LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
November 20/08

Bible Reading of the day.
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 19,11-28. While they were listening to him speak, he proceeded to tell a parable because he was near Jerusalem and they thought that the kingdom of God would appear there immediately. So he said, "A nobleman went off to a distant country to obtain the kingship for himself and then to return.  He called ten of his servants and gave them ten gold coins and told them, 'Engage in trade with these until I return.' His fellow citizens, however, despised him and sent a delegation after him to announce, 'We do not want this man to be our king.'  But when he returned after obtaining the kingship, he had the servants called, to whom he had given the money, to learn what they had gained by trading.
The first came forward and said, 'Sir, your gold coin has earned ten additional ones.' He replied, 'Well done, good servant! You have been faithful in this very small matter; take charge of ten cities.' Then the second came and reported, 'Your gold coin, sir, has earned five more.' And to this servant too he said, 'You, take charge of five cities.' Then the other servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your gold coin; I kept it stored away in a handkerchief, for I was afraid of you, because you are a demanding person; you take up what you did not lay down and you harvest what you did not plant.'  He said to him, 'With your own words I shall condemn you, you wicked servant. You knew I was a demanding person, taking up what I did not lay down and harvesting what I did not plant; why did you not put my money in a bank? Then on my return I would have collected it with interest.' And to those standing by he said, 'Take the gold coin from him and give it to the servant who has ten.' But they said to him, 'Sir, he has ten gold coins.' 'I tell you, to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. Now as for those enemies of mine who did not want me as their king, bring them here and slay them before me.'" After he had said this, he proceeded on his journey up to Jerusalem.

John Paul II/Encyclical 'Laborem exercens' (©Libreria Editrice Vaticana)
'Engage in trade with these'
Sweat and toil, which work necessarily involves in the present condition of the human race, present the Christian and everyone who is called to follow Christ with the possibility of sharing lovingly in the work that Christ came to do. This work of salvation came about through suffering and death on a Cross. By enduring the toil of work in union with Christ crucified for us, man in a way collaborates with the Son of God for the redemption of humanity. He shows himself a true disciple of Christ by carrying the cross in his turn every day in the activity that he is called upon to perform. Christ, "undergoing death itself for all of us sinners, taught us by example that we too must shoulder that cross which the world and the flesh inflict upon those who pursue peace and justice"; but also, at the same time, "appointed Lord by his Resurrection and given all authority in heaven and on earth, Christ is now at work in people's hearts through the power of his Spirit... He animates, purifies, and strengthens those noble longings too, by which the human family strives to make its life more human and to render the whole earth submissive to this goal" (Vatican II, GS 38). The Christian finds in human work a small part of the Cross of Christ and accepts it in the same spirit of redemption in which Christ accepted his Cross for us. In work, thanks to the light that penetrates us from the Resurrection of Christ, we always find a glimmer of new life, of the new good, as if it were an announcement of "the new heavens and the new earth" (Rev 21,1) in which man and the world participate precisely through the toil that goes with work.

Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports 
America’s Future Foreign Policy Is Already Here. By: Joel Hilliker.TheTrumpet.com 19/11/08
Wake up, Israel,Time has come for dramatic reassertion of Israeli sovereignty. By: Robert D. Onley 19/11/08
Israel 'occupies' no Arab territories-By LOUIS RENE BERES -Jerusalem Post 19/11/08
It's much too early to write Obama off as another warmonger- The Daily Star 19/11/08
Palestinians will need Barack Obama's helping hand-By Yasser Abed Rabbo 19/11/08
Who is Rahm Emmanuel?By: John Perazzo 19/11/08

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for November 19/08
Assad: Israel never asked Syria to cut ties with Hezbollah, Iran-Haaretz
Lebanese Army Demands Handover of New Fatah al-Islam Leader as Soon as Possible-Naharnet
New Syrian troops deployed along borders with Lebanon-Xinhua
Miliband holds meeting in Lebanon-BBC News
Britain resumes high-level intelligence links with Syria: report-AFP
Miliband in Lebanon to Help Push for Middle East Peace-Naharnet
Miliband: 2009 Year of Change in Mideast-Naharnet
Remarks With Druze Leader Walid Jumblatt of Lebanon-US Department of State
France for Lebanese-Israeli Negotiations to Normalize HizbullahSuleiman to Give Unique Independence Day Speech-Naharnet
New Syrian Army Deployment off Arida Border Crossing in North Lebanon-Naharnet
Jumblat Wants Army to be Lebanon's 'Sole Protector,' Rice Stresses Continued Support-Naharnet
Clinton job for Obama may depend on Bill- (Reuters)
Lebanon's Teachers' strike closes private, public schools across Lebanon-Daily Star
Berri urges Kuwait to mediate between Syria, Saudi Arabia-Daily Star
Israeli troops go home after caught in act of violating Blue Line-(AFP)
Petition will urge Damascus to free imprisoned dissidents-Daily Star
Joint experts' statement on Iran recommends sweeping changes to US policy-Daily Star
Lebanon's Drivers' unions call strike for better benefits-Daily Star
Beirut hotels show signs of recovery-Daily Star
Lebanon's Telecommunication's Minister Bassil refuses to hang up on plans to revamp cellular sector-Daily Star
France's Lebanese community marks Independence Day-Daily Star
Lebanon's Tourism Ministry unveils plans to host virtual visitors-Daily Star
Lebanon's ISF defends Rifi's phone calls with Islamist militant-Daily Star
UN rights chief implores Israel to lift illegal siege of Gaza Strip-(AFP)
Seizure of supertanker by Somalis makes waves-(AFP)

New Syrian troops deployed along borders with Lebanon
www.chinaview.cn/BEIRUT, Nov. 19 (Xinhua) -- Syria has deployed more troops off Aridi border with northern Lebanon, Lebanon's Al-Markazia news agency reported Wednesday, without indicating when the new deployment took place. The entire 4th division under the command of Maher Assad, including troops and artilleries, were deployed three kilometers off Aridi border crossing, the report said. In October, Syria expanded a troop buildup, deploying tanks on the border facing the Lebanese Bekaa valley, after its first buildup of 10,000 troops along the borders in September. Lebanese President Michel Suleiman had telephoned his Syrian counterpart Bashar al-Assad at that time to inquire about the troops deployment which raised fear in Lebanon of a possible Syrian intervention. Assad told the Lebanese president that the aim of the deployment was to stop smuggling and crimes along the borders between the two countries. Syria believed that the booby-trapped car bombing attack that killed 17 people in Damascus in September came from a neighboring country through Syrian borders. Lebanese interior minister Ziad Baroud visited Syria last week to discuss ways of security cooperation between the two countries to combat smuggling and crimes.

Britain resumes high-level intelligence links with Syria: report
LONDON (AFP) — Britain re-established high-level intelligence links with the Syrian authorities as Foreign Secretary David Miliband visited Damascus, the Times newspaper said Wednesday citing senior Syrian officials. The newspaper said the move could be hugely beneficial for Britain, as Syria has one of the best intelligence-gathering systems in the Middle East, particularly in tracking the movements of Islamic extremists in Iraq.
It cited a Syrian official as saying that Miliband asked his Syrian counterpart, Walid Muallem, during a meeting in New York earlier this year "whether he could re-establish intelligence links at a senior level", following lower level contacts. Muallem reportedly invited Miliband to take intelligence officials with him on the trip to Damascus, the first to Syria by a top British diplomat since 2001. After talks with President Bashar al-Assad on Tuesday, Miliband said Syria could play a "constructive role" in bringing stability to the Middle East. He told the BBC on Monday that the country could be a "force for stability or it can be a force for instability".

Assad: Israel never asked Syria to cut ties with Hezbollah, Iran
By Yoav Stern, Haaretz Correspondent
Last update - 13:36 19/11/2008
Syrian President Bashar Assad said week that Israel has not demanded Damascus drop its ties with Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran, according to a piece released Wednesday by Lebanese columnist Jihad al-Hazan.
Al-Hazan wrote that Assad told him recently in Damascus that "the negotiations are for peace on the Syrian-Israeli track only and have no connection to the relations between Lebanon and Israel. Nobody will attack Israel from within Syrian range if a peace agreement is signed."
"If they [Israel] are discussing Hezbollah or Hamas, then that is a conversation about general peace and we would be facing a different process built on entirely different principles," al-Hazan wrote of his conversation with the Syrian leader.
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said last month following reports that outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert intended to resume indirect peace talks with Syria, that Damascus must sever its ties with Iran and Hezbollah before Israel accedes to its demands.
"Before the Syrians get from us what they want, they must show through their actions that they intend to stop arming Hezbollah, and must cut ties with Iran and terrorism," she said. Political sources in Jerusalem said recently that during the previous round of talks with Syria in 2000, Israel had demanded that Lebanon be invited to participate in the negotiations. Al-Hazan did not say when he held the aforementioned conversation with Assad, but it apparently took place in recent weeks as Assad raised with him the political situation in Israel, in terms of weaknesses exhibited by Olmert and Livni.

