LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
November 15/08

Bible Reading of the day.
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 17,26-37. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be in the days of the Son of Man;
they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage up to the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.
Similarly, as it was in the days of Lot: they were eating, drinking, buying, selling, planting, building; on the day when Lot left Sodom, fire and brimstone rained from the sky to destroy them all. So it will be on the day the Son of Man is revealed. On that day, a person who is on the housetop and whose belongings are in the house must not go down to get them, and likewise a person in the field must not return to what was left behind. Remember the wife of Lot. Whoever seeks to preserve his life will lose it, but whoever loses it will save it. I tell you, on that night there will be two people in one bed; one will be taken, the other left. And there will be two women grinding meal together; one will be taken, the other left." They said to him in reply, "Where, Lord?" He said to them, "Where the body is, there also the vultures will gather."

Saint Romanos Melodios (? – c.560), composer of hymns
The hymn of Noah (SC99, p.105)/God is waiting for the moment of our conversion
When I contemplate the threat hanging over the guilty in the time of Noah, I myself tremble who am equally guilty of shocking sins... Our Creator threatened the men of that time beforehand since he was waiting for the moment of their conversion. For us, too, there will be an end-time, unknown to us and hidden even from the angels (Mt 24,36). In that day Christ, who is Lord before all ages, will come to judge the earth, riding upon the clouds just as Daniel saw (7,13). Before that last hour falls upon us let us beseech Christ, crying: «Save all mankind from wrath by the love you bear for us, O Redeemer of the world»...Mankind's Friend, seeing the wickedness prevailing at that time, said to Noah: «The end of all mortals has come before me (Gn 6,13) for the earth is full of lawlessness. You alone are just in all this age (Gn 7,1)... Therefore, take for yourself an imperishable wood and construct an ark...; it will bear the seed of future species like a womb. You will construct it like a house in the image of the Church... I will keep you safe within it, you who cry out to me in faith: 'Save all mankind from wrath through the love you bear for us, Redeemer of the world.'»
Skilfully the chosen one fulfilled his work...; he cried out in faith to those who had no faith: «Make haste! Come away from your sins; abandon your wickedness; repent! Wash away with your tears the stain on your souls; by faith be reconciled with the power of our God...» But those sons of rebellion were not converted. They added their hardness of heart to their perversity. From then on Noah begged God with tears: «As in former times you caused me to come forth from my mother's womb, save me once more in this assisting ark. For I am about to seal myself within this sort of tomb but when you call me I shall emerge by your power! I am about to prefigure through it even now the resurrection of all humankind when you save the righteous from fire as you will save me from the torrents of evil by rescuing me from the midst of evildoers, I who cry to you with faith, even to you the merciful Judge: «Save all mankind from wrath through the love you bear for us, Redeemer of the world.»

Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports 
First Unofficial Obama Positions on New War Strategies.By: Dr. Walid Phares.14/11/08
Damascus's Deadly Bargain. By: Lee Smith 14.11.08
Religious Tolerance Forum Hosted By Saudi Arabia. By: Professor Gabriel Sawma/Indymedia.be 14.11.08
Four crises on Obama's horizon.By Daniel Levy /Haaretz 14/11/08
New Opinion: The Hersh hype-By: Hussain Abdul-Hussain. NowLebanon.com 14/11/08
Why I went to meet the pope for Muslim-Christian dialogue-By Tariq Ramadan 14/11/08
Rahm Emanuel apologizes for father's disparaging remarks about Arabs.Reuters 14/11/08
Jihad on Trial. A briefing by Andrew C. McCarthy 14.11.08
Obama's Second Thoughts on Iran.By: Amir Taheri 14.11.08

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for November 14/08
Geagea: No Differences With the Phalange, March 14 Electoral Lists United-Naharnet
Williams: UNSCR 1701 at Security Council End of November-Naharnet
Telecom Growth in Lebanon: Politics versus Professionalism?-Naharnet
National Bloc Party: Aoun is a Militiaman Par-Excellance-Naharnet
Suleiman Franjieh: Saudi Role is Similar to Israel's-Naharnet
Hizbullah Wants Referendum on its Weapons. Naharnet
Israel: Defense Ministry's Amos Gilad: We won't let Iran go nuclear-Jerusalem Post
Palestinian suspected in 1980 Paris synagogue bombing arrested in Canada-Reuters
Livni to Ban: UN must hold Syria responsible for arms smuggling- Haaretz
Miliband lauds Syrian-Lebanese ties, but March 14 not so sure-Daily Star
Palestinian forces seize explosives cache in Beddaw-Daily Star
Sayyed sets conditions for cooperation-Daily Star
Spy for Israel 'admits' scouting Mughniyeh hit site-Daily Star
Lawyer asks German court to acquit Lebanese bomber (AFP)
'Plans' to flee to Lebanon land cleric in UK court (AFP)
Lebanese Forces accuse LBC chief of neglecting party's opinions, activities-Daily Star
Beirut's new labor fee may violate deal with Cairo-Daily Star
Bassil denies deal to hand over Lebanese cellular grid to French firm-Daily Star
Salameh issues call for Arab monetary union-Daily Star
Beirut to host pair of regional conferences-Daily Star
Red Cross expects to maintain current presence in Lebanon-Daily Star
Italian peacekeepers hand over special classrooms, football facility-Daily Star
US official visited Beirut to push missile ban-Daily Star

Suleiman Franjieh: Saudi Role is Similar to Israel's
Naharnet/Marada Movement leader Suleiman Franjieh launched a vehement attack on Saudi Arabia claiming its role in Lebanon is similar to that of Israel.
Franjieh, in a television interview aired Thursday evening, also claimed that Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblat "asked" to visit Syria.
He echoed Syrian charges to Saad Hariri's Mustaqbal Movement of "financing" Fatah al-Islam terrorists. Franjieh said ex-minister Michel Samaha "arranged" Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun's forthcoming visit to Syria. "Saudi Arabia's role in Lebanon is like that of Israel, it is biased in favor of a certain team against the other," Franjieh said. He added that if "Saudi Arabia pumped money into the forthcoming elections, this would lead Iran and all the friends to contribute money."
In answering a question about Aoun's forthcoming visit to Syria, Franjieh said Samaha played the role of "mediator" to arrange the visit.
"Aoun can get from the Syrians what no one else can get," Franjieh said. He said he visited Syria two weeks ago and met President Bashar Assad who expressed his "moral backing" to Franjieh in the 2009 parliamentary elections. Franjieh defended armed Hizbullah, saying "luring the party into using its weapons domestically is worst than using such weapons." He was referring to the May attack by Hizbullah gunmen against Beirut's western sector and Mount Lebanon. Disarming Hizbullah before going into talks with Israel and achieving a peace treaty "is not in the national interest," he concluded. Beirut, 14 Nov 08, 09:14

Israel: Defense Ministry's Amos Gilad: We won't let Iran go nuclear
By DAVID HOROVITZ /Jerusalem Post
Israel will not tolerate a nuclear Iran, Maj.-Gen. (res.) Amos Gilad, the head of the Defense Ministry's Diplomatic-Security Bureau, has stressed to The Jerusalem Post in an unusually hard-hitting interview. Slideshow: Pictures of the week For now, Israel is backing diplomatic and economic efforts to thwart the Iranians, Gilad added, but it doubts these will work and it is keeping all options open. Asked about the complexities of any resort to military action, particularly since Iran has built its facilities to withstand a repeat of the IAF's 1981 destruction of Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor at Osirak, Gilad replied, tellingly, that domestic critics 27 years ago said the Osirak raid "couldn't be done. And the fact is, it succeeded." "Iran is a country with smart people that have capabilities," he noted. "It really would be a considerable challenge. Come the day, if and when this or that option is adopted, what will matter is the outcome." He said the assessment, which he shared, was that Israel could not be reconciled to a nuclear Iran - not only because it might press the button, but because the very fact of this regime having that weaponry would constitute an existential threat. "The Iranians are determined to obtain nuclear weaponry," said Gilad. "Iran is controlled by an ideology and a regime that has set itself the goal to be rid of Israel." While US President-elect Barack Obama has said he will engage in tough diplomacy to try to deter the Iranians, Gilad said flatly that "diplomatic pressure against a state this determined can slow processes, but cannot halt them."
As for economic pressure, that might work if Iran were facing "total isolation," he said. "But that's not happening." The economic pressure was "much more impressive than is understood," he noted. "But the fact is, it is not preventing the dangerous process of a nuclear Iran." On Wednesday, Iran announced it had test-fired a two-stage, solid-fuel rocket with a 1,200-mile range that could reach Israel. Said Gilad: "They will continue. The picture is clear. They are building more missiles. They're dealing with uranium enrichment." For Israel, he said, "this is indeed a situation that we can't tolerate. What can be done about it? First of all, we still stick with the diplomatic option, and all the options are on the table, as President [George W.] Bush said." Beyond that, he said, "I can't go into details... Elaborating directly assists the enemy in its war against Israel. The test will be in the result - whether we are able or not to prevent this grave threat. "The more we talk about it - however seductive that may be - the more we brag, the more we weaken our capacity to achieve. We cannot accept a nuclear Iran. We cannot be reconciled to it."
The full interview with Amos Gilad will appear in The Jerusalem Post next week.

