LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
December 21/08

Bible Reading of the day.
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 1,26-38. In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary.  And coming to her, he said, "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you." But she was greatly troubled at what was said and pondered what sort of greeting this might be.
Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father,
and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." But Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?" And the angel said to her in reply, "The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. And behold, Elizabeth, your relative, has also conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month for her who was called barren; for nothing will be impossible for God." Mary said, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word." Then the angel departed from her.

Saint Teresa Benedicta of the Cross [Edith Stein] (1891-1942), Carmelite, martyr, co-patron of Europe
The Marriage of the Lamb (©Institute of Carmelite Studies)/«Mother of all the living» (Gn 3,20)
He saw "the holy city, the new Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, prepared like a bride adorned for her husband" (Rv 21,2 and 9ff.). As Christ himself descended to earth from heaven, so too his Bride, the holy church, originated in heaven. She is born of the grace of God, indeed descended with the Son of God himself; she is inextricably bound to him. She is built of living stones (1Pt 2,5); her cornerstone was laid (Eph 2,20) when the Word of God assumed our human nature in the womb of the Virgin. At that time there was woven between the soul of the divine Child and the soul of the Virgin Mother the bond of the most intimate unity, which we call betrothal. Hidden from the entire world, the heavenly Jerusalem had descended to earth. From this first joining in betrothal, there had to be born all the living building blocks to be used for the mighty structure: each individual soul awakened to life through grace. The Bridal Mother was to become the mother of all the redeemed.

Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports
Hezb'allah and the coming elections in Lebanon. By: Rick Moran/American Thinker 20/12/08
Who Was Behind the Jihad by the Shoe – and Why?By Dr. Walid Phares 20/12/08
Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC): A Modern Day Inquisition?".By: Dr. Walid Phares 20/12/08
Lebanon can't be governed by parties that won't work together-The Daily Star 20/12/08

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for December 20/08
US-Russian race to arm Lebanon with heavy weapons-DEBKA file
Lebanon names ambassador to Syria-International Herald Tribune
Aoun Seeking Understanding on Defense Strategy to Protect Lebanon-Naharnet
Hizbullah Wonders what UNSC's Response to Kidnapping of Lebanese by Israel is Going to Be-Naharnet
Monitoring Camera Between Jumblat's Beirut residence and Future TV-Naharnet
Murr: Integrated Russian-American Army Backing-Naharnet
Lebanese Navy Rescues Syrian Boat-Naharnet
March 8 Marshals Ministers for Baabda Cabinet Session-Naharnet
Suleiman: Army Committed to Combating Terror-Naharnet
Israel Turns Over Kidnapped Farmers to UNIFIL-Naharnet
Hizbullah Calls for Resistance to Liberate Palestine, Rejects Compromises-Naharnet
Americans Learning Lessons of the Hizbullah July War-Naharnet
Hale Positive on Russian MiGs to Lebanon-Naharnet
Hale says M-60 tanks will arrive in spring, make LAF heartier-Daily Star
Australian policeman to probe Hariri assassination-(AFP)
US report acknowledges Hizbullah 'skills'-By Nicholas Kimbrell-Daily Star 
Mapping out a new social policy for the ESCWA region-Daily Star
Lebanon's MTC Touch to launch BlackBerry service-Daily Star
'Lebanon's economy shows potential for growth-Daily Star
Tabourian proposes lifting of VAT on fuel oil to help low-income Lebanese families-Daily Star
Thousands join Hizbullah rally against Israel's siege of Gaza-Daily Star
UNDP, Belgium announce $3 million development deal for Bekaa, North-Daily Star
Hamas declares end to truce, cites Israeli violations-(AFP)
Bush tells Abbas peace process 'irreversible-(AFP)
Netanyahu disavows Olmert's bid to reach peace with Syria-(AFP)
Divided Lebanon's common genes-BBC News
US official welcomes Russian military assistance to Lebanon-Xinhua
Arabs' hope for Obama dented by doubts-Chicago Tribune

Hizbullah Calls for Resistance to Liberate Palestine, Rejects Compromises
Naharnet/Hizbullah on Friday called for resistance throughout the Middle East to "liberate Palestine" and accused the U.N. Security Council of taking part in the Gaza siege.Hizbullah's second in Command Naim Qassem outlined the stand in an address during a mass rally in south Beirut to call for lifting the siege imposed by Israel on Gaza. "Palestine is the central case and we are committed to liberating it," Qassem told the crowds that chanted "death to Israel, death to America."
Addressing the Palestinian People, Qassem said: "We would not give up the cause of Palestine. We are with you to liberate all the land."
"We are not for a compromise; we support resistance to liberate the soil of Palestine. We are not for a fragile truce and we do not accept changing Gaza into a (refugee) camp in return for giving up the state," Qassem shouted, waving his fist for emphasis. "Why don't we hear Arab leaders shouting, denouncing and demanding lifting of the blockade imposed on Gaza?" Qassem asked. "It is shameful to sit and watch Gaza under siege at a time u have to back Palestine with funds and weapons and urge the major powers to lift this siege," he added. Egypt, according to Qassem, is required to take an "historic stand in support of Palestine." "No agreement in the world permits besieging children and starving the population," Qassem said in reference to the Egyptian-Israeli peace accord. Beirut, 19 Dec 08, 16:20

Hizbullah Wonders what UNSC's Response to Kidnapping of Lebanese by Israel is Going to Be
Naharnet/Hizbullah on Saturday condemned the kidnapping of two Lebanese citizens by Israeli troops, describing the act as a "flagrant" violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701.A statement issued by Hizbullah wondered what the Security Council's response to the kidnapping of two Lebanese farmers by Israel is going to be. "What is the Security Council response to the flagrant violation of Resolution 1701 going to be?" Hizbullah asked. Israel on Saturday turned over to the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) two farmers kidnapped from their olive grove a day earlier. UNIFIL turned over the two, Mohammed Tarraf and his brother Hassan, to the Lebanese authorities amidst reports that Hizbullah was considering adopting a "decisive stand regarding such acts." Hizbullah's al-Manar television also said the Tarraf brothers suffered from wounds caused by dogs during interrogation by Israeli officers. An Israeli infantry patrol on Friday crossed the Blue Line with Lebanon and kidnapped the Tarraf brothers from their grove near the southern village of Blida. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Fouad Sanior telephoned UNIFIL Commander Gen. Claudio Graziano to express strong condemnation over the kidnapping and to thank him for his efforts that led to the release of the two Lebanese farmers. Beirut, 20 Dec 08, 19:31