Lebanese Army Demands Handover of Fatah Islam's New Leader as Soon as Possible
Naharnet/The Lebanese army demanded the handover of Abdul Rahman Awad, Fatah al-Islam's new leader, and three of his aides as soon as possible.
News reports on Wednesday said Deputy Lebanese Army Intelligence chief Col. Abbas Ibrahim has informed Palestinian factions of the need to hand over Awad and his assistants – Ahmed al-Doukhi, Ossama al-Shahabi and Abu Ramzi al-Sahmarani – the soonest possible.
Col. Ibrahim stressed during Tuesday's meeting with about 60 Palestinian personalities of various inclinations that the military will not tolerate excuses not to hand over the suspects. The daily As-Safir said Palestinian factions held talks at Ain el-Hilweh right after the Lebanese-Palestinian meeting and decided to hold a popular conference to "oblige everybody in the camp not to receive strangers or fugitives or wanted persons."An overnight Islamic meeting also took place at Ain el-Hilweh camp in the southern port city of Sidon. As-Safir quoted people close to Awad as saying that they had not met him for a long time. Palestinian sources told Al-Liwaa newspaper, however, that Awad moved Monday night from his hideout in the camp's Sifsaf neighborhood to what is known as the "emergency camp" near Taamir Ain el-Hilweh where the army has a post. The sources said Awad and his aides were placed on high alert and were seen preparing to fight. Meanwhile, Fatah-Intifada, the Palestinian group headed by Abu Moussa, handed over a suspect in Beirut's Shatilla refugee camp to the Lebanese army intelligence bureau. Beirut, 19 Nov 08, 09:03

Miliband: 2009 Year of Change in Mideast
Naharnet/Visiting British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said Wednesday he hoped 2009 would see a comprehensive Middle East peace settlement given changes in the U.S. and Israeli administrations and elections in the region. "I think 2009 is going to be a very important year," Miliband told reporters after meeting President Michel Suleiman. "It is the year of change globally because there is a new American president, there will be a new Israeli government, there will be elections in Lebanon and .... in Iran as well." "We all know that there will be no peace and stability in the world if there is not peace and stability in the Middle East," he warned. "There will not be peace and stability in the Middle East unless there is peace and stability in Lebanon."
Miliband said he discussed with Suleiman legislative elections planned in Lebanon next spring and the importance of stability in the country.
"The world will be watching to see all parties respect the democratic process and ensure that politics and not violence are the basis for the decisions about Lebanon's future," he said. "So often in history Lebanon has been the victim of other people's conflicts and we will know that there is a true prospect of lasting peace in the Middle East when Lebanon is no longer the victim of other people's conflicts," he added.
The foreign secretary also held talks with Prime Minister Fouad Saniora and was to meet with students at the American University of Beirut before leaving the country later in the day. He arrived in Beirut on Tuesday following a stop in Damascus where he held talks with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the first British politician to do so since 2001. Syria has faced diplomatic isolation since the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese premier Rafik Hariri in a massive car bomb. It denies any role in the killing. It has also been shunned by the West because of its ties with Iran, the Palestinian group Hamas and Hizbullah, considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. and Britain. Earlier in his tour of the region, Miliband also travelled to Israel and the West Bank, holding meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. He last visited Beirut in June following the election of Suleiman and the formation of a national unity government which put an end to an 18-month crippling political crisis that had brought the country close to civil war.(Naharnet-AFP) Beirut, 19 Nov 08, 13:13

France for Lebanese-Israeli Negotiations to Normalize Hizbullah
Naharnet/French Prime Minister Francois Fillon is to discuss with Lebanese leaders on Wednesday and Thursday latest local developments as well as ongoing talks between Lebanon and Syria. French diplomatic sources told the daily An-Nahar that Fillon, during his visit, will sign an agreement on economic cooperation as well as other protocols to assist the Lebanese army. The sources said France intends to push countries that took part at the Paris 3 Conference to carry out their commitments toward Lebanon. Elysee's Secretary General, Claude Gueant, meanwhile, told the pan-Arab daily al-Hayat that Fillon's visit is aimed at inspecting French troops serving with UNIFIL. Fillon's trip to Beirut is also a reminder of France's support to all efforts aimed at maintaining stability in Beirut's political life.
Gueant said it was important for France that Lebanon considers holding talks with Israel to reach normalization with Hizbullah. Beirut, 19 Nov 08, 12:07

Suleiman to Give Unique Independence Day Speech
Naharnet/President Michel Suleiman will give a unique Independence Day speech on Nov. 22. Instead of the traditional speech, the president is expected to address a group of college students from various Lebanese universities at Baabda Palace. His speech will cover his stance from key issues as well as latest developments like intra-Lebanese reconciliation, countering terrorism and restructuring the army. Suleiman will then give students an opportunity to ask questions.
Beirut, 19 Nov 08, 10:13

Jumblat Wants Army to be Lebanon's 'Sole Protector,' Rice Stresses Continued Support
Naharnet/Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblat has urged the U.S. government to continue its support to the Lebanese army so that it becomes the country's "sole protector," An Nahar daily reported Wednesday. It quoted sources who took part in Tuesday's talks with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her assistant for Near Eastern Affairs David Welch as saying Jumblat and MP Marwan Hamadeh urged U.S. officials to increase their training and supply of weapons to the Lebanese army. "I'm looking forward to listening to Mr. Jumblat as he tells me about the preparations for the (parliamentary) election," Rice said before meeting the Druze leader and Hamadeh. Asked what she thought about British Foreign Secretary David Miliband's comment in Syria that Damascus has played a positive role in Lebanon and Iraq lately, Rice said: "I think we are all very much following what is going on in Lebanon."
"We continue to support a democratic and sovereign and independent Lebanon, and everything that the United States is doing is to that cause. And anyone and any state that demonstrates its commitment to Lebanon's sovereignty and independence should be welcomed to that cause," Rice added.
An Nahar said that the talks, which lasted 40 minutes, focused on the Lebanese national dialogue, the Shebaa Farms and the need to start the operations of the international tribunal that would try ex-Premier Rafik Hariri's suspected assassins.
The two sides also discussed the Syrian-Israeli talks brokered by Turkey and the situation in the region, including Iran's role in the Middle East.
According to the daily, Rice stressed that contacts between Washington and Damascus either under the Bush administration or under the term of newly-elected President Barack Obama stem from a strong conviction that the U.S. is not ready to trade Lebanon in return for better ties with Syria.
As Safir daily quoted State Department sources as saying the two sides also discussed U.S. support to Lebanon's efforts to hold free and fair parliamentary elections in 2009. Jumblat and Hamadeh have held talks with several U.S. officials and are expected to meet with Vice President Dick Cheney and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley on Wednesday. Beirut, 19 Nov 08, 05:16

New Syrian Army Deployment off Arida Border Crossing in North Lebanon
Naharnet/Syria has reportedly expanded its troop buildup near Lebanon's frontiers, deploying troops and artilleries within three kilometers off the Arida border crossing in northern Lebanon. The terse report by Al-Markazia news agency did not say when the deployment took place. It said the entire fourth division of the Syrian Army under Maher al-Assad deployed in the area known as Shatt el-Arab on the northern coastal strip only three kilometers off Arida. The first Syrian troop buildup along Lebanon's northern border was reported Sept. 21. Later, Syria was also said to have deployed tanks along the border facing the northern Bekaa town of al-Qaa. Beirut, 19 Nov 08, 08:33

