LCCC
ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
October 11/09
Bible Reading of the day
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to
Saint Luke 11:27-28. While he was speaking, a woman from the crowd called out
and said to him, "Blessed is the womb that carried you and the breasts at which
you nursed."He replied, "Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and
observe it."
Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special
Reports
Iran marches toward the bomb/Nadim
Koteich/Now Lebanon/October
10/09
Nobel Committee Pulls Oil Plug on
Democracy/By Dr. Walid Phares/October
10/09
Arab Accord and
Blockage in Lebanon/By: Walid Choucair/Al Hayat/ 10.10.09
Bahia Hariri/ Al-Mustaqbal
newspaper/October
10/09
An Open Question to Osama
Bin Laden - or Any Other Islamist/By:
Raymond Ibrahim/Pajamas Media/October 10/09
Obama's prize could help peace/The
Daily Star/October
10/09
Turkey and Armenia: the benefits of diplomatic
relations/By Cesar Chelala/October
10/09
Latest
News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for October 10/09
Captured Arab fighter in Iraq recounts journey from
campus to killing fields/Los
Angeles Times
Abdo: The “real” outcome of
Damascus summit remains unknown/Now Lebanon
Nasrallah, Jumblat Welcome
'Positive' Results of Damascus Summit, Call for Removing Cabinet
Obstacles-Naharnet
Hezbollah statement: Nasrallah met
with Jumblatt, Taymur Jumblatt and Chehayeb on Friday/Now Lebanon
Optimism on Government Formation Next Week as Lebanese Await Damascus Summit
Outcome-Naharnet
Report:
Ain el-Rummaneh Assailants Hiding in the South-Naharnet
Major
Power Warns About Possible Israel-Hizbullah Confrontation-Naharnet
Berri in Qatar Saturday
and UAE Monday for Talks on Deported Lebanese-Naharnet
Geagea for a constitution-based
cabinet if national unity cabinet isn’t formed/Future News
Gemayel Fears History will
Repeat Itself-Naharnet
Government to Deal Firmly
with Motorbikes-Naharnet
Egypt Refuted Eid's
Accusations-Naharnet
Assad Calls Suleiman
Confirming Damascus Summit Eagerness for Unity Government-Naharnet
Lebanese Army: Security
for All, Political Cover for None-Naharnet
Saniora: Issue of Deported
Lebanese Should be Solved Diplomatically-Naharnet
Development and Liberation bloc MPs
do not confirm Amal-Hezbollah delegation visit to Syria/Now Lebanon
Aaraji: Saudi Arabia and
Syria agreed a cabinet should be formed soon/Now Lebanon
Marouni: Lebanese, hostages to
foreign decisions/Future News
Jarrah: A cabinet is essential to
curb security/Future News
Northern officials meet in Dar
El-Fatwa/Future News
Majdalani: the ball is in the
minority’s court/Future News
Hariri’s lawyer rectifies things
responding to Sayyed’s lawyer/Future News
Honein hopes Saudi-Syrian summit
establishes actual results/Future News
Lebanese Army vows to preserve security, deny criminals political cover-Daily
Star
Rumors swirl as LBC lays of more than 60 employees -Daily Star
Assad calls Sleiman to confirm eagerness for stability-Daily Star
Special Tribunal not planning any imminent indictments-Daily Star
EU Commission calls for abolishing death penalty-Daily Star
Fadlallah urges firm response to security breaches-Daily Star
Beirut celebrates Jerusalem as Arab culture capital-Daily
Star
UNESCO wraps up conference on climate change-Daily Star
Divers discover new fresh-water spring off Tyre-Daily Star
Baroud: Phone tapping regulations insufficient-Daily
Star
Cannabis most popular illegal drug among students-Daily
Star
Roof collapse injures 80-year-old man in Sidon-Daily Star
Fashion: a secret weapon in the war on breast cancer-Daily Star
Lebanon protests condemn clashes at Al-Aqsa Mosque-Daily Star
Abdo: The “real” outcome of Damascus summit remains unknown
October 10, 2009 /Now Lebanon/Former intelligence chief and ambassador Johnny
Abdo told the Voice of Lebanon radio on Saturday that there is a certain
“mystery” over the “real” outcome of the recent Saudi-Syrian summit in Damascus.