Lebanon Appoints First Ever Ambassador to Syria
Naharnet/Lebanon on Saturday appointed its first ever ambassador to Syria, Information Minister Tareq Mitri said. "The Cabinet appointed an ambassador to Syria," Mitri said following the Cabinet meeting that was held at Baabda Palace under President Michel Suleiman. Mitri, however, withheld the ambassador's name pending Syria's approval in line with diplomatic norms. But a Lebanese ministerial source told the Kuwaiti News Agency that the Cabinet has chosen Michel Khoury, a career diplomat, to become Lebanon's ambassador to Syria. The source said the appointment of Khoury, who was ambassador to Cyprus, took place after Lebanese authorities "finally got Syria's approval on his name." On the issue of concluding the second round of the Constitutional Council elections, Mitri said that the Cabinet will hold another meeting in this respect. Cabinet, though, appointed Judge Shukri Sader as head of the State Consultative Council and Ghaleb Ghanem as head of the Higher Judiciary Council, Mitri said. He said the Cabinet unanimously condemned the Gaza siege and called for Arab unity.
Mitri said Suleiman stessed the need to speed up approval of the 2009 state budget.
The Cabinet, according to Mitri, tasked Prime Minister Fouad Saniora to consult with the concerned ministers to find the funding needed to pay the remaining compensations for those whose houses were destroyed in the July 2006 war. Beirut, 20 Dec 08, 17:13

Aoun Seeking Understanding on Defense Strategy to Protect Lebanon
Naharnet/Free Patriotic Movement leader Gen. Michel Aoun said Saturday that "we are seeking an understanding on a defense strategy in order to protect Lebanon from an (Israeli) aggression and avoid a new May 7 (events)." Aoun accused the parliamentary majority March 14 coalition of "turning the people into militias," pointing to recent disputes among students at a number of universities across Lebanon. "Bullets should be used against the occupation enemy, not against the resistance," Aoun told a student delegation from Antonine University and AUB that visited him in Rabiyeh. Aoun strongly attacked the Lebanese judicial system, accusing it of "protecting evil in the society." He also accused March 14 Forces of hampering reform and keeping silent on Cabinet violations. Beirut, 20 Dec 08, 17:15

Monitoring Camera Between Jumblat's Beirut residence and Future TV
Naharnet/Security forces on Saturday confiscated a bicycle fitted with a monitoring camera near the Beirut residence of Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblat and Future Television offices. The camera, a security source said, also was monitoring the road leading to the Mediterranean Bank main offices in west Beirut's Clemenceau Street. The camera, the source said, was concealed in a metal box fitted to the back seat of the bicycle that was chained to a traffic light pole.
Army troops and police patrols sealed off the district as sappers checked the suspicious box attached in the bicycle assuming it might be a bomb.
"They were surprised to find a sophisticated monitoring camera in a functioning status," added the source who asked not to be identified.
Later in the day, investigators found out that the owner of the suspicious bike is a Lebanese-American identified as David Nabti, an AUB student majoring in Business Administration. Nabti told investigators that he had installed the camera and attached it to his cell phone to shoot pictures of tourist sites and that he had no political motivation. Beirut, 20 Dec 08, 12:54

March 8 Marshals Ministers for Baabda Cabinet Session
Naharnet/The cabinet convenes Saturday under President Michel Suleiman at the Baabda Palace to tackle such controversial issues as choosing five members for the Constitutional Council, a senior judge for the Higher Judicial Council and a senior judge for the State Consultative Council. The daily as-Safir said tacit agreements have been reached on nominating Judge Ghaleb Ghanem to head the Higher Judicial Council and Judge Shukri Sader for the Consultative Council. However, the daily al-Akhbar said ministers representing the March 8 alliance have agreed on a joint approach to the issue of choosing the five members for the Constitutional Council. The report said Minister of Telecommunications Jebran Bassil on Friday visited Suleiman and briefed him on the March 8 viewpoint that accuses the majority of breaching an agreement that had been reached between the president, Premier Fouad Saniora and Speaker Nabih Berri on parliament's performance regarding voting in five members for the Constitutional Council.
March 8 ministers, the report added, have agreed on "resorting to their rights" during the cabinet session. It did not say whether this meant that they would veto a vote on choosing members of the Constitutional Council. Nevertheless, as-Safir said March 8 ministers have reached an agreement on "the importance of concluding the second round of the Constitutional Council elections" and that voting by March 8 ministers should be carried out on a non-political base" to avoid what had happened during parliamentary vote on the appointments. They said the parliamentary vote was a breach to all understandings, "especially to the Doha Accord's spirit." March 8 ministers also have agreed on a joint stand regarding an amendment to the Solidere law, although the cabinet is expected to adopt it by voting, as-Safir added without further elaboration. Beirut, 20 Dec 08, 10:07

Lebanese Navy Rescues Syrian Boat
The Lebanese army said Saturday it rescued a Syrian fishing boat off international waters. A Lebanese army communiqué said UNIFIL spotted the boat, which bears the name "Hiballah" number 1964/Tartous. It said the Lebanese navy rescued three sailors, all Syrian, and towed the boat, which broke down 15 miles outside regional Lebanese waters, to Tripoli port in northern Lebanon. Beirut, 20 Dec 08, 19:08

Suleiman: Army Committed to Combating Terror
Naharnet/President Michel Suleiman said Saturday that "confronting terror" was the main challenge facing the Lebanese Army and U.N. peacekeepers.
Terror is a "global threat," Suleiman told participants in a conference on the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). "It is the same terror that strikes in any state," Suleiman said. He announced that the "Lebanese Army is committed to confronting terror." Beirut, 20 Dec 08, 13:27