Wake up, Israel
Time has come for dramatic reassertion of Israeli sovereignty
Robert D. Onley
Published: 11.18.08, 19:03 / Israel Opinion
No other nation on earth except Israel remains under the persistent attacks of an enemy whose reason for existence is the absolute destruction of the Jewish state. Few other nations would permit this barbarity.
Globally, only Israel is ludicrously lambasted by the collective world body as the "greatest threat to world peace." Even Iran fails to achieve such an honor from much of the world.
This, at a time when global jihad has been openly declared by Islamic terrorists, horrendous attacks occur almost bi-weekly somewhere in the world and Iran flagrantly ignores international demands to halt uranium enrichment while its president publicly denies the Holocaust.
In an era where instantaneous electronic communication is the norm, Israel deals with an enemy in Gaza whose only true form of persuasion remains daily Qassam rocket and mortar barrages. And what of the supposed ceasefire?
Indeed, where in the UN Charter does it say that if a nation is subject to terror attacks, then that nation can be blamed for causing them? And who among Israel’s political elite is actually convinced that some form of negotiated agreement, imposed or otherwise, will permanently end hostilities with Hamas and appease its leadership? Surely the failure of the current ceasefire should serve as a stark warning for any future permanent "ceasefire."
This censure is not meant to cast the "peace process" as ultimately hopeless or impossible, nor to placate the UN as a meaningless collection of duplicitous extremists. Not yet anyway.
Rather, Israel must insist that the only acceptable precondition for any sort of negotiated peace "agreement" should be the absolute cessation of terror – and that’s what Hamas’ rocket and mortar attacks are – and until this terror has ceased, the unrelenting persecution of those committing the attacks must go on. This execution of anti-terror policy must once again extend to Hamas’ leadership.
Perhaps some reminders are in order: Israel is the legal, independent state established in 1948 and recognized by the UN. Israel possesses a legal army that defends the Israeli people. And as a result of these two facts: Israel has the right to act to defend herself in removing existential threats to its existence. The recent lull in violence cannot be used to enhance Hamas’ position by legitimating their despicable actions.
Fleeting mirages
The land Israelis inhabit is Israel’s land – historically, Biblically, internationally and legally. Moreover, there exists no room for historical fidgeting. Enemy powers have come and gone in attempting to annihilate Israel and its people. They destroyed the Temple and built over top of its ruins, but by divine grace, within the lifetimes’ of many still alive today, Israel was brought back together. Moreover Israel possesses incomparable wealth and power and indeed is the envy of many nearby; this wealth will only grow larger with time. So too will the envy.
As Israel’s enemies fast encircle the land in preparation for a war to once and for all wipe the Jewish state "off the map," Israelis must not be deceived by the "peace" talks with Syria, the "lull" in violence with Hamas, or the calm vis-à-vis Hizbullah after the 2006 war. These moments are but fleeting mirages; Israel’s enemies are not.
Leaders in Jerusalem must realize that one day soon, Israel will ultimately be alone in the world. Which world power legitimately can and will defend Israel once the United States packs up from Iraq and goes home to lick its wounds? Will Barack Obama supernaturally appear in the sky to save "God’s Chosen People?" Perhaps the Europeans will reluctantly pick up their guns to protect the same people they practically annihilated a mere 63 years ago? What of the "new," worldlier Russians? That would be the same Russians assembling Iran’s nuclear program and supplying Syria’s offensive missiles.
And so it seems even Israel’s so-called "friends" would not care much if the Jewish state would cease to exist tomorrow. That would actually solve a lot of the world’s problems.
History demands that Israel wake up, stop its internal bickering and incessant dithering, recognize its extraordinary past and patently defend the land it rightly possesses. If Israel does not do so, one day soon there will be more than just a few Arab nations calling for a 'final solution' to the Middle East conflict.
Decisions must be made today to defend against that future. Indeed, a nation that lacks the will to safeguard its sovereignty will one day simply fail to exist. Israel cannot fail at this crucial juncture; may history guide and protect her footsteps in these perilous times. Alas, no one else is willing.

Israeli troops go home after caught in act of violating Blue Line
By Agence France Presse (AFP)
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
BEIRUT: An Israeli Army patrol crossed into Lebanon Tuesday but withdrew after being detected by UN peacekeepers, the Lebanese Army said. "In continuance of the ongoing violations of UN [Security Council] Resolution (UNSCR) 1701, an Israeli enemy patrol consisting of eight soldiers crossed the line of Israeli withdrawal between the [Lebanese] villages of Kfar Shouba and Halta ... 60 meters into Lebanese territory," a statement said. The Indian contingent of the UNIFIL peacekeeping force in the area "made the patrol withdraw," the statement added. An army officer told AFP the patrol told the Indian contingent the breach was unintentional.
UNSCR 1701 brought an end to the summer war of 2006. A beefed-up UN force watches the so-called Blue Line, which defines the point of Israel's 2000 pull-out, after its decades-long occupation of the South. But the UN does not recognise the line as a formal border demarcation. - AFP

Berri urges Kuwait to mediate between Syria, Saudi Arabia
By Hussein Abdallah /Daily Star staff
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
BEIRUT: Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri urged Kuwait's emir on Tuesday to play a role in achieving a rapprochement between Syria and Saudi Arabia. Following talks with Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Jaber al-Sabah in Kuwait City, Berri said that relations between Arab states should improve, stressing that a "Syrian-Saudi rapprochement is a must." The speaker made his remarks before heading to Qatar later in the day.
Kuwaiti Speaker Jassem al-Khorafi, who attended the meeting, praised Berri's concern for Arab unity as well as the "resistance's victory against Israel in the summer war of 2006."Late on Monday, Berri told members of the Lebanese community in Kuwait that he was confident that the situation in Lebanon would improve, adding that Lebanese parties were committed to forging political reconciliations. "Reconciliations should continue with the aim of supporting national dialogue, particularly the discussions on the national defense strategy," he said. Berri added that next year's parliamentary elections would be a major challenge for Lebanon, and urged citizens to vote for protecting last May's Doha Accord and implementing the 1989 Taif Accord. The speaker also urged the Lebanese to "stand united behind the resistance in order to face Israeli threats." Berri's Gulf tour, which will also take him to Bahrain, is aimed at garnering funds to clear cluster bombs dropped by Israel during its 2006 war on Lebanon.

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband In Beirut
 Daily Star/On Tuesday, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband arrived in Beirut for a two-day visit after traveling to Israel, the Palestinian Occupied Territories and Syria as part of his tour of the Middle East.  Miliband's visit is his second to Lebanon following an earlier one last June. He is expected to meet with President Michel Sleiman, Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, and other Lebanese officials on Wednesday. "The purpose of his visit is to build momentum for the peace process in the region," said a statement from the British Embassy in Beirut."Building on progress at the Annapolis conference in 2007, the foreign secretary aims to use the visit for further negotiations on a two-state solution and to develop stronger relations based on mutual trust, shared interests, and a vision for a stable, peaceful and prosperous Middle East," the statement added.Miliband was received at Beirut's Rafik Hariri International Airport on Tuesday evening by his Lebanese counterpart, Fawzi Salloukh. He later visited parliamentary majority leader Saad Hariri at his residence in Qoreitem.
Also Tuesday, official French sources were quoted by the Central News Agency as saying that French Prime Minister Francois Fillon's upcoming visit to Beirut, scheduled for Thursday, will include the signing of bilateral agreements with the Lebanese government. France will also be offering the Lebanese Armed Forces 10 million euros (about $12.5 million) worth of military equipment, the sources said.
Meanwhile, Sleiman urged General Labor Confederation members who visited him at the Presidential Palace to put an end to differences within the union and work jointly to achieve national interests.
Sleiman said that the social and economic situation in the country was as important as military, political, and security matters. "Paying attention to all such issues combined will provide the Lebanese people with a safety network," he said.

(LF) leader Samir Geagea is concerned
Daily Star/ Lebanese Forces (LF) leader Samir Geagea told families of Lebanese detainees in Syrian prisons that he had fears about holding the 2009 parliamentary elections. "I am afraid the other party will create security unrest with the aim of stopping the elections," he said.He added that the issue of Lebanese prisoners in Syria should be a government priority when it comes to bilateral relations with Damascus. Asked to comment on Monday's shooting in the Northern qada of Batroun, the LF boss regretted the "fact that some parties are resorting to violence to resolve political disputes."
He was referring to the shooting of Hanna Harb, a personal bodyguard of March 14 lawmaker Butros Harb's brother, by Ghassan Kanaan, who is known for his affiliation to the Marada Movement of former MP Suleiman Franjieh. Harb underwent surgery on Tuesday after suffering injuries in his stomach and leg.
The shooting was the second of its kind in the North following a similar incident in the town of Bsarma, Koura. Marada official Youssef Franjieh and LF member Pierre Ishaq were killed in that incident. - Additional reporting by Nafez Qawas

Damascus can play 'constructive role' - Miliband
DAMASCUS: British Foreign Secretary David Miliband stressed Syria's importance in bringing stability to the Middle East after talks on Tuesday with President Bashar Assad. In the first visit to Syria by a British foreign minister since 2001, the foreign secretary also praised the establishment of diplomatic relations between Syria and neighboring Lebanon. "Syria has the opportunity to play a constructive role in many aspects of peace in the region," Miliband said during a joint news conference with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem.
"There have been important constructive steps over the last 18 months ... in respect of relations with Lebanon but also some other" issues, he said.
Miliband said he had discussed with Assad efforts to forge peace in the Middle East and expressed to him Britain's satisfaction over Syria's establishment of ties with Lebanon and Iraq. Syria and Lebanon formally established diplomatic ties in October for the first time since they both became independent 60 years ago. The move turned a page in relations between Lebanon and Syria, which dominated its tiny neighbor for nearly three decades until it pulled its troops from Lebanon in April 2005. The pullout came two months after the murder in Beirut of Lebanon's former Premier Rafik Hariri, in which Damascus has denied charges of involvement.
Miliband, who arrived on Monday in the Syrian capital and arrived in Beirut later on Tuesday, is the first high-level British official to visit Syria since the Hariri murder.
Miliband also called on Syria to keep up the indirect peace talks with Israel that were launched under Turkish mediation in May. "We support the process and we wish good luck to those who are engaged in those discussions." On Monday he told the BBC that Syria "can be a force for stability or it can be a force for instability" in the region.For his part Moallem said that Syria wanted "to take advantage of the good ties that the West has with Israel in order to achieve a global peace" in the Middle East.
On the Palestinian situation, Miliband, who visited Israel and the Palestinian territories before traveling to Damascus, said: "Palestinian disunity and Hamas violence hurt the cause of Syria." "The only route to a comprehensive peace is [through] politics," Miliband added.
Syria is home to Khaled Meshaal, the exiled leader of the Islamist Palestinian movement Hamas, which seized power in Gaza in June 2007 after routing the secular Fatah faction of Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas after having won parliamentary elections in 2006. Last week Hamas boycotted reconciliation talks sponsored by Egypt to protest the detention of hundreds of its members by Abbas' security forces. Visiting Ramallah on the Occupied West Bank on Monday, the British foreign secretary urged Israelis and the Palestinians to maintain a Gaza truce, which has been rattled by an Israeli violation that prompted retaliatory rocket fire.On Tuesday he said in Syria that "a Palestinian state ... offers the route to justice for Palestinians" and that it must ensure Israel's security. - AFP, with The Daily Star

