LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS
BULLETIN
September 02/08
Bible Reading of the day.
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to
Saint Luke 4,16-30. He came to Nazareth, where he had grown up, and went
according to his custom into the synagogue on the sabbath day. He stood up to
read and was handed a scroll of the prophet Isaiah. He unrolled the scroll and
found the passage where it was written: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me to bring glad tidings to the poor. He has sent me to
proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the
oppressed go free, and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord." Rolling up
the scroll, he handed it back to the attendant and sat down, and the eyes of all
in the synagogue looked intently at him. He said to them, "Today this scripture
passage is fulfilled in your hearing." And all spoke highly of him and were
amazed at the gracious words that came from his mouth. They also asked, "Isn't
this the son of Joseph?" He said to them, "Surely you will quote me this
proverb, 'Physician, cure yourself,' and say, 'Do here in your native place the
things that we heard were done in Capernaum.'" And he said, "Amen, I say to you,
no prophet is accepted in his own native place. Indeed, I tell you, there were
many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah when the sky was closed for three
and a half years and a severe famine spread over the entire land. It was to none
of these that Elijah was sent, but only to a widow in Zarephath in the land of
Sidon. Again, there were many lepers in Israel during the time of Elisha the
prophet; yet not one of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian." When the
people in the synagogue heard this, they were all filled with fury. They rose
up, drove him out of the town, and led him to the brow of the hill on which
their town had been built, to hurl him down headlong. But he passed through the
midst of them and went away.
Saint Ambrose (c.340-397), Bishop of Milan and Doctor of the Church
The Mysteries, 16-21/Be healed through faith and enter into true life
Namaan was a Syrian who had leprosy and
was unable to be cured of it by anyone... He journeyed to Israel where Elisha
commanded him to bathe seven times in the Jordan. Then Namaan started thinking
to himself that there were rivers with better water in his own country where he
had often bathed without ever being cleansed of his leprosy... Nevertheless he
bathed and, being at once cleansed, understood that purification comes, not from
water but from grace...This is why you were told [at your baptism]: Don't
believe only in what you see since you, too, like Namaan, might say: Is that all
this great mystery is about? The mystery that «eye has not seen and ear has not
heard, and that has not entered the human heart»? (1Cor 2,9). I see water just
like the water I see daily! Is it able to cleanse me seeing how often I have
gone down into it without ever being cleansed? Learn from this that water
without the Spirit does not cleanse. That is why, too, you have read that in
baptism there are «three that testify, the water, the blood and the Spirit,»
(cf. 1Jn 5,7-8). For if you leave out one of them the sacrament of baptism is no
longer present. For what is water without the cross of Christ? Just an ordinary
element without any kind of sacramental significance. In the same way, without
water there is no mystery of new birth since «no one can enter the kingdom of
God without being born of water and Spirit,» (Jn 3,5). The catechumen is someone
who believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, whose sign he has received, but if
he has not been baptised in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the forgiveness of his sins nor amass the gifts
of spiritual grace. Namaan, the Syrian, went down into the water seven times
according to the Law; but you have been baptized in the name of the Trinity. You
have confessed your faith in the Father; you have confessed your faith in the
Son and your faith in the Holy Spirit. Keep hold of this succession of events.
In this faith you are dead to the world, raised up for God.
Free
Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports
A Lesson in Geography-By:
Ghassan Charbel
01/09/08
TEN QUESTIONS FOR DR. WALID
PHARES.By: W. Thomas Smith Jr. 01/09/08
Now Lebanon:
New Opinion:
Electoral impasse 01/09/08
Will Syria's Assad go to Jerusalem in Quest for
Peace?Middle East Times 01/09/08
Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for September
01/08
Suleiman in Qatar to Thank it for 'Constant Support'-Naharnet
Imam Killed, Three Wounded in
Renewed Clashes in Akkar-Naharnet
Fatfat: What Elections if the
Threat of Weapons Persists?-Naharnet
Uniting
The Four Lebanons-Naharnet
Report: Nasrallah Says
Army 'Fortified Against Strife' with Hizbullah-Naharnet
Karami Denies Cairo
Seeking Lebanese Reconciliation Talks-Naharnet
MP Franjieh Accuses
Hizbullah of Seeking to Eliminate the Army-Naharnet
Report: Nasrallah Says Army 'Fortified Against
Strife' with Hizbullah-Naharnet
Haaretz: Israel Considering Pullout from Ghajar's
Lebanese Side-Naharnet
Olmert Rebukes Abbas for Meeting Qantar in
Lebanon-Naharnet
Missing cleric roils Lebanon's Shiites years
later-International Herald
Tribune
Syria doesn’t want to be a haven-Le
Monde Diplomatique
One Killed, 3 Wounded in Clashes in
North Lebanon-Naharnet
Sami Gemayel: No Complete
Sovereignty in Lebanon-Naharnet
Berri Calls for Formation of Joint
Army-Resistance Committee-Naharnet
Suleiman in Qatar to Thank it for 'Constant Support'
Naharnet/President Michel Suleiman travels to Qatar on Monday for
talks with Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa al-Thani in Doha.
During Suleiman's two-day visit to Doha, the Lebanese president will thank Qatar
for its "constant support" of Lebanon, according to Foreign Minister Fawzi
Salloukh. Suleiman's visit to Doha comes two days after Saudi King Abdullah and
Qatar's Emir discussed the situation in Lebanon and the latest developments in
the region. Suleiman is also expected to visit the United States for talks
with President George Bush and other officials in Washington and to head
Lebanon's delegation to the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York
mid-September. Beirut, 01 Sep 08, 07:31
Berri Calls for Formation of Joint Army-Resistance
Committee
Naharnet/Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri called Sunday for the
formation of a joint coordination committee between representatives of the
Lebanese army and the resistance to avoid 'painful' incidents like the
helicopter shooting attack. "So the painful incident like the one in Sojod would
not be repeated, I call for the formation of a joint coordination committee
between the Lebanese army and the resistance," Berri told a rally in the
southern town of Nabatiyeh marking the 30th anniversary of Imam Moussa Sadr's
disappearance. Hizbullah acknowledged shooting Lebanese airman Samer Hanna while
flying his helicopter during a training mission over Sojod hills in south
Lebanon on Thursday. It has termed the helicopter incident "regretful and
painful" and pledged to cooperate with the Lebanese army. On Friday, Hizbullah
handed over to military police the culprit in the helicopter attack. Berri also
called for the formation of a "national body" to work on a unified concept of
the nation, the capital and the border.
Berri held Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi responsible for
Sadr's disappearance thirty years ago.
Naharnet/On Aug. 31, 1978, Sadr flew to Tripoli, Libya for a week
of talks with Libyan officials. He was never seen or heard from again.
"We tell the leader of the Libyan regime Moammar Gadhafi: you are personally
responsible for the disappearance of Imam Sadr and his two companions," Berri
told the crowd estimated at several thousand people. "Let no-one think that we
will forget or make any compromise," he said.
Sadr founded the opposition AMAL movement, now led by Berri. Lebanon has
recently issued an arrest warrant for Gadhafi over Sadr's disappearance.
Libya has denied involvement in Sadr's disappearance, saying he left Libya for
Italy. But the Italian government has always denied he ever arrived there.