Hezb'allah and the coming elections in Lebanon
Rick Moran/American Thinker
December 20, 2008
No firm date has been set as yet for parliamentary elections in Lebanon. The patchwork quilt cabinet cannot come to an agreement but that's not unusual. The target is sometime this spring, probably in May although at this point, no one is putting any money on their predictions.
This Adam Taheri piece in the New York Post sets the stage:
The biggest recipient of Iran's largesse is Hezbollah (the Party of Allah), a militant Shiite outfit that Tehran created in 1983 and controls through some 500 members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and numerous theological and political "commissars."
In the last general election, in 2005, Hezbollah drew some 11 percent of the vote. This time, Tehran hopes the party will win at least 20 percent.
But the key to who will govern is held by the Maronite Christian community.
That's because the last re- drawing of the electoral map - in a deal made by Lebanese parties at last year's "compromise summit" in Doha, Qatar - will make it hard for other communities to change their respective weight in the next parliament.
In the country's south, the two Shiite parties - Hezbollah (led by Hassan Nasrallah) and the Amal (Hope) Movement - will have little difficulty winning almost all seats. Similarly, the Sunni Muslim bloc of parties (led by Saad al-Hariri and backed by Saudi Arabia) is sure to capture all seats in Tripoli and parts of Beirut. And the Druze, led by Walid Jumblatt, will win all the seats in their Shouf Mountain stronghold.
That leaves the areas in which Maronite Christians still form a majority - but the Maronites are deeply divided.
One faction, led by ex-Gen. Michel Aoun (who still hopes to someday capture the presidency), sides with Iran and is running on a militant anti-Western platform. Another, led by former President Amin Gemayel and former militia leader Samir Geagea, ferociously opposes Khomeinism and promises to keep Lebanon within "the family of moderate Arab states with close ties with the West."
Saudi Arabia has not been inactive as they too are pouring money into the election with some of their help going to the anti-Aounist faction. The US, as has been our policy, has been letting King Abdullah do most of the heavy lifting with occasional assistance from the State Department. If we take too visible a hand, Hezb'allah and especially the Aounists will make political hay of it. The Lebanese are extremely suspicious of the west - the US and France - and any overt assistance we might give (outside of the military assistance we are giving the Lebanese army) would taint the pro-western forces.
If the election were held today, the pro-western forces would probably win. But that lead is extremely tenuous. The majority of Christians still support Gamayel/Gaega but once we start getting closer to the election, the prospect of intimidation by Hezb'allah will become possible. They've got the guns and if they sense the election slipping away, anything is possible. They won last year after taking to the streets and overrunning Sunni areas in Beirut, leading to the "compromise summitt" in Doha where the March 14th forces caved in to their demands for veto power in the cabinet in order to avoid a full scale civil war. Such a threat again could cow the anti-Aounist Christians into voting for the Hezb'allah led faction or staying home.
Maronite Christian leaders have been trying to make peace between the factions but it is tough going. The overweaning ambition to be president that led Michel Aoun to make a deal with Hezb'allah seems to be the major stumbling block as the Aounists aren't giving an inch. Any talk of uniting the Christian community inevitably returns to Aoun's demands for leadership. And for the other faction, that is just a non-starter.
So Lebanon will remain a horribly divided country, riven with sectarian and political divisions, and unable to find their way to a peaceful democracy as long as Iran wants to use their territory for a staging area for their war against Israel. And a new report on Hezb'allah military capabilities as revealed during the 2006 war with Israel states that their tactics were more conventional than first thought:
Hizbullah's defense of South Lebanon in the 2006 war with Israel employed conventional warfare tactics far more than asymmetrical "guerrilla" or "terrorist" methods, a US government report has said. The report, commissioned by the US Army War College, said that Hizbullah's unwillingness to give up ground to advancing Israeli forces, its use of natural and man-made terrain for concealment rather than civilian populations, its concentration of forces and its "differentiated theater of war" distinguished the group's efforts from those of classic guerilla armies.
"Hizbullah's skills in conventional war fighting were clearly imperfect in 2006 - but they were also well within the observed bounds of other state military actors in the Middle East and elsewhere, and significantly superior to many such states.
"In fact, Hizbullah inflicted more Israeli casualties per Arab fighter in 2006 than did any of Israel's state opponents in the 1956, 1967, 1973, or 1982 Arab-Israeli interstate wars," it added.
Hezb'allah may have had only 500 of its best fighters engaged with Israeli forces in the south during that war. There are some indications that Iran is seeking to expand that force significantly. It is estimated that Hezb'allah has 1200 of these well trained militia fighters with another 5-8,000 less well trained but armed auxillaries.
Not enough for a real stand up fight against Israel but, as we saw, able to stand toe to toe with the IDF in small engagements. It is these fighters that proved more than a match for the untrained Sunni militias during the Hezb'allah "coup" last year. (Fighting the Druze was a much different story as the fierce fighters under Walid Jumblatt sent the Hezzies flying from thei Druze stronghold in the Chouf mountains.)
With Iran pouring money into the Shia south to cement their loyalty while resupplying their proxy with 40,000 short and medium range missiles and stepping up training of Hezb'allah fighters, the stage is being set for another confrontation with Israel - but probably after the parliamentary elections. Lebanon is still devastated as a result of Israeli bombings during the 2006 war and any repeat would anger the population and most likely turn Christians completely away from Aoun.
No doubt the forces of freedom have a tough challenge ahead of them.

Thousands Join Hizbullah Rally against Gaza Siege
Naharnet/Thousands of people gathered in Beirut's southern suburbs on Friday for a mass protest organized by Hizbullah against Israel's crippling blockade of the Gaza Strip.Streets were cordoned off as protesters waving Palestinian flags and yellow Hizbullah flags poured into the party's stronghold for the rally in Al-Raya Stadium.
Hizbullah boy scouts and women carried two huge Palestinian flags through the crowd. Some protesters chanted "Death to Israel! Death to America!" as others carried placards reading "No peace if it leads to humanitarian catastrophe" and "May God protect our leader Nasrallah."Other demonstrations were also held in cities in the south, north and in the Bekaa Valley, east of the capital.(AFP)

