UPDATED Israel-Lebanon: Border Clash Kills At Least 4 Soldiers, Journalist (Al Jazeera)

UPDATE 1525 GMT: Israel Defense Forces have confirmed that Lieutenant Colonel Dov Harari was killed in today's skirmish. A platoon commander, Captain Ezra Lakia, has been seriously wounded.

Al Jazeera reports:

At least three Lebanese soldiers have been killed by Israeli forces during an exchange of rocket and gunfire along the border between the two countries.

A journalist was also killed, and five more Lebanese soldiers wounded in the Israeli shelling on Tuesday.

"The Israelis fired four rockets that fell near a Lebanese army position in the village of Adaisseh and the Lebanese army fired back," a Lebanese security official in the area said.

MENA House: “Iranian” Rockets Used in Attacks on Israel and Jordan

Hezbollah's Al Manar television station said a high-ranking Israeli soldier was also killed in the border incident. The report could not be independently verified, and the Israeli army refused to comment.

Lebanese news sources reported that the journalist killed was Assaf Abou Rahhal, from the Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar.

Lebanese witnesses said that Israeli shells are continuing to hit Adaisseh village.

The clashes erupted after Israeli soldiers reportedly attempted to uproot trees on the Lebanese side of the border.

Read rest of article....

Iran Analysis: Saharkhiz & Abtahi Dent the Government's "Fear Factor" (Shahryar)

It started a few weeks ago with journalist Isa Saharkhiz, detained in Evin Prison and appearing in court, standing up to the Iranian regime and refusing to sign a confession. Now we have the admission of former Vice President Mohammad Ali Abtahi admission, in the wake of other revelations from Iran’s prisons, that the trials of reformists being held in Tehran’s courts were "rehearsed" in advance.

Even before the Iranian Uprising of last year, human rights activists and freed prisoners had raised questions about the validity of trials of activists, reporters, lawyers, students, and political dissidents. So what distinguishes the Saharkhiz and Abtahi developments? The answer lies in a) the timing and b) the importance of individuals making these claims.

When student protests in Iran in the 1990s was put down, part of the regime's success was that the protesters were unable to attract support from elements within the government or the clergy. And even though some student leaders escaped, they were unable to speak openly about their experiences until they left the country and were safe.

This time, the opposition has not only been able to attract high-ranking members of the establishment but has been able to break through the government's "blackout" inside Iran

Isa Saharkhiz worked for the government and the Islamic Revolution from its very early days. However, he now harshly condemns the establishment, going as far as saying that "the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic has proven that he is willing to do anything just to continue a little longer his dictatorial rule over people".

Abtahi’s short statement claiming, "A year ago on such a day we had a trial, we had practiced the day before. What a day it was...." is another nail in the coffin of the Islamic Republic’s campaign to cultivate legitimacy.

Here are two individuals who supported the Islamic Revolution and served this regime for decades. If silenced this time, they would have still assisted the regime’s claims for legitimacy in a small but notable way. (Remember, the regime’s main concern is appearing legitimate to its own population, not to the West.) But both of them have visibly snubbed the regime. Exposing the government’s hypocrisy and criticizing its Supreme Leader are daring attempts at educating the public.

The regime will attempt to a) contain the outcry after both incidents and b) reprimand the two perpetrators, something both Abtahi and Saharkhiz know. So why would two well-established public figures who have worked for the regime and know that they are now risking their lives go ahead? Because the government has lost command of the single most important virtue that keeps every dictatorship in power: fear.

Fear is what kept the people from going into the streets in the wake of the student uprisings of the 1990s. Fear is what kept them from rebelling after the Revolution took away their liberties one by one. Fear is the single most important element in the equation that has worked in the Islamic Republic’s continued existence. Saharkhiz and Abtahi’s revelations further elucidate how much ground the regime has lost since last June.

In another country more than 70 years ago, Franklin D. Roosevelt proclaimed, “The only thing we need to fear is fear itself.” It seems Iranians are beginning to learn that.

Iran Feature: Did Ahmadinejad Chief of Staff Reveal the Bomb?

President Ahmadinejad's controversial Chief of Staff Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai gets us off to a dramatic start today. Rooz reports that, meeting advisors of the Ministry of Education on Saturday, Rahim-Mashai said that the President had spoken last year of the “possibility of uranium enrichment to 100 percent”. This statement, made during a visit to an exhibition on the achievements of a centre for laser science and technology, referred to the manufacture of a nuclear bomb but “not a single foreign media outlet created an uproar on this.”

Rahim-Mashai continued, “They are not concerned the nuclear bomb and Dr Ahmadinejad used this sentence to test them to see how concerned they really are about Iran producing a nuclear bomb.”