In 2004, however, Italian authorities returned a passport found in Italy
belonging to the imam. Turning to Israeli threats, Berri cautioned the Lebanese
against sleeping with eyes closed. "Sleep with eyes open … because we must be
aware of Israeli threats," he said. "Israel wants to nail down Lebanon and
destroy its security system and its various public sectors, particularly
tourism," Berri added. "I would like to express my fear and worry over what is
happening at the border," he said. "I call (on everybody) to take the Israeli
threats seriously," Berri warned, adding that Lebanon is in need for continuous
resistance. Beirut, 31 Aug 08, 19:02
Fatfat: What Elections if the Threat of Weapons Persists?
By Dalia Nehme
MP Ahmed Fatfat warned that it would be "impossible" to organize general
elections if the Doha Accord was not fully implemented, especially the clause
that bans the use of weapons to settle political differences.
"Holding elections within the persisting circumstances is impossible … that is
why we call for the quick launching of national dialogue and proceeding with
implementing the Doha Accord. Controlling weapons used domestically is a
necessity," Fatfat told Naharnet.
He said Lebanon is going through an episode of "serial events" that started last
May. He was referring to Hizbullah's attack on west Beirut and Mount Lebanon.
"The main clause in the Doha Accord that bans the use of weapons for domestic
purposes has not been applied," Fatfat noted.
He warned that "some citizens are not abiding" by the decision adopted by
Mustaqbal Movement in May to avoid being lured into Sunni-Shiite conflict.
"They are arming up to defend themselves as has happened in Tripoli and some
other areas," Fatfat noted in reference to the thread of Hizbullah weapons..
He said the issue rests in the hands of President Michel Suleiman who has to
call for "proceeding with dialogue."
"We insist on proceeding with dialogue in order to maintain the same (former)
participants," Fatfat stressed.
He accused Hizbullah and its allies of proposing to expand the list of
participants and the agenda for the National Dialogue Conference because "they
don't want dialogue."
"They want to add items to the dialogue agenda and this is not included in the
Doha Accord," Fatfat charged.
He said if the political sides involved in the dialogue conference "have good
intentions and really want elections to be held, it would be easy to agree
during the national dialogue on disarming all factions that do not confront
Israel and it would be easy to define confrontation areas with Israel beyond
which weapons would be banned."
Fatfat said new Army Commander Gen. Jean Qahwaji enjoys the backing of all
political factions "but field practices would determine if this political
backing would be developed into popular support for the Lebanese Army and
security institutions."
The situation in the Northern town of Tripoli, according to Fatfat, is going
through a one-week test "if army procedures proved to be effective …Tripoli
would overcome its dilemma."
However, the situation in the northern Akkar province is "more difficult,"
Fatfat said.
Fatfat criticized the attack b y Hizbullah operatives against a Lebanese Army
helicopter in the southern Sujud region last week which resulted in killing Air
Force 1st. Lt. Samer Hanna.
He said surrendering one Hizbullah fighter to the judiciary as the person who
attacked the chopper "does not convince Lebanese citizens … no one person can
shoot down a chopper."
In answering a question about Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblat's
warning that clashes between Sunnis and Alawites in Tripoli could lead to a new
Syrian military intervention in Lebanon similar to what happened in 1976, Fatfat
said:
"What happened in Georgia is totally different that the situation in Lebanon.
Some (officials) of the Syrian regime could like to return to Lebanon one way or
the other, but the situation is different that it was in 1976.
"The Syrians had enjoyed Arab and international backing, which are not available
these days and would not be available. Certainly there would be resistance in
Lebanon to such an attempt." He criticized a recent statement by the head of
Hizbullah's parliamentary bloc Mohammed Raad that in case Iran was attacked,
11,000 missiles would be fired at Israel from Lebanon. "This confirms that (Hizbullah)
weapons in Lebanon serve Iran," Fatfat declared.
Beirut, 01 Sep 08, 14:05
Report: Nasrallah Says Army 'Fortified Against Strife' with Hizbullah
Naharnet/Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has reportedly stressed that
no incident would lead to a clash between the army and the Shiite group, saying
the military was "fortified against strife." "The army is fortified…against
strife with Hizbullah and the resistance," Sheikh Maher Hammoud quoted Nasrallah
as saying after their three-hour meeting. The remarks were published by As Safir
daily on Monday. "Any tragic incident should be dealt with" far from the media
spotlight, the Hizbullah leader reportedly said. Nasrallah was referring to the
killing of Army 1st Lieutenant Samer Hanna on Thursday when a gunman opened fire
on his helicopter over Sojod hills in south Lebanon. Hizbullah described the
shooting as "very unfortunate and painful" and handed over the man suspected of
firing on the Lebanese army helicopter. Nasrallah reportedly said that Iran's
backing for Hizbullah was "religious" and not for "political objectives,"
denying that Tehran or Damascus were interfering in the decision-making of the
Shiite group. He said that the enemies of the resistance had "no weapons but the
arms of confessional strife." About recent Israeli threats, Nasrallah reportedly
said that they were aimed at helping Israeli Premier Ehud Olmert overcome
internal crises.
The resistance is ready to defend Lebanon in case of any Israeli aggression,
Hammoud quoted Nasrallah as saying. Hammoud also said in a statement carried by
An Nahar daily on Monday that the two men discussed the aftermath of the 2006
summer war between Israel and Hizbullah, the Doha accord and the government of
national unity. Beirut, 01 Sep 08, 08:29
Uniting The Four Lebanons
Naharnet/Leading Columnist-MP Ghassan Tueni proposed on Monday
re-uniting the de facto four Lebanons into one by creating a "resisting
community" which bans any party or faction from monopolizing the right to resist
the nation's enemies. Tueni, under the headline "One Lebanon, not two," defined
in the daily An-Nahar the four Lebanons as: The Lebanon of the south, the
Lebanon of Tripoli-Akkar, the Lebanon of Beirut-Baabda and the Lebanon of the
Bekaa Valley.
"We can unite these Lebanons … by proposing a creative strategy that safeguards
the whole of Lebanon by changing it into a resisting community," Tueni wrote.
"A collision between the army and the resistance is inevitable as long as the
duality between the two structures persists," he added.
He predicted that "such a duality would persist" irrespective of any adopted
coordination between a regular army and a resistance faction.
He recalled that unity could be achieved through a plan adopted in the 1970s
under the auspices of Imam Moussa al-Sadr and the Army command, which bans
monopoly of the resistance by a single party or factional community. The second
clause of the plan called for changing southern villages and towns, especially
population centers abutting the borders, into "resisting bastions for all their
citizens," Tueni wrote. Tueni concluded by proposing tackling such a plan by the
conference of national dialogue that President Michel Suleiman is to sponsor.
Beirut, 01 Sep 08, 10:40
Haaretz: Israel Considering
Pullout from Ghajar's Lebanese Side
Naharnet/Israel has told the United States that it was ready to
withdraw from the northern part of the divided village of Ghajar, a move that
the Israeli daily Haartez described as a shift in the policy of the Jewish
state. A government source in Jerusalem told Haartez that the decision was taken
after the Lebanese government made written assurances that U.N. peacekeepers in
south Lebanon would be given security and civilian control over the northern
part of the village, which is in Lebanese territory. "The Americans have been
asking us for a long time to move ahead on the Lebanon issue and after receiving
the letter, it was decided to show a more positive stance," the source told the
daily in remarks published Monday. "The Israel Defense Forces Planning Branch
and the Northern Command are now at work on the details of the withdrawal from
the northern part of Ghajar," Haaretz said. It said that Israel handed over to
UNIFIL commander Gen. Claudio Graziano about two weeks ago an official letter
stating that the Jewish state accepts U.N. security and civilian control over
the northern part of Ghajar.