Teachers' strike closes private, public schools across Lebanon
Tens of thousands of educators converge on Beirut
By Nicholas Kimbrell /Daily Star staff
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
BEIRUT: Tens of thousands of teachers in Lebanon staged a one-day strike Tuesday, closing schools throughout the country and preventing as many as 1 million students from attending their classes. The teachers were demanding higher pay, arguing that a government-decreed wage increase, in effect since September, was inadequate. As part of the strike, thousands of public and private school educators, along with professors from the state-run Lebanese University, gathered outside of Parliament in Downtown Beirut to protest against what many have labeled an "unfair" pay and benefits package.
Historically, many union and syndicate-led protests have been negatively affected by political divisions, with sectarian allegiances influencing the level of participation.
But Tuesday's event showed few signs of politicization. In Sidon, for example, a public intermediate school for girls, known to be close with Education Minister Bahia Hariri, observed the strike. And Hariri herself has voiced support for the teachers' demands.
Indeed, the strikers appeared to exhibit a unified front in showcasing their discontent. Organizers estimated that 100,000 teachers across the country observed the protest, and one million students were forced to stay home because of the strike.
Nehme Mahfoud, head of the Teachers Syndicate, told The Daily Star that the country-wide strike was "very successful."
"The strike was inclusive of all Lebanese areas," he said. "More than 100,000 teachers and 1 million students abided by the strike."
Mahfoud estimated that 3,000 educators attended the sit-in in front of Parliament.
He said that the syndicate had presented a petition to Parliamentary Speaker Nabih Berri, who was out of town but had agreed to meet with the group next week. Mahfoud also said that the Teachers Syndicate had met with Minister Hariri.
"We met with Hariri and she said she was convinced by our demands, that she would conduct a financial study regarding our demands and defend our demands in the next Cabinet session," Mahfoud said. In September Cabinet raised minimum wage from 300,000 LL ($200) a month to 500,000 LL ($333) a month. Teachers say the increase is not enough, noting that no additional allocations were made for rising transportation and health costs. Mahfoud offered the example of partial salaries paid to retired teachers. "The government is still paying teachers 75 percent of the previous minimum wage for family indemnities," he said. He said the syndicate would wait until next week to meet. "If positive developments come from this strike we'll be satisfied," he said. "Otherwise we will consider staging more protests."
When asked how the strike might affect students, Mahfoud said that in order for teachers to provide an adequate learning environment for students, they need to be comfortable and paid a fair wage. "If I can't feed my kids how can I teach other peoples' kids?" he asked. During an interview with the Voice of Lebanon radio station, the education minister described Tuesday as a "sad" day "because Lebanon's students did not attend their classes.""It's important to establish a balance between the interests of the teachers and the interests of the students," Hariri said, adding that "students should not be used to put pressure on the government even if the demands are fair."Hariri noted that she is currently assessing the teachers' demands, but that the strike was not responsible for her decision. She added that she is launching a campaign to assess teachers' performances to ensure the best possible learning environment for Lebanon's students. "I understand the some teachers are hard-working and worthy of a reward," Hariri said, "but, on the other hand, some are incapable of coping with the challenges of the 21st century." But Mahfoud stressed that the teachers' strike extended beyond the demands of one profession. "The strike is meant for the whole labor force," he said.
Lebanese transport unions and syndicates have announced that they will protest outside National Social Security Fund offices across Lebanon on Wednesday and Thursday

UN rights chief implores Israel to lift illegal siege of Gaza Strip
By Agence France Presse (AFP)
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
GAZA CITY: The top United Nations human rights official on Tuesday called on Israel to immediately lift its blockade of the Gaza Strip, as invading tanks from the Jewish state sparked retaliatory rocket fire from the coastal territory. "By function of this blockade, 1.5 million Palestinian men, women and children have been forcibly deprived of their most basic human rights for months," the High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said in a statement. "This is in direct contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law. It must end now," she said. Israel first imposed a large-scale blockade on the Gaza Strip after the Hamas movement won legislative elections in 2006. The Jewish state further tightened its siege of the impoverished territory after the Islamists ousted their Fatah rivals following reports in the Arab press of an impending US-backed offensive by the secular party to topple Hamas in the strip. Amid mounting pressure from the international community, Israel last week allowed limited industrial fuel to be delivered to Gaza's sole power plant and on Monday it let in 33 truckloads of humanitarian and other basic supplies.
Israel condemned Pillay's call as "utterly shortsighted" and sidestepped the call to end the siege by saying she had not addressed the issue of rocket fire targeting Israel.
"It is disappointing to see the high commissioner fall victim to Hamas' cynical manipulation of the media, and reprint blatant misinformation in her press release," said a statement by the Israeli mission to the UN in Geneva.
The statement did not address how such "misinformation" would have trumped reports from other UN agencies - as well as scores of human rights groups - backing up Pillay's description of the situation in Gaza. Pillay said that "only a full lifting of the blockade followed by a strong humanitarian response will be adequate to relieve the massive humanitarian suffering evident in Gaza today." "Decisive steps must be taken to preserve the dignity and basic welfare of the civilian population, more than half of which are children." Other UN and EU officials have deemed the Israeli blockade as collective punishment of a civilian population, an act illegal under international law which the Geneva Conventions defines as a war crime.
Limited food distribution to half the Gaza Strip's 1.5 million population resumed on Tuesday, although the United Nations warned aid supplies would soon run out unless Israel eases its blockade. "Distribution will go on of the very small amount we brought in on Monday," said UN Relief and Works Agency spokesman Chris Gunness. "The supplies will last days, not weeks," he told AFP.
Crowds rushed to the UNRWA distribution centers to try to get hold of the limited supplies of flour, sugar, rice, powdered milk and luncheon meat.
"I can't wait to receive the aid. Our lives are in ruins," said Umm Said, 60, who with her husband looks after 15 children and grandchildren.
On Monday, the first shipment of supplies in two weeks made it possible to resume limited food distribution after a four-day interruption, but Israel again sealed off the Palestinian territory on Tuesday. UNRWA, which feeds 750,000 people in the impoverished sliver of land, said thousands of dollars worth of powdered milk were lost after Israeli officials slashed the packages for inspection.
"Babies should not be punished by being deprived of milk. I am not aware of babies firing rockets or baby milk being used to power rockets," said Gunness, adding that food would run out in days unless new supplies are allowed in.
Another UNRWA official has cast doubt on the Israeli pretense of rocket fire for sealing off the territory, noting that no such closure was in effect in the beginning of 2006 when Israel was hit with many more rockets than are currently coming out of Gaza.
An Egyptian-mediated truce signed in June had virtually halted rocket attacks on Israel. Under the terms of the agreement, Israel was to greatly ease its siege, a commitment the Jewish state never complied with. Israel shattered the truce on November 4 with an invasion of the coastal territory that killed seven Hamas members. The stark violation prompted Gazan fighters to resume rocket fire.
On Tuesday, Israeli armored vehicles came under mortar attack as they invaded southern Gaza in what an Israeli military spokesman described as a search for explosive devices along the border fence.Hamas claimed it fired a rocket at the vehicles.
Later, Gaza militants fired three rockets that exploded in open areas in southern Israel, causing no casualties or damage, the Israeli Army said.
Israeli officials indicated the crossings were to remain closed on Tuesday.
"This decision has been taken by Defense Minister Ehud Barak because of the continued Palestinian rocket fire at southern Israel," said Peter Lerner, an Israeli military spokesman. The Israeli Parliament is to return from its winter recess to hold a special session on the Gaza violence next Monday, a spokesman said. The session was called at the request of the right-wing opposition.
Also on Tuesday, the Israeli Navy arrested Palestinian fishermen and foreign activists off the coast of Gaza on Tuesday, the Israeli military and the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) said.
"This morning a number of Palestinian boats carrying ISM members deviated from the fishing zone off the Gaza coast," an Israeli military spokeswoman said.
ISM said the boats were 7 nautical miles (13 kilometers) from shore when confronted by the navy, pointing out this was well within the fishing limits set in the 1994 Oslo Accords.Under the Israeli-Palestinian agreements, Gaza fishermen were allowed to go as far as 20 nautical miles offshore, but Israel has in recent years reneged on that agreement and reduced this to just 6.
The Israeli Navy regularly forces Gaza fishermen to turn back, often by firing machine guns at the civilian vessels.
The Israeli spokeswoman said those aboard the boats were held for questioning after they refused to turn back.
ISM said the 14 fishermen and three human rights observers, who were aboard three boats, were transferred to Israeli warships.
It said Briton Andrew Muncie, Vittorio Arrigoni from Italy and American national Darlene Wallach were volunteers accompanying Palestinian fishermen, "who are regularly attacked by Israeli Navy vessels from as little as 3 kilometers offshore."
The three had sailed from Cyprus with other pro-Palestinian activists on August 23 in defiance of the Israeli blockade of the Hamas-run Gaza Strip.
The Israeli armed forces said: "ISM is known for its provocative action and for being in contact with terror organizations."
ISM is a Palestinian-led movement of volunteers committed to nonviolent resistance against the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory.
It mobilizes international volunteers for often symbolic actions, such as blockade-defying boat trips to Gaza. - AFP, with The Daily Star