Williams: UNSCR 1701 at Security Council End of November
Naharnet/United Nations Secretary-General Representative to Lebanon Michael Williams pointed that UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon's report on implementing UNSCR 1701 will be issued at the end of November. Following his meeting with Prime Minister Fouad Saniora on Friday Williams stated that he had discussed implementing 1701 prior to issuing the Secretary-General's report, adding that he will be attending Security Council discussions of the issue in New York.
" I spoke to Prime Minister Saniora regarding my visits to Israel, Syria and Egypt over the past few weeks. I reiterated to him the Secretary-General's strong support for launching diplomatic relations between Lebanon and Syria." He affirmed Secretary-General Moon's interest in the "on-going national dialogue over the defensive strategy, and the process of reconciliation; hoping that efforts would continue and contribute in fostering a positive climate in the country." " We also covered the Conference for Religious and Cultural Dialogue in New York in which President Suleiman is participating." Williams said. Beirut, 14 Nov 08, 20:36

Geagea: No Differences With the Phalange, March 14 Electoral Lists United
Naharnet/Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea denied news concerning differences with the Phalange Party. Saying March 14 Forces will enter the 2009 parliamentary elections with united (electoral) lists in all Lebanon. Geagea who was speaking to the Russian television channel 'Russia Today' on Friday said," naturally there is competition among March 14 Forces on who will be on the election list. We know how important the upcoming parliamentary elections will be. We are studying the major points that we will run under at the next election; we are also keen on safeguarding regional alliances to ensure victory. We have gained a lot of ground with this. However, we still have a few yards to cover." Geagea said. He expressed his fear that the, "other side might go back to its old trick of assassinations and security unrest if it loses." He went on to add "But I hope that my fears are unfounded."
Geagea, believes there is "no security coordination with Syria now." Adding that this should be between "two equal states; for this to be a success we have to begin at the political level." The LF leader called for "canceling the Lebanese-Syrian High Council." And replacing it with two embassies, formation of political committees composed of ministers from both countries. Geagea maintained his belief that Fatah al-Islam is brainchild of Syrian intelligence. He also announced his lack of support to MP Michel Aoun defensive strategy proposal saying, "We will propose a different view at the next dialogue session."
As for President Michel Suleiman Geagea praised him for being "necessary for Lebanon at this time." Adding that for three years the role of the president was missing.
Regarding recent Syrian accusations against the Mustaqbal Movement coupled with televised confessions by Fatah al-Islam in Syria, Geagea replied saying," I don't believe a word they are saying. This thing happened to me at a different time and place. What we heard was no confession, maybe some of it, but the rest of it is all made up." Geagea believes that work on the national dialogue must continue," regardless of whether there are practical results now or not. As long as the dialogue is ongoing, politicians from different sides meeting, then we can say that this is positive.""No one can hinder or stop the International Tribunal (looking into the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri), there are hundreds of judges and investigators from tens of countries; the only thing they can do is stop funding the Tribunal." Geagea said. As for the U.S. elections Geagea said, " If anyone believes that President elect Barrack Obama will be different in his foreign policy than John McCain is mistaken." Beirut, 14 Nov 08, 20:03

Telecom Growth in Lebanon: Politics versus Professionalism?
Naharnet/What is behind the latest controversy surrounding the renegotiation of the management contracts of MTC Touch and Alfa? Is it purely political to settle scores between the various factions in the government or there are real justifiable reasons for opposing an inappropriate decision. Was there a need for all this commotion?
All the stakeholders in the Telecom sector are urging the government to de-politicize all the issues related to the sector for the benefit of Lebanon and the economy at large. All the parties will benefit from the growth of the sector and it would not make sense to introduce political rivalries into the very transparent privatization process that should be done as soon as possible.
What is the background of this controversy?
The two contracts were initially awarded in an open tender in 2004 to MTC (later became Zain) to run MIC2 that was branded MTC Touch and FalDete – a consortium between the Saudi Group Fal and Detecon, the management arm of Deutche Telecom – to run MIC1 that was branded Alfa.
The management contracts included a delicate set of rules that included running MIC1 for a fee in a delicate formula that would let them incur all the overheads (OPEX) and leaving the capital expenditure (CAPEX) on the government. The annual fee was $52million for each and escalates annually.
During the 4 years of this initial agreement there was no significant attempt by the two companies at improving the service quality nor competing on value added services or prices, because of the unwillingness of the government of taking any chances at reducing the telecom revenues, the milking cow of the budget!
The other hindrance was the lack of initiative in making major capital expenditure to expand and improve the infrastructure to allow both an improvement in quality and technological development and expanding the network to allow more subscribers. Both companies submitted ambitious programs of CAPEX without any guarantee of better revenues, thus prompting the government not to endorse those plans for fear of being accused of squandering public money!
Despite these limitations, MTC Touch managed to increase its subscriber base to 800,000 subscribers while Alfa expanded to 575,000 subscribers. The net revenues of the government from both operations grew from $500 million in the year before the new management companies took over to $950 million in 2007, and are expected to reach $1.1 billion in 2008.
The above mentioned contracts expired last May and were renewed for six months until November 30.
The previous government was faced with a dilemma; it wanted to launch the privatization process last February but was prevented to do so by the opposition. This led to a hasty renewal of the contracts without any consideration for their adequateness.
Upon his appointment, the new Minister of Telecom Gebran Bassil took on the previous assignment of the government to ex-Minister Marwan Hamade and embarked on the delicate task of negotiating with the two operators on extending the contracts for another year. Both operators were already complaining about the low fees and wanted to increase them.
Detecon had already informed the previous government its unwillingness to continue in the deal and Fal, the Saudi conglomerate was faced with the difficult task of finding a new experienced operator management company. This in itself prompted the new minister to frantically look for alternatives, a very difficult endeavor.
Who in his right mind would accept to run a company for one year only, knowing that the privatization could happen any time and their services terminated. At the same time the management fees are unfavorable. The obvious choice was France Telecom who turned second in the bidding process in 2004 and has a management arm called Sofrecom ready to take up that task.
The political uproar that erupted was not necessarily on the validity of the choice – knowing the intimate ties between the Hariri family with ex-President Chirac – the uproar was on the fact that Bassil should have requested the Council of Minister approval before engaging in talks with Sofrecom.
Prime Minister Saniora addressed a letter to the Council of Ministers dated November 11, complaining about the late notification by minister Bassil regarding the progress of the negotiation process and the unwillingness of one of the companies to renew the contract, hence the need to start negotiations with another company.
The letter quoted minister Bassil as saying that the management fee for MTC would rise from $64 million to $84 million for the same number of subscribers, and from $60 million to $62 million for Sofrecom, a figure that would be revised if subscribers increase.
The prime minister proposed to the Council of Ministers to accept the recommendations of Minister Bassil regarding the renewal of the management contract of MTC and the signing of a new contract with France Telecom on the following basis:
1. There should be no change to the current management fees
2. Introduce conditions in the new contracts that will encourage competition that leads to better quality services and even allowing the two operators to compete in prices up to a maximum of 10% reduction within one year on condition that this will not result in a reduction of revenues from 2008 levels, and in line with 2009 projections, as well as an increase in the subscriber base
3. France Telecom to be directly responsible for the execution of the management contract rather than through its subsidiary Sofrecom
4. Submitting the draft contracts to the Council of Ministers for approval
5. The promulgation of a government decree to allow international arbitration
6. The managers of the owning companies MIC1 and MIC2 must be appointed by the Council of Ministers
7. Changing the name of the "Authority of Telecom Regulation" to the new name of "Telecom Regulatory Authority", the name adopted in law 431/2002
8. The telecom ministry should present to the Council of Ministers as soon as possible a draft privatization law for the two operators in order to submit it to parliament in order to confirm the government's intent on privatizing the sector and reducing the negative effects of the renewal of the contracts. Beirut, 14 Nov 08, 19:34

Lebanese National Bloc Party: Aoun is a Militiaman
Naharnet/The Lebanese National Bloc Party on Thursday said the defense strategy proposal made by MP Michel Aoun was a reflection of Hizbullah Deputy chief Sheikh Naeem Qassem's vision. The stand was outlined in a statement by the bloc's executive committee after a meeting presided over by its chairman Carlos Edde.
The blueprint "legalizes (Hizbullah's) arms and the return to the era of militias," the statement said. "Aoun proved himself to be a militiaman of the first rate," it said. "This is not the image that he attempted to promote with the Lebanese, in being against militias." On the other hand, the National Bloc viewed Minister of Interior Ziad Baroud's recent visit to Syria as "serving Syrian schemes." It added that the visit ignored two vital issues "missing and detained Lebanese citizens in Syria and border demarcation." The bloc described as a "disaster," Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's statement that Lebanon was hiding behind international resolutions.
Beirut, 13 Nov 08, 20:16

Baroud Vows to Answer All Questions About His Damascus Visit
Naharnet/Interior Minister Ziad Baroud said reports about concluding an agreement on forming a Lebanese-Syrian security committee during his recent visit to Damascus are not accurate. Baroud told the daily as-Safir he would reply during the cabinet's forthcoming session on Saturday to all charges regarding outcome of his talks in Syria. Baroud on Tuesday addressed a memo to the cabinet requesting listing outcome of his Damascus visit a topic on the agenda of the Saturday meeting, which is to be presided over by President Michel Suleiman at the Baabda Palace. "I would ask all the ministers to enquire about all aspects of my visit to Damascus and I would answer all their questions." "I have nothing to hide and I haven't concluded any deals under the table," Baroud stressed. Beirut, 14 Nov 08, 11:21

Suleiman: Mustaqbal and Syria Backed the Army Against Fatah al-Islam
President Michel Suleiman said Mustaqbal Movement partisans had fully backed the army in its confrontation with Fatah al-Islam militants and Syria provided the regular force with fuel and ammunition. The pan-Arab daily al-Hayat on Friday quoted Suleiman as saying Syria also used its influence with Palestinian factions loyal to Damascus to pacify them during the Nahr al-Bared army confrontation with Fatah al-Islam terrorists last year. As to the alleged testimonies by Fatah al-Islam suspects aired by Syria's state television recently, Suleiman said they would be handled by the judicial authorities. Beirut, 14 Nov 08, 10:14

Canada Police Detain Canadian-Lebanese Bomb Suspect
Naharnet/Police on Thursday arrested near Ottawa a Canadian-Lebanese national suspected of involvement in the 1980 bombing of a synagogue in Paris that killed four people and injured 20 others, officials said. Hassan Diab, 55, was taken into custody on a provisional extradition warrant issued at the request of French authorities, Justice Department spokesman Christian Girouard said.
On Oct. 3, 1980, a bomb containing the powerful explosive pentrite hidden in the saddlebags of a parked motorcycle exploded outside the synagogue as hundreds of worshippers were gathered inside for a Sabbath service. Three French men and one Israeli woman were killed. Around 200,000 people later marched through the streets of Paris to protest the attack. Earlier, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police said a suspect in the bombing was detained in Gatineau, Quebec, across the river from Ottawa, at the request of French authorities who had been searching for Diab for years. "The individual was wanted in France in connection with the bombing at a Paris synagogue," Corporal Jean Hainey told AFP. "The RCMP was providing assistance as required under the mutual assistance treaty."Diab, a part-time sociology instructor at the University of Ottawa, said in an interview with the French daily Le Figaro last month that he was a victim of mistaken identity and had nothing to do with the attack. Diab, of Palestinian origin, has Lebanese and Canadian passports and lived in the United States for several years before moving to Canada, according to a French judicial official. French Interior Minister Michele Alliot-Marie welcomed the arrest, saying Diab was the main suspect in the attack. In a statement, Alliot-Marie credited the "excellent cooperation" between French police and intelligence services and Canadian authorities, but did not provide further details on the suspect.(AP-AFP-Naharnet) Beirut, 14 Nov 08, 04:46