Beirut, 01 Sep 08, 08:50
MP Franjieh Accuses Hizbullah of Seeking to Eliminate the
Army
Naharnet/MP Samir Franjieh on Sunday accused Hizbullah of seeking
to eliminate the Lebanese Army in an apparent effort to prevent the re-launching
of the state.
Franjieh, in a radio interview, said Hizbullah "wants to convince the Lebanese
people that the state does not exist." He predicted that Hizbullah would not
facilitate the investigation into the attack on an army helicopter by its gunmen
in the southern Sojod region, which resulted in killing the pilot.
"Hizbullah, practically, wants to eliminate the military establishment,"
Franjieh charged. Beirut, 31 Aug 08, 13:57
Sami Gemayel: No Complete Sovereignty in Lebanon
Naharnet/The son of former President and Phalange party leader Amin Gemayel on Sunday
underlined the need to achieve full sovereignty for Lebanon.
"Sovereignty is still distant as long as Palestinian weapons remain deployed
across Lebanese territories," Sami Gemayel told supporters in Bikfaya.
"There is no complete sovereignty as long as weapons still exist in the hands of
Lebanese who prevent the state from exercising sovereign power," he added.
Beirut, 31 Aug 08, 16:11
One Killed, 3 Wounded in Clashes in North Lebanon
Naharnet/One person was killed and three others were wounded in clashes Sunday between
rival communities in the village of Sheikh Lar in north Lebanon's Akkar
province.
The shooting erupted between Sunni Muslims and Alawites in the village of Sheikh
Lar, a security source said.
He said rescue teams were unable to enter because of the intensity of the
fighting with automatic weapons and rocket propelled grenades.
An army statement said troops were on the ground to restore order, adding that
the fighting was triggered by a "dispute between villagers."
The village lies about 50 kilometers (30 miles) north of the port city of
Tripoli, the scene of a spate of deadly clashes since May between the two
communities which each support rival political factions in Lebanon.
In June and July, 23 people were killed in battles between Sunnis and rivals
from the Alawite community who support the Hizbullah.
There has been tension between the two communities ever since Lebanon's
1975-1990 civil war.
Alawites are an offshoot of Shiite Islam and straddle the border into Syria
whose President Bashar al-Assad is a follower of the faith.
Sheikh Lar is also home to Maronite Christians.(AFP-Naharnet)
Beirut, 31 Aug 08, 20:40
MP Franjieh Accuses Hizbullah of Seeking to Eliminate the Army
Naharnet/MP Samir Franjieh on Sunday accused Hizbullah of seeking to eliminate the
Lebanese Army in an apparent effort to prevent the re-launching of the state.
Franjieh, in a radio interview, said Hizbullah "wants to convince the Lebanese
people that the state does not exist."
He predicted that Hizbullah would not facilitate the investigation into the
attack on an army helicopter by its gunmen in the southern Sojod region, which
resulted in killing the pilot.
"Hizbullah, practically, wants to eliminate the military establishment,"
Franjieh charged. Beirut, 31 Aug 08, 13:57
Olmert Rebukes Abbas for Meeting Qantar in Lebanon
Naharnet/Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has rebuked
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas for meeting with released Lebanese prisoner
Samir Qantar during a recent trip to Lebanon. Israel traded Qantar and other
prisoners for the bodies of two of its soldiers who were kidnapped by Hizbullah
fighters in July 2006.
Qantar was convicted of killing three people in a grisly attack in northern
Israel in 1979. With cameras rolling as the two stood in front of their flags in
Jerusalem on Sunday, Olmert told Abbas that he was "upset" by the meeting with
Qantar, "a murderer." "You are a man of peace. You should meet people of peace,"
Olmert said. Abbas' response was not audible. Abbas rejected Israel's idea of an
interim peace agreement at Sunday's summit, a Palestinian negotiator said,
insisting on an all-or-nothing approach that virtually ruled out an accord by a
January target date. The latest meeting between Abbas and Olmert was their
shortest, lasting less than an hour. Neither side pointed to progress. "We want
an agreement to end the (Israeli) occupation and establish an independent
Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital," Erekat told The Associated
Press. "President Abbas told Olmert that we will not be part of an interim or
shelf agreement," he said. "Either we agree on all issues, or no agreement at
all."(AP-Naharnet) Beirut, 01 Sep 08, 09:05
Haaretz: Israel Considering Pullout from Ghajar's Lebanese
Side
Naharnet/Israel has told the United States that it was ready to
withdraw from the northern part of the divided village of Ghajar, a move that
the Israeli daily Haartez described as a shift in the policy of the Jewish
state. A government source in Jerusalem told Haartez that the decision was taken
after the Lebanese government made written assurances that U.N. peacekeepers in
south Lebanon would be given security and civilian control over the northern
part of the village, which is in Lebanese territory. "The Americans have been
asking us for a long time to move ahead on the Lebanon issue and after receiving
the letter, it was decided to show a more positive stance," the source told the
daily in remarks published Monday. "The Israel Defense Forces Planning Branch
and the Northern Command are now at work on the details of the withdrawal from
the northern part of Ghajar," Haaretz said. It said that Israel handed over to
UNIFIL commander Gen. Claudio Graziano about two weeks ago an official letter
stating that the Jewish state accepts U.N. security and civilian control over
the northern part of Ghajar.
Beirut, 01 Sep 08, 08:50
Will Syria's Assad go to Jerusalem in Quest for Peace?
By MIDDLE EAST TIMES
Published: September 01, 2008
Yonah Alexander, a senior fellow at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies in
Washington has just returned from a fact-finding trip to Syria at the invitation
of that country's government with an unusual idea.
Alexander suggests in an opinion piece publish in Monday's edition of the Middle
East Times titled "Assad to Jerusalem: Dream or Reality?" that if Syrian
President Bashar Assad is truly committed to peace between his country and
Israel, he would follow in the footsteps of Egypt's late president, Anwar Sadat,
by going to Israel and addressing the Knesset. In his speech to the Israeli
assembly Assad would offer to bury the hatchet in return for the restitution of
the Golan Heights, captured from Syria in the June 1967 war. And in the process
perhaps Assad would become the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition
of extraordinary efforts in advancing the cause of peace in the Middle East.
Assad the recipient of the Nobel Prize for Peace? Hard to imagine. As is equally
hard to imagine Assad taking the road to Jerusalem. In both instances it would
be a hard pill to swallow.
It would be a hard pill to swallow for the Syrians, whom for decades were raised
with the notion that Israel was a terrible enemy with whom there can be no
peace. It would be equally hard for the Lebanese, who suspect the regime in
Damascus of being responsible for the assassination of former Prime Minister
Rafik Hariri and a slew of politicians, journalists and opponents to Syrian
meddling in Lebanon. And it would be equally hard on all opposition groups based
in the Syrian capital, which in all probability would have to cease and desist
under any potential agreement reached between Damascus and Jerusalem.
It would also be hard on Israeli settlers on the Golan who would have to be
evacuated, as any peace deal between Israel and Syria which does include the
return of the occupied heights to Syria would never fly.
However, Professor Alexander does not make these suggestions out of the blue.