He added that the “mysterious factor” is the Iranian position, saying that the
ongoing Iranian smear campaign against Saudi Arabia was not affected by Saudi
King Abdullah bin Abdel Aziz’s visit to Syria. “Only Hezbollah, not even Change
and Reform bloc leader MP Michel Aoun, is obstructing the cabinet formation,”
said Abdo.Abdo noted that Saudi Arabia and Syria agreed on the “need to achieve
stability in Lebanon,” but ruled out any realization of this aim because “some
major countries are working toward obstructing the outcome of the meeting.” He
added that he is “not very optimistic because Lebanon’s problem is with Iran and
not with Syria.” He also stressed that Lebanon was not the primary or the most
important topic discussed in the Syrian-Saudi summit. Abdo also said that he did
not understand why Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri stepped down and was
reappointed. “If Saudi Arabia decides to forsake Hariri, it will be sacrificing
itself,” added Abdo.
Report: Ain el-Rummaneh Assailants Hiding in the South
Naharnet/The army intelligence is reportedly searching in south Lebanon for two
men involved in Tuesday's knife attack in Ain el-Rummaneh that killed one person
and injured several others. An Nahar newspaper said Saturday that the two men
reside in Bourj al-Barajneh district in Beirut's southern suburbs and have
managed to escape to two villages in the south. Security apparatuses believe
that the men's arrest is a matter of hours particularly that they don't enjoy
political cover, according to An Nahar. George Abou Madi was killed outside his
home on Tuesday night by knife-yielding young men from Shiyyah riding
motorcycles. Beirut, 10 Oct 09, 09:53
Major Power Warns About Possible Israel-Hizbullah
Confrontation
Naharnet/A major power has warned that Israel could attack Hizbullah to cover up
its move to thwart the settlement that U.S. President Barack Obama sought since
he came to office, An Nahar daily reported Saturday. The newspaper expected U.S.
Mideast envoy George Mitchell to fail in his mission at this stage to achieve a
comprehensive solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. On Friday, Mitchell
stressed Washington's commitment to a Palestinian state after meeting the
Israeli and Palestinian leaders, at a time when hopes of a peace breakthrough
appear dimmer than ever. At a three-way summit on the sidelines of the U.N.
General Assembly last month Obama told Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to stop dragging their feet and restart
peace talks that were suspended after the Gaza war broke out at the end of last
year. The major power told An Nahar that the Lebanese should form the cabinet as
soon as possible to face Israeli plans although the Lebanese army and Hizbullah
are ready for any emergency. Security sources in Beirut wondered why Lebanese
leaders were putting sticks in the wheel of cabinet formation at a time when
Israel has mobilized its army in the north and urged its troops to adopt
different fighting techniques than during the 2006 war with Hizbullah. Beirut,
10 Oct 09, 10:55
Nasrallah, Jumblat Welcome 'Positive' Results of Damascus Summit, Call for
Removing Cabinet Obstacles
Naharnet/Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and Progressive Socialist Party
leader Walid Jumblat welcomed any initiative aimed at helping the Lebanese
cabinet formation including the results of the Saudi-Syrian summit. The stance
of the top Lebanese leaders came during a meeting Friday night attended by MP
Akram Shehayeb, Jumblat's son Taymour, and Hizbullah official Wafiq Safa.
According to a joint statement, Nasrallah and Jumblat discussed the local and
regional situation and stressed the positivity of the two-day meeting between
Saudi King Abdullah and Syrian President Bashar Assad. The two leaders also
stressed the importance of Arab-Arab openness and the need to overcome crises in
the Arab and Islamic world.
The conferees also agreed to move forward in all measures that consolidate the
atmosphere of reconciliation and on the necessity of removing all obstacles
preventing cabinet formation. Beirut, 10 Oct 09, 13:23
Hezbollah statement: Nasrallah met with Jumblatt, Taymur Jumblatt and Chehayeb
on Friday
October 10, 2009/Now Lebanon/The Hezbollah media relations department issued a
statement on Saturday in which it announced that Hezbollah Secretary General
Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah met with Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid
Jumblatt, his son, Taymur, and MP Akram Chehayeb on Friday. The statement said
that they discussed regional and local developments, in particular “the Israeli
threats against Lebanon and the region, and joint US-Israeli exercises.” It also
stressed the danger of Israeli actions related to Jerusalem’s sacred al-Aqsa
mosque in light of “international nonchalance.” The statement added that the
parties agreed on the “positive” nature of the Saudi-Syrian summit and on the
importance of Arab “openness.”“Any initiative to form a new cabinet is welcome,”
added the statement, while highlighting the Syrian-Saudi call to resolve the
impasse by forming national-unity cabinet. They agreed to overcome the obstacles
impeding the cabinet formation as soon as possible. The statement added that the
parties followed up on the work of the progress of their joint committee,
stressing the need to continue the reconciliation between Hezbollah and the PSP.