Lebanon can't be governed by parties that won't work together
By The Daily Star
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Editorial
Cohabitation by rival parties in the same government is often fraught with problems, a fact evinced by difficulties experienced in even such stable democracies as France. In Lebanon, where the system is much more fragile and the parties that inhabit it can only be described as dysfunctional, the potential for paralysis is multiplied many times over. And predictably, the "unity government" installed under the terms of last May's Doha Accord has failed almost completely to come up with coherent strategies for policy formulation and implementation. This is not surprising, since none of the parties included in the Cabinet have managed to promulgate platforms laying out their own individual visions.
The inescapable conclusion is that the "consensus" model should be done away with at the earliest opportunity because Lebanon and the Lebanese can no longer afford to be governed by coalitions of people who cannot - or will not - work together for the sake of the national interest. This country needs concrete changes, and only a government capable of concerted action can accomplish these. The best scenario would be one in which one side obtains a clear victory in the parliamentary elections scheduled for next year and then forms a Cabinet consisting of its own members. Theoretically, this new grouping would then have a mandate to pursue at least some of the bold steps required to drag this country out of the multi-faceted funk that has gripped it for decades.
To make this work, though, the competing political parties will have to change their habits. They must, for instance, become political parties rather than tribal/sectarian cabals hanging on the cults of personality surrounding their respective leaders. This will entail, among other things, actually thinking about how best to rule this troubled little land, sharing the details of their proposals with the electorate, and accepting the latter's verdict. The victors must then go about putting their ideas into practice and submitting them to a Parliament whose authority they accept, all under the watchful eye of a judiciary finally allowed to enjoy its rightful prerogatives .
We appear to be far from ready for such a scenario, but appearances can be deceiving. All that is really required is for the parties to reflect on their past records and reach the same conclusion that most Lebanese citizens already have: The old ways have not worked, and the volatile nature of the current situation demands something radically different.

Hale says M-60 tanks will arrive in spring, make LAF heartier
Murr: any donations should be at least equivalent to MiGs
Daily Star staff/Saturday, December 20, 2008
BEIRUT: The United States plans to deliver M-60 tanks to Lebanon in spring next year as part of a commitment to help the country's army, a senior US State Department official said in Beirut on Friday. David Hale, US deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, denied the US is in competition with Russia, which announced Wednesday that it would give Lebanon 10 MiG-29 fighter jets.
"Support for the Lebanese Armed Forces [LAF] remains a pillar of our Lebanon policy," he told reporters after meeting with Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, without saying how many tanks the US would supply.
"We are working to provide the training and equipment the LAF needs ... to maintain internal security and to fight terrorism in Lebanon," Hale added.
In addition to supplying the tanks, the US is "preparing a new package of assistance including close air-support capabilities with precision weapons and urban-combat gear, much of which will also be provided in the spring of 2009."
The United States has pledged $410 million in military aid to the LAF since 2006 but this has been limited to light weapons and vehicles.
Hale said Russia's announcement Wednesday was "a signal of strong international support for Lebanon, for its institutions, for the Lebanese Armed Forces."
"There is no competition," he added.
The 15-week battle the army fought against Islamists in the northern Palestinian refugee camp of Nahr al-Bared in 2007 left over 160 Lebanese soldiers dead and highlighted the need for improved military equipment and capabilities.
Hale also met with President Michel Sleiman in Baabda on Friday and stressed what he called his country's "continuous support" for Lebanon. Hale added that the new US administration had the same stance with regard to Lebanon.
The talks touched on the occupied portion of the Southern village of Ghajar, which Hale had also discussed with Israeli officials in the foreign and defense ministries.
Sleiman stressed the need for Israeli to withdraw from the Lebanese part of the village in line with UN Security Council Resolution 1701.
He added that any direct or indirect negotiations with Israel could not take place, "unless they were within the framework of the final and comprehensive peace process in the region as stated by the Security Council and the Arab initiative."
Hale also met Friday with Speaker Nabih Berri and Lebanese Forces chief Samir Geagea.
Meanwhile, Defense Minister Elias Murr affirmed Thursday Moscow has not placed any restrictions on the use by Lebanon of 10 MiG-29 fighter jets pledged by Russia. Murr, in a television audio interview from Russia, said missions assigned to the MiG-29s in the future would be decided by the Lebanese Cabinet.
He explained that the Kremlin would donate the MiG-29 squadron from the Russian arsenal and Lebanese pilots would fly them home after training in Russia.
"The Russians explained to us that the training period for the MiG-29 is eight months; there should be no problem for our brilliant air force pilots in training" on the jets, Murr said. He argued that the political significance of the Russian donation, which the Cabinet would be "glad to accept," is that it has set a rule for foreign donors dealing with Lebanon.
"Any military donation to Lebanon by a foreign power should not be less than the level of the MiG-29s," Murr said.
In an interview with the Russia Today TV channel on Friday, Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblatt said that the 10 fighter jets Moscow promised to Lebanon proved Russia's support for justice and sovereignty in Lebanon.
Jumblatt stressed that the Lebanese Armed Forces should be the sole military power in the country, adding that "announcing reservations on the LAF's armament and its enhancement would be a foolish thing."
He also said that the United States promised to provide Lebanon with sophisticated tanks, but the problem was in Lebanon's inability to buy them.
He added that the amendment of the Taif Accord, as has been suggested lately by FPM leader MP Michel Aoun, might instigate sectarian tensions.
After Friday prayers, Siniora said he welcomed all aid from friendly countries, especially if it was unconditional. He said that the fighter jets that Russia gave Lebanon this week, in addition to their military and security importance, would help the Lebanese people feel secure that their country was able to protect itself.
Siniora also met on Friday with UN envoy Michael Williams, with whom he discussed the implementation of 1701, which brought a cessation of hostilities in the 2006 war with Israel, the situation in South Lebanon and national dialogue.
Separately, the Cabinet will hold a session on Saturday in Baabda Palace. Well-informed sources told the Central News Agency that the session would see the appointment of the remaining five members of the Constitutional Council, in addition to the presidents of the Higher Judicial Council and the Shura Council.
In a response to a reporter's question on the president's duties vis-a-vis the Cabinet, Siniora said that the Constitution stated the president had the right to lead a Cabinet session anytime. "We should wait for the results of the Cabinet session on the Constitutional Council elections," he added.
Lebanon's Parliament elected Thursday five members for the Constitutional Council, setting the stage for forming the country's 10-seat high court.
The March 14 Forces succeeded in electing three Christian members for the council: Maronite Antoine Kheir, Roman Catholic Antoine Msarra and Greek Orthodox Zaghloul al-Atiyeh. The Sunni and Shiite members, Tareq Ziadeh and Ahmad Taqieddine respectively, were elected through a consensus agreement among MPs.
The Constitutional Council is the only body that has the power to look into complaints related to election fraud and challenge the results.
In an interview with ANB television Friday, Change and Reform bloc MP Nabil Nicolas said that Thursday's appointments of members to the Constitutional Council were based on the candidates' merits.
He added that it would have been preferable for Constitutional Council members not to be appointed based on religion, as was the current case.
Change and Reform MP Abbas Hashem said that both the Lebanese situation and the Palestinian cause could not be solved without solving the issue of the Palestinian presence in Lebanon.
In an interview with New TV on Friday, Hashem added that there have been some attempts to launch a "coup" against the Doha Accords.
Hashem said that the circumstances that led to the Taif agreement no longer applied and called for amending it. - The Daily Star, with AFP

