LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
June 17/08

Bible Reading of the day.
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Matthew 5,38-42. You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well. Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him for two miles. Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow.

Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports
In Canada/Free Speech on Trial.By: Jacob Laksin FrontPage.com 17/06/08
Syria: Between Tehran and Hezbollah. By Manal Lutfi- Asharq Alawsat  17/06/08
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875-Al-Ahram Weekly 17/06/08
Report: Terrorism Returns to Lebanon 17/06/08
Crossfire War - Syrian Official States Syria Will "Liberate" Golan ...NewsBlaze 17/06/08
Samir Kuntar the Convicted murderer is not considered a 'hero' in Lebanon, some say-By BRENDA GAZZAR 16.06.08
Will Lebanon's politicians finally start putting their country first?-Daily Star 16.06.08
What US role between Syria and Israel?By Ariel Kastner 16.06.08

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for June 16/08
Rice: Washington Ready to Cooperate with 'Very Fine' Suleiman, Backs Government and Berri-Naharnet
Rice Stops in Lebanon After Israel Rejects Criticism -Bloomberg
Rice on Surprise Visit to Lebanon-Naharnet
Report: US backs Israeli withdrawal from Shebaa Farms-Ynetnews
Suleiman-Aoun Meeting Soon Could Facilitate Cabinet Line-Up-Naharnet
Sarraf: Political, Security Stability Basis for Lebanon's Economic ...Naharnet
Syria Could Open Embassy in Beirut after New Cabinet-Naharnet
Jumblat Ends Saudi Visit with King Meeting-Naharnet
Syria Could Open Embassy in Beirut after New Cabinet-Naharnet
Gemayel: Paris in a Hurry to Normalize Ties with Syria-Naharnet
Paris, Damascus Agree to Encourage Lebanon's Implementation of Doha Accord-Naharnet
UNIFIL Soldier Killed, 2 Wounded in Road Accident-Naharnet
Suleiman Assures Lebanese: No Need to Fear-Naharnet
At Least 10 People Arrested after Shooting Incident on Army Patrol-Naharnet
Obama's Mideast Experts Emphasize Talks-Wall Street Journal
Al-Akhbar: The opposition will not participate in the cabinet ...iloubnan.info
French delegation touts talks with leadership in Damascus-AFP
Bush, Sarkozy pressure Syria over Lebanon-AFP
Moussa sees 'glimmer of hope' in forming cabinet-Daily Star
Israel to decide on prisoner swap with Lebanon-The Associated Press
Lebanese prisoner's family optimistic his release is imminent-Monsters and Critics.com
Israel offers jailed Lebanese for Hezbollah swap-Reuters
ACS hosts fund-raiser for adopted schools in South, Sri Lanka-Daily Star
Fishermen in South receive new homes-Daily Star
Ireland donates $370,000 to Lebanon's refugee camps-Daily Star
Road accident claims life of UNIFIL peacekeeper-AFP
Lebanese convicted on US terror charges-AFP
Election commission tops Butros draft reforms-Daily Star
LAF comes under fire near Beddawi-Daily Star
Women's underwear holds up traffic in Shiyyah-Daily Star
Fishermen in South receive new homes-Daily Star
ACS hosts fund-raiser for adopted schools in South, Sri Lanka-Daily Star
Beirut's nightlife is back - and not everyone is happy-Daily Star
Summer weather brings healthy crowds back to beaches of Jbeil-Daily Star

Rice on Surprise Visit to Lebanon
Naharnet/U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made a surprise visit to Lebanon on Monday to show support for President Michel Suleiman and efforts to form a new cabinet. "I am looking forward to going to Lebanon to meet with the president and to talk with various Lebanese officials," Rice told reporters on her way to Beirut from Tel Aviv. "But I am also going to express the United States support for Lebanese democracy, for Lebanese sovereignty." She said her visit was aimed at discussing "how the United States can support the institutions of a free Lebanon including the work that we do to support the armed forces, to support the Lebanese economy and the Lebanese civil society."Rice was due to meet with newly elected President Michel Suleiman, Prime Minister Fuad Saniora, Parliament Speaker and opposition stalwart Nabih Berri and parliamentary majority leader Saad Hariri. Her visit, under tight security, comes amid continued bickering between the ruling majority and the Hizbullah-led opposition backed by Syria and Iran, over the formation of a new cabinet of national unity. She last visited Lebanon in July 2006 during the devastating war between Hizbullah and Israel.(AFP-Naharnet) Beirut, 16 Jun 08, 13:23