Optimism on Government Formation Next Week as Lebanese Await Damascus Summit
Outcome
Naharnet/The new cabinet is expected to be formed next week, according to
well-informed sources, although a media report said that both majority and
opposition are sending positive messages despite lack of consensus that could
push government formation forward. As Safir daily reported Saturday that last
week's meeting between PM-designate Saad Hariri and Free Patriotic Movement
leader Gen. Michel Aoun at Center House was fruitless. It said the two men
didn't discuss names or portfolios and their meeting was only focused on
attempts to "build trust" and "turn the page of the past." As Safir's report
came as well-informed sources told An Nahar and Al Liwaa newspapers that the
cabinet "could see light next week amid a positive atmosphere on the Arab
level." The sources added that Hariri could present to President Michel Suleiman
during an expected visit to Baabda palace the new government lineup. Suleiman's
visitors also quoted the president as saying that "the positive (results) of the
(Damascus) summit should be interpreted with a quick formation of the
government."Meanwhile, Speaker Nabih Berri's representative MP Ali Hassan Khalil
and Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's assistant Hussein Khalil are in
Damascus to ask Syrian officials about the results of the summit between Saudi
King Abdullah and Syrian President Bashar Assad on Thursday. Al-Hayat newspaper
quoted well-informed sources as saying that Abdullah and Assad agreed to awaken
the Lebanese into the necessity of forming the new government and remove all
obstacles. Berri, meanwhile, told pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat that he clings
to his decision not to make any statements pending a clearer picture on the
cabinet issue. However, sources close to Berri said that the speaker's decision
to call for a parliamentary session on Oct. 20 for the election of parliamentary
committees, chairmen and rapporteurs means he is giving early signs for the need
to form the government before that date. Beirut, 10 Oct 09, 09:36
Berri in Qatar Saturday and UAE Monday for Talks on
Deported Lebanese
Naharnet/Speaker Nabih Berri is expected on Saturday to travel to Qatar on an
official visit and head to the United Arab Emirates on Monday to deal with the
issue of deported Lebanese.
An Nahar daily said Berri is keen on adopting "the policy of dialogue" away from
"politicization" during his discussion of the issue of hundreds of Lebanese
Shiites who were expelled from the UAE in the past three months. Berri received
an invitation to visit the UAE five days ago and knows that the solution to the
issue is looming, according to the newspaper.
Beirut, 10 Oct 09, 11:21
Gemayel Fears History will Repeat Itself
Naharnet/Leader of Phalange Party Amin Gemayel fears that the logic of May 7th
could still repeat itself setting as an example the incidents that took place
during the past two days in Bab al-Tabbaneh and Ain el-Rummaneh. "How will this
government affront the situation if obstruction becomes a habit? Would they be
able to handle it if incidents like May 7th or Ain al-Rummaneh re-occur?" said
Gemayel. The leader of Phalange Party is positive towards the outcome of the
Saudi-Syrian summit which he anticipates it will facilitate the cabinet
formation process. "The cabinet crisis will be resolved soon; we count on every
Arab rapprochement to ease tensions and facilitate political agreements," he
concluded. Beirut, 09 Oct 09, 20:21
Government to Deal Firmly with Motorbikes
Naharnet/Interior Minister Ziad Baroud ordered security forces on Friday to
regulate activities of motorbikes starting October 15. The decision came after
motorcyclists killed Ain el-Rummaneh resident George Abou Madi and injured
several others with knives. Baroud said legal motorcycles could operate only
between 5:00 am and 6:00 pm. As for motorbikes of pharmacies and restaurant
deliveries, they can operate between 5:00 am and midnight. Beirut, 10 Oct 09,
11:58
Egypt Refuted Eid's Accusations
Naharnet/The Egyptian Embassy in Beirut, through its press office, issued a
statement on Friday refuting the accusation by Secretary General of the
Democratic Arab Party Rifaat Ali Eid on Thursday to LBC. The press office
repudiated the accusation labeling it as "unfounded." "This incident will not
waver the reputable historical relations between Egypt and Lebanon and the
brotherly ties between the two countries", elaborated the statement. Rifaat Ali
Eid on Thursday held Egypt responsible for the incidents that took place in Bab
al-Tebanneh and Jabal Mohsen neighborhoods in Tripoli. The recent developments
left 8 injured after a clash using several Inerga-type rocket-propelled grenades
which hit residential areas and a football field during the past two days.