Phares Op Ed: "OIC: A Modern Day Inquisition?"
By: Dr Walid Phares
Dec 10, 2008,
The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), an association of the world's Islamic states, is pushing the United Nations to outlaw "defamation" of religion in general, and of one religion in particular.
My remarks that follow are based on 27 years of researching in the field of international relations and conflicts, and on a decade of teaching Religions and World Politics. Since I published my first book in Arabic in 1979, where I addressed the issue of relationships between civilizations and cultural blocs worldwide, I have had the opportunity to publish ten books and hundreds of articles focusing on the rise of ideologies including self-described, theologically-inspired ones such as Jihadism. I also had the opportunity to interact and meet politicians, legislators, authors and academics on three continents, particularly under the auspices of the European Foundation for Democracy. In addition, I was pleased to contribute to the preparation of legislation in the US Congress and initiatives at the European Parliament to defend religious freedom and basic rights of minorities around the world. Last but not least I was privileged to work with diplomats and NGOS on preparing for and passing UN Security Council Resolutions related to the Middle East.
From this background I have prepared a few comments about some initiatives put forth by members of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) to be introduced at the UN Human Rights Council (headquartered in Geneva) and at the Durban II Conference on Racism, Xenophobia and Discrimination. These initiatives center on the driving principle of sanctioning what was coined as "defamation" of religions, and particularly the Islamic faith, under the term "Islamophobia."
Let me first state clearly that I do agree with UN efforts, declarations and legislations aimed at countering incitement to violence, physical and psychological against any religion or religious group, or on behalf of any religion or ideology against others. This principle is universal and should apply in protection of Muslims anywhere, and of non-Muslims as well. Any religion or religious group who are the victims of discrimination, intimidation or suppression must receive protection under international law. The United Nations and all of its institutions, including the Human Rights Council, as well as its conferences, including Durban II, must be even-handed and fair in extending their protection on a universal basis, to Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists, Taoists, all other religions as well as to Atheists and Agnostics. No exception should be made to a particular faith or community and no privilege should be granted to one at the exception of the other. Thus we believe that the highest protection granted to all is epitomized in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights of 1948. Creating another special Charter for one particular religion group would be an act of discrimination against all others.
However, the current proposal by the OIC member States to create legislation that would sanction perpetrators of "defamation of religion" has at least five problems.
Problem of Definition
First, there is a problem about the substance of the concept. Indeed how can one define "defamation" as an aggression against faith, any faith? Where is the limit between criticizing a set of beliefs or ideas and defaming a whole religion? How can members of a religion reform their system if they cannot criticize it? Will reform become synonymous to defamation? If the very concept of "defamation" is not clarified and thoroughly defined, legislation such a sought would lead to blocking reforms and punishing reformers. As it stands at this stage the wording of "defamation of religion" -- even if some are well intentioned in pushing for it -- is a stark reminder of the blasphemy laws of medieval times which were behind religious persecution and the Inquisition. Defamation of religion as a concept has to be specified and accepted within the state of international consensus so that it won't become a serious setback to human rights instead of an additional protection to it.
Targets of "Defamation"
By opening the door to create a new set of protected categories under international law, in this case religions -- and particularly the Islamic faith -- one has to expect that other religious groups, faiths and sects will also want to protect their entities from "defamation." To the camp irritated by so-called "Islamophobia" (since it still has to be debated internationally) other quarters will respond with "Christaphobia," "Judeophobia" or "Hinduophobia," let alone possibly "Atheophobia."
Muslims have serious reasons to fear discrimination and these fears have to be addressed, but Christians, Jews and Hindus (to name a few) also have significant reasons to fear discrimination. One example can illustrate so-called "defamation" as applied theologically to non-Muslims: the principle of "Infidels." Indeed, the theological identification of non-Muslims as Kuffar is considered by the latter as a standing, institutional, theologically-based defamation of their very faiths. If the "defamation of religion" initiative led by the OIC passes as legislation its very first implementation should automatically sanction the xenophobic principle of "Kuffar." If that concept is to be sanctioned under "defamation" those who are attempting to abuse the concept of "defamation" would have opened Pandora's box, exploding the relationship between modernity and religions. Is the OIC ready to include banning the term "Infidels" as part of its initiative?
Muslims' Human Rights
Such an international law, if enacted, will be harmful first to Muslims seeking their Human Rights inside the Muslim world. Authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, particularly those claiming theological supremacy, are already abusing their own Muslim citizens on the ground of defamation to religion, as they see it. The Taliban oppression of the Afghan people, including women and minorities, was claimed to be in defense of their faith against those who defamed it. The use of the principle of defending religion from defamation by ideological regimes has led to unparalleled abuse of human rights.
Such abuses, in different versions and degrees, have been practiced in Iran, Sudan and Saudi Arabia. In other more moderate or secular countries in the Muslim world, courts and clerics have issued rulings against so-called defamation, not always fairly. We've seen militant organizations and individuals taking the matter in their own hands despite the rule of law. Muslim women, students, artists, workers and secular political parties have been abused in the name of defending the faith against "defamation".
Such realities have also been part of the history of both Western and Eastern Christianity and other religious civilizations. In the contemporary Muslim world -- with all the tensions provoked by radicalization -- such an international "defamation law" would provide oppressive regimes and extremist factions with a formidable weapon to suppress opposition and intellectuals. Those Muslims who see "otherwise" would be accused of defamation of the official interpretation of the faith. Radical Sunni and Shia clerics would invoke this international legislation to suppress each other's sects. In short, if this concept is irresponsibly approved at the UN, it will have incalculable negative consequences on the Muslim world's civil societies and their future.
Non Muslim Minorities
