense Minister would have give the green light, Olmert as his boss would have supported the operation. So he’s learned nothing from Lebanon 2006. In this particular case, it seems Barak “saved the day”. But, not for long. He too has said a few times that a major clash with Hamas seems to be an inevitability. It’s just a question of time. So with that kind of thinking, how long do you think this cease-fire can last?

All along I’ve been afraid of the catastrophe potential of a major operation into Gaza, with Lebanon 2006-like consequences (but probably worse). Things could easily get out of control when, as you suggested, the Lebanese Palestinians could come to Nasrallah and say “Remind us why you have those tens of thousands of rockets, if not to resist the Israelis? So look now what they are doing to our people in Gaza…” Most here seem to think that in such a case, HA wouldn’t get involved. I don’t share that optimism, and I fear that if they do, then we’re essentially at a regional war, because Israel will be fighting on two fronts at the same time, which means it’ll cause terrible damage, and may invite others to join in (Iran?) Bashar recently mentioned in the UAE that if Iran is attacked, Syria will not join the war. That was a seemingly calming message to many (Syrians, Israelis, Americans), but it was also interpreted by some as a possible “green light” for adventurous initiatives by Israel and/or America vis-a-vis Iran, or I suppose also Hamas (by the IDF).

As a general note, I must say that I know of very few armies in our world’s history, that have ever managed to “solve problems”, as you mentioned. I know of many armies, that have managed to “create problems”. The IDF is no exception. Our fear should not be of a particular side miscalculating, but rather of the catastrophe that could befall us all, in any miscalculation on anyone’s side.

Thanks Dr. Landis for referring to Mr. Yasin article. Mr. Yasin insight has contributed greatly to the social, political and anthological studies of Syria and Arab World. Sadly, the regime has always treated him and the civil society with disrespect and ignorance while he and other Syrian intellectuals should be their light to make the change and the reform.

Well, fortunately for both Israel, Iran and the region, there is a lot of geography between them. I maintain that neither has the capability to do much to the other and that Israel could not carry out a strike without US support and US support will not be forthcoming.

I find the article by Yasin Haj Salih to be excellent

Shai
All along I’ve been afraid of the catastrophe potential of a major operation into Gaza, with Lebanon 2006-like consequences (but probably worse). Things could easily get out of control when, as you suggested, the Lebanese Palestinians could come to Nasrallah and say “Remind us why you have those tens of thousands of rockets, if not to resist the Israelis? So look now what they are doing to our people in Gaza…

Do you really think that Barak will bear such responsibility as it is obvious that a invasion of Gaza will be very bloody and worse that Lebanon for the Israelis who have avoided the infantry in Lebanon but would not be able to avoid it in Gaza, thus exposing the IDF to life threatening danger. Is the Israeli street blind? Over optimistic about the IDF even after the failed war against hezbollah? Don’t they see that this operation could imbalance totally and irreversibly Israel, both militarily and in the world opinion.
I really question the sanity of the israeli free media , if they encourage such operation.

Why-Discuss,

The media isn’t encouraging such an operation, it is merely reporting what the political leadership is feeding them, namely, that a clash seems inevitable and it is only a question of time. Barak will bear his own responsibility as Defense Minister, and of course Olmert the ultimate responsibility as PM. But we’ve already seen how the Vinograd Report enabled him to stay in power. He’s a lame duck, so he’s not concerned about that.

What you don’t seem to understand, I think, is that it’s not that Israelis think that Gaza 2008 will be easier than Lebanon 2006, or less bloody. Most Israelis would probably agree that many more soldiers will die in Gaza than in Lebanon. But two factors are probably working against those (like me) who are very much against such an operation. First, Israelis are getting sick and tired of having Sderot and some of the areas around it shelled so much (sometimes almost daily) for over 7 years. This war of attrition is having its toll finally, and Israelis are fed up. They want something done, anything. They’re ready to pay a heavy price, just not to be seen as being impotent (like their government). To put it bluntly, they want action and revenge, and they’re less concerned now about the toll, for either side. Second, the IDF knows that although Hamas is quite well equipped with armaments, TNT, mines, etc., it is nothing compared to HA.

That’s not to say it can’t kill more Israeli soldiers (it probably can, because fighting in Gaza is so much different and tougher), but mostly in the area of medium and long range missiles, Hamas has no capability even close to HA’s. Which means that in order for another 1 million Israelis to again be living underground for 34 days, HA would have to get involved in such a case. As most in this forum are suggesting (and I disagree with them), the likelihood of HA joining is slim. So if most IDF chiefs think like most on this forum, they’re less worried about Israeli civilians or cities being bombarded during such an operation. It then becomes a limited conflict, the extent of which is defined basically by the IDF.

As for world opinion, I’m afraid most nations in this world have shown in recent years that they’re willing to accept almost anything. The moral world is becoming a thing of the past (if it ever was one). Look at what’s happening in Iraq, look at the Palestinian refugees, look at Gaza and its ongoing suffocation by Israel. Do you hear anyone complaining? I don’t. So the so-called world public opinion is something that has been moving far away from the real concerns of most, in deciding whether to act, and how. Heck, even the Arabs can’t bring themselves to place an embargo on anyone anymore. It’s a different world now, I think.