Beirut, 09 Oct 09, 19:34
Development and Liberation bloc MPs do not confirm Amal-Hezbollah delegation
visit to Syria
October 10, 2009/Now Lebanon/Development and Liberation bloc MP Hani Qobeissy
told LBC television on Saturday that he is “unaware” of a visit by bloc MP Ali
Hassan Khalil and Hussein Khalil, the political aid to Hezbollah’s secretary
general, to Syria which has been reported in the media. “Maronite Patriarch
Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir, President Michel Sleiman and Lebanese Forces leader
Samir Geagea’ s positions indicate that the obstacles pertaining to the names of
new cabinet ministers was overcome,” said Qobeissy. He added that the “positive
reality that was consolidated by the Saudi-Syrian summit” was reflected by the
positions and the statements of Lebanese politicians. “If stability in Lebanon
results from the summit, then the cabinet formation will be guaranteed,” added
Qobeissy. In an interview with Future News television on Saturday, Development
and Liberation bloc MP Anwar al-Khalil also did not confirm the visit of an Amal
Movement and Hezbollah delegation to Damascus. He said that if the visit took
place, it would not be the first time that officials have visited Syria in order
to “have a better understanding of the delicate details which could facilitate
the cabinet formation.” He described such visits as “healthy.” Khalil added that
Syria and Saudi Arabia agreed that a national-unity cabinet under the 15-10-5
formula should be formed. He voiced hope that new government would be formed
before the election of parliamentary commissions.
Iran marches toward the bomb
Nadim Koteich , October 10, 2009
Now Lebanon/Iran's top nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili answers questions during
a press conference following talks between Iran and six world powers to discuss
the Islamic republic's disputed atomic program. (AFP/Fabrice Coffrini) The
Geneva meeting with Iran, which was eagerly described as “constructive” by
Washington, left the most important question unanswered: What Middle East would
these talks “construct”? The answer depends much on what we draw from the talks
between Iran and the international community, and as things stand at the moment,
Iran is marching towards developing its own nuclear bomb. Uranium enrichment is
no longer a red line for Iran and discussion have gently shifted to the level of
uranium purity Iran is allowed to process for domestic use and what will be done
with the surplus. Hence, Tehran can comfortably announce plans to install a “new
generation of centrifuges” at the country’s newly-revealed nuclear facility near
the Shi’ite holy city of Qom, and at other sites, yet to be revealed. This was
the hope as outlined by Secretary of Defence Robert Gates, during a CNN/George
Washington University forum which was hosted by him and Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton.
In the meantime, a report prepared by IAEA experts and made public by ISIS said
that Iran has successfully tested Shahab-3 missiles which have a range of 2,000
kilometers, and is working to develop a nuclear payload that can be delivered by
them. The report concludes that Tehran already has the technical knowledge to
build a nuclear bomb.
Israeli media is already addressing the possibility of living with a nuclear
Iran, while Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak “conceded” that an Iranian
nuclear bomb does not pose an existential threat to Israel. This possibility is
sending shivers down some spines in several Arab capitals.
In the last week, the UAE has adopted a civilian nuclear energy law that will
pave the way for huge nuclear power program worth $41 billion. Although civilian
in nature, the program hints at the region’s preparedness to start a nuclear
arms race should Iran get there. UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah Bin Zayed
Al-Nayah openly expressed his country’s (and the GCC’s) concerns to Clinton in
Sharm Il-Sheikh in March that the U.S. would reach an agreement with Iran on key
strategic issues without Washington consulting its Arab allies.
Saudi Arabia is close to spending billions to buy a Russian S-400 advanced
missile defense system, to protect against a potentially nuclear Iran, Gulf
analysts and diplomats told AFP recently. Elsewhere, Washington is sabre-rattling
against Tehran with a semi-official, plan B focused around assurances, bribes
and containment, and which involves the U.S. nuclear umbrella over America’s
Middle East allies, if Iran develops its bomb. It is an option that dovetails
with the line of thinking of many officials around the Obama administration, and
some of which was expressed openly their boss took office.
Take Ashton B. Carter, who wrote, before being assigned the job of Defense
Undersecretary, that “containment and punishment” is the post-diplomacy-failure
policy. Meanwhile, Gary Samore, head of non-proliferation at the National
Security Council, preached of a responsible nuclear Iran, a country, he
suggests, “would probably act like other nuclear-armed states and was not likely
to give terrorists the bomb.”Then consider the mounting opposition coming from
some hawks in the “bomb Iraq camp.” Brookings’ Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth
Pollack (whose book The Threatening Storm influenced many liberals to back the
Iraq war) agreed during a joint panel prepared by AEI and Brookings the same day
of Geneva talks, that containment, not military action, is the best policy on
Iran. Feeling that assurances and containment could fail to convince Israel, the
Obama administration is considering bribery. The Washington Times quoted unnamed
US officials as saying that President Obama will not pressure Israel to publicly
disclose its suspected nuclear weapons program, nor will he pressure the Jewish
state to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. It is the same president
who, days earlier, was lecturing the world at the UN General Assembly on nuclear
nonproliferation and who was the driving force behind the UN resolution which
aims at ridding the planet of nuclear weapons.