Hizbullah Wants Referendum on its Weapons
Naharnet/Hizbullah on Thursday called for a referendum on whether its weapons are accepted or rejected by the Lebanese people. Hizbullah MP Hussein Hajj Hassan said organizing a referendum, which is not a method adopted by the constitution, "does not mean changing the regime." Hajj Hassan also said Lebanon remains targeted by the "threat of naturalization" of Palestinian refugees as long as U.N. General Assembly resolution 194 is not respected. He said the U.N. interfaith conference, attended by President Michel Suleiman, "would not reach any result." "We don't believe in dialogue with the Israelis," Hajj Hassan added. He said Hizbullah would not declare a stand regarding alleged testimonies of Fatah al-Islam suspects screened on Syrian television. "What is needed is cooperation between the Lebanese and Syrian judicial" systems, according to the Hizbullah MP. Beirut, 13 Nov 08, 18:04

Rahm Emanuel apologizes for father's disparaging remarks about Arabs
By Reuters /Last update - 03:49 14/11/2008
U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel apologized to an Arab-American group on Thursday for comments disparaging Arabs made by his father. The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee sent a letter to Emanuel calling on him to distance himself from remarks made by the elder Emanuel in an interview with an Israeli newspaper following his son's appointment last week. In the interview, Benjamin Emanuel was reported as saying: "Obviously, he will influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn't he? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House." While some political analysts have said Rahm Emanuel, a veteran Democratic congressman, should not be held responsible for the actions of his father, there was also a sense that an apology was unavoidable. "Today, Rep. Emanuel called Mary Rose Oakar, president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, apologized on behalf of his family and offered to meet with representatives of the Arab-American community at an appropriate time in the future," a statement from his office said.
The committee, in a statement on its website, said Emanuel told Oakar it was unacceptable to make such remarks against any ethnic or religious group.
"From the fullness of my heart, I personally apologize on behalf of my family and me. These are not the values upon which I was raised or those of my family," the group quoted him as saying. Oakar welcomed the apology, saying: "We cannot allow Arabs and Muslims to be portrayed in these unacceptable terms."
Some commentators in the Middle East have raised concern about the appointment of Emanuel, who has a pro-Israel record, suggesting he could use his position to influence Obama's policies in the region. But political analysts and Emanuel himself this week dismissed such suggestions. The congressman said Obama did not need his influence to "orientate his policy toward Israel." The chief of staff position serves as one of the closest advisers to the president and typically can decide who gains access to the president, while also developing administration policies.

US official visited Beirut to push missile ban
Daily Star staff
Friday, November 14, 2008
BEIRUT: A senior United States security official made a three-day visit to Beirut between Tuesday and Wednesday to discuss the banning of "man-portable air-defense systems" (MANPADS) with Lebanese officials. According to a statement by the US Embassy on Thursday, Ambassador Lincoln P. Bloomfield, Jr., special envoy for MANPADS, visited Lebanon November 11 to 13. Accompanied by US Ambassador Michele Sison, Bloomfield met with Lebanese governmental and defense officials. The discussions focused on Lebanese efforts at MANPADS control and destruction.
"Countering the proliferation of MANPADS is a national security priority of the US and Lebanon has joined with the US and numerous other countries to counter this threat," the embassy statement said. "With US assistance and international cooperation, more than 26,000 loosely secured, illicitly held, or otherwise at-risk MANPADS have been destroyed since 2003," it added. MANPADS were originally developed in the late 1950s to provide ground forces protection from enemy aircraft. They are receiving a great deal of attention as potential terrorist weapons that might be used against commercial airliners.
The missiles, affordable and widely available through a variety of sources, including leftovers from US systems distributed to militias in Afghanistan in the 1980s, have been used over the past three decades in military conflicts as well as by terrorist organizations. They can be purchased on the black market, for anywhere from a few hundred dollars for older models to almost $250,000 for newer ones. Twenty-five countries, including the US, produce such systems. - The Daily Star

Miliband lauds Syrian-Lebanese ties, but March 14 not so sure
Cabinet to discuss outcome of Baroud visit to Damascus
Compiled by Daily Star staff
Friday, November 14, 2008
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who is expected to visit Lebanon next week, praised Damascus on Thursday for having opened diplomatic relations with Lebanon. "I think that in a significant way there has been important change in the approach of the Syrian government, notably the historic decision to exchange ambassadors with Lebanon," Miliband told a news conference on Thursday.
Syrian President Bashar Assad issued a decree last month to establish diplomatic ties with Lebanon for the first time since the two states won independence from France in the 1940s.Meanwhile, the Cabinet will convene on Saturday at the Presidential Palace in Baabda, with 32 items on its agenda.The Cabinet's secretariat general received a request from Interior Minister Ziyad Baroud to discuss the outcome of his talks in Damascus earlier this week.
Baroud wants to raise the issue as soon as possible to reply to criticism from the March 14 Forces on the results of his visit.
Deputy Prime Minister Issam Abu Jamra is expected to raise again the issue of the Cabinet's by-laws in the upcoming ministerial session.
The March 14 Forces voiced "strong reservations" on Wednesday over the idea of security cooperation committees between Lebanon and Syria.
During his visit to Syria, Baroud agreed with his Syrian counterpart, Bassam Abdel-Majid, agreed to set up a commission to "put into place the basis of coordination in the fight against terrorism and crime."Reactions to Baroud's visit continued on Thursday, as a source from the March 14 Forces told the Central News Agency (CNA): "The visit was neither successful in form nor in content."
"We would have preferred the establishment of diplomatic relations first and then promote cooperation on all levels through embassies," the source was quoted as saying. Meanwhile, a source in the opposition told the CNA that the opposition had "absolute trust" in the interior minister, adding: "Security cooperation between two neighboring countries is very natural, as Lebanon's security means Syria's security and vice-versa."
The president of the Higher Lebanese-Syrian Council, Nasri Khoury, told LBCI television Thursday that the establishment of embassies between Lebanon and Syria would be achieved before the end of the year. Khoury added that Baroud's visit to Syria might be followed by similar trips by Defense Minister Elias Murr and Lebanese Armed Forces Commander Jean Kahwaji. He added that a visit by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora was under discussion.
Baroud's visit also raised the issue of Lebanese missing and detainees in Syria. The joint Syrian-Lebanese committee in charge of following up on the issues will hold a meeting Saturday in the border area of Jdeidet Yabous. Sources close to the committee said that the Lebanese and Syrian delegations had exchanged information during their last meeting on October 15. The sources added that the Lebanese delegation presented 15 new names.
The head of the Reform and Change parliamentary bloc, MP Michel Aoun, said Thursday that his conscience was clear regarding the defense strategy that he proposed during the recent dialogue session. In an interview with Al-Manar television, Aoun said: "Shame on those who attacked the strategy, because they did not understand it."Aoun added that his own expected visit to the Syrian capital would take place very soon, saying that what he would do there "goes beyond resolving a pending issue like that of the detainees," but that he would work to "prevent lurking problems."
"Prevention is very important," he said. President Michel Sleiman was expected to have returned to Beirut very late Thursday, following a visit to New York, where he participated in the interfaith conference held at the United Nations headquarters. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said the UN supported national dialogue led by Sleiman and the establishment of diplomatic ties with Syria. His comments came following a meeting with the Lebanese president on Thursday.
Sleiman also met on Thursday, on the sidelines of the conference, with Jordan's King Abdullah II. The king reiterated Jordan's support for Lebanon and its readiness to help the country in various fields, according to a statement issued by Sleiman's press office.
Sleiman also met with Kuwaiti Emir Sheikh Sabah Ahmad Sabah, who also stressed his country's support for Lebanon. Sleiman, for his part, thanked Kuwait for its continuous help to the Lebanese, according to the statement. On Thursday, Siniora held a ministerial meeting in preparation for the visit of French Prime Minister Francois Fillon next week. The meeting was attended by ministers Baroud, Bahia Hariri, Mohammad Fneish, Mohammad Safadi, Mohammad Shatah, and Gebran Bassil and the president of the Council for Development and Reconstruction, Nabil Jisr.
Murr met on Thursday with a delegation from the Tashnak party that included MP Hagop Pakradounian and former Minister Sebouh Hovnanian. Murr said after the meeting that he was keen on maintaining the "friendship and alliance" with the Tashnak party. Meanwhile, former President Amin Gemayel met at the Phalange Party headquarters in Saifi on Thursday with Abbas Zaki, the representative in Lebanon for the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).
In comments delivered following the meeting, Zaki said: "We delivered a message to President Gemayel on the Palestinian negotiations regarding the Palestinian cause, and also dispelled concerns over inter-Palestinian conflicts in Lebanon and armed militants in some refugee camps."Zaki added that Palestinian refugees abided by Lebanese laws and sovereignty. "Our camps will never be a refuge for fugitives or a threat to Lebanon's civil peace," the PLO representative added.
Regarding the military parade held in the Ain al-Hilweh refugee camp last Saturday, Zaki said: "We discussed extensively this issue and we reassured President Gemayel that these weapons were not targeted toward civil peace; however, there is a real threat from extremists who are planning to violate the camp."
"It was not a message to Lebanon; it is part of Lebanon's strength to face terrorist movements," he added. For his part, Gemayel said: "Maintaining communication with the PLO serves Lebanon's interests and is important to preserve good relations with the Palestinian Authority." "While we stress the need to respect Lebanon's sovereignty, we call for improving the conditions of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and separating humanitarian issues from political issues," he added.
Gemayel also said he welcomed Baroud's visit to Damascus, adding that pending issues, including security cooperation and Lebanese missing, should be resolved through dialogue. Asked about criticisms over the creation of a Syrian-Lebanese joint security committee, Gemayel said: "The government gave Baroud a green light to visit Syria and discuss security issues; and this visit resulted in positive steps."
"The joint committee will not act on its own; there is an authority which is the government," Gemayel added. "We are waiting for this issue to be presented to the government for discussions," he said. Asked about the defense strategy proposed by Aoun during the dialogue session at the beginning of this month, Gemayel said he had major objections to the strategy, adding that all weapons should be in the hands of the Lebanese Army and not the people.
Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea met Thursday with March 14 Forces member and former MP Fares Soueid, with whom he discussed Baroud's visit to Syria and internal March 14 business. "We are not against cooperation between Lebanon and Syria, but we want this cooperation to be within the frameworks that respect Lebanon's sovereignty and independence," Soueid said in remarks following the meeting.
Arab League Ambassador Hisham Youssef arrived in Beirut on Thursday to participate in a conference to be held on Friday at the Beirut International Exhibition and Leisure Center. The conference, entitled "Lebanon, the Present and the Future," will discuss the Lebanese defense strategy and will be attended by a large number of politicians and diplomats. Youssef will be representing Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa. - Agencies, with The Daily Star