ISF defends Rifi's phone calls with Islamist militant
Talks 'aimed at protecting civilians'
By Andrew Wander and Mohammed Zaatari
Daily Star staff
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
BEIRUT: The Internal Security Force (ISF) issued an explanation on Tuesday after it emerged that the force's commander, General Ashraf Rifi, spoke on the telephone with a member of the Fatah al-Islam militant group shortly before their showdown with the Lebanese military at the Nahr al-Bared Palestinian refugee camp in 2007.
A Lebanese television station broadcast recordings of two telephone calls between Rifi and a Fatah al-Islam negotiator called Ahmed Merhi made during a stand-off between the ISF and the militant group in Tripoli in May 2007.
The security forces had surrounded a residential compound in Mitein Street in which armed militants were sheltering when the ISF says that it received the telephone calls from Merhi, during which he tried to broker an end to the siege.
The first call was apparently made from a Lebanese mobile telephone number, identified as 03 135 727. Rifi agreed to speak with Merhi in an effort to diffuse the tense situation and allow civilians to leave the premises.
The ISF say that once civilian families had been evacuated from the besieged area, Rifi stopped speaking with Merhi, who by this time had made a further 17 calls from a telephone number in Syria, identified as 00963 955555205.
Merhi realized that once the families were out of the building, the Fatah al-Islam members would be arrested by the security services and told the ISF chief that he had "40 cruel fighters" ready to "blow up Tripoli" if the assault on Mitein Street went ahead.
"Let it be war, then" Rifi replied. "The battle has already started, and there is nowhere to retreat to." The ISF raid went ahead, prompting gun battles on the street and in the surrounding area as the militants resisted arrest for hours. The violence quickly spread to Nahr al-Bared. It was the beginning of a 15-week battle that would leave more than 400 people dead and the camp totally destroyed.
Neither number that Merhi used to contact Rifi answered calls from The Daily Star
on Tuesday, with the Syrian number playing a recorded message that said it "was not currently assigned."
Merhi himself has been arrested in Lebanon and has apparently told security officials that Fatah al-Islam was a Syrian creation designed to destabilize the anti-Syrian governing bloc in Lebanon. Damascus denies this, and recently aired the "confessions" of Fatah al-Islam members who said that the group was actually funded by parliamentary majority leader Saad Hariri's Future movement.
The ISF have defended the phone calls, claiming they were a stalling tactic to allow civilians to be evacuated from the area where the "terrorist group" was hiding.
"Some negotiation processes precede or accompany most security operations to avoid military confrontation or even bloody events," a statement said, adding that the judiciary is well aware that the phone calls had taken place.
In a separate development, a local daily Al-Akhbar reported on Tuesday that the fugitive leader of Fatah al-Islam has been arrested and is in a Syrian jail. The newspaper is well known for its strong links to Syria, and the report appears to confirm rumors that Abssi is being held there.
Many of Abssi's senior associates have also been captured as the net has tightened around the group, which has in the past used the relative lawlessness of Lebanon's Palestinian camps to set up its operations. Palestinian rather than Lebanese authorities are responsible for security in the camps.
Palestinian leaders in Beddawi, fearing another Nahr al-Bared style confrontation that would see Lebanese security forces tackle militants in refugee camps directly, have acted against suspected militants.
But in the Ain al-Hilweh camp near Saida, Lebanon's biggest, cooperation from Palestinian authorities is proving harder to secure. The camp is home to Abed Awad, known as "Prince of Al-Qaeda." He is said to be a senior member of Fatah al-Islam, and is also wanted in connection with the "Jarreh cell," a group responsible for two deadly bombings in Tripoli over the summer.
But Palestinian authorities in the camp have until now have been unable or unwilling to hand him over to Lebanese security services, prompting the Lebanese army to hold a meeting with Palestinian leaders on Tuesday.
Speaking to 50 political and civil society leaders from Ain al-Hilweh, the deputy head of military intelligence in the Leban-ese Armed Forces (LAF) Col Abbas Ibrahim described Awad and his circle as "a gang of terrorists who have taken 70,000 people in Ain al-Hilweh hostage."
He said that the aim of Awad's group was to turn Ain al Hilweh into a "second Nahr al-Bared." He urged the Palestinians to hand the men over, warning that the LAF would take action against the camp if they were not captured. "The Lebanese army is capable of acting unilaterally to get these people. We don't want to do it, but don't push it too far," he said.

Petition will urge Damascus to free imprisoned dissidents
By Dalila Mahdawi /Daily Star staff
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
BEIRUT: The Samir Kassir's Eyes (SK EYES) organization announced on Monday that it was launching a petition calling for the release of 12 Syrian dissidents jailed for having signed the Damascus Declaration. SK EYES, which is dedicated to defending cultural and media freedom in the Arab Levant, was initiated by the Samir Kassir Foundation but officially launched as an independent organization earlier this month. It collects and distributes information about attacks against writers and journalists in the region.
Speaking at a press conference, internationally acclaimed Lebanese novelist and journalist Elias Khoury, who heads the SK EYES coalition of journalists, activists and intellectuals, told reporters "the campaign also aimed to support Michel Kilo and Mahmoud Issa, detainees who have still not been released despite the decision of the Syrian Court of Cassation to overturn their sentences".
Kilo and Issa are both signatories to the Damascus Declaration, issued in 2005 by a number of Syrian opposition parties and intellectual figures seeking to "establish a national democratic regime [for] ... change and peaceful political reform based on dialogue." Since then, many of the Declaration's signatories have been imprisoned, put under house arrest or dismissed from their jobs. In October, 12 of its signatories were sentenced to 30 months imprisonment for "inciting sectarian strife" in Syria.
"We as writers, journalists, poets and artists [are] signing on an immediate unconditional release of 12 Syrian writers, artists and journalists who had called for democratic reforms in Syria and were jailed," Khoury said at the press conference. SK EYES would be sending a copy of the petition to the Syrian government, he added. Speaking to The Daily Star on Tuesday, Khoury said that "the oppression of culture and media is a sign of the decadence in the Arab world." He added, "Without freedom in the region, its societies are condemned to become prisons."

Clinton job for Obama may depend on Bill
By Steve Holland
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - If Sen. Hillary Clinton is to be picked by President-elect Barack Obama as his secretary of state, it may well depend on a review of the business activities of her husband, former President Bill Clinton.
Obama met former rival New York Sen. Clinton last Thursday to discuss the secretary of state job as he seeks high-powered individuals to join his administration, which takes power on January 20. Obama's transition team is believed to be looking at the former president's post-White House work as part of efforts to determine whether his wife could gain Senate confirmation as secretary of state. Bill Clinton has built a fortune since leaving the White House in early 2001 and is believed to be worth around $100 million, much of it from writing books and giving speeches.
He has played the role of roving ambassador, and his William Jefferson Clinton Foundation has raised millions of dollars from around the world to combat AIDS, malaria and global warming. Some political experts believe he should be required to disclose the list of donors who helped pay for his presidential library in Arkansas and fund his foundation. "There should be an ironclad agreement on disclosure," said Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia political scientist. "Because one thing we've learned about Bill Clinton is if he can possibly wheedle his way out of disclosure, he'll do it."
Many Democrats believe he would be willing to accept some limits on his activities in order to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest should his wife gain the chief U.S. diplomatic post.
"I think the only issue going forward prospectively is whether the former president is willing to do less than he is currently doing," said Democratic strategist Steve Elmendorf, a Clinton backer. "Obviously he has a lot of business around the world and it seems to me he is willing to do less."
INTENSIVE SCRUTINY
Presidential scholar Stephen Hess, who examines what new presidents need to know in his new book, "What Do We Do Now? -- A Workbook for the President-Elect," said it may take more time to vet the Clintons but believes a way will be found to get Hillary Clinton in the job.
"In fact it's doable in part because we already really know so much about where the Clintons are coming from," he said.
Clinton backers believe both Clintons have been investigated and probed so many times over the years that there is nothing left to examine. They believe he has met standards of disclosure more stringent than other ex-presidents.
"These are the most vetted people in American history," said one Democratic official with ties to the Clintons. "We know as much about them as anybody."
The Obama team requires those seeking high-ranking jobs to undergo an extensive background check that includes filling out a seven-page, 63-question document.
It covers everything from personal financial information to whether the prospective employee has written e-mails that could prove embarrassing to the Obama administration.
Whether the Clintons would be required to fill out the questionnaire was not clear. The Obama transition team would not comment on personnel matters.
The objective of the questionnaire is to have an administration that is as squeaky clean as possible and head off embarrassing problems that have dogged previous administrations -- such as Bill Clinton's, when his choice for attorney general was disqualified for having employed an illegal immigrant as a nanny.
But some think the Obama document is overkill. One Democratic official said the document sought such extensive information that "why would any rational person want to go forward? The disclosure requirements are so onerous, why bother?"(Editing by Cynthia Osterman)
 