So, on preventing a nuclear Iran, we are invited to shift gears from “yes we
can” to “what can we do?”, before we gamble on there being a regional balance of
nuclear power while at the same time striving for a long term goal of a
nuclear-weapons-free planet. In the meantime, those who disagree ought to,
according to Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria, “shut up”.
Aaraji: Saudi Arabia and Syria agreed a cabinet should be
formed soon
October 10, 2009 /Now Lebanon/Zahle in the Heart bloc MP Assem Aaraji told OTV
on Saturday that Saudi Arabia and Syria agreed on the need to form a Lebanese
cabinet as soon as possible and highlighted that it is in Lebanon’s interest to
have good relations with Syria. Aaraji said that all Lebanese parties are
affiliated to some extent with a regional power. He added that “external
signals” are needed for the Lebanese to reach an agreement and called for
benefiting from the current regional atmosphere. Aaraji also said that the issue
of the deportation of Lebanese expatriates from the UAE should be solved through
diplomatic channels and through the countries’ official institutions. “I am sure
that the UAE is not acting on a sectarian basis, but some of those who were
deported had party connections,” added the MP.
Bahia Hariri
October 9, 2009
On October 9, the Al-Mustaqbal newspaper
carried the following report:
Now Lebanon/The Saida Consultation Gathering stressed the necessity of hastening
the formation of a national-concord government to push the country’s wheel
forward. The Gathering, which held its regular meeting upon an invitation from
Minister Bahia Hariri, addressed the Ain al-Remmaneh incident and conveyed its
concerns in this regard, calling on the security and military apparatuses to
assume their roles. Following the meeting, Minister Hariri spoke in the name of
the Gathering and expressed great confidence in the consultations that were
being held by Prime
Minister-designate Saad Hariri to form the government, hoping they will entail
results shortly. Bahia Hariri said:
“There is an insistence within the gathering on seeing the prompt formation of
the national-concord government to launch the wheel [of movement] in the
country.
The Gathering addressed the issue of the Ain al-Remmaneh and Shiyyah incident
and there are major concerns in this regard. We therefore call on the security
and military apparatuses to assume their role. Also in regard to the Majdel
Anjar issue, we are still waiting for the results of the investigations. We want
to know how we got to this point, and why were these people killed during the
raids. There are many roving incidents occurring here and there, but we must
enjoy a high level of awareness to undermine the attempts to affect civil peace.
The Gathering also talked about the A(H1N1) problem and the measures that were
adopted to preempt it. An expanded meeting will be held next week so that we are
able to reflect the adopted measures on the civil society in Saida, including
the associations and health centers. We have assigned them to draw a plan, and I
believe they are ready. Moreover, we addressed the environmental meeting that
was held at the municipality, and we will announce next week the staging of a
meeting with the neighboring towns because the environment in Saida is linked to
its surrounding and not just to the city in itself.
The most important topic we discussed today was the Jerusalem issue which is
related to the Palestinian issue as a whole, i.e. the central cause of the
entire nation. This matter concerns both the Muslims and the Christians and
there is a call for a popular spiritual meeting to register the positions and
condemn what
Jerusalem and the Holy sites are being subjected to. We believe that these steps
are dangerous and alarming and should be confronted without any delay and before
all the other issues. The Gathering called on the Palestinian brother to rise up
to the level of responsibility to protect the cause and uphold stability in the
city.
It also praised the Palestinian-Lebanese rapprochement in Saida and its impact
on the stability of the city and its surrounding towns.”
Asked whether or not the governmental formation was linked to the issue of the
international tribunal formed to try those involved in the assassination of
former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, Bahia Hariri said:
“The tribunal issue has nothing to do with the government formation. There are
no links between the two topics. Nothing can stop the work of the tribunal, no
matter how much the commotion and talk about this issue were to escalate. We
demanded the formation of a tribunal and will accept its decisions, and I do not
think that anyone can control it. This issue is taking its own course, and there
is another internal course with the major headline of containing the attempts to
undermine stability.”
Nobel Committee Pulls Oil Plug on Democracy
By Dr. Walid Phares
Friday, October 9, 2009
As soon as the Oslo committee issued its Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack
Obama, an expected debate raged in America about the legitimacy of such a move
so very early in a U.S. presidential term.
The debate soon will espouse the dividing lines between domestic and foreign
policy issues and, in a few weeks, will die out under the awe of new unfolding
events. What will remain are future policy debates that will refer to one of the
world’s most prestigious awards as a fact in international relations.
Months and few short years from now, supporters of the “new direction” in U.S.
foreign policy as well as academics will frame Obama’s Nobel as a consolidation
of a new world order, while the media outburst following the granting
declaration will be forgotten.
Hence, bypassing the noise of did-he-earn-it-or-not deliberations, let’s ask:
What is the strategy behind the decision to grant this particular trophy to the
sitting American president?