Salameh issues call for Arab monetary union
Central bank chief warns of imminent fallout from global financial crisis
Daily Star staff
Friday, November 14, 2008
BEIRUT: Banque du Liban Governor Riad Salameh on Thursday recommended a single currency for the Arab countries and further expansion of the banks in the region to counter the negative effects of the global credit crunch. "Our banks will face challenges in the future in view of the financial crisis around the world. Among these challenges are quality competition that should induce us to expand the Arab banking sector and create a single currency so that the growth and commercial trade in the region will not be pegged to other currencies," Salameh told participants in a conference called Investments for Stability.
The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) has been pushing over the past several years to create a single currency among its oil-rich member.
But these attempts did not yield any results, and all of the GCC states are still using their local currencies. Apart from Kuwait, the GCC countries still peg their currencies to the US dollar.
Salameh said the Arab countries should learn lessons from the crisis around the world. He added that many of the "legendary" banks such as Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch either collapsed or recorded heavy losses, prompting the US government to rush for their rescue.
"Among the significant results of the crisis is the change of ideology. The state resumed financing the financial sectors and troubled companies," the governor said.
He stressed that unlike other banks including those in some of the Arab countries, the Lebanese banks were not permitted to get involved in any risky investments such as real estate. "This never happened and will never happen. [If] any commercial bank seeks to establish a business bank, then this bank should have its own entity and its own separate capital," Salameh said. Prime Minister Fouad Siniora said Lebanon managed to avoid the global crisis thanks to tight banking supervision.
He called on Arab countries to invest in productive sectors and develop inter-Arab trade. However, Siniora urged the Arab countries to be more cautious in the future. "The Arab countries, which reaped the benefits from the global economic boom over the past five years, may be impacted by the world economic crisis," he said.
Siniora added that if the global recession persisted it would lead to a further drop in the price of oil.
"Against this backdrop, the Arab countries should make more investments in transportation and highways that link all of these states and remove all obstacles," he said.
Ahmad Youssif, president of the Union of Arab Banks, did not conceal his concern. "The chances of economic growth in the region in the future seem less then earlier expectations because liquidity has shrunk. In addition, the cost of bank lending is also expected to rise and this will surely slow down the economy," he said.
Youssif warned that tight liquidity in the international markets may affect the performance of Arab banks until the end of 2009.
Francois Bassil, president of the Association of Banks in Lebanon, said the size of assets in Lebanese banks are four times more than the country's GDP.
"The high liquidity in the Lebanese banks has spared the country from the global financial crisis," he said. Bassil repeated his call to speed up economic and financial reforms in Lebanon and to meet all the conditions set by the donor states countries who met in Paris in 2007. - The Daily Star

Livni to Ban: UN must hold Syria responsible for arms smuggling
By Shlomo Shamir, Haaretz Correspondent and News Agencies
Last update - 14:09 13/11/2008
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on Wednesday accused Syria of breaching United Nations Security Council resolutions and endangering the whole of the Middle East by continuing to support the smuggling of weapons and ammunitions to militant groups in Lebanon.
Livni told UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon on the sidelines of an interfaith meeting in New York that Syria must be clearly warned that it will not gain legitimazation from the West unless it is held responsible for the smuggling. Meanhwile, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband is to visit Syria as part of a tour of the Middle East next week in an effort to improve relations. The foreign secretary on Wednesday praised Syria for opening diplomatic relations with Lebanon and preventing foreign fighters infiltrating Iraq. "I think it is important for us to find ways for Syria to play a constructive role in the future of the Middle East," Miliband told a news conference.
"Syria is a secular state in the Middle East. It has the potential to play a stabilizing role in the region," he added.
"In a significant way, there has been an important change in the approach of the Syrian government, notably the historic decision to exchange ambassadors with Lebanon," he added. The Times of London reported on Thursday that Miliband would use his visit in hopes of persuading Syria to drop its support of Hamas and Hezbollah in exchange for improved relations with the West and the return of the Golan Heights. Miliband will visit Israel, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories and Syria, a spokeswoman from his office said, giving no details of specific dates. She said the visit was part of efforts to develop "a strong U.K.-Syrian partnership based on mutual trust, shared interests and a vision for a stable peaceful and prosperous Middle East." The visit follows talks last month in London between Miliband and Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem and is the latest in a series of overtures between Syria and European nations, particularly France and Britain, seeking an end to Syria's strained relations with the West due to its support of Iran. Miliband's visit, the first to Damascus by a British foreign secretary since 2000, is a further sign of improved relations between Syria and European nations


Palestinian suspected in 1980 Paris synagogue bombing arrested in Canada
By Reuters /Last update - 23:03 13/11/2008
A suspect in a bombing that killed four people outside a Paris synagogue in 1980 was arrested in Canada on Thursday, a judicial source said.
The source confirmed a report on the website of the French magazine L'Express, which said Hassan Diab, a man of Palestinian origin in his 50s, was arrested in the town of Gatineau in Quebec. "French judges involved in the case are there now," the source in the Paris prosecutor's office said.
Two French judges issued an international arrest warrant against Diab earlier this month. He is suspected of making and planting the bomb that killed three French people and an Israeli woman outside a synagogue in an upmarket area of Paris. Twenty other people were wounded in the bombing, which was not claimed by any group. Canadian police were not immediately available to comment. L'Express said Diab had dual Lebanese and Canadian citizenship and was a sociology lecturer at a university in Ottawa. The magazine said a team of French police, magistrates and intelligence officers were in Canada working on the case and would try to arrange Diab's extradition to France. The bomb was placed in a bag attached to a motorbike that was parked outside the synagogue in a street called Rue Copernic, in the posh 16th district of Paris. The bomb exploded just minutes before a crowd of people were due to emerge from the synagogue. The attack took place on a Friday night, at the start of the Jewish Sabbath. According to L'Express, French investigators suspect that the bombing was organised by a small Palestinian militant group that was at odds with Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization.

New Opinion: The Hersh hype
Hussain Abdul-Hussain, Special to NOW Lebanon
November 13, 2008
Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh speaks in front of a college audience.
American reporter Seymour Hersh visited Syria and Lebanon last month and is in the process of publishing a story in The New Yorker “on Syria,” according to the British daily The Guardian.
Pulitzer Prize winner Hersh, 71, is undoubtedly one of the finest investigative journalists America has ever produced. But Hersh has grown overconfident, and his accuracy rate has declined substantially.
For instance, Hersh has prophesized an American attack on Iran many times, often giving a date. All his dates have passed, however, and with no ado. The Guardian wrote, “His supporters, though, believe that his mistakes - and even the wilder allegations he sometimes makes in speeches - should always be put in the context of his hit rate.” But hit rates are no substitute for accuracy. Seymour Hersh’s writing has been sensationalist at best, fictional at worst.
The list of Hersh’s inaccurate reports is long. In some cases, he filed corrections. In other cases, harm was done and he simply looked the other way.
There was the time, for example, back in 1974, The Guardian reported, when Hersh “accused the US ambassador to Chile, Edward Korry, of being in on a CIA plot to overthrow President Allende. Some years later, Hersh had to write a long correction; it ran on page one of the New York Times.”
And then, not too long ago, there was the last time Hersh visited Lebanon. His story – which also ran in The New Yorker on March 05, 2007 under the title “The Redirection” – was so inaccurate that one could not tell the difference between fact and faction.
The next Hersh story, which will soon run in The New Yorker, may be an update of his earlier rumor-based article on Future Movement leader Saad Hariri’s funding of terrorism. But before the Hersh piece is out, his readers in the United States and the Middle East should keep in mind how he works, in his own words and as was reported in The Guardian. In Beirut, Hersh himself is known for his strong links with former Information Minister Michel Samaha, who is in turn known for his staunch loyalty to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime through Assad’s political and media advisor, former Minister Buthayna Shaaban. Samaha is also known for his hostility toward the March 14 alliance, including Hariri himself.
Aside from blatant misreporting and the effect of his friendships on his journalism, Hersh’s use of sources is highly dubious. The Guardian asked Hersh whether his sources are people he has known for a long time. “No,” said Hersh, “I do pick up new people.” According to The Guardian, this Hersh tactic is flawed, for “with new contacts… there is always the danger of a plant.”
The risk of distorting the report through false witnesses runs high, and was probably the case during Hersh’s last trips to Lebanon and Syria.
According to The Guardian, Hersh’s critics also point to “what they regard as his excessive use of unnamed sources. Others accuse him of getting things wrong and of being gullible.” In an interview with Hala Gorani on CurrentCurrent.org in May 2007, Hersh said that the White House, with Saudi Prince Bandar, had the idea of “supporting various hard-line jihadists, Sunni groups, particularly in Lebanon, who would be seen in case of an actual confrontation with Hezbollah… as an asset.” To Hersh, such support was tantamount to American foreign policy errors during the 1980s, using “the Saudis to support jihadists,” particularly in North Lebanon. Today, Hersh said, the business of supporting Sunnis anywhere against Shia was big. “We're in a business of creating in some places, Lebanon in particular, a sectarian violence.” Another aspect of US policy in Lebanon, Hersh says at the end of the interview, is to support the Fouad Siniora government, “despite its weakness” against the coalition joining the Free Patriotic Movement and Hezbollah.
Yet here, Hersh does in fact “get things wrong.” Hersh’s interview gives away his superficial understanding of the region and its politics, and in concealing parts of the story. Why, for instance, would America, Saudi Arabia and their Lebanese allies support the Lebanese army and the government, who fought a bloody war with Fatah al-Islam, while Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah delivered a speech in which he warned the army against fighting Fatah Al-Islam, describing the group as a “red line?”As for never learning from history, while Hersh wants the United States to avoid repeating past faux pas, such as supporting Jihadists in the region, he encourages America to repeat its miserable deal with Syria over Lebanon, in 1991. Hersh forgets, however, that despite the deal at the time, Syria never helped disarm Hezbollah or other militias in Lebanon, as it promised. At least two full-scale wars erupted between Hezbollah and Israel during the Syrian control of Lebanon.
When you read Hersh’s new story in The New Yorker, do so with a grain of salt.