Rahim-Mashai's declaration was noted only by Mehr. Other official outlets such as the Islamic Republic News Agency and Fars carried the general remarks but did not quote the chief of staff or mention the words “enriching uranium by 100 percent”.

MENA House: "Iranian" Rockets Used in Attacks on Israel and Jordan

On Monday, Red Sea ports in Israel and Jordan suffered rocket attacks killing one man and wounding six other people wounded.

Reports say a rocket exploded outside the Intercontinental Hotel in the Jordanian city of Aqaba, 300 km (185 miles) south of Amman. Five were injured, with taxi driver Subhi Yousef al-Alawneh dying of his wounds.

One rocket struck the Israeli city of Eilat; however, there were no casualties reported. Three others landed in the sea off Israel and Jordan.

Israel-Palestine Analysis: Who Wants A One-State Solution?

Condemning the Attack

Ali Ayed, Jordan's information minister described the attacks as a "terrorist and criminal act, which serves shady agendas, is strongly condemned....Jordan will always fight terrorism and terrorists."

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu spoke on the telephone with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordanian King Abdullah on Monday about the incidents.

"The attacks perpetrated on innocent citizens of Jordan and Israel were carried out by terrorists that want to thwart the peace process," Netanyahu said in a statement .

A spokesman for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign affairs asserted that the rocket attacks "were not an attack on Israel but rather, an attack on the region bringing about instability".  He blamed Hezbullah and Hamas, saying that the rockets were unlikely to come from Egypt, contrary to speculation.

Rockets Made by Iran?

Eilat police found that the rockets were "Grad-type Katyushas" made in Iran, witha range of around 20 kilometers and weighing 6 kilograms each.

Egyptian officials denied the rockets came from their territory: "No rockets were launched from the Sinai.  To launch rockets from Egypt, it takes equipment and complicated logistical preparations. It is impossible, since the Sinai Peninsula has heavy security."

BBC Arabic reported that Egyptian security forces were scouring the area around Taba and Nuweiba, but had found no sign of a rocket launch.

The day before the attacks, Xinhua reported that Egyptian security had blocked off ten openings of secret tunnels at borders with the Gaza Strip; located in a residential area north of Rafah crossing.


Egyptians in Aqaba

The rocket in Aqaba landed 300 metres from the Egyptian Consulate.  No one from the Consulate or the Egyptian community in Aqaba, estimated at around 20,000, was injured.

Israel-Palestine Analysis: Who Wants A One-State Solution?

Let's ask a very basic question: What is the most likely alternative to the two-state solution? For the Israeli right and the majority of Palestinians settled in the West Bank (according to a poll by the Palestinian Ma'an News Agency), it is a one-state agreement. Based on this data, we can read political motivations behind these preferences.

In an article published in Haaretz, former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Arens argued that Israel had to break its taboos by granting Israeli citizenships to Palestinians. He said:

We are already a binational state and also a multicultural and multi-sector state. The minorities [meaning Arabs] here make up 20 percent of the population --- that's a fact and you can't argue with facts.

Israel-Palestine: A Secret Deal to Start Direct Talks?
Middle East Inside Line: Rockets Hit Eilat, Iran Responds to “US War Plan”, US $ for Israel Missile Defence

So Palestinians would be granted equal rights, such as the right to vote for a new Knesset. The second generation of Palestinian granted equal rights, if not the first generation, would be enjoy their lives in Jerusalem's telecommunication sectors, on Tel Aviv's beaches (world's 9th best) and in Israel's Hebrew University (which is in the top 100 universities in the world).

Critics from the Israeli "left" contend, however, that while this proposal provides the Palestinians full personal rights, it also envisages a country whose symbols and spirit will remain Jewish: what is sought by the right-wing is a "democratic Jewish Israel". The Palestinian problem would become a domestic issue. Instead of dealing with the Obama Administration, Ramallah's foot-dragging strategies, United Nations' telling offs and "provocative" flotillas, problems related with Palestinians granted Israeli citizenships would turn to their loyalty to the Jewish character of the state or their relatively high birthrate.

On the Palestinian front, those who argue for a one-state alternative and political "vision" assume that Palestinians would overtake the rule of the state through the state's democratic channels. However, the Palestinian question would face new and more complex problems and the nationalist movement could lose its support from the emerging Palestinian elite.

Beyond these political calculations, if the Ma'an poll reflects the general public opinion of Palestinians, questions emerge. Is this a "hopeless" reaction to the division of Palestine and a historical memory of defeat? Is it a surrender to the "enemy"? Or is it weariness of harsh living conditions imposed by politics and the futile hope of the better life lived by their Jewish neighbours?