To answer this, we simply can connect the dots between the statements made by
the grantor and the grantee. Naturally every American must be proud, and many
people around the world are happy for such a decision to honor the White House,
although some U.S. leaders wished the committee had granted past presidents such
as Bill Clinton for his gigantic efforts in worldwide humanitarian assistance.
The alternative choices are arguable, but this particular gesture isn’t about
past achievements, as the committee and the recipient have concurred. It is
about supporting a specific policy, which has been enunciated firmly during 2009
and is now being grounded in layers of moral recognition.
This honored policy is to ensure that there will be no more American
intervention overseas to provoke democratic change, let alone revolutions,
particularly in the so-called “Muslim world.”
The Norwegian Nobel Committee lauded “the change in global mood wrought by
Obama’s calls and initiatives that have yet to bear fruit: easing American
conflicts with Muslim nations.”
In other words, the transnational group of academics, politicians, and
multinational corporations involved in the Oslo process of the Nobel Peace Prize
clearly has championed the policy of Western restraint from “meddling” in the
domestic business of authoritarian regimes.
If previous unilateral interventions meant removing the Taliban and Saddam
Hussein from power, “multilateral approaches” mean not to pressure such types of
regimes, as long as the latter’s action doesn’t disrupt the flow of
petrodollars.
The real message of the prize’s grantors is deeper than what it shyly states:
You will be honored if you keep your hands off our regimes and ideologies. Thus
this recognition is not really about abstract notions or about climate change.
It is a message from the authoritarians in the greater Middle East, via their
economic partners in the West, to the United States, to quit pushing for
democracy and intervening for human rights; as the previous administration said
it would, but in fact failed to deliver.
The Nobel Peace Prize Committee is based in Norway, which cooperates with OPEC
and often has joint ventures with its members. The latter is obviously
controlled by the hard-core authoritarian members of the Organization of the
Islamic Conference (OIC) and the Arab League. These regimes, regardless of their
bilateral disputes (such as Wahabis and Khomeinists), have one common ground:
Oppose the rise of democracy, their worst enemy, in their own midst.
U.S. intervention in Yugoslavia, moderating the Palestinian-Israeli conflict,
reaching out to dissidents in Myanmar, is fine. But defeating the Taliban and
empowering women, helping the reformers in Iran, the Cedars Revolution in
Lebanon, or saving Darfur: All of that is forbidden.
The bureaucrats and advisers of the Oslo committee are in partnership with the
OPEC-OIC web and thus have offered their “credibility” as part of efforts to
block and reverse American support to the underdogs in the region. In their
eyes, the Obama administration already delivered significantly in nine months:
The war on terror is over, narrative against jihadism is deleted, OIC’s “fatwa”
on Defamation of Religion is endorsed, meddling in Iran’s oppression of its
citizens rejected, intervention in Darfur stopped, Ghadafi’s terror forgotten,
Assad regime’s massacres forgiven, and of course Guantanamo to be closed and
U.S. Homeland Security directed against natural disasters instead of urban
jihadism.
With such achievements, the “oil jihadi cartel” cannot but make a grand gesture
to consolidate the new direction. In return, the powerful grantee accepted the
prize as a “call to action,” meaning the course will be stayed. Reaffirming the
tenets of his Cairo speech, the president asserted that today’s world is one of
“religions” deserving “mutual interests and respect.”
So, between the lines, no future U.S. actions will be in favor of oppressed
peoples if they happen to be living in Dar el Islam. The war in Iraq will be
ended, regardless of Iran, Syria, and the Jihadists’ future interventions there.
And there will be no escalation in the battlefield of Afghanistan, if only
somehow the “ruthless adversary would stop threatening the United States.”
Here we go: The “other side” announced its agenda for America, and the latter
accepted. Surely it is nice to receive a prominent prize, but it is important to
see beyond our own nose. The hope is that the price for such an honor won’t be a
human rights catastrophe for the underdogs in the “Muslim world.”
**Dr. Walid Phares Most recent columns
Dr. Walid Phares, Walidphares.com, is the author of the “War of Ideas: Jihadism
against Democracy” and a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of
Democracies. Dr. Phares can be reached at: Phares@walidphares.com
Arab Accord and Blockage in Lebanon
Fri, 09 October 2009 -Daily Star
By: Walid Choucair
The Saudi-Syrian Summit is laying the groundwork for a new phase in inter-Arab
relations, whose challenges are no less difficult and critical than the previous
period, which was characterized by inter-Arab division and policies that were in
opposition to each other. Dismantling each side’s actions during the inter-Arab
dispute will require some effort in order to see a successful move to
cooperation in light of rapid developments on the regional and international
fronts, whether this is related to the Iranian nuclear issue, or the increasing
obstacles to reviving peace talks between the Arabs and Israel.