Four crises on Obama's horizon
By Daniel Levy /Haaretz
14/11/08
No one should be surprised that president-elect Barack Obama's first press conference, three days after his historic November 4th victory, was devoted almost exclusively to the economy. Obama was also quick to remind reporters that there is only one president at a time, and his turn does not begin until January 20. While domestic challenges will dominate his agenda, a not-insignificant list of Middle East crises will confront America's 44th president as well. Here are four of the more urgent issues in which Israel has a keen interest, and which are likely to force themselves onto the Obama team transition agenda and its early days in office.
Why not start with the issue closest to home, with Israel's upcoming February 11 election? Recent American presidents have had a decidedly mixed record of intervention in Israeli elections. President Bill Clinton hastily convened the March 1996 Summit of Peacemakers at Sharm el-Sheikh, but it did not save Shimon Peres in the polls that May. Clinton was more effective in ensnaring a peace-shy prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu with the Wye River Memorandum - paving the way to Netanyahu's downfall and Ehud Barak's May 1999 election victory. Before that, president George H.W. Bush tripped up Yitzhak Shamir on the issue of settlements, assisting Yitzhak Rabin in Israel's 1992 vote.
A new president, however, is unlikely to dip his hand in the shark-infested waters of Israeli politics, certainly not on Day 1, especially since the possible impact would be hard to predict. The Obama team would be best advised to simply remind Israelis of its own standpoint: a commitment to two states and to advancing the peace process "from the minute I'm sworn into office" (Obama in Amman, July 2008). To forget this pledge until after February 10 would in itself be an intervention of sorts, and an unwelcome one. Will Kadima, Labor or Meretz be able to ride the wave of Obama expectations? That will be for them to attempt and for the voters to decide.
Another upcoming Middle East election the new American president will have to navigate is in Iran, where presidential polls are scheduled for June 2009. The tricky balancing act here will be, on the one hand, not to lose time testing direct engagement with Iran, an Obama election pledge, while, at the same time, doing nothing that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could use to strengthen his own re-election efforts. Paradoxically, a less threatening, more open-for-business tone from the U.S. may be the best way to undermine Ahmadinejad. Direct talks with Ahmadinejad are very unlikely to feature on the immediate Obama to-do list, and would almost certainly be ill advised. In any event, he is not the key address for diplomatic approaches. That would more likely be supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei. Expect discreet feelers and exploratory contacts with key Khamenei confidants, such as Ali Akbar Velayati and Ali Larijani, and expect not to know that they are taking place.
Israel's best posture on this is surely to avoid any public disagreement with the U.S. on Iran, to ensure that Israel has input into the agenda for talks, and to give American-Iranian negotiations a real chance, as the best option for addressing our concerns.
For Syria, a two-year waiting game ends on Inauguration Day. President Bashar al-Assad apparently decided some time ago that his best bet was to wait out the implacable opposition of French president Jacques Chirac and American president Bush. Syria has recently prepared for this day, for instance by relaunching peace talks with Israel via Turkish mediation, by assuming a constructive role regarding Lebanon, and by moving closer to Europe, most notably to Chirac's successor, Nicolas Sarkozy.
In some senses, Syria is seen as low-hanging fruit for a U.S. re-engagement that would reshuffle Middle East alliances in its favor. After all, Syria is a relevant player when it comes to Iraq, Iran, Lebanon and the Palestinian arena. A reorientation of Syria's policies will not take place overnight or following a brief diplomatic flirtation. But a new approach to U.S.-Syria bilateral relations, with reasonably calibrated benchmarks and including American support for Israeli-Syrian talks, stands a good chance of success. Look out for early indications of that change.
Finally, how to deal with Palestinian internal politics? One of the more devastating legacies of the Bush years was the failure to constructively navigate the Palestinian transition away from the strongman rule of Yasser Arafat and the single-party domination of Fatah. A stable Palestine and sustainable peace and security for Palestinians and Israelis cannot be built on a divided Palestinian house. The American position has been one of encouraging Palestinian division. That needs to change urgently, not by an Obama administration directly engaging Hamas, but by it discreetly signaling an end to the American veto on Palestinian national reconciliation along lines similar to the Saudi-brokered Mecca deal of February 2007. Given the stop-start Palestinian talks now being brokered by Egypt, there might be some urgency to the American policy re-think on this issue - the peace process is deeply flawed in its absence. Of course, Iraq will loom largest when president-elect Obama turns his attention to the Middle East - and therein lies the core challenge: Will the next administration, unlike its predecessor, appreciate both the extent and the nature of the interconnectivity between the region's varied crises? The signs at least are encouraging. Daniel Levy, a senior fellow at the New America and Century Foundations, was previously an adviser in the Israeli Prime Minister's Office, and the lead Israeli drafter of the Geneva Initiative.

Why I went to meet the pope for Muslim-Christian dialogue
By Tariq Ramadan*
Friday, November 14, 2008
Now that the shock waves touched off by Pope Benedict XVI's remarks at Regensburg on September 12, 2006, have subsided, the overall consequences have proven more positive than negative. Above and beyond polemics, the pope's lecture has heightened general awareness of their respective responsibilities among Christians and Muslims in the West.
It matters little whether the pope had simply misspoken or, as the highest-ranking authority of the Catholic Church, was enunciating Church policy. Now the issue is one of identifying those areas in which a full-fledged debate between Catholicism and Islam must take place. Papal references to "jihad" and "Islamic violence" came as a shock to Muslims, even though they were drawn from a quotation attributed to Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos.
It is clear that the time has come to open debate on the common theological underpinnings and the shared foundations of the two religions. The appeal by Muslim religious leaders, "A Common Word," had precisely this intention: Our traditions have the same source, the same single God who calls upon us to respect human dignity and liberty.
These same traditions raise identical questions concerning the ultimate purpose of human activity, and respect for ethical principles.
In a world that is experiencing an unprecedented global crisis, a world in which politics, finance and relations between humans and the environment suffer from a cruel lack of conscience and ethical integrity, it is a matter of greatest urgency that Christian-Muslim dialogue turn its attention to both theological issues and to those of values and ultimate aims.
Our task is not to create a new religious alliance against the "secularized" and "immoral" world order, but to make a constructive contribution to the debate, to prevent the logic of economics and war from destroying what remains of our common humanity.
Our constructive dialogue on shared values and ultimate goals is far more vital and imperative than our rivalries over the number of believers, our contradictory claims about proselytism and sterile competition over exclusive possession of the truth.
Those dogma-ridden individuals who, in both religions, claim truth for themselves are, in fact, working against their respective beliefs.
Whoever claims that he/she alone possesses the truth, that "falsehood belongs to everybody else ..." has already fallen into error. Our dialogue must resist the temptation of dogmatism by drawing upon a comprehensive, critical and constantly respectful confrontation of ideas. Ours must be a dialogue whose seriousness requires of us, above all else, humility.
We must delve deep into history the better to engage a true dialogue of civilizations. Fear of the present can impose upon the past its own biased vision. Surprisingly, the pope asserted that Europe's roots were Greek and Christian, as if responding to the perceived threat of the Muslim presence in Europe.
His reading, as I noted after the lecture at Regensburg, is a reductive one.
We must return to the factual reality of the past, to the history of ideas. When we do so, it quickly becomes clear that the so-called opposition between the West and the Muslim world is pure projection, an ideological instrument if you will, designed to construct entities that can be opposed or invited to dialogue, depending on circumstances.
But the West has been shaped by Muslims, just as the Muslim world has been shaped by the West; it is imperative that a critical internal process of reflection begin: that the West and Europe initiate an internal debate, exactly as must Islam and the Muslims, with a view to reconciling themselves with the diversity and the plurality of their respective pasts.
The debate between faith and reason, and over the virtues of rationalism, is a constant in both civilizations, and is, as such, far from exclusive to the Greek or Christian heritage. Neither is it the sole prerogative of the Enlightenment.
The pope's remarks at Regensburg have opened up new areas of inquiry that must be explored and exploited in a positive way, with a view to building bridges and, working hand-in-hand, to seek a common response to the social, cultural and economic challenges of our day.
It is in this spirit that I participated on November 4-6 in Rome, and in a meeting with the pope on November 6. Our task was to assume our respective and shared responsibilities, and to commit ourselves to working for a more just world, in full respect of beliefs and liberties.
It is essential, then, to speak of freedom of conscience, of places of worship, of the "argument of reciprocity"; all questions are possible in an atmosphere of mutual confidence and respect.
Still, it is essential that each of us sit down at the table with the humility that consists of not assuming that we alone possess the truth; with the respect that requires that we listen to our neighbours and recognize their differences; and, finally, the coherence that summons each of us to maintain a critical outlook in accepting the contradictions that may exist between the message and the practice of believers.
These are the essential elements to be respected if we are to succeed.
*Tariq Ramadan is a professor of Islamic studies and senior research fellow at St. Antony's College, Oxford University, and at the Lokahi Foundation in London. He is also president of a European think tank, the European Muslim Network, in Brussels. THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration with the Common Ground News Service.