America’s Future Foreign Policy Is Already Here
November 19, 2008
Joel HillikerColumnist
From theTrumpet.com
What not to expect with the change in the United States’ presidential administration.
Joel Hilliker Barack Obama said on the campaign trail that he wasn’t afraid to talk with America’s enemies. Now those enemies want to hold him to his word.
Shortly after Mr. Obama was elected, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad offered congratulations. The Iranian president said he hoped for the beginning of a new, more open relationship between the two countries—one predicated, of course, on the acknowledgment and acceptance of Iranian power.
Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal soon followed suit, saying he was “ready for dialogue”—that is, “on the basis that the American administration respects our rights and our options.”
Of course, nothing would come from such dialogue, should the president-elect decide to make good on his promises. Not only does history prove it, the current administration does as well.
The fact is, though the current president did resort to military solutions early on, he has converted. Cowboyish reputation notwithstanding, his actions are those of a true believer in just the sort of negotiation and multilateralism espoused by the president-elect. His administration, in everything from its policies on Iran and North Korea to its recent acquiescence to the demands of the G-20 (see the second item in this past Sunday’s “Weekend Web”) and its opening the door to sharia law being imposed on American banks, has become a model of trying to solve international problems via anything other than the use of force.
Let’s look at a few recent upshots of this foreign policy. The latest: Iraq is now dictating terms to America, and the White House calls it a “positive step.”
Ever since Iraq held constitutional elections, the United States has maintained its presence in the country only by Iraqi approval. The Iraqi government gave that approval through a United Nations mandate, a mandate that expires January 1. What will likely now permit U.S. forces to remain beyond that date is the agreement made this week by the Iraqi Cabinet—still subject to ratification by the Iraqi parliament—which cuts out the middleman and puts U.S. troops under the authority of the Iraqi government. This Status of Forces Agreement (sofa) says that U.S. forces must stop patrolling Iraqi towns by next summer, orders the U.S. to turn over all its bases to Iraqi control by the end of next year, and unconditionally demands that the U.S. vacate the country by Dec. 31, 2011.
It also puts American soldiers—there on the business of the U.S. government—at the mercy of the Iraqi justice system. It requires that U.S. forces obtain a court order before they raid houses. It enables American soldiers to be tried in Iraqi courts. It subjects U.S. military vehicles to Iraqi inspection. It prohibits America from using Iraq to attack neighboring countries, like Iran.
Why would America subject itself to such terms? Of course it wants to prove that its number-one aim in deposing Saddam Hussein was not to protect America—since that would be a selfish and hence reprehensible motive—but to serve the Iraqi people, an entirely altruistic goal.
But beyond that, Iran’s fingerprints are all over this deal. Some commentators see it as strong evidence of the Iraqi government’s independence from Tehran, since the Iranian leaders had been trying to undermine the pact. But why, then, did the head of the Iranian judiciary praise the agreement immediately after it was approved? “The change in tone,” wrote Stratfor, “suggests that the agreement has been tweaked to allay Iranian concerns, and it indicates a desire in Tehran to engage in fruitful negotiations with Washington. … To have Iran to give a nod to the sofa at this stage in the game, the United States surely must have offered Tehran something in return” (November 17).
Something in return? Aren’t the Iran-friendly terms of the sofa generous enough? Not only did the U.S. give in on Iran’s key demand—that the U.S. not be allowed to attack other countries from Iraqi soil—it has agreed to an unconditional timetable for a pullout that will surely open the door for Iran to increase its influence in Iraq even more.
Can the next president help Iran out more than the current one already has?
Another example. Afghan President Hamid Karzai said on Sunday that he wants to negotiate directly with the leader of the Taliban, Mullah Omar. Despite the fact that the U.S. has a $10 million bounty on his head, Karzai said that if Omar agreed to negotiate, he would guarantee his security. Karzai threw out this challenge: “If I say I want protection for Mullah Omar, the international community has two choices: Remove me or leave.”
Don’t expect the U.S. to confront the Afghan leader, though. A month ago, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates himself said the U.S. would be open to negotiating with the Taliban if it meant an end to the war. “At the end of the day,” Gates has said, “that’s how most wars end. … That’s ultimately the exit strategy for all of us.” Even the commander of nato and U.S. troops in Afghanistan, Gen. David D. McKiernan, on a recent trip to Washington, said the notion of “reconciliation, I think, is appropriate.”
Realize, this is essentially what the Taliban has been fighting for the past seven years: to bring the West to the point of capitulation.
President-elect Obama speaks about the Afghanistan situation as if he can decisively solve the problem. He sternly promises to “kill or capture Osama bin Laden” and to “stamp out al Qaeda once and for all.” But in a Washington Post article last week, “Obama to Explore New Approach in Afghanistan War,” some details of the Obama camp’s possible plans emerged. “The incoming Obama administration plans to explore a more regional strategy to the war in Afghanistan—including possible talks with Iran—and looks favorably on the nascent dialogue between the Afghan government and ‘reconcilable’ elements of the Taliban, according to Obama national security advisers,” it said.
Little did the president-elect know that Hamid Karzai considers even Mullah Omar one of those “reconcilable” Talibani.
Then again, maybe he did. After all, he’s considering solving the Afghan riddle by bringing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad into the discussion.
How would talking with Iran help in containing the Taliban? What would be the substance of these “possible talks”? Undoubtedly the U.S. would offer more concessions to Iran to convince it to withdraw its support for the Taliban insurgency. It’s main bargaining chip is Iraq.
Might we see the U.S., in order to gain breathing room in Afghanistan, feed Iraq to Iran? We at the Trumpet have been watching for some such eventuality for years.
Ironically, the U.S. could turn around and use that breathing room only to seek a “reconciliation” with the Taliban that will leave the country in much the same state it was before American forces went in there.
These are the blind alleys into which such unrealistic foreign policy can lead a nation. As Walid Phares correctly notes, “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.”
Yes, even the current officials are engaged in these fatuous talks. As the Post article notes, “Senior officers [in the Bush administration] describe a substantial portion of Taliban foot soldiers as more opportunistic than ideologically committed”—meaning, perhaps they can be coerced away from their cause.
The U.S. really shouldn’t get its hopes up with the change in administration. America’s future foreign policy is already here.
The Bible prophesies of a spectacular clash between an end-time “king of the north” and “king of the south.” The king of the south in this prophecy is here—in fact, this power is the number-one instigator behind the terrorism America is working to stamp out.
The truth is that it has been America’s war in Iraq, coupled with soft policies such as those America is demonstrating toward the Iranian regime, that is directly enabling the rise of this power! You can read more about that in our booklet The King of the South. Expect America’s next president, with his promises of meetings without preconditions, to aggravate the trend.
For a look at a foreign policy that will work in handling the problems of terrorism and Iran, read “The Ostrich, the Warrior and the Whirlwind.” •