His observations, that Syria is ready for peace, rests on the basis of
discussions he held during his visit to Damascus and during which time he met
with numerous officials, including Vice President Najah Attar, Minister of
Information Mohsen Bilal, and Speaker of the People's Assembly Mahmoud al-Abrash,
as well as top religious leaders, among them the Mufti of Damascus, Abdul-Fattah
al-Bizem.
But after six decades of hostility between Syria and Israel, after six decades
of Syria's rulers constantly pounding the concept of Israel as the enemy and the
cause of all of the Middle East's trials and tribulations, how to overnight wipe
the slate clean, indeed?
The short answer is that in politics nothing is impossible. And in a country
where the government controls the media it would not be terribly difficult to
do. The incentives for peace should be obvious. Comparing the state of affairs
of the 22 members of the Arab League, Syria and the Palestinian territories
probably rank as the worse off along with Somalia, equally plagued by a
never-ending war. And when compared to the leaps and bounds achieved by the
former communist countries of Eastern Europe, Syria and the Palestinian
territories simply trails way behind in the dust.
The continued state of belligerency has kept those countries isolated and
economically deprived. So perhaps it is not far-fetched to expect the unexpected
from Assad. Unthinkable? Remember the dictum that in politics "there are no
permanent friends or enemies but only permanent interests."
And as objectionable as some might find the idea of Assad receiving the Nobel
Prize, if they are serious in the pursuit of peace and prosperity they will
learn to move on. Not necessarily forgive, and certainly not forget. But in
their national interest, learn to accept the reality that there can be no
alternative to peace.
Saudi Arabians Back Obama
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu -Arutz Sheva
Saudi Arabians, including expatriates, are backing Democratic presidential
candidate Senator Barack Obama.
According to the Arab News, which describes itself as the Arab world's leading
English daily newspaper, the reasons for Saudi support of the rookie senator
range from his being black to his middle name being Hussein, which has led many
Saudis to believe he is a Muslim. Sen. Obama was born in Kenya to a Muslim
father, who had several wives, but the presidential candidate is Christian.
Sen. Obama was born in Kenya to a Muslim father, who had several wives, but the
presidential candidate is Christian.
Arab News quoted Pakistani expatriate Mohammed Yousuf as saying, "Some believed
Obama is a Muslim because of his middle name. All the blacks so far in power at
various levels have shown their commitment and determination to serve the
country and the world without discrimination of color and religion. However, the
track record of whites has been to side with Israel rather than with Muslim
countries. We now have a ray of hope in Obama."
Arab and Muslim support for Sen. Obama is not universal but few Arab voices are
encouraging voters to back Republican presidential candidate Senator John
McCain. Ali Alarabi, writing for the London-based AlArab web site, wrote last
week that Arab and Muslim Americans should not vote for a third candidate
instead of Sen. Obama. He said that initial support for Sen. Obama waned after
he made several public moves to remove his identification with Muslims and
picked as his running mate Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, a non-Jew who defined
himself as a "Zionist."However, Sen. Obama still maintains a wide appeal among
Muslims because of his father having been a Kenyan Muslim. "Many are those who
will agree that his message of change and hope is destined for the African
audience," wrote for Modern Ghana.com. In Israel, Arabs so far have generally
remained quiet about the presidential campaign, but Hamas leaders said several
weeks ago they hope Sen. Obama wins. A group of pro-Obama Gaza students are
conducting a telephone campaign aimed at American voters.
Israeli Hostage Freed by Nigerian Kidnappers
by Hana Levi Julian -Arutz Sheva
Israeli businessman Ehud Avni was released late Sunday night by militant
kidnappers who held the construction project manager hostage in Nigeria for
nearly a week after four operatives pulled him out of his car at gunpoint in
front of his home in the city of Port Harcourt, the capital of Rivers State in
the country's southern Delta region. The incident occurred after Avni returned
home from an event at the home of Governor Rotimi Amaeci, held in honor of
Israeli Ambassador to Nigeria, Moshe Ram. Avni's driver was removed from the car
by the kidnappers; he was subsequently arrested in connection with the incident.
According to Foreign Ministry spokesman Yossi Levi, Avni, a diabetic, was
released without his captors having collected any of the ransom they demanded.
Media reports said a $12 million price tag had been placed on the 60-year-old
Israeli's freedom.
Avni is reported to be in good condition and is expected to arrive back home in
Ra'anana on Thursday. His wife Tzipi told Voice of Israel government radio that
her husband called after his release and confirmed that he was in good health.
She also said she expects her husband, who has spent 30 years working in the
West African nation, to return to the country to continue working.
Levi said that much of the credit for the hostage's release went to his
employers at Gilmor Engineering Limited, who conducted the negotiations for his
freedom privately, directly with his kidnappers. "We were assisting," said Levi.
"We gave the framework, and helped with government contacts. But his bosses did
the actual negotiating directly with the kidnappers."
One of the reasons Avni was release was directly related to his diabetes,
according to Ambassador Ram, who said the kidnappers "were worried about getting
into difficulties over his health." The other reason, said the envoy, had to do
with the pressure placed on the kidnappers by the Nigerian authorities.
A crisis in the talks developed briefly last week when a militant group that had
previously offered to help track down and facilitate negotiations for the
hostage balked, after IsraelNationalNews.com referred to their group as
"terrorists."
The "Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta" (M.E.N.D.) group,
comprised of indigenous gunmen, published their demand for an apology and a
retraction by IsraelNationalNews.com in a Reuters article.
After consultation with diplomatic officials, IsraelNationalNews removed the
reference to 'terrorist' stating that as long as the change in wording may help
free the Israeli, the company is happy to comply. It is not clear what role, if
any, the militant group played in Avni's release.
New Opinion: Electoral impasse
September 1, 2008
NowLebanon/“Democracy,” Winston Churchill said, “is the worst form of
government, except for all those others that have been tried.”
Modern democracies are complex and often problematic systems of governance, and
the Lebanese system is a case in point. Indeed, Lebanon’s electoral system,
which is based on confessional divisions, is unique among contemporary nations,
and while the Lebanese parliament attempts to debate electoral reform, many
Lebanese citizens have reacted with familiar indifference and frustration.
Lebanon’s electoral processes have been the subject of repeated tension and
revision, most recently in the Doha Agreement, which reinstituted many features
of the 1960 law. The March 14 bloc agreed to resurrect the 1960 law within the
context of Hezbollah’s capture of West Beirut in May, and is now attempting to
link the implementation of the Doha reforms to redistricting in order to
reestablish some political parity.
Much is at stake, but given the perpetual stalemate of the two coalitions and
the complexity of proposals, it is unsurprising that many Lebanese are either
too tired to grasp the details of the debate or hold little hope that current
discussions in parliament will produce genuine and effective reforms.
The general disinterest in the political process highlights the deeper sense of
disconnect many Lebanese citizens feel toward their elected officials. Lebanese
politics has been defined, for generations, by rival factions aggressively
defending their own interests. The present electoral reform debate is no
exception, given its potential to spur a limited but significant reallocation of
parliamentary representation in 2009.
Even given these potential shifts, the exasperation apparent in this week’sNow
We’re Talking section suggests that many Lebanese feel completely unrepresented.
Public sentiment appears to conclude that the tradition of political leaders
defending their own parochial and often personal interests fails to serve the
public at all and only perpetuates the political and economic stagnation that is
such a burden on daily life in Lebanon. After so many false starts, many
Lebanese still view their political leaders as obstacles to progress rather than
agents of change.