In Muslim countries where non Muslims form a minority, such an anti-defamation agenda will be devastating against the weakest segments of society. The legislation will be used by Islamist regimes and militant organizations to repress these minorities under the aegis of defending "faith." Christian Copts in Egypt, who call for equality of treatment with other citizens, are often accused of "defaming" the state religion and thus kept in an awkward state of political backwardness. Baha'is, Christians and Jews are suppressed in Iran in the guise of defaming the established religious hierarchy. In Iraq, Assyro-Chaldeans have been physically attacked by Jihadi terrorists under the slogan of "insulting religion." In many cases, as in South Sudan, minorities reject the application of Sharia on their own communities. With "anti-defamation" becoming UN sponsored, any rejection of Sharia will automatically become synonymous with "insulting the faith." Hence religious minorities which should be protected under human rights laws will find themselves persecuted by such a declaration.
Jihadist abuse
Perhaps the most dangerous consequence of the adoption of vague "anti-defamation" legislation -- allegedly to address "Islamophobia" -- will be to embolden the Jihadi Islamist movements around the world into further violence. Indeed, both Salafists and Khomeinists already claim they are defending the Muslim world against infidels. If the OIC is successful in forcing such a declaration through the UN or the Durban Conference into international law, Jihadists around the world will score a tremendous moral and psychological victory by claiming that the present conflicts are indeed about religion, and that Islam is indeed under attack at the hands of Infidels. An anti-defamation declaration will validate al Qaeda's agenda and reinforce the Iranian regime's ambitions. The Jihadists' ideology, based essentially on their interpretation of theology, builds radicalization by asserting that they are the defenders of the faith. A declaration against the defamation of Islam declaration will serve their strategic interests perfectly, and fuel their indoctrination processes. In short, it will protect their Takfiri ideology.
Dangerous Consequences
If an "anti defamation" declaration or covenant were to be forced through the UN Human Rights Council and the Durban II Conference in 2009 by the OIC, it would have dangerous consequences for the credibility of the UN Council in Geneva, for the state of international law, and for the state of human rights around the world. Among these consequences would be:
1. It will find itself opposed by many democratic and Human Rights NGOs and activists, both within the Muslim World and internationally, on the grounds of it creating discrimination against liberal Muslims, non Muslims and other faiths as well. Such a declaration will create more "phobia" than ever before since it is the product of the medieval concept of inquisition rather than the progressive concept of equality among individuals.
2. The Human Rights Council of the UN would thus be transformed by authoritarian regimes and radical ideologues into a "super regime" covering up and aiding in the oppression of democratic opposition, women and minorities in many countries. This would constitute a major blow to the credibility not only of the highest international institution in defense of Human Rights but eventually of the United Nations as a whole.
3. Such a declaration would naturally unleash a massive protest movement against the "super discrimination regime" by NGOs and activists from Arab, Muslim, and Hindu, African, Asian, Westerner and other backgrounds. The inquisitorial system advanced by members of the OIC against criticism and reform would be opposed as a return to the oppressive, medieval methods of the Dark Ages, which through harsh religious defamation laws caused great harm to Humanity and obstructed progress for centuries. There is no doubt that a contemporary Inquisition -- as proposed by some members from the OIC -- would deeply affect the Durban II Conference on Racism and Xenophobia, establishing a more lethal form of discrimination via this UN sponsored (and funded) event.
4. One would also expect to see Human Rights groups and pro-democracy movements demanding from national assemblies, particularly in liberal democracies, legislation to protect targeted segments of society such as women, intellectuals, artists, authors, publishers, minorities, reformists and other entities expected to suffer from "defamation persecution." Democratic constitutions cannot accept a setback to their long evolution away from religious inquisition and theological legal frameworks. It is to be expected that civil societies will rise against such a modern-day inquisition and blast its authors, including unfortunately those UN institutions which were initially designed to protect individuals from religious persecution.
5. Last but not least one would not be surprised if NGOs and individual citizens would take the matter to courts around the world where justice is independent. Intellectuals and opinion makers would seek both protection and reparation from the potential implementation of such an international declaration or legislation. Governments who pushed the "defamation-inquisition" through the UN, and the latter as well, may find themselves taken to court, regardless of the results. The image of judges requesting states and international organization to pay reparation for moral and physical damages caused by a UN declaration responsible for discrimination is not a bright one, but could very much become reality if the OIC project, initially designed by radical ideologues, is not withdrawn or at least restructured.
Suggestions
Here are some suggestions which might help in defusing the emerging crisis between the OIC members who are pushing for this declaration and those pro-democracy and Human Rights NGOs who are opposing it.
1. We suggest that neutral members in the UN Human Rights Council intervene to prevent this crisis by calling for a special forum where both points of views are heard and a new consensus is built: Government representatives, NGOs, and International Organizations should be invited by member states of the Council who wish to engage in this mediation. The mediation forum must find ways to address the real and specific concerns of the OIC regarding the psychological stress induced by severe attacks on religion on the one hand and the concerns of the Human Rights community with regards the discriminatory dimension of the current "anti-defamation" project on the other.
2. We also suggest the organization of a special conference of experts to address the following questions:
a. Define the concept of defamation of religions in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
b. Define the body that can determine the nature of defamation of religions, including the concept of "Kuffar" (infidels) and incorporate this issue in the general discussion of Racism and Xenophobia at the forthcoming Durban II Conference.
Conclusion
In the end, we hope that the voices of reason within the United Nations will prevail over the movement towards increasing radicalization, and strike a balance between the right to be protected emotionally and the right of expression: the one must not eliminate the other.
*******
Dr Walid Phares is a Visiting Fellow at the European Foundation for Democracy in Brussels and a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington DC. Dr Phares is a professor of Global Strategies and author of numerous books including the latest The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad
© Copyright 2003 by walidphares.com