Israel 'occupies' no Arab territories
By LOUIS RENE BERES -Jerusalem Post
In urgent matters of national survival and geopolitics, words matter. The still generally unchallenged language referring provocatively to an Israeli "Occupation" always overlooks the pertinent and incontestable history of the West Bank (Judea/Samaria) and Gaza.
Perhaps the most evident omission concerns the unwitting manner in which these "Territories" fell into Israel's hands in the first place. It is simply and widely disregarded that "occupation" followed the multi-state Arab aggression of 1967 - one never disguised by Egypt, Syria or Jordan.
A sovereign state of Palestine did not exist before 1967 or 1948. Nor was a state of Palestine ever promised by UN Security Council Resolution 242. Contrary to popular understanding, a state of Palestine has never existed. Never.
Even as a nonstate legal entity, "Palestine" ceased to exist in 1948, when Great Britain relinquished its League of Nations mandate. During the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence (a war of survival fought because the entire Arab world had rejected the authoritative United Nations resolution creating a Jewish state), the West Bank and Gaza came under the illegal control of Jordan and Egypt respectively. These Arab conquests did not put an end to an already-existing state or to an ongoing trust territory. What these aggressions did accomplish was the effective prevention, sui generis, of a state of Palestine. The original hopes for Palestine were dashed, therefore, not by the new Jewish state or by its supporters, but by the Arab states, especially Jordan and Egypt.
LET US return to an earlier history. From the Biblical Period (ca. 1350 BCE to 586 BCE) to the British Mandate (1918 - 1948), the land named by the Romans after the ancient Philistines was controlled only by non-Palestinian elements. Significantly, however, a continuous chain of Jewish possession of the land was legally recognized after World War I, at the San Remo Peace Conference of April 1920. There, a binding treaty was signed in which Great Britain was given mandatory authority over "Palestine" (the area had been ruled by the Ottoman Turks since 1516) to prepare it to become the "national home for the Jewish People." Palestine, according to the Treaty, comprised territories encompassing what are now the states of Jordan and Israel, including the West Bank and Gaza. Present-day Israel comprises only 22 percent of Palestine as defined and ratified at the San Remo Peace Conference.
In 1922, Great Britain unilaterally and without any lawful authority split off 78 percent of the lands promised to the Jews - all of Palestine east of the Jordan River - and gave it to Abdullah, the non-Palestinian son of the Sharif of Mecca. Eastern Palestine now took the name Transjordan, which it retained until April 1949, when it was renamed as Jordan. From the moment of its creation, Transjordan was closed to all Jewish migration and settlement, a clear betrayal of the British promise in the Balfour Declaration of 1917, and a patent contravention of its Mandatory obligations under international law.
On July 20, 1951, a Palestinian Arab assassinated King Abdullah for the latter's hostility to Palestinian aspirations and concerns. Regarding these aspirations, Jordan's "moderate" King Hussein - 19 years later, during September 1970 - brutally murdered thousands of defenseless Palestinians under his jurisdiction.
IN 1947, several years prior to Abdullah's killing, the newly-formed United Nations, rather than designate the entire land west of the Jordan River as the long-promised Jewish national homeland, enacted a second partition. Curiously, considering that this second fission again gave complete advantage to Arab interests, Jewish leaders accepted the painful judgment. The Arab states did not. On May 15, 1948, exactly 24 hours after the State of Israel came into existence, Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, declared to a tiny new country founded upon the ashes of the Holocaust: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre."
This unambiguous declaration has been at the very heart of all subsequent Arab orientations toward Israel, including those of "moderate" Fatah. Even by the strict legal standards of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Arab actions and attitudes toward the microscopic Jewish state in their midst has remained patently genocidal. For some reason, this persistence has repeatedly been made to appear benign.
IN 1967, almost 20 years after Israel's entry into the community of nations, the Jewish state, as a result of its unexpected military victory over Arab aggressor states, gained unintended control over the West Bank and Gaza. Although the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war is codified in the UN Charter, there existed no authoritative sovereign to whom the Territories could be "returned." Israel could hardly have been expected to transfer them back to Jordan and Egypt, which had exercised unauthorized and terribly cruel control since the Arab-initiated war of "extermination" in 1948-49. Moreover, the idea of Palestinian "self-determination" had only just begun to emerge after the Six Day War, and - significantly - had not even been included in UN Security Council Resolution 242, which was adopted on November 22, 1967.
For their part, the Arab states convened a summit in Khartoum in August 1967, concluding: "No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it...." The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was formed three years earlier, in 1964, before there were any "Israeli Occupied Territories." Exactly what was it, therefore, that the PLO sought to "liberate" between 1964 and 1967?
This question should now be raised in connection with the US-sponsored "Road Map To Peace in the Middle East," a twisted cartography leading to "Palestine."
THIS HAS been a very brief account of essential historic reasons why the so-called "Palestinian Territories" are not occupied by Israel. Several other equally valid reasons stem from Israel's inherent legal right to security and self-defense. International law is not a suicide pact. Because a Palestinian state would severely threaten the very existence of Israel - a fact that remains altogether unhidden in Arab media and governments - the Jewish State is under no binding obligation to end a falsely alleged "Occupation." No state can ever be required to accept complicity in its own dismemberment and annihilation.

Both Israel and the United States will soon have new leadership. Neither Jerusalem nor Washington should be deceived by the so-called "Road Map To Peace in the Middle East," a twisted bit of highway that makes entirely inaccurate claims about "Palestinian Territories" and "Israeli Occupation." For substantially documented reasons of history and national security, it is imperative that a twenty-third Arab state never be carved out of the still-living body of Israel.
If anyone should still have doubts about Palestinian intentions, they need look only to former Prime Minister Sharon's "disengagement" from Gaza, an area that is now used by Hamas to stage rocket attacks upon Israeli noncombatants, and by al-Qaeda to mount future terrorist operations against American cities.
**The writer, a professor of International Law at Purdue University, is the author of many books and articles dealing with military affairs and international law