First Unofficial Obama Positions on New War Strategies
By WALID PHARES
Published: November 13, 2008
CHANGE TO WHAT? In this dizzying maze a la 1990s, one begins to wonder if we are flipping the enemy into an ally, and vice versa, merely so that the slogan of "change" is then materialized. (The Dallas Morning News via Newscom)
As the transition in the United States between the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama is moving forward feverishly while world crises escalate, observers of conflicts are focusing on the messages emanating from the next foreign policy team in Washington.
The smooth passing of the torch from one leadership to another in the middle of unfinished wars and gigantic counterterrorism efforts is critical, especially if a strategic change of direction is on its way.
Analysts wonder about the nature of change to come: is it about managing battlefields or reducing them?
The first post election statements made by Obama sources - incorporated into a Washington Post article by Karen DeYoung published on Nov. 11, "Obama to Explore New Approach in Afghanistan War" - are very revealing.
Although these "conversations" with aides are still unofficial positions at the formal level, one must read them as the first salvo in setting the tone and guidelines for early 2009.
Thus, and in order to engage in a national discussion on what seems to be the near future, we must analyze these propositions one by one and contrast them with the intensity of the evolving threat.
Therefore, the following are early comments on the emerging new policies.
The Washington Post article began by stating that the Obama administration is planning on "exploring a more regional strategy to the war in Afghanistan including possible talks with Iran." Citing Obama national security advisers, the Post added that the new strategy "looks favorably on the nascent dialogue between the Afghan government and 'reconcilable' elements of the Taliban."
These two so-called strategic components of the forthcoming administration's plan to end the conflict in central Asia deserve a high level of attention and thorough examination. In a post Sept. 11, 2001 environment - meaning seven years into a confrontation with jihadist forces - not only experts but a large segment of the American public has developed a higher awareness of the threat of the enemy and of its long term objectives. Arguments in foreign policy analysis are not as alien as they were to citizens prior to the 2001 attacks. Many Americans know who the Taliban are and what their goals are, and they know as well of the dangerous fantasies of the mullah regime in Tehran.
A new strategy in the region covering Pakistan and Iran is indeed needed to achieve advances in defeating the jihadists and in empowering the democracy forces in Afghanistan.
If the Bush administration was too slow in reaching that conclusion, then one would expect the Obama foreign policy team to bridge the gap and quickly arrive at a successful next stage.
But the "regional" proposition unveiled by the Washington Post defies logic, instead of consolidating it.
For I wonder on what grounds the Iranian regime would shift from a virulent anti-U.S. attitude to a favorable team player in stabilizing Afghanistan? Even the gurus of classical realism would wonder.
If a deal is possible with Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, it cannot be on establishing a democratic government in Kabul. It simply doesn't add up knowing the essence of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its oppressive nature.
Therefore, and before the new administration even begins to sell the idea, it is important for all to realize that any Afghan deal cut with Iran must assume that the next regime in Kabul will satisfy the agenda in Tehran: meaning non-democratic. This is the first hurdle.
Amazingly, the second proposition simultaneously would invite the Taliban (postulating that a milder wing indeed exists) to share power in the country as a way to end the conflict. More problems emerge here: first, if the "good" Taliban are brought to the deal (assuming this is even feasible), what happens with the "bad" Taliban? Will the latter just "go away" or will there be a fight between the "good and the bad" factions? And how can the new strategy end the new Afghan war and will we come to the rescue of the nice jihadists against the ugly ones? Obviously, it doesn't add up either.
Second, assuming there would be a partial re-Talibanization of Afghanistan, how could this co-exist with the Iranians? The same Washington Post article quoted the same advisers, underscoring that "The Iranians don't want Sunni extremists in charge of Afghanistan any more than we do."
How can the architects reconcile bringing in the Iranians for help and, at the same time, inviting the "Sunni extremists" to be sitting in Kabul? This construct doesn't fly on mere logic.
As I wondered in an interview with Fox News the same day, are the new foreign policy planners talking about changing the strategy or changing the enemy?
The most logical ally against most of the Taliban should be the democratically-elected government in Pakistan, which is already waging a campaign against al-Qaida and its Taliban allies. Why would Washington replace this potential ally (regardless of all mishaps) with two foes: the non-democratic regime of Iran and a faction of the totalitarian Taliban?
In this dizzying maze a la 1990s, one begins to wonder if we are flipping the enemy into an ally, and vice versa, merely so that the slogan of "change" is then materialized. My feeling is that post electoral political pressures are so intense that it may produce a recipe for greater confusion and even disaster.
The problem is not the idea of "talking" to any of the players, including the current foes; engaging in contacts is always an option and has always been practiced. The problem is the perception by the new U.S. officials (and even current ones) that we can simply and naively "create" the conditions that we wish, regardless of the intentions of the other side. When reading these suggestions, one concludes that they were conceived on paper as unilateral designs lacking any strategic understanding of the enemy.
Take two examples as a starter: first, if you want to engage the so-called "acceptable" Taliban into a national unity government in Kabul (which is not an impossible idea theoretically), did you incorporate what their minimal demands are? And can your analysis of the jihadis' long-term strategy produce a projection over four to six years of a return of these jihadis to power? I don't think so.
Second, if you wish to enlist Iran as a partner in Afghanistan, will you be able to continue with the sanctions over its nuclear program? Obviously not. Thus the bottom line is that the price for befriending Tehran in Kabul is to allow it to reach its nuclear military ambitions. If it is otherwise, the upcoming foreign policy team has a lot of explaining to do.
Another interesting statement made by an adviser, according to the Washington Post, was that "the incoming administration intends to remind Americans how the fight "against Islamist extremists" began - on Sept. 11, 2001, before the Afghanistan and Iraq wars - and to underscore that al-Qaida remains the nation's highest priority. "This is our enemy," one adviser said of Bin Laden, "and he should be our principal target."
Although as a reader I am not sure if DeYoung was discussing the new strategies in the war with the same "source," the latter, stronger sentence is of great value for future inquiries. For if indeed the incoming administration intends to remind U.S. citizens that the fight is "against Islamist extremists," then this would be a good bridge to the Bush administration's bold rhetoric, which ended in 2006.
If the Obama administration "change" in strategy is to redefine the confrontation in the precise manner the adviser did, then we will be lucky. If that is the case, then we would hope and expect the new administration to repel the irresponsible "lexicon" disseminated by bureaucrats within the Bush administration and instead issue a strong document identifying the threat as stated in the Washington Post article, explaining once and for all the ideology of bin Laden so that indeed we can understand "our principal target."
These early remarks are aimed at helping the Obama administration from its inception to clearly strategize and target so that the next four, and maybe eight years, will be a leap forward in protecting this country and in defending democracy worldwide.
This is only a glimpse of conversations to come about America's national security and the hope to see a real qualitative change for the best.
**Dr. Walid Phares is the director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the author of "The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad".

Damascus's Deadly Bargain
By: Lee Smith
Why does Syria insist on harboring terrorists?
Post Date Friday, November 14, 2008
The Bush administration has quietly authorized U.S. forces to attack Al-Qaeda bases around the Middle East--an escalation in the war on terror that Eli Lake first revealed two weeks ago in The New Republic and that The New York Times reported on this week. One of the administration's most recent targets was Syria, where it struck Al-Qaeda leader Badran Turki Hishan al Mazidih last month.
Though Syrian officials feigned ignorance at Al-Qaeda's encampment within its borders, the reality is that the country not only tolerates the presence of terrorists, but encourages them to use the country as a safe-haven, headquarters, and transit point. Why does Syria continue to harbor terrorists, knowing that it places the country squarely in the crosshairs of the Bush administration? Particularly in light of Syria's historical problems with its own Islamist groups, why would it welcome radicals from across the region? Finding the answer to these questions is crucial in trying to defeat one of the Middle East's most prolific boosters of terrorism.
To better understand Syria's motivations, I visited Abdel Halim Khaddam, Syria's former vice president, in Brussels, where he was leading a meeting of the National Salvation Front (NSF), a Syrian opposition group. Having served under both Hafez al-Assad and his son Bashar, Khaddam is well-acquainted with the strategic and political exigencies driving the regime's support for terror. "Fighting the Americans in Iraq is very dangerous," he tells me. "But it also makes Bashar popular. Under the banner of resistance, anything is popular."
Thus, it seems the first reason Syria backs these militants is because it wins public acclaim. As is the case in many countries across the Arab world, most Syrians distinguish between terror and resistance. They define the former as violence that hurts Syrians and Syrian interests--such as the Muslim Brotherhood's war against the Syrian state in the late 1970s and early '80s, for example. But resistance is the violence that the Syrian regime makes possible at the expense of other states--from Lebanon to Israel to Iraq--strengthening its position as the self-described "capital of Arab resistance."
For instance, when Hezbollah went to war against Israel in the summer of 2006, it hurt not only Israel but the majority of Lebanese, who were not standing with Hezbollah. But Syria's logistical, financial, and political support for the Islamic resistance burnished Assad's credentials at home, while also earning him respect across the region. If other Arab rulers, like Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and Saudi king Abdullah Al-Saud, were, in Assad's words, "half-men," the Syrian had shown himself to be a citadel of anti-Zionist, anti-Western resistance, the most popular Arab leader after Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah.
Support for terror is also a significant element in Syria's attempt to exert power over its neighbors. In addition to hosting groups that target Israel, like Hamas and Hezbollah, Syria has long maintained a broad portfolio of regional terror outfits, from secular organizations like Abdullah Ocalan of the Kurdish Worker's Party (PKK) and Palestinian rivals to Yasser Arafat, to Salafi groups like Shaker al-'Absi's Fatah splinter organization, Fatah al-Islam. And as the recent US attack on Bou Kamal illustrated, Damascus hosts significant Iraqi assets, such as Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Syria also uses these groups as insurance against the subterfuge of fellow Arab regimes. "Before 1970, Syria was the place where other people interfered," Obeida Nahas, a Muslim Brotherhood representative with the NSF, tells me. Ever since Syrian independence in 1946, coup followed coup, all of them backed or instigated by outside actors, including Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, Israel, and even the U.S. "When Hafez al-Assad came to power," Nahas explains to me, "he made a pre-emptive counter-attack to interfere in other regimes before they could get to Syria."
Nahas's father-in-law, Ali Sadr al-Din al-Bayanouni--the leader of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood in exile, who spent two decades living in Jordan--is himself an illustration of this strategy. Amman's relationship with the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood is part of a long-standing rivalry, in which the Jordanians back Syrian Islamists like al-Bayanouni as a threat to the Damascus government, and Syria, in turn, supports elements of Jordan's Islamist opposition, like the Islamic Action Front. While this game of chicken seems to risk Islamist blowback, it is a key strategy in Arab balance-of-power politics.
The Syrians have similarly managed their relationship with Saudi Arabia, which has been at an all-time low since the 2005 murder of former Lebanese prime minister and Saudi ally Rafiq al-Hariri, which the Saudis blamed on Damascus. In December 2005, Khaddam made a big splash in the first part of a televised interview on the Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya satellite network charging Bashar with the assassination, but then the Saudi royal family pulled the plug on the second part of the interview. The public rationale in Arab circles is that the Saudi kingdom is not in the habit of bringing down fellow Arab regimes. More likely, however, is that Damascus has an important card to play against the Saudis, who fear that Syria is holding several hundred Saudi fighters in prison; Damascus could embarrass the Saudis by publically announcing the existence of these extremists--or even worse, allow those jihadis to return home to fight the House of Saud.
This kind of leverage is not the only reason Syria keeps its jails stocked with foreign terrorists. According to Ghassan al-Mufleh, an NSF member who spent 12 years in Syrian jails for his Communist activities, this is also one of their primary ways of collecting intelligence, as well as tapping foreign agents to do their bidding abroad and subvert Arab rivals. Since Syria does not require visas from Arabs to enter the country, many terrorists use it as a transit point to places like Iraq, "so if they return from jihad alive and want to head home--Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco--they just say that they were working in Syria," Mufleh tells me. But this free flow also allows the Syrians to detain valuable operatives and "give them a choice--either they can agree to work for the Syrian services or they will be turned into their own home intelligence agency," he says. "It is an easy choice."
Shaker al-'Absi is a case in point. Along with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, 'Absi was sentenced to death in absentia by the Jordanian authorities for the 2002 murder of U.S. diplomat Laurence Foley in Amman. Syria rejected Jordan's extradition request for 'Absi and allegedly detained him in prison for a few years. He resurfaced last spring in a northern Lebanon refugee camp, leading Fatah al-Islam in its month-long battle with the Lebanese Armed Forces--part of Assad's plan to destabilize the Lebanese government, which the Syrian president describes as hostile to Syrian interests.
Syria's incessant meddling in Lebanon also illustrates a larger motivation for their support of terrorists. Long before the Americans touched down in Iraq, the Assads (father and son) recognized that supporting terror meant Washington would have to include Damascus in any of its regional dealings. For instance, U.S. policymakers have historically felt compelled to engage with Syria in order to secure peace in Jerusalem, since, as American officials euphemistically explain, Syria has the ability to "spoil" the Arab-Israeli peace process by unleashing their Hamas or Hezbollah clients. Thus, according to Khaddam, Colin Powell's efforts in May 2003 to convince Damascus to close its Hamas offices were futile. "The Americans should've known better," he says. "How could Bashar separate himself from Hamas? It's an important card for him, so why would he throw it away?"
But perhaps the most significant driver of Syria's support for terrorism is that it clinches the relationship with their only strategic partner in the region that is not a terrorist group. "Bashar helped the groups in Iraq because there is an arrangement with Iran to undermine the Americans," Khaddam says. He claims that Syria's decision to let Al-Qaeda use their borders to fight the Americans in Iraq is largely at the behest of Tehran: "Iran's ambitions in the region stretch from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean, which is against the interest of the Arabs and the West. Syria's alliance leaves it in the middle of the conflict but there is no way out of the relationship."
Khaddam dismisses the notion prevalent in some U.S. and Israeli circles that it is possible to split Syria from Iran. "Iranian influence is extensive," he says. If there are factions in the Damascus government, it is not about whether Syria should lean towards Iran or the West. "The disagreements are about personal interests and cuts of money, not Iran. Everyone agrees about Iran."
But as Mufleh notes wryly, Assad would do well to learn the lessons of Syrian history: It was his own father's decision to provide jihadis passage through to Afghanistan in the '80s that inadvertently helped defeat his Soviet patron. For all the good reasons to support "resistance," Tehran as well as Damascus may one day be on the receiving end of Islamist terror--a price infinitely higher than last month's U.S. raid on Syrian territory.
**Lee Smith is a visiting fellow at The Hudson Institute.