Arabs' hope for Obama dented by doubts
Staff picks, stance on Israel criticized as the status quo
By Liz Sly | Tribune correspondent
December 21, 2008
BEIRUT—His middle name might be Hussein, and without a doubt he is viewed more favorably than his predecessor. But President-elect Barack Obama isn't going to find it easy to win over a skeptical Arab world that is already starting to doubt whether he really will represent much change.
Many Arabs say their initial hopes that Obama would herald a new era in the Middle East have been tempered by some of his choices for key positions in his administration, and by his statements in support of Israel on the campaign trail.
Notably, his appointments of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state and Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff have drawn harsh criticism. Clinton has expressed far more hawkish views on the Middle East than Obama. Emanuel is Jewish, and his father had links to a militant Jewish organization in the 1940s.
"Obama's new team is a team of war, not of peace," Al-Quds al-Arabi, a London-based Palestinian newspaper, wrote in an editorial this month.
Obama plans to reach out to Muslim world
Which Muslim capital will Obama choose? The level of skepticism came to the fore during a warmly received speech this month at the American University of Beirut by former President Jimmy Carter, who urged Obama to move more swiftly on the Arab-Israeli peace process than Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush did.
One of the biggest rounds of applause in the packed auditorium was reserved for a 21-year-old university graduate, Dana Ballout, who stood up and asked Carter whether he thought Obama would really make a difference. She cited a speech he made in support of Israeli positions to a powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, and his appointment of Emanuel, whom she called "very right-wing."
Carter acknowledged her concerns.
"I was perhaps the most disturbed American out of 350 million Americans when he made that speech," Carter said of Obama's comments to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, in which he called for Jerusalem to remain the "undivided" capital of Israel, despite Palestinian claims to the eastern portion of the city.
He said he called Obama immediately to ask for clarification, which Obama offered, later appearing on CNN to explain that he meant that Jerusalem should not be divided by barbed wire or walls, not that Palestinians should lose their claim.
But those comments, as well as the appointments, have already significantly dented Arab expectations, said Diaa Rashwan, a political analyst at the Al-Ahram Center for Politics and Strategic Studies in Cairo.
"The first impressions of the president-elect were very positive, but over time a real skepticism has developed," he said. "Many commentators are saying now that they are not very optimistic."
It won't be hard for Obama to improve upon the image of Bush, whose unpopularity was graphically demonstrated last week when an Iraqi journalist threw a pair of shoes at him in Baghdad.
Obama has promised to restore America's relations with Muslims worldwide, telling the Tribune last week that he wants to "reboot America's image around the world and also in the Muslim world in particular."
But to make a difference, Obama will have to do more than simply work on America's image, Rashwan said. He also will have to make substantive progress on many issues of concern to Arabs, "and foremost among those issues is the Palestinian question," he said. "Without dealing with that, we won't have any real amelioration of America's image."
Arab expectations of Obama were never as high as in some other parts of the world, in part because Arabs expect U.S. presidents to be strongly pro-Israel, said Rami Khouri, head of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs, which hosted Carter.
"Substance and style are two different things," he said. "On style there's great hope. He does represent something new and refreshing. On substance he's said what every other U.S. president has said, which is, 'I love Israel.' "
Khouri said it is also unclear how much of a priority the Middle East will be for a president facing the demands of a crushing financial crisis at home and of two wars overseas.
Carter said he had received private assurances from Obama that he would act swiftly on the Arab-Israeli issue early in his term.
The former president also cited the appointment of retired Marine Gen. James Jones as national security adviser as an indication that Obama may adopt a more evenhanded approach than his predecessor. Jones has served as an adviser to the Palestinian security forces and has a good understanding of the region, Carter said.
But Ballout said in an interview after listening to Carter that she remained discouraged about Obama.
"He's gone out of his way to prove that he's not a Muslim. It makes me more skeptical about him, because he's scared of being seen as sympathetic to Arabs, and that's dangerous for us," she said.
"In the Arab world, a lot of us like Obama," she added. "But we don't feel he represents a change in Mideast policy at all."
lsly@tribune.com