The entrenched traditions of Lebanese politics, mired in suspicion and the
constant potential of internal and external armed conflict, will not change
rapidly. Nonetheless, it is the responsibility of Lebanese political leaders to
demonstrate clearly to their constituencies that the basic political needs
shared by so many Lebanese are their main concern. Overwhelmingly, citizens
interviewed by NOW Lebanon were less interested in precise electoral divisions
and more concerned with a stable environment within which to raise families,
conduct business, and, in the words of one commentator, “get on with things.”
Electoral reform has been deferred to the Administration and Justice
Parliamentary Committee, to be debated again before parliament on September 25.
Parliament members should acknowledge that while they continue to square off,
the hopes of citizens across Lebanon’s many divides continue to remain on hold,
as they have been for so long. Accepting the extent of these basic common
interests, and constructing a political process that serves this cause rather
than parochial concerns, remains the fundamental challenge of Lebanese political
life
TEN QUESTIONS FOR DR. WALID
PHARES
W. Thomas Smith Jr.
01 Sep 2008
Less than two weeks from the 7th anniversary of the most horrific terrorist
attack on American soil, Middle East terrorism expert Dr. Walid Phares shares
his thoughts on recent reports issued by a variety of analysts and think tanks,
which are suggesting – among other things – the global war on terror should be
prosecuted not as a war, but as an international campaign against criminals: An
approach Phares believes is a recipe for failure.
Phares also describes and explains the evolving strategic trends within the
Jihadist movement worldwide, as well as the present state of Al Qaeda, the
Jihadist ideology, the terror forces that subscribe to that ideology, and the
approaches Phares believes may be taken by the next U.S. president.
Director of the Future of Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of
Democracies, Phares is a visiting scholar at the European Foundation for
Democracy and an advisor to the TransAtlantic Legislative Group on Terrorism. He
is the author of The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad, the
third book in his series examining international terrorism and the dynamics that
fuel it.
Phares has been following and analyzing the rise of the Salafi and Khomeinist
movements for nearly 30 years, and has been predicting the strategic rise of
Jihadism since the end of the Cold War.
Our Q&A follows:
W. THOMAS SMITH JR.: Over the past two-plus months, analysts and commentators
have posited that Al-Qaeda (both the command-and-control nucleus and the – often
disconnected elements of the – broader network) has been significantly weakened,
perhaps to the point of insignificance. Do we have substantive intelligence
indicating such?
DR. WALID PHARES: Al Qaeda has been weakened, but not to the point that it has
been defeated or driven from the battlefield. Remember it took only a handful of
Al Qaeda terrorists to strike at the heart of New York, Washington, Madrid, and
London. Al Qaeda as it presently exists, continues to retain the capacity to
conduct these kinds of operations. The organization continues to focus on its
ongoing, asymmetric operations such as those in Iraq and Pakistan. Let me be
clear as regards Iraq: If American forces were to pull-out abruptly, Al Qaeda
would return to the Sunni triangle. And regarding Pakistan, if the Jihadists are
able to further penetrate the army and the intelligence services they may be
able to shift the ground in Pakistan, and perhaps penetrate the nuclear system
of that country.
The analysis and commentary we’ve seen which claims Al Qaeda has been
significantly weakened, suggests that the organization has had their objectives
denied for the present in Iraq and Afghanistan. But we must remember, all of
this is based on the reliance of a strong U.S. and NATO presence. The question
remains: would the local governments continue to defeat Al Qaeda after
withdrawal, and would they have any chance of defeating it ideologically. In my
estimation, no. Not yet. The pre 9/11 Al Qaeda has been weakened to be sure. but
the post-9/11 Al Qaeda has mutated into a different type of network which is
capable of regrouping more rapidly and re-emerging when the balance of power
shifts on the ground.
SMITH: Some – like author and terrorism researcher Marc Sageman – contend the
greatest danger comes from young radicalized Muslims with virtually no
connection to Al Qaeda and its leadership. Is this an accurate assertion?
DR. PHARES: There is no such thing as a “greatest” or real danger as opposed to
a lesser or false danger. There is one global ideological movement: Part of it
is Al Qaeda. Other elements of the movement are local Jihadists. In my
assessment, there is no such thing as “radicalized Muslims,” but indoctrinated
Jihadists among Muslims and those who are opposing them. The term “radicalized
Muslims” is used to imply that Jihadism is a reaction to Western policies. In
reality, the rise of the Jihadists is produced by a vast ideological
indoctrination. Hence the so-called young “radicalized Muslims” as stated by
other experts are Jihadists who were indoctrinated by the same ideologues who
have fed Al Qaeda with these views of the world. Ideologically, it is the same
global Salafist movement. Al Qaeda is a centrally controlled organization, and
there are many self-established groups that hope to emulate Al Qaeda or
eventually link with it. Those Jihadists who emerge outside Al Qaeda are indeed
a great danger. And in the end, they will merge.
SMITH: Professor Bruce Hoffman and others talk about Al Qaeda resurging along
the Afghan-Pakistan border as evidence that the central element stills exists,
and that it still matters. Others argue that this is a more of a Pashtun fight,
not Al Qaeda. Do we fully understand how much of what’s happening there has to
do with Al Qaeda?
DR. PHARES: The fight led by the Taliban, Al Qaeda and many Jihadists from
around the world is not a local “ethnic” fight for power. For Arabs, Chechens,
Europeans, Africans and Asians to be fighting along with the Taliban and Al
Qaeda means that the movement is transnational, not local, even though it has
vast support among the Pashtun; because it also has support in other parts of
the world among other ethnicities.
In short, the combat Jihadi movement is now international, has Al Qaeda as its
epicenter, and has affiliated groups around the region and worldwide. But many
experts and academics still try to portray it in such a way – and with so many
different faces — so that it is not defined as a global movement. For if it is
defined as such, there will be policy consequences such as identifying its
ideology, that is Salafism and Wahabism. For it is a fact that while Al Qaeda
recruits from various pools, the organization is not the one that is creating
and feeding those pools ideologically. There are oil-producing regimes that are
responsible for the expansion of the ideology. Thus we have been seeing plenty
of petrodollars invested in the West to shield the ideology of Jihadism while
claiming that al Qaeda is weak, benign, and that we shouldn’t be very worried
about it.
SMITH: The recent RAND study by Seth G. Jones and Martin C. Libicki tell as that
“terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors,”
and so should be fought through law enforcement and intelligence agencies, not
with armies. If so, what should be the strategy? And how is it different from
what’s being done?
DR. PHARES: I disagree with the RAND conclusions. This is precisely why the U.S.
and the greater West have been surprised and hit by the Jihadists and al Qaeda,
as we saw on 9/11. And this is because the academic elite of the 1990s said then
that the Jihadists were just criminals and that they did not form a legitimate
movement. The intellectual establishment failed Western governments with their
wrong advice. And we saw the consequences on 9/11. The argument that terrorists
are criminals is not adding to the debate. Of course they are criminals. The
statement that the Jihadists aren’t holy warriors has to be made by Islamic
religious authorities, not by NGOs and think tanks. In the eyes of their
constituencies, the Jihadists are indeed perceived as legitimate. In the same
way that in the eyes of many German citizens in the 1930s, leading to – and
during – World War II, the Nazis were perceived as nationalist fighters. The
Nazis seized power and waged war. The answer to their action was a world
campaign, a world war by democracies against them. The argument then wasn’t that
Nazism was a good or bad thing, but that the followers of Hitler were criminals!