It is natural that the leaders of the two countries are building on fixed Arab
policies through resolutions of Arab summits, which were adopted even during
escalating disputes in the region. This is in order to revive the formulas of
coordination and joint policies, and unify approaches to “hot” Arab issues that
were subjects of dispute, led by Lebanon. However, time is needed to produce
creative political settlements that can anchor a return to coordination and
harmony.
Lebanon has been a major reason for the dispute between Saudi Arabia and Syria
in recent years, and specifically since 2005. The agreement between the two must
cover this arena, and be reflected in it, along with the Palestinian arena. If
Syrian-Saudi accord is expected to prompt the Lebanese to complete the formation
of a long-awaited national unity government, whose establishment has been
blocked, then this agreement should constitute a means of achieving Palestinian
reconciliation, which has been blocked since 2007.
If Syria, since 2006, has been able to block the rule of the majority in
Lebanon, which was allied with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, it did so after its
withdrawal from Lebanon. Syria did this in alliance with Iran, and by relying on
local allies who were different from those used during its previous phase of
managing Lebanon’s political decision-making prior to 2005. It made Hizbullah
its prime ally, along with the leader of the Free Patriotic Movement, General
Michel Aoun. During the period of inter-Arab dispute, the struggle centered on
who would control political decision making in Lebanon; Syria tried to block
this decision making after it felt that its being forced to withdraw from
Lebanon and be blocked from managing its affairs was a coup d’etat against it,
since Lebanon is a vital arena of its influence and regional role. Despite the
influence that it continues to wield in Lebanon through its allies, Syria has
failed to recover its control over Lebanese decision making, even though it has
succeeded in blocking it.
Meanwhile, the other, Arab-international axis, anchored by Saudi Arabia, was
unable to cement the establishment of independent political decision making in
Lebanon’s official political establishment. However, it prevented Syria from
recovering its pre-2005 control, even though Damascus had added Iranian support
to the elements of its influence in Lebanon.
It is not unrealistic to hear some describe events as follows: the practical
result of the inter-Arab conflict over Lebanon was each side stalemating the
other’s plans for a country where, despite its small size, key countries were
concerned with retaining a high degree of influence, or control over its
decision making, as in the case with Syria.
If one side in Lebanon saw the Saudi role in Lebanon as support for its
independent decision making vis-à-vis Syria, other groups believe that a degree
of independence does not mean denying Syrian influence in the country.
If this is true, then a return to inter-Arab agreement after a period of
conflict assumes the following: a precise political settlement over a degree of
stability in Lebanon’s central political authority reflects a move away from the
policy of blockage.
If this is also true, then a precisely-drafted political settlement in parallel
with reconciliation in Lebanon must address the question of how to calculate
Syria’s influence, which will reassure Damascus about its vital interests in its
neighbor. Where does the Iranian factor stand vis-à-vis this settlement and this
influence? Will Tehran allow Damascus to forge this settlement on its behalf, or
does the Syrian leadership require, in view of its strategic relationship with
Iran, its partnership, in order to abandon the policy of blocking the rise of
the official Lebanese political authority?
An Open
Question to Osama Bin Laden - or Any Other Islamist
by Raymond Ibrahim
Pajamas Media
October 7, 2009
http://www.meforum.org/2479/question-to-osama-bin-laden-islamist
Ever since 9/11, when Osama bin Laden was thrust into the spotlight, he has made
it a point to occasionally submit questions to Americans — questions which he
apparently thinks are unanswerable.
In his last message "commemorating" 9/11, for instance, after rehashing the
storyline that the jihad on America wholly revolves around U.S. support for
Israel — former grievances cited throughout the years include America's
"exploitation" of women and failure to sign the environmental Kyoto Protocol —
bin Laden concluded with the following musing: "You should ask yourselves
whether your security, your blood, your sons, your money, your jobs, your homes,
your economy, and your reputation are more dear to you than the security and
economy of the Israelis."
In fact, bin Laden et al. have made it perfectly clear that should U.S. support
for Israel cease, so too would Islamic terrorism cease. Hence, in this last
communiqué: "Let me say that we have declared many times, over more than two and
a half decades, that the reason for our conflict with you is your support for
your Israeli allies, who are occupying our land of Palestine [emphasis added]."
Fair enough. Yet before responding to Osama, it must be noted that, in and of
themselves, his communiqués beg a simple, logical question — one that, as shall
be seen, responds to all his observations and questions by making them moot.