Who is Rahm Emmanuel?
By John Perazzo
FrontPageMagazine.com | Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Two days after defeating John McCain, Barack Obama made his first appointment as president-elect when he named 49-year-old Rahm Emanuel to be his chief of staff. Formerly an aide to Bill Clinton and currently the Democratic Representative for Illinois’ 5th congressional district, Emanuel has suddenly become a figure of great interest to the American public.
Yet there has been much disagreement about where, on the political spectrum, his politics fall. Some critics have derided him as the prototype of a partisan leftist. Others, such as ABC reporter Claire Shipman and CNN correspondent Frank Sesno, have characterized him, respectively, as “a pragmatic, centrist politician” and as someone “on the center to center-right.” Whom are we to believe?
The notion that Emanuel is a centrist emerged in 2006 when, to the dismay of many on the political Left, he recruited numerous moderate Democratic candidates to run for election in Southern and Midwestern districts. While left-wing partisans objected to the Democratic Party’s association with “reactionaries” like Jim Webb, the Marine veteran and current Virginia Senator, Emanuel understood that doctrinaire leftists stood little chance of winning in these traditionally conservative enclaves. Emanuel’s shrewd strategy ultimately enabled Democrats to gain a whopping 30 congressional seats in 2006, and thereby to seize control of the House of Representatives.
But is this sufficient proof of Emanuel’s centrism? After all, it can reasonably be argued that Emanuel’s tactic of hand-picking Democratic moderates was merely the first step in a long-term bait-and-switch strategy where such individuals, once elected, could gradually be pressured by the party hierarchy to either drift leftward or surrender their positions to more liberal candidates.
There is only one reliable way to settle the question of whether Rahm Emanuel should be defined as a leftist or as a centrist. We must look carefully at the voting record he has compiled—on an array of vital issues—during his six years in Congress.
Consider, for starters, Emanuel’s record on abortion and the rights of the unborn. On three separate occasions, he voted against legislation that would have banned the late-term procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion. The controversial procedure, in which the doctor makes an incision at the base of the baby’s skull and then vacuums the brain out with a suction catheter, was banned under a 2003 federal law, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2007. Bill Frist, the former Senate majority leader and himself a practicing surgeon has called the procedure “barbaric.”
In February 2004 Emanuel voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which proposed to make it an added criminal offense for someone to injure or kill a fetus while carrying out a crime against a pregnant woman. Twice Emanuel voted against the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, whose purpose was to prohibit the transportation of a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion without a parent’s (or a legal guardian’s) consent. In December 2006 Emanuel voted against the Abortion Pain Bill, which mandated that abortion providers, prior to performing an abortion on a fetus older than 20 weeks, inform the mother that the fetus might feel pain during the procedure, and that the use of some pain-reducing drugs may have health risks associated with them.
As a result of his unwavering support for abortion-on-demand, Emanuel has consistently received ratings of 100 percent from NARAL and Planned Parenthood. These ratings indicate that Emanuel’s votes and stated positions on abortion-related matters have mirrored, literally without exception, the positions of these organizations. Indeed, since at least 1995 Emanuel has supported the agendas of Planned Parenthood fully 100 percent of the time.
Another issue of significance is Emanuel’s stance on gay marriage. In September 2004 he voted against a bill that would have prohibited same-sex marriage, and in July 2006 he voted against a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage in America exclusively as the union of one man and one woman.
On taxes, too, Emanuel’s alleged centrism is nowhere in evidence. On the contrary, Emanuel’s voting record has been overwhelmingly on the side of higher tax rates. In May 2003 he voted against a $350 billion tax cut which contained, among other things, a provision to eliminate the so-called “marriage tax penalty.” A year later, he voted against a proposal to extend the alternative minimum tax relief that had been available in 2003 and 2004. Also in May 2004, he voted against a proposal to make the $1,000-per-child tax credit permanent rather than letting it decline. Four months later he voted against another bill calling for a five-year extension on the $1,000 child tax credit.
In October 2004 Emanuel voted against a ten-year, $145 billion tax cut for domestic manufacturers and small corporations. In April 2005 he voted against a proposal to permanently repeal the estate tax. In November 2005 he voted against a bill calling for a $49.91 billion reduction in federal spending over a five-year period. Twelve months later he voted against a similar five-year proposal for $56.1 billion in federal spending reductions; that bill also called for the retention of a reduced tax rate on capital gains and dividends.
In May 2006 Emanuel voted against $69.96 billion in tax cuts and credits through 2010, including reductions of capital gains taxes and dividends taxes. The following month, he voted against a proposal to reduce estate taxes beginning in 2010. The most notable exception to Emanuel’s generally across-the-board espousal of higher taxation occurred in January 2008, when he supported a bill giving single taxpayers a credit of up to $600, and joint filers a credit of up to $1,200.
Unsurprisingly, organizations that lobby in favor of lower taxes and smaller government are uniformly unimpressed by Emanuel’s legislative record. Americans for Tax Reform gives him a score of 5 percent; The National Tax Limitation Committee rates him at 6 percent. FreedomWorks, which “fights for lower taxes, less government and more economic freedom for all Americans,” is slightly more generous: 10 percent. The National Taxpayers Union gives him a grade of F.
On energy-related issues, Emanuel has consistently rejected proposals that would allow the U.S. to harness its own natural reserves of fossil fuels. In May 2006, for instance, he voted against a proposal to provide funds for offshore oil exploration along the Outer Continental Shelf. Instead, he favored a continuation of President Clinton’s 1998 moratorium on oil drilling. In October 2005 and June 2006, Emanuel voted against the construction of new oil refineries.
Emanuel’s positions on the war on terror and national security are also worthy of note. In September 2006 he voted against a bill authorizing the President to establish military commissions to try enemy combatants captured in the war on terror. In Emanuel’s view, such tribunals trample on the civil rights and liberties of defendants who presumably should be entitled to all the rights and protections afforded by the American criminal court system—where the standards that govern the admissibility of evidence are considerably stricter than the counterpart standards in military tribunals.
In September 2006 Emanuel voted against an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978; this amendment called for permitting the government to use electronic surveillance to investigate suspected terrorist operatives. In May 2007 he voted in favor of a proposal to expedite the transfer of all prisoners currently being held in the Guantanamo Bay detention center, most of whom are, as Gordon Cucullu wrote in The American Enterprise, “not innocent foot soldiers” but rather “Islamic fundamentalists from across the Middle East, rabid jihadists who have dedicated their lives to the destruction of America and Western civilization.”
In August 2007 Emanuel voted against a bill authorizing the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to monitor suspected terrorists’ foreign electronic communications that are routed through the United States. In June 2008 he voted in favor of a bill specifically prohibiting this type of surveillance.
It should be pointed out that in July 2005 Emanuel did cast one notable vote in favor of enhanced national security measures: he supported reauthorization of the post-9/11 anti-terrorism legislation known as the Patriot Act. But overall, Emanuel has disappointed advocates of strengthening national security measures in the war on terror. The Center for Security Policy, which is committed to “promoting international peace through American strength,” has rated him variously between 17 percent and 35 percent. The American Security Council, which “serves as educational secretariat of the Congressional Caucus on National Security,” gives him a mere 10 percent rating.
It does not exaggerate Emanuel’s positions on the Iraq War to say that they have generally fallen under the category of surrender. In June 2006 he voted against a resolution stating that it was against America’s national security interest to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal of its troops from Iraq, and that a better course of action would be to withdraw the troops only upon the “completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure and united Iraq.” In February 2007 he voted against the so-called troop “surge”—the deployment of some 21,500 additional U.S. soldiers in an effort to quell the violent insurgents in Iraq. In May 2007 he voted in favor of an amendment to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq within 90 days. Two months later, he voted to begin dramatically reducing the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq by April 1, 2008.
Emmanuel again found himself in the Left’s good graces in June 2008, when he voted in favor of exploring the possibility of impeaching President Bush on grounds that he allegedly had misrepresented U.S. intelligence on Iraq so as to justify the March 2003 American invasion.
On the subject of illegal immigration, Emanuel has done little to inspire confidence that he will place a premium on guarding America’s borders with anything more than hollow rhetoric. In May 2004 he voted “No” on requiring hospitals to report (to the federal government) illegal aliens who receive emergency medical treatment. In February 2005 he voted against the Real ID Act, which proposed to set minimal security requirements for state driver licenses and identification cards.
In December 2005 he voted against a bill calling for, among other provisions, the construction of some 700 miles of fencing along America’s southern border; the establishment of a system requiring business owners to verify the legal status of all their employees; the detention of any person attempting to enter the U.S. illegally after October 1, 2006; an increase in the penalties on anyone attempting to smuggle illegal aliens into the U.S.; the annual provision of $250 million to pay state and local police agencies for their assistance in enforcing federal immigration laws; and funding for a program mandating that “removable criminal aliens” in prison be deported following the completion of their prison sentences, rather than be released into American communities. The American Civil Liberties Union, which opposes the foregoing provisions, has given Emanuel a perfect grade of 100 percent.
In June 2006 Emanuel voted in favor of an amendment prohibiting the U.S. government from tipping off Mexican officials as to the whereabouts of operatives working for the Minuteman Project, a nonviolent organization of American citizens who alert the U.S. Border Patrol to the presence of unauthorized border-crossers in the Southwestern states.
In September 2006 Emanuel again voted against a bill authorizing the construction of 700 miles of double-layered fencing between the U.S. and Mexico. That same month, he also voted against a proposal to grant state and local officials the authority to investigate, identify, and arrest illegal immigrants.
The U.S. Border Control, which is “is dedicated to ending illegal immigration by securing our nation’s borders and reforming our immigration policies,” gives Emanuel a rating of 8 percent. The Federation for American Immigration Reform, which “seeks to improve border security, to stop illegal immigration, and to promote immigration levels consistent with the national interest,” rates him an unequivocal zero. By contrast, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, which favors open borders and an expansion of rights and liberties for illegal aliens, gives Emanuel a 100 percent rating.
Finally, it is instructive to note that in September 2007 Emanuel voted in favor of a bill calling on money lenders “to use risk-based pricing to more effectively reach underserved borrowers.” In effect, this bill endorsed the issuance of subprime loans to under-capitalized borrowers—the very practice that eventually would lead to the cataclysmic collapse of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the mortgage industry. Emanuel, incidentally, had served on the Freddie Mac board from 2000 to 2001, during which time the mortgage giant was plagued by such major scandals as accounting fraud and illegal campaign contributions to congressional candidates. It is hardly surprising that Emanuel has received a 100 percent rating from ACORN, the notorious activist group that for many years has played a major role in pressuring banks to make subprime loans—to say nothing of its involvement in campaigns of voter-registration fraud.
By all accounts, Rahm Emmanuel is a savvy political operator. But if his voting record is anything to go by, a penchant for centrist accommodation is not among the talents he will bring to his new role as White House chief of staff.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Perazzo is the Managing Editor of DiscoverTheNetworks and is the author of The Myths That Divide Us: How Lies Have Poisoned American Race Relations. For more information on his book, click here. E-mail him at wsbooks25@hotmail.com

Iran, Syria tauten grip on Lebanon, Tehran woos Christian president
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report
November 18, 2008,
Lebanese president Michel Suleiamn: Off to meet the ayatollahs this month
Tehran and Damascus are going all out to get their hooks into Lebanon’s Christian politicians and wean them away from their’ traditional ties with the West. President Michel Suleiman this week accepted an Iranian invitation to visit Tehran this month, while another Lebanese Christian leader, Hizballah’s ally Gen. Michel Aoun, arranged to visit Damascus.
DEBKAfile’s Middle East sources report that the Iranians are forging ahead with a campaign to bind the region’s Christian minorities to their Shiite wagon for challenging Sunni domination. Their first quarry is Lebanon’s powerful community.
Arrangements were finalized Monday with the Iranian ambassador in Beirut Reza Shibani for president Suleiman to spend two days in Tehran on Nov. 24-25. Aoun will visit Damascus at the same time. Their country is meanwhile encircled by Syrian military forces, a factual pointer to Bashar Assad’s real intentions regarding peace.
Although these developments bode ill for Israel too, they was left out of the sweeping 2009 prognosis which the Israeli Military Intelligence chief Maj. Amos Yadlin delivered in Tel Aviv Monday, Nov. 17. Neither did he look ahead to the likelihood that Iran would be able to assemble a nuclear weapon next year, notwithstanding more than a decade of international diplomacy and sanctions.
Senior Israeli intelligence circles commented that the evaluations heard from Yadlin Monday were less attuned to reality than to the estimated positions of the incoming US president Barack Obama’s Middle East team and Olmert-Livni policies. Like them, he omitted to address the agendas which Tehran and Damascus are actively pursuing.
Tehran launched its pursuit of Christian minorities by inviting the Lebanese Maronite leader Aoun to Tehran on Oct. 13, through Hizballah’s good offices.
The gambit worked: The Lebanese leader returned home proclaiming Iran the strongest world power between the Persian Gulf and China and predicting that his trip would bear fruit in six months. In the first week of November, Tehran heaped full honors on the Lebanon’s ex-president, the pro-Syrian Christian Emil Lahoud, when he arrived with a 60-man retinue.
Michel Sleiman can expect no less.
The assumption in Israeli ruling circles that Syria as peace partner will deliver a “Lebanese dowry” is therefore fallacious. Assad plans to squeeze whatever he can from Israel and the new US administration in the coin of territory and backing for his regime, while not giving up an iota of his schemes with Tehran. For now, no one is paying attention to the Syrian-Iranian jaws snapping shut on Lebanon.