Just the opposite I would argue. The Jihadi terrorists have to be confronted
with all means, neither just armies nor just law enforcement or intelligence
services. I’ll even argue that the most powerful weapon against the Jihadists is
none of the latter. It is the prosecution of a war of ideas, with soft powers.
SMITH: There has been some discussion that the term, “war on terror,” may fall
into disuse. Will the next president of the United States continue to use the
term to describe the war in which we are clearly involved?
DR. PHARES: There are efforts in Europe to do away with the term, and there are
some efforts in the U.S. to follow suit. But the alternatives will be much
different. If Obama is the next U.S. president, I believe he will end the
war-on-terror doctrine and replace it with a Clinton-like police effort against
criminals. If McCain is the next president, I believe he may also abandon the
term and replace it with the current term he is using “war with radical Islamic
extremism,” or with the much clearer concept of “war with global Jihadists”. The
term “war of ideas” was a middle ground between two schools. Soon, one of the
two schools will prevail.
SMITH: In the years since 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, we’ve been talking
about Al Qaeda as if it were a global force, with a reach extending from South
Asia to the Maghreb and beyond. Then we’ve heard about Al Qaeda “the label” and
“Al Qaedism.” From what we now know, how many of the ideologically sympathizing
terrorist groups, from the Philippines to Algeria actually have connections to
Al Qaeda and its leaders?
DR. PHARES: Again, many experts – unwilling to accept the reality that Jihadism
is a global ideology and movement – went in different directions trying to
explain the phenomenon away from its real and historic roots. Perhaps the little
linguistic and cultural knowledge that was available pushed these analysts to
adopt conclusions alien to the essence of Al Qaeda. In the Arab political debate
there is not such thing as “Al Qaedism.” There is no such thing as Al Qaeda’s
label or branding. The reality is simple: Beyond Al Qaeda and all similar
organizations there is a one global ideology called Jihadism. If we compare this
with the “Lord of the Rings” tales, Jihadism is the “ring,” a strong force that
lords and leaders use in their quest for expansion. These lords such as Osama
bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri come and go. But the “force” – or ideology —
remains and produces more leaders. So, Al Qaeda is a central organization for
Jihadists, but there are Jihadi groups around the world, most of whom look at Al
Qaeda as the great center. But again, this constellation, if you will, is the
product of an ideology and of doctrinaires. If we fail to understand this, we
fail to properly analyze the future.
SMITH: Twenty-or-so years after the birth of Al Qaeda, does it make sense to
speak of winners? And is Al-Qaeda winning – even if we’re talking in terms of
ideology and not pitched battles – or losing?
DR. PHARES: Al Qaeda will win if the West fails to understand what makes Al
Qaeda strong and capable of evolving. The West has been able drive Al Qaeda from
two major battlefronts, but it has yet to win a war of ideas against Jihadism.
The real battle is within the West between those who want to quit the conflict
and those who want to press forward until Jihadism, not just Al Qaeda, is
defeated. Al Qaeda will lose if we recognize that there is an ideology to defeat
it and that the best allies in this confrontation are those anti-Jihadist
Muslims. Short of this happening, this is a back-and-forth battle without end.
SMITH: Did the war in Iraq – as did the Jihad in Afghanistan – produce another
generation of fighters?
DR. PHARES: It is not the battlefield, but the Jihadi factories that produce the
generations of fighters. The attack on Serbia did not produce suicide bombers.
The campaign against Haiti’s military didn’t create a generation of Haitian
terrorists. And China’s occupation of Tibet is not generating violent armed
militias. The point is the Jihadists who are heading towards Iraq or Afghanistan
are already followers of Jihadism. They have already been indoctrinated by the
Madrassas. If not Iraq, it would be Somalia, Algeria, Chechnya, London or
Madrid. They aren’t a reaction to, they are a force “sui generic,” with a world
view and strategies. Going to Iraq or not is a different discussion. Iraq didn’t
create Jihadism, just the opposite the Jihadists are prolonging the war in Iraq.
SMITH: What about the increasing recruitment of women?
DR. PHARES: This is a new strategic trend. The Jihadists – including Al Qaeda –
are innovative, and retooling with all their resources. First, they are trying
to use non-Arab Jihadis instead of Arabs. Then more European-looking than Middle
Eastern-looking recruits. Also women, as many as they can bring into the fold.
This is a war. They know it. And they are trying to use all their resources to
develop new weapons to win the war. Again, if we do not thwart them with their
most powerful tool – their ideology – we won’t be able to determine from which
direction and in what way they will come. But if we do identify this ideology
and counter it, their resources will be isolated and their power reversed.
SMITH: There are some signs of dissension within the ranks of Al Qaeda, as well
as indications that Al Qaeda and their leaders enjoy lessening-support in Muslim
countries. Did the late Abu Musab al Zarqawi’s cruelty and indiscriminate
killings contribute?
DR. PHARES: No. The killing of Muslims is not the primary factor weakening Al
Qaeda in the eyes of the Jihadists. It is the inability of Al Qaeda to defeat
the infidels as they promised. If you read what the dissidents are saying,
you’ll understand that they are somewhat the realists who are arguing that the
reckless strategies of bin laden have not been in the interest of long-term
Jihad. As for Muslim public opinion, it is divided. Those who support Jihadism
haven’t changed their minds massively but some are criticizing the management of
the effort by bin laden. And those among the Muslims who oppose the Salafists,
haven’t changed their mind and are still very much opposed to Al Qaeda. We in
the West we try to find signs of weakness in Al Qaeda because many aren’t able
to provide answers as to the nature of the ideology and are dodging that hard
reality.
— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. online at uswriter.com.
A Lesson in Geography
Ghassan Charbel
Al-Hayat - 01/09/08//
The history book cheats us into thinking that it has retired, that it has chosen
its last stay at the museums, hidden under the dust of time, or between school
textbooks, no longer exporting trouble, or promoting dreams and illusions.
History is a charlatan. It slips through the old songs, through the stories told
by grandmothers, and national celebrations. It plays dead only to carry its
wounds, scars and revenge calls to new generations.
The time doctor is not always reliable, even if its cure worked every now and
then. Some sentiments lurk as long as it takes as they await the opportunity to
wake up and seek revenge; offended national sentiments; repressed national
aspirations; the suffering of sects, confessions, ethnicities, minorities, and
threatened cultural groups. History sleeps like volcanoes before suddenly
awakening and shooting fires and dust. It is troubling for a ruler to give in to
history; to endorse its unfulfilled battles and its incomplete enmities. Yet,
the ruler cannot ignore history either, or to ignore its lessons. It is possible
to say that cheating history is possible to some extent. It can be deceived by
beautifying the tales, the readings, and the interpretations. The problem lies
in the geography.
Geography is destiny. One cannot manipulate mountains and deserts, relocate
seas, or carry straights away. States can choose some of its history but it can
only accept geography. If Poland had a choice, it would chosen another location
without having to endure and suffer. The same can be said about many states.
Geography selects your neighbors, and you have to coexist with them despite the
bitterness of the past and the conflicts of the present.
I was at a café in Beirut. I had just returned from a meeting with President
Mahmoud Abbas. I decided to imagine an open dialogue in a private meeting
between Abbas and President Michel Sleiman. The Palestinian president has a
considerable experience in the Palestinian-Palestinian dialogue. Additionally,
he is a traveler who has visited close and remote capitals before he reached the
divorce between Gazza and the West Bank. I reckoned that perhaps President
Sleiman may have some advice for his guest as a result of the past and future
Lebanese dialogue tables. Perhaps he could share some experience with respect to
the glorious government of national unity. Yet, I found myself thinking of a
faraway president, Mikheil Saakshavili.