Before articulating this question, let us first establish much-needed context:
As clearly demonstrated by Islam's doctrines and history — the former regularly
manifesting themselves in the course of the latter — it is a historic fact that
Islamic hostility for and aggression against non-Muslims transcends any and all
temporal "grievances." In short, Islam, according to the classical — not
"radical" — schools of jurisprudence, is obligated to subjugate the world.
From a traditional Muslim point of view, this troubling assertion is as open to
debate or interpretation as is the notion that Muslims are obligated to pray.
This is also why prudent non-Muslims have for centuries been finding the
question of achieving permanent peace with the Islamic world a vexatious
problem. Professor of law James Lorimer (1818-90) succinctly stated the problem
over a century ago:
So long as Islam endures, the reconciliation of its adherents, even with Jews
and Christians, and still more with the rest of mankind, must continue to be an
insoluble problem. … For an indefinite future, however reluctantly, we must
confine our political recognition to the professors of those religions which …
preach the doctrine of "live and let live" (The Institutes of the Law of
Nations, p. 124).
In other words, political recognition — with all the attendant negotiations and
diplomacy that come with it — should be granted to all major
religions/civilizations except Islam, which does not recognize the notion of
"live and let live," as evinced by, among other stipulations, the Koran's
commands to its adherents to "enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong,"
(e.g., Koran 3:110), that is, enforce Sharia law upon the earth.
Now while most Muslims may not go around evoking Islamic law's dichotomized
worldview that pits Islam against the rest of the world — many may not even be
aware of it — bin Laden, the "man of grievances," has. (This, of course, has
long been an al-Qaeda tactic: convince the West, which is generally ignorant of
Islam's bellicose doctrines, that jihad is a byproduct of foreign policy, while
inciting Muslims to the jihad by stressing its obligatory nature.)
As for bin Laden and his communiqués: For all his talk of Israel being the heart
of the problem, he exposed his true position in the following excerpt, which he
directed to fellow Arabic-speaking Muslims not long after the 9/11 strikes:
Our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve
around one issue — one that demands our total support, with power and
determination, with one voice — and it is: Does Islam, or does it not, force
people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not
spiritually?
So much for bin Laden's insistence that Israel is the "reason for our conflict
with you." Now we see that the conflict ultimately revolves around whether Islam
is obligated to dominate the world by force. Well, is it? Bin Laden continues:
Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: [1] either willing submission
[conversion]; [2] or payment of the jizya, through physical, though not
spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; [3] or the sword — for it is
not right to let him [an infidel] live. The matter is summed up for every person
alive: Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die. (The Al
Qaeda Reader, p. 42)
This threefold choice, then — conversion, subjugation, or the sword — is the
ultimate source of problems. All Islamist talk of jihad being a product of U.S.
foreign policy is, therefore, false. When bin Laden asserted in this last
message that it is the "neocons" who "impose the wars upon you — not the
mujahideen [i.e., jihadis]," he lied. Islamic law, as he himself delineated,
"imposed" war between Muslims and non-Muslims well over a millennium before the
"neocons" — let alone the state of Israel — came into being.
Thus to all of bin Laden's grievances and questions, there is but one
counter-question — one that, in bin Laden's own words, "demands our total
support, with power and determination, with one voice" — and it is: Even if all
your grievances against Israel and America's support for it were true, why come
to us — your natural-born enemies, according to your own worldview — looking for
any concessions?
To better appreciate this position, consider the following analogy: Say your
weaker neighbor has a border dispute with you. At the same time, however, you
know for a fact that he sees you as his "eternal" enemy for nothing less than
your beliefs/lifestyle, and nothing short of your total acquiescence to his
beliefs/lifestyle will change that. Finally, you know that the day he grows
sufficiently strong, he will undoubtedly attack you in order to make you live
according to his beliefs/lifestyle.
Surely in this context, whether his border dispute with you is legitimate or
not, making concessions to him while knowing his hostility for you will never
subside — but rather become more emboldened and augmented with contempt — is
sheer suicide. Yet this is precisely what happens whenever the U.S. makes any
concessions to Islamists.
In sum, we, the "infidels" — Americans and Israelis alike — are de facto
enemies. It is in this context that the question of U.S. support for Israel
should be examined. Being hated and deemed the enemy for temporal grievances of
a political nature must be viewed as peripheral to being hated for fundamental
differences of an existential nature.
When the latter, much more important issue is redressed, then — and only then —
should the veracity of the former be open to debate or even consideration. In
the meantime, all "political" complaints must be seen as absolutely moot. It's a
simple matter of priorities.
Originally published at: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/an-open-question-to-osama-bin-laden-%E2%80%94-or-any-other-islamist/
**Raymond Ibrahim is the associate director of the Middle East Forum and the
author of The Al Qaeda Reader, translations of religious texts and propaganda .