Who Was Behind the Jihad by the Shoe – and Why?
By Dr. Walid Phares
The Two Malconents
Sat 20 Dec 2008
As I observed the immediate aftermath of the shoe throwing incident in Baghdad, I noted that the most striking effect occurred among the Western public, and particularly within the United States. Commentators and regular citizens were asking themselves again, seven years later, “why do they hate us?” missing one more time the fact that this particular violent expression, far from being a unique emotional reaction by one individual, is part of a war of ideas; it is a continuous organized confrontation over the future of the region. In short, this was another form of Jihadism, one I am coining now as a Jihad by the Shoe (Jihad bil Hizaa). Here is why.
Western Awe of So-Called Arab Reaction
The main question on anchors’ minds and lips reflected the shock and awe felt by many Americans. It wasn’t really about the Iraqi journalist … targeting President Bush with his two leather “missiles”… for in liberal democracies, the scene of flying eggs, pies or liquid in the direction of politicians, legislators, Prime Ministers or Presidents is part of the political culture. Even obscene gestures and words are frequently uttered against leaders; this behavior comes with the package of democratic freedoms. It ends up usually with a sensational picture on the front page, as a joke on TV’s late night shows, and/or it can come with some minor legal consequences.
But the shoe bombing of President Bush stunned Western commentators for another reason: the seemingly vast outpouring of support the thrower received in the region. In the absence of sound expert analysis as to the meaning of the colorful reporting on Arab channels, and as many Western media went overboard in their guilt-ridden commentaries, the public was left alone to figure this out. Obviously their conclusion was that “whatever we do for them, they will continue to hate us.”
That’s exactly the gist of almost every question I was asked by the media: “After all we’ve done for them, freed them from Saddam, lost three thousand American men and women and spent billions of dollars, they made a hero of a shoe thrower against our President.” While the unease in America and in many Western countries is legitimate, the cause of their frustration, not the shoe thrower, should be blamed: as before, the public was very poorly served by its media and academia. The public simply wasn’t told – with accuracy - what actually unfolded in that incident, which was another battle in the ongoing War of Ideas, aimed at defeating the will of the free world. Here is how:
The Shoe Thrower
According to Arab commentators, Iraqi journalist Muntazar al Zaidi, who launched his two shoes against U.S. President George Bush while calling him “dog”, is a controversial militant. Dr. Abdel Khaliq Hussein, writing in Elaph accused al Zaidi of being a “friend of the terrorists.” Furthermore, along with other analysts, Hussein said the “shoe thrower” used to know about the “terrorist attacks before they took place and managed to be at the location beforehand.” These are serious accusations against a person who was made into an icon of “Arab pride” by the Jihadi media machine. Furthermore, Hussein wrote that al Zaidi fabricated his abduction story last year to get “maximum publicity.” One can see a pattern here. Maybe President Bush’s instincts were right.
In the daily al Shaq al Awsat, another observer wrote that al Zaidi is a Sadrist. Others disagree and describe him as radical opportunist. Nidal Neaissi, also writing in Elaph, reminded his readers of an historical precedent in Bedouin history: a well known greedy man, Abi Qassem al Tamburi was always trying to get rid of his shoe by throwing it against well known people, attracting the support (and more) of their enemies. Too many comments about the so-called “shoe hero” have appeared in the Arab media - unread in the West - leaving us with one conclusion. The man had a plan for his shoe: a major show. And it worked.
The Force behind the Shoe Thrower
It gets better when you investigate the organization paying his salary and expenses. Al Baghdadiya TV, based in Cairo, is owned by another controversial figure in the murky world of Middle Eastern media: Abdel Hussein Shaaban, an Iraqi Shia from Najaf and ex-Communist. According to Iraqi opposition sources based in London, Shaaban was an operative for Saddam, tasked with discrediting the Baathist leader’s critics around the world. Obviously it comes with payroll, according to the same sources.
But more recent accusations leveled by media experts in the region claim that al Baghdadiya TV, like dozens of other recipients, are getting significant funding from the Iranian regime. Military expert W. Thomas Smith, Jr., writing in World Defense Review has described the huge propaganda operation unleashed by Tehran directly, and via its network in Beirut, to “influence” Arab and Western media and to direct them against the regime’s foes.
Blasting George Bush, and more importantly his project of “spreading Democracy”, is high on Iran’s list but also on many other regimes’ agendas. An article by Ali Al Gharash titled “Shoes Terrify Regimes Now” shows that a consensus exists within the region’s establishment to demolish the image of the man who dared (despite the failure of U.S. bureaucracy) to “do it,” that is to tear down their wall of radical ideologies. The shoe thrower was clearly on a mission to do just that by striking at the “head” of the enemy with his pair of shoes.
The Making of a Jihadi Hero
Minutes after the incident took place and was captured by the media feed and aired worldwide, a snowball flurry of releases, special shows with commentators - gathered too fast for the circumstance - were on the airwaves. Interestingly al Baghdadiya TV issued – faster than the speed of light - a long press release calling for struggle. Minutes after, a vast magma of satellite channel sympathizers of Jihadism, and of sites virulently anti-democracy, exploded with incitement and calls for mobilization - and some were even as provocative as characterizing the ballistic exercise by al Zaidi as an “act of Jihad.”
Within six hours, the airwaves in the region were invaded by the “shoe Jihad.” Within 12 hours, friendly voices beaming from Western networks joined the orchestra in aggrandizing the matter. “A shoe in the Arab culture is the worst epithet one can use, it expresses so deep an anger,” blasted one of the oldest international media out of Europe. More seasoning was added on this side of the Atlantic. “Analysts” for mainstream networks - most of whom can’t speak the language - began lecturing the stunned public on the “lessons to be learned and on the pain felt in those lands at the sight of President Bush.” And the framing continued on. By the second day, both the Arab satellite cohorts and the “specialists” on “how to understand the region” were breaking to the world the grandiose news: a new hero was born in the Muslim world, the shoe thrower. Give it a few weeks and Hollywood will buy the story and make a movie out of it. Give it a year and it will be taught as a course by our academic cinema.
The West is Dragged to Confusion
Within Western democracies, informational confusion reigns: this is “Bushophobia” claim the most sophisticated. It is impossible, after all the Coalition has done to free Iraqis from Saddam, that demonstrators are chanting for the shoe thrower. Others, less confident in the ability of the region’s peoples to accept democracy and to be thankful to the liberators, began a psychological withdrawal: let them live under dictatorships for they don’t deserve better, said many talk show hosts.
When a Western response like this happens, connoisseurs of Jihadi tactics know that the “shoe Jihad” worked impeccably. It spread doubts in the heads of Westerners, particularly among Americans, so that few will support a U.S. President in the future if he asks for sacrifices to “bring change” to the region. The combined propaganda machine of the Baathists, Salafists, Khomeinists and other authoritarians scored a major coup in a job lasting only 48 hours: they forced a confused West to believe that the region is utterly opposed to liberal democracy. Consequently, the next White House and other chanceries across the Atlantic need to learn from the shoe attack: do not intervene in Darfur; do not pressure the Iranian regime; do not help Lebanon against Hezbollah and let go of democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Pro-Democracy Voices Lash Out
But the critics of the “Shoe Jihad”were as fast as the petro-dollar machine in reacting. Indeed, and unlike what most Westerners were swift to conclude, pro-democracy voices were loud and clear: from Kuwait, Lebanon, Jordan, Morocco and across the Arab world, and particularly from Iraq, journalists, bloggers, talk show hosts, teachers and artists blasted the Jihadi comedy and rejected the “unholy shoeing.” For each email on al Jazeera supportive of the insult, another email landed on liberal web sites and editorial rooms. How the incident was reported in the Middle East depended on who stood behind which medium. Sadly, if the funders were petro-regimes, the “Shoe Jihad” won. The other side’s volume was too low to be broadcast throughout the world. International media, incorporating the West’s global apology syndrome, obviously showcased the “partisans of the shoe” rather than those who were embarrassed by it.
A War of Ideas
The West was left to see only what it was allowed to watch: a repeat of previous cycles in the War of Ideas. Viewers in New York and Paris can see the angry protesters of the Danish Cartoons and Guantanamo and the insulting of a U.S. President; but they cannot see the men and women who wish to shoe bomb their own dictators and oppressors. Sometimes the public has a mere glimpse of the other side: when Saddam’s statue was toppled and beaten with shoes for few hours, and when a million people demanded the Assad regime to take their boots off of Lebanon’s soil.
Meanwhile, the battle for minds and hearts rages relentlessly - a confrontation so far won by those who wage Jihad by all means, as they say. This time, it was by the shoe.
All material on this site Copyright 2006-2008 The Two Malconents