Many admired the Georgian president, a Columbia graduate and a modern president
who has been swayed by the Rose Revolution, western praise, and the hopes of
globalization. He made his pick from history and walked away. He wanted to carry
his nation to another world. He dreamt of sleeping inside NATO's tent and eluded
himself into believing that western sentiments of support can be translated into
actions. He ignored the messages sent by Vladimir the Great and attempted to
regain the renegade provinces by force. He clashed with geography and it was a
blast. The renegade provinces walked farther and the NATO dream became more
difficult while western sympathy turned out to be nothing more than bandages,
blankets and tents for the displaced.
Suddenly, the world remembered that the Red Army has regained its teeth, that
Great Russia does not accept the migration of its neighbors to NATO, and that it
has not forgotten Serbia or the insistence of the Bush administration to support
Kosovo's independence or the missile shield. Russia took advantage of
Saakshavili's mistake to avenge the humiliation it has suffered ever since the
Soviet Union was wiped off the map.
It is too early to confirm the return of the cold War or the emergence of a
multi-polar world. Yet, it is certain that Russia has violently shaken the
international scene. This is not surprising. When the US invades remote Iraq for
no good reason, Russia sees it as its right to impose its control near its
borders where the considerations of security meet those of gas and oil
pipelines.
The game is extremely dangerous, especially if Russia claimed for itself the
right to protect twenty million Russians living in states that were once part of
the Soviet Union.
I remembered that I was still in Beirut, that there were those who recall
history and forget geography as well as those who love geography and forget
history. I remembered that Michel Sleiman's mission between the two camps is a
tedious one, that Fouad Siniora does poorly with geography, that Walid Jumblat
seems to have remembered its lessons, that Samir Geagea prefers history, that
Speaker Berri does not make errors in reading the map, while Michel Aoun had
left to his exile as a history teacher only to return home as a professor in
geography
Food Security: An Element of
National Independence
By Elias Aoun
“Would food be considered an instrument of national power?” This statement is
attributed to a report issued on Dec. 10, 1974 by the U.S. National Security
Council under Henry Kissinger: “National Security Study Memorandum 200:
Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas
Interests.” The study falsely claimed that population growth in the so-called
Lesser Developed Countries was a grave threat to U.S. national security. This
stance was in line with the Club of Rome’s 1972 “Limits to Growth” aimed at
“stabilizing” the world’s population. To deal with the “population growth
problem”, measures pursued were birth control, abortions, wars, famine, and
curtailing food supplies.
On May 23, 2003, President Bush proposed an Initiative allegedly to End Hunger
in Africa using genetically modified (GM) foods. The message was part of a
master plan that had been crafted by certain biotech companies determined to
control the world’s food supply within fifteen to twenty years – and are using
the government to help get GM foods into the marketplace quickly before
resistance could get in the way. Monsanto executives described a world with 100
percent of all commercial seeds genetically modified and patented. (“Seeds of
Deception”, by Jeffrey M. Smith)
According to two independent sources, one hidden U.S. objective to stay in Iraq
and Afghanistan is to contribute to circumstances that would continuously send
inflation higher (as is currently taking place), causing a rise in food prices
and the people to cry out for cheap food. As a response to the manufactured food
crisis, a “solution” is then presented: bio-engineered crops. Both the United
Nations and the World Bank have pushed GM food or encouraged countries toward GM
development.
How food is intended to be used as an instrument of power? The answer lies in
pointing out one fundamental difference: The farmers need not continuously buy
natural seeds, while GM seeds have to be bought every year. The reason is that
natural crop preserves or produces seeds for future harvest, while GM crop is
“sterile” and does not produce seeds for the next generation.
By making natural seeds virtually extinct, farmers would have to continuously
purchase new GM seeds from the companies that 'manufacture' them – and, as a
result, the world becomes permanently reliant on corporations for survival.
A country dependent on GM seeds could be easily forced to pursue any policy
dictated upon it. Otherwise, its supply of seeds will be cut-off – and, thereby,
food becomes a lethal instrument of power.
Several weeks ago, The Guardian reported on a “confidential” World Bank analysis
attributing the rise in food prices to biofuel production. In an interview with
Le Monde, United Nation’s top food adviser, Olivier de Schutter, blamed the
shortage on “20 years of mistakes.”
Are we to believe that they did not expect grain for food shortages when they
diverted grain away from food for fuel, or when they set aside agricultural land
for biofuel production? How did they expect the food deficiencies created by
these measures to be overcome?
Even if one is to assume that this plot for food control is inaccurate, why
would a country place its food security totally in the hands of foreign biotech
giants? Certainly, that would not be consistent with its genuine national
security and independence.
What can be done to overcome this plot toward food control? The short answer is
to expose the plot, remain outside the realm of corporate control or foreign
dependency, give more attention to the agricultural sector, and pursue
constructive measures.
Proposed Solutions
In the pursuit of solutions, many writers focus on food availability – such as
to increase food production to meet demand. That is a short-sighted approach.
Availability could be met, but it does not mean that what is available is
healthy. A more accurate approach must involve both food availability and
quality. The most secure availability is locally-grown, and the best quality is
organic (if done properly).
Public Awareness and Education
In promoting a solution, the first priority is public awareness about the
negative impact of GM foods on consumers’ health and the need to shift to
organic agriculture. GM foods (and GM feed to animals) are inherently hazardous
to health. Their approval was based on politics, not science or safety.
Geneticist David Suzuki stated: “any politician or scientist who tells you these
[GM] products are safe is either very stupid or lying.”
Do Arab governments conduct any tests or research before accepting GM seeds or
foods, or do they simply accept what is being offered them and downplay (or
worse, ridicule) any concerns for safety?
In addition, GM products require increasing amounts of toxic chemicals which
pollute the food, water, and soil – and cause various illnesses.
Biotech companies would not have been able to get away with their products if
they were not part of an agenda. Whatever “benefits” some may argue for GM
crops, those benefits could be achieved through other means.
To counter this campaign toward food control and the poisoning of people and
environment, the best method is a policy based on (1) organic agriculture and
(2) localized food systems.
Organic Agriculture
Organic foods are grown without the use of conventional pesticides, artificial
fertilizers, human waste, or sewage sludge, and that they were processed without
ionizing radiation or food additives. Livestock are reared without the routine
use of antibiotics, growth hormones, or feed additives. Organic produce must not
be genetically modified. As far as possible, organic farmers should rely on crop
rotation, green manure, compost, biological pest control, and mechanical
cultivation to maintain soil productivity and control pests.
The most important benefit of organic farming is to maximize the health of the
environment, the farmer, and the consumer. Organic farming is the only kind of
farming that will rebuild the depleted soils, clean up the environment and
provide healthy nutritious food for all citizens.
It is crucial to reiterate that organic farming must be done properly –
responsible irrigation, organic fertilizer, etc. If done inadequately, it might
lead to damaged crops.
Localized Food Systems
In proposing solutions, there is always a tendency to rely on a government or a
politician to address an issue. The new trend, however, is personal initiatives:
what an individual can do – whether that individual is acting alone, as part of
an extended family or local community.