Rice: Washington Ready to Cooperate with 'Very Fine' Suleiman, Backs Government and Berri
Naharnet/U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made a five-hour unscheduled visit to Lebanon on Monday, declaring support to the nation's president, government, parliament speaker and democratic System. After talks with President Michel Suleiman, Rice declared Washington's support for a demarcation of Lebanon's borders with Syria and the establishing of diplomatic ties between the two neighboring states. Lebanon and Syria are two neighboring states and their relations should be between two peoples, Rice noted. Washington, according to Rice, declared support for the Doha Accord, seen as a chance to settle the Lebanese crisis that has lasted so long. "We expressed support to the president, to Lebanon and the Lebanese government," Rice said stressing that Washington is ready to cooperate with President Suleiman. She described Suleiman as a "very fine man."
Rice, talking to reporters at Ain al-Tineh said Speaker Berri realizes that he enjoys the backing of the United States. "I congratulated Speaker Berri for reopening parliament gates" Rice said. In answering a question as to whether Washington would recognize a Lebanese government that included representatives on Hizbullah, Rice reiterated that the United States had long ago listed Hizbullah as a terrorist organization and nothing has changed in this regard. However, forming a government in Lebanon is a Lebanese issue, she added. "We hope that the composition of the government proceeds and proceeds rapidly," she said.
Prior to meeting Berri, Rice held talks at Qoratem Palace with the March 14 majority alliance represented by Mustaqbal Movement leader Saad Hariri, Democratic Gathering leader Walid Jumblat, Phalange Party leader Amin Gemayel and Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea.
After the talks, rice reiterated Washington's commitment to the cause of Lebanon and praised its steadfastness against external pressures.
Rice said she made her unscheduled trip to "express the United States' support for Lebanese democracy, for Lebanese sovereignty."
She also met Prime Minister-designate Fouad Saniora and reiterated to reporters "the United States' commitment to a Lebanon that is truly sovereign and independent where foreign interference and foreign intimidation should never be permitted."She rejected accusations of U.S. interference in Lebanese politics saying: "We support the democratically elected government of Lebanon. That is what we support."Rice, who was in Beirut after a two-day visit to Israel and the occupied West Bank, rejected charges that the Doha deal was a slap in the face for US policy in the region as it had given the Iran- and Syrian-backed opposition veto power over government decisions.
"Obviously in any compromise there are concessions," she said. "But this was an agreement that I think serves the interest of the Lebanese people and since it serves the interest of the Lebanese people, it serves the interest of the United States."Rice called for U.N. action on the disputed Shebaa Farms, a district that remains occupied by Israel. "The United States believes that the time has come to deal with the Shebaa Farms issue... in accordance with (UN Security Council Resolution) 1701," Rice said after discussing the issue with Saniora. She told reporters Washington intends to press U.N. chief Ban Ki-Moon to "lend his good offices" to resolve the dispute over sovereignty over the Shebaa Farms. "The secretary general should intensify his efforts," she said. Rice last visited Lebanon during the devastating 2006 conflict that left more than 1,300 people dead, most of them Lebanese civilians.(Naharnet-AFP) Beirut, 16 Jun 08, 18:45

Suleiman-Aoun Meeting Soon Could Facilitate Cabinet Line-Up
Naharnet/President Michel Suleiman and Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun have reportedly agreed to hold a meeting soon that would likely lead to the formation of a new cabinet. Aoun's Orange television, which carried the report late Sunday, did not say when the two leaders would meet. The pan-Arab daily al-Hayat, however, said the meeting is likely to take place on Monday. Orange TV said the agreement to hold the bilateral talks came during a telephone contact between Suleiman and Aoun on Sunday. Suleiman made a surprise visit to his hometown of Amsheet on Sunday, three weeks after his election as President. A crowd of villagers from Amsheet and nearby towns rushed to welcome Suleiman. MP Walid Khoury of Aoun's Change and Reform parliamentary bloc was