Religious Tolerance Forum Hosted By Saudi Arabia.
By: Professor Gabriel
Sawma/Indymedia.be
14.11.08
Saudi Arabia's king Abdullah hosted a summit at the U.N. in New York to promote tolerance among the world's major religions.
Saudi Arabia initiated inter-religious meeting at the United Nations this week. King Abdullah called his initiative a “Culture of Peace Summit,” to promote tolerance among the world’s major religions. Participants who gathered in New York on Wednesday and Thursday, called for promoting mutual understanding and tolerance, through dialogue. Among those who attended are leaders from Pakistan, Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, Egypt, Britain, Spain and the Philippines, said Enrique Yeves, spokesman for U.N. General Assembly president Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann. President Bush joined the leaders this morning and gave a speech at the U.N General Assembly hall.
Other participants include U.N. Secretary General Ban Li-Moon and the head of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the bloc of Muslim nations spearheading a campaign at the U.N. to outlaw the “defamation” of religion.
Critics note that while King Abdullah hosted leaders from different Muslim sects in Saudi Arabia, his other initiatives have taken place outside the kingdom. Any inter-religious meeting inside Saudi Arabia could draw opposition from conservative clerics unhappy with the presence of Christian and, especially, Jewish religious leaders.
The underlining results of this Summit are to make non-Muslims accept Islam and the shari’a law as well as the Islamic banking system without any recognition by Muslims to other faiths. The whole focus of the Summit is to endorse a U.N. Resolution of anti-blasphemy law against Islam around the world.
In 1999, Pakistan and the Organization of the Islamic Conference introduced a measure to the U.N. Human Rights Council to spread shari’a law to the Western world and to intimidate anyone who criticizes Islam.
The measure was amended to include religions other than Islam, and it has passed every year since. In 1005, Yemen successfully brought a similar resolution before the General Assembly. The 192-nation Assembly is set to vote on it again.
In 2007, a non-binding Resolution 62/145 says: “It notes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of 11 September 2001.” It also “stresses the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions and incitement to religious hatred, against Islam and Muslims in particular.”
The resolution is really designed to permit countries with a dominant religion, such as Islam, to squelch any free-speech rights of religious minorities, according to Bill Saunders of the Family Research Council (FRC). “So for instance, in some Muslim countries, it’s considered blasphemy to just say what a Christian believes – because that is consistent with what Islam teaches,” Saunders explains. “Or, to try to switch from Islam to Christianity, that’s considered apostasy, and in those situations you can be punished by death.”
This also means that, it will be ILLEGAL to practice any other religion in an Islamic country other than Islam.
Critics say that Saudi Arabia’s policies are marked with oppression towards non-Muslims, which is in direct conflict with their attempt to promote religious tolerance abroad. By endorsing King Abdullah’s call for “religious tolerance” critics say, the U.N. General Assembly is “partaking” in religious oppression in Saudi Arabia.
Muslims of Egypt has been, for a long time, prosecuting Christian Coptic minority, under the auspices of the strict Islamic rule of Hosni Mubarak. The Christian minority of Iraq are being prosecuted by the Muslims, with immunity and Christian churches are bombed with explosives in Pakistan.
There is a widespread concern that the resolutions are being used to justify harsh blasphemy laws in countries such as Pakistan, Egypt, Sudan and Afghanistan.
In addition, every single constitution of the Middle East countries (except Lebanon and Turkey) has a provision stating that the laws of the land are based on the Islamic shari’a.
The U.S. government mission in Geneva, told the U.N. Human Rights Council that “defamation-related laws have been abused by governments and used to restrict human right” around the world, and sometimes Westerners have been caught in the web.
Felice Gaer, chairman of the U.S. Commission for International Religion Freedom (USCIRF) was travelling Monday and could not be reached for comments, wrote CNS News. But a spokeswoman pointed to recent remarks Gaer gave to Fox News: “We’d like to see a conference like this take place inside Saudi Arabia and the fact that it isn’t speaks volumes,” she said. “That’s true of the Madrid conference [in July] and true of the one at the U.N.”
Gaer voiced the view that “the conference was part of a Muslim campaign to promote a religious “defamation” resolution at the General Assembly,” said CNS News on November 11, 2008.
The European Union said the text proposed by Islamic countries was “one-sided” because it primarily focused on Islam. E.U. diplomats had said they wanted to stop the growing worldwide trend of using religious anti-defamation laws to limit free speech.
The European Center for Law and Justice filed a brief with the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights in June 2008 warning that such anti-defamation resolutions “are in direct violation of international law concerning the rights to freedom of religion and expression.
"Saudi Arabia calling on international religious tolerance is a little bit like the wolf calling for a sheep convention," responded Carl Moeller of Open Doors USA to Saudi Arabia's hosting a forum to promote interfaith dialogue.
In fact the U.N. “blasphemy resolution” has emboldened Islamic authorities and threatened Westerners:
- On Oct. 3 in Great Britain, three men were charged for plotting to kill the publisher of the novel “The Jewel of Medina,” which gives a factional account of the Prophet Muhammad and his child bride. FOXNews.com reported U.S. publisher Random House Inc., was going to release the book but stopped it from hitting shelves after it claimed that “credible and unrelated sources” said the book could incite violence by a “small, radical segments.”
- A British teacher was sentenced to 15 days in jail in Sudan for offending Islam by allowing students to name the class teddy bear Muhammad in November 2007.
- In February 2007 in Egypt an Internet blogger was sentenced to four years in prison fro writing a post that critiqued Islam.
- In 2004, Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was murdered after the release of his documentary about the abuse of Muslim women.
The pressure to protect religions from defamation has been growing ever since a Danish magazine published caricatures of Muhammad, provoking riots across the Islamic world in 2006 in which dozens of people were killed.
***Gabriel Sawma, a lawyer dealing with International Law, mainly the European Union Law, the Middle East Law and Islamic Shari'a law. Professor of Middle East Constitutional Law, Islamic Shari'a, Arabic and Aramaic languages. Expert witness on Islamic marriage contracts, including the mahr contract; expert witness on U.S.-Middle East commercial contracts. Member of the Beirut Bar Association in Lebanon; The New York State Bar Association; Associate member of the American Bar Association. Author of “The Qur’an: Misinterpreted, Mistranslated, and Misread. The Aramaic Language of the Qur’an.” Author of an upcoming book on "Islamic marriage Contracts in U.S. Courts. http://www.syriacaramaicquran.com. Editor of International Law website: http://www.gabrielsawma.blogspot.com.
Email: gabrielsawma@yahoo.com

Jihad on Trial
A briefing by Andrew C. McCarthy
October 6, 2008
http://www.meforum.org/article/2009