Individual actions are not by themselves intended to resolve the food crisis,
but to show a level of individual responsibility and awareness. It is not
permissible to consistently say what the government should or should not do
without any form of personal ingenuity. A government has responsibilities that
must be met, but it is not responsible for everything.
Individuals or families that own land could take an initiative to plant their
own land or gardens with natural seeds and pursue organic farming practices, or
hire a farmer to do so on their behalf. In this manner, citizens rely on
themselves for at least some of their agricultural needs and have some control
over the quality of what they are eating.
In certain situations, some individuals live in cities, do not own land, or
cannot cultivate what they own. In this case, an option would be to start a
co-operative project based on an extended family or a small-community level to
make that family or community self-sufficient. Small-scale production using
organic methods would increase yield.
Measures taken by any citizen could also include: (1) removal of GM foods from
their diet; (2) buying only organic food; (3) conduct their own research and
play a role in creating a better understanding of the issues; and (4) get
information in the hands of those who can make a difference. Everyone should
make an attempt to plant something. At the very minimum, the process would be an
educational experience to them and their family members.
In addition to personal initiatives, a well-intentioned politician could take
measures aimed at supporting agricultural production by small farmers. Such
measures could include: ensuring access to quality seeds, access to markets for
farmers’ products, proper storage facilities, adequate supply of water, help
farmers improve soil fertility, and initiate programs to train young people to
farm.
The politician may also seek a cap on foreign ownership of land. In particular,
no agricultural land must be sold to foreigners so that their use is not
diverted for purposes inconsistent with a country’s food production needs.
Although some river dams and rainwater collection systems have been built or
installed, more of these may still be needed. In Lebanon, a massive amount of
river water and melted snow flow toward the sea when they could have been
diverted to various useful purposes.
The Politics
Sometimes, it is reported that a Lebanese minister meets with a U.N. official or
representative from a foreign embassy and agree to “cooperate” in the area of
agriculture or another sector.
These ministers should have been aware by now that “cooperation” in the minds of
his visitors means “control”. Most international organizations – such as the
U.N., World Bank, IMF, WTO, etc. – aim at undermining national role in order to
advance theirs. “Cooperation” with them means gradually surrendering national
sovereignty to them.
If one understands the basics about the politics of food, it is easy to perceive
the global trend to “squeeze out” small farmers – in the United States and any
other country – to the benefit of major corporations. Certain governments are
certainly an accomplice in the act.
According to an Arab-American author, the U.S. Foreign Aid Program insists that
a portion of the aid money be in food supplied by American farmers. Since this
is free food, the program was used to destroy the agricultural sector in many
countries such as Egypt and Indonesia.
The author added that the U.S. government offers subsidy checks to American
farmers so that they could undersell Third World farmers – thus making their
efforts not worth the time, and prevent them from making the money needed to
remain in business or upgrade their operations. In addition, the subsidy
provided to tobacco farmers is aimed at making poor people addicted to smoking
and buying American cigarettes.
One example about the steep cost of international and U.S. government policies
could be witnessed in Mexico whose people subsist on maize (mostly in
tortillas). Mexican farmers grew more maize than any other crop. Around 1994,
Mexicans began to buy corn from American farmers who were subsidized and could
sell corn cheaper. Inevitably, the price of corn fell by half. Unable to
compete, 1.3 million small Mexican farmers abandoned their farms by year 2003.
This is a perfect example of the true intent behind international organizations’
and U.S. government’s policies, “donations”, “cooperation”, or “assistance” – to
destroy small farmers worldwide for the benefit of corporations. These policies
could be defeated by simply reversing the trend – initiate LOCAL measures to
encourage small farmers to remain on their land, and persuade citizens (when
feasible) to engage in farming (even on a small level).
Cabinet Policies
Former Lebanese Economy and Trade Minister Sami Haddad once said that the
government has every right to open the agricultural market to foreign
competition. He added that consumers will be the first to benefit from
unrestricted competition.
Such a policy would prove detrimental to Lebanon’s agriculture and must be
revised by the two new ministers of Agriculture and Economy and Trade. Extremist
free-trade strategies lead to widening the gap between rich and poor.
No nation would survive without some form of protectionist measures. The
well-being of Lebanon’s farmers, and the preservation of Lebanon’s small
farmers, is more important than competitive prices. Money paid to these farmers
will be re-invested in Lebanon and inevitably help Lebanon’s economy. On the
other hand, money paid to foreigners will go outside the country’s borders,
further indebt the nation, and undermine the country’s standing on many levels.
If not done already, the new ministers must meet the farmers’ demand for the
reintroduction of the agriculture calendar, a process that bans the import of
agricultural products in Lebanon during certain seasons.
In south Lebanon, in 2006, the Israeli military showered the area’s agricultural
fields with cluster bombs. The criminal aim was to destroy the agricultural
sector rather than achieve any military objective. Agriculture makes up a large
percentage of the economy in South Lebanon and nationally.
While it is being reported that $4.7 million is needed to continue mine
clearance, that responsibility must be assumed by the Lebanese themselves,
instead of soliciting funds from the U.S. Congress or government – the same
source where these bombs came from and are maiming and killing Lebanon’s
children. Let Lebanon’s political blocks (Opposition and Loyalists) each
contribute half of the amount needed. It is Lebanese politicians who are
responsible for Lebanon, not the U.S. Congress.
Furthermore, whatever role the United Nations is playing in south Lebanon’s
agriculture, the sector must remain totally in the hands of Lebanese. In the
meantime, any foreign “donations” of GM grains or livestock injected with
hormones or raised on GM feed should be rejected.
Conclusion
Whenever faced with a problem, there is a tendency among certain Arab countries
to seek “international assistance” such as through the United Nations, World
Bank, IMF, etc. In reality, these “internationalists” have an agenda to expand
their own role. They place conditions that ultimately undermine a country’s
independence rather than assist it.
Regional or Arab solutions do exist. According to an Arab source, Arab countries
import $35.5 billion worth of agricultural products and have a population growth
of 2.4% annually. To meet Arab agricultural needs and become self-sufficient,
the Arab League presented a study to cultivate 2.5 million sq. Km. of
agricultural land in Sudan to provide for all Arab nations’ agricultural needs.
The project would cost $20 million which is a miniscule amount compared to the
$800 Billion in estimated Arab crude oil revenues for 2008. In fact, utilizing
all of Sudan’s agricultural land could provide enough food to feed not less than
30% of the world’s population.
In my view, the Arab League must not think just in terms of meeting food
shortage, but also in terms of the quality of food being produced. It would be
counterproductive if the land in Sudan, for example, is used to grow
genetically-modified food, grown unnaturally (treated with chemicals and
toxins), and are harmful to the consumer. Moreover, it would not be wise to rely
on a centralized location – even if it is Arab – as the source for Arab-wide
consumption. A better approach is local planning. Where possible, each small
community, each country, must become self-sufficient.
In May 2008, Saudi Arabia made a $500 million donation to a UN agency, World
Food Program (WFP). That money would have better served the cause if invested
directly in agricultural projects within the affected nations. By making
donations to an international organization, Saudi Arabia would be financing the
control and centralization of food distribution – a measure that is
contradictory to the long-term food security of any nation. In the long-term,
locally-based solutions will work better than any centralized or international
“solution.”
On this issue, as in any other, the media could play a vital role in informing
the public and advancing constructive concepts. Every patriotic plan to preserve
independence must include measures to advance public health, protect small
farmers, and become self-sufficient in organic food.
September 1, 2008