In Willful Blindness, McCarthy reflects upon his role as the lead prosecutor in the historic case against the "Blind Sheikh," Omar Abdel-Rahman, who was brought to trial for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
McCarthy recounted his involvement in the case, as well as the lessons he learned through his experience. His overarching point was that the U.S. government did, and to an extent still does, consciously avoid the fact that Islam is the animating force behind Islamist terrorism. "1993 was a declaration of war against the U.S.," he said. "The excruciating thing is that at the time the attack happened, they warned us that the World Trade Center would continue to be one of their targets. The writing was on the wall…in 1993, and for whatever reason we didn't see it or at least didn't want to see it."
One reason for the U.S. government's willfully blind attitude toward terrorism, McCarthy observed, was its insistence on pursuing the trial with the utmost deference to political correctness. McCarthy explained how during press conferences, the Justice Department repeated the politically correct lines about Islam, but inside the courtroom, the legal process did not permit such discretion. "What jurors learned and saw," McCarthy revealed, "was that the wave of terrorism that we're already dealing with was generated by a solid ideology and that the Blind Sheikh was a very important person and not a fringe…And that's a lesson that was learned in that courtroom twelve years ago but has not for whatever reason managed to carry itself outside the courtroom to the point where it grabs the majority of people like I think it has to."
McCarthy said, "You can't take Islam out of Islamic Terror." McCarthy himself learned the truth of this adage in the course of his preparation for the trial. Although Abdel-Rahman never took the stand, McCarthy had to prepare for the contingency that he would. To plan for the cross-examination of the Blind Sheikh, McCarthy trained under the premise that since Islamists represent a fringe group of Muslims; he would be able to trap the Blind Sheikh into admitting that his ideology differed from the Quran. In his research, however, McCarthy was unable to uncover any instance where Abdel-Rahman's ideology deviated from Islamic scripture.
McCarthy summarized what he learned about Islam, saying: "I don't want to pretend that Islam is a monolith…but the ideology that he [the Blind Sheikh] is an adherent of…is one that has a very rich pedigree. It is fourteen centuries old…and people have been willing to die for it…We do ourselves no good by underestimating what it is that we deal with." McCarthy concluded that while not all who practice radical Islam practice terrorism, there exists a "healthy portion [who do]…too healthy for our security."
McCarthy also assessed the most effective methods of counter-terrorism, arguing that terrorism is fundamentally a political issue of national self-defense, rather than a legal issue of enforcing criminal law. Trying to pursue national security challenges only through legal methods, which is what the U.S. practiced in the 1990's, is a "prescription for a suicidal result."
Between 1993 and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Justice Department made a massive effort to prosecute terrorism cases, but over this entire period only twenty-nine terrorists were convicted and none, besides the Blind Sheikh, were top-level personnel. "Osama bin Laden," McCarthy reasoned, "was indicted by the United States in June 1998, and adding new counts to his indictment hasn't deterred him much."
Instead of processing terrorist suspects exclusively through the court system, McCarthy asserted that the "only sensible counterterrorism strategy is a holistic, comprehensive one that brings to bear all of the tools of government." McCarthy's approach would not only include the courts, but also the resources of the U.S. military, various intelligence services, and the Department of the Treasury. Above all else, however, McCarthy felt that it is imperative that the U.S. recognize the central role that Islamist ideology plays in terrorism, and to make this the basis of all future policy.
*Andrew McCarthy is the director of the Center for Law and Counterterrorism at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. A former federal prosecutor, he has served as a special assistant to the deputy secretary of defense. After the 9/11 attacks, he supervised the U.S. Attorney's Anti-Terrorism Command Post in New York City. He is a contributor to National Review and Commentary, as well as various other publications. Among his numerous awards is the Justice Department's highest honor, the Attorney General's Exceptional Service Award. He has taught at Fordham University Law School and New York Law School. On October 6, 2008, McCarthy addressed the Middle East Forum in New York City about his new book, Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad (Encounter, 2008). It builds on his article, "Prosecuting the New York Sheikh," which appeared in the March 1997 Middle East Quarterly, and his acceptance speech on receiving the Middle East Forum's Albert J. Wood Public Affairs Award in 1996.

A seven-year journey in Afghanistan
By Hamid Karzai*
Friday, November 14, 2008
We began a journey in Afghanistan seven years ago with the war that ousted the Taliban from power. Much has been accomplished along the way, for Afghanistan and for the world.
In less than 45 days in 2001, we Afghans were freed from the menace of terrorism and the Taliban. Back then, Afghanistan's people held great hopes for an immediately wonderful future. Some of those hopes were fulfilled. Our children are back in school. Roughly 85 percent of Afghans now have access to some healthcare, up from 9 percent before 2001. Child mortality - among the worst in the world in 2001 - has dropped by 25 percent. Democracy, a free press, economic gains, and better livelihoods - all of that is there.
But, sadly, we are still fighting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. What is it that we have not done right that makes us - and the rest of the world - less secure?
After the liberation in 2001, the international community concentrated on Afghanistan alone as the place to fight extremism and terrorism, while we Afghans argued that our country is not the right place to fight. The "war on terrorism" cannot be fought in Afghan villages. Instead, a regional approach was and is needed. It must be concentrated on the sanctuaries of those who train, equip, and motivate the extremists and send them out to hurt us all.
But we were not heard. Regardless of whether that was the result of a lack of knowledge or a lack of will, events have proven us right. Unfortunately, for the past two years, Pakistan has been suffering as much or perhaps more than Afghanistan has suffered. Almost the entire tribal belt along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border is suffering.
Just as schools were burned in Afghanistan from 2004 onward, for the past year schools - especially for girls - have been burned there, leaving 80,000 children without facilities. Bridges have been blown up, soldiers and police killed. Bombs have exploded from Karachi to Lahore to Islamabad. The violence has spread to India as well, with bombings in Gujarat, Bangalore and Delhi.
So the problem is regional, and it concerns institutional support for extremism that incites terrorism. Unless we collectively address the roots of the problem by ending that support, as well as financial support for radicalism in all forms, we will not defeat terrorism.
This has not been properly understood in the West, which has been fighting the symptoms of terrorism, but has failed to attack its underlying causes. Fortunately, today I see signs of recognition of this malaise. And democratic change in Pakistan is good news for Afghans, Pakistani people, and, by extension, many others around the world.
Pakistan's new president, Asif Ali Zardari, has suffered from terrorism as we have suffered. His wife, Benazir Bhutto, was killed by terrorists. I visited Pakistan for President Zardari's inauguration, and for the first time I saw a dim ray of hope. If we can all work together - Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, the United States, and our allies - I see a possibility of moving beyond the days when a government thinks it needs extremism as an instrument of policy. When all governments in the region reject extremism, there will be no place for extremists, and terrorism will wither away.
But this also requires helping those people who out of desperation have fallen prey to extremist forces. Last year, I pardoned a 14-year-old boy from the Pakistan tribal area in Waziristan who had come to Afghanistan to blow himself up as a suicide bomber. Only utter hopelessness can drive so young a man to such an act. We must rescue these people by giving them a better future, which only more education and new opportunities can bring.
Desperation and poverty are the tools used by evil forces to raise their terrorist cadres. But that environment will not change if political will is lacking, and if there is no action by the US and the governments of the region to get our economies to create jobs that offer hope.
Moreover, in order to deny terrorists institutional support, we must bring institutional strength to Afghanistan. We must enable Afghans to look after themselves and defend their country, to have a future in Afghanistan, to have hope of raising their children in Afghanistan.
Recently, I spoke to an Afghan man very close to me. He has a son who works in the Afghan Foreign Office. That young man was born in the US but returned to Afghanistan four years ago. The father asked, "Do you think I should take my son back to the US?" I said, "Why? Let him live here, let him work here, let him be an Afghan." He said, "Yes, but will he have a future?"
A viable future means security as well as bread. We have started to bring hope by educating young Afghans, but we have not yet succeeded in bringing them a secure life, free from the danger of bombs and aerial bombardment. Only when that happens will Afghanistan be secure. And if the two other conditions are fulfilled - removal of political backing for radicalism and help for the desperate - we will have a safer life not only in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan, India, and the rest of the world.
**Hamid Karzai is president of Afghanistan. THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration with Project Syndicate (c) (www.project-syndicate.org).

Obama's Second Thoughts on Iran
By Amir Taheri
New York Post
Friday, November 14, 2008
SINCE Barack Obama's victory, the concept of "talking to Iran" has become Washington's flavor of the month.
Talking to Iran, of course, was one of candidate Obama's main foreign-policy planks. It sounded both intelligent and attractive. After all, if one could achieve all those desirable results just by talking to the mullahs, why not?
There's a hitch, however.
Obama appears to be having second thoughts about the wisdom of an idea announced largely as a means of strengthening his anti-Bush message rather than dealing with a dangerous foreign foe. All indications from him since his election are that he's in no hurry to open talks.
The other day, in response to a cable from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad congratulating him on his win, Obama indicated he was in no mood to accept the Iranian's invitation to dance - for several reasons.
To start with, he has realized that his offer of unconditional talks with Tehran could destroy the six-nation coalition that has managed to pass three United Nations Security Council resolutions imposing sanctions on the Islamic Republic. Some allies, including France, have issued direct warnings that Obama's campaign promise may encourage Iran to speed up its nuclear program. Israel's Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, for her part, has indicated "deep reservations" about Obama's Iran gambit.
More important, perhaps, with the election over, Obama remembers that talking to the mullahs is nothing new. First launched by West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher in 1980, it has been tried by the European Union, successive US administrations and several Arab countries for a quarter of a century - producing nothing but grief. Genscher ended up describing the Khomeinist regime as a trap whose embrace is best avoided.
To be sure, Obama can't suddenly declare that he no longer wants direct, unconditional talks. That would enrage his anti-war base. So, he is trying to bring the camel down from the roof, as the Persian proverb has it, without appearing to have made a U-turn.
Obama no longer talks of "meeting them anywhere, anytime." Instead, he speaks of engaging Iran "at a time and place of my choosing." His initial idea of talking to Ahmadinejad is also gone. Now, he says he'd talk to "appropriate Iranian leadership" (whatever that means).
Clearly, he has toned down the concept of "unconditional talks." He talks of "careful preparations," while his advisers say that he won't seek talks with Tehran until after the Iranian presidential election next summer. The idea is to deny Ahmadinejad a breakthrough with America that would bolster his re-election bid.
That Obama is rethinking his rash idea of unconditional talks with Tehran, even if that means alienating key allies, is a welcome development. His assertion that the Iranian problem can't be solved with "a knee-jerk reaction" is also welcome. Nevertheless, if the alternative is doing nothing, the new Obama position may prove more dangerous than the one he's trying to abandon.
That's because the clock is running out on those who wish to prevent the mullahs from building a nuclear arsenal. Last month, the International Atomic Energy Agency warned that Iran has speeded up its nuclear program. The IAEA says that Iran, in "a covert bid to expand its nuclear program, recently tested ways of retrieving highly enriched uranium from waste-reactor fuels."
Most experts agree that "the moment of truth" in Iran's nuclear standoff with the UN is likely to come during Obama's presidency - probably in 2010 or 2011. Unless Obama manages to stop the process before that, he could end up facing nuclear-armed mullahs. Then, the choice would be between acknowledging a fait accompli and using force to change it.
Obama urgently needs a credible policy for dealing with the Khomeinist threat. No one is asking for a knee-jerk reaction. But buying time (the mullahs' specialty) is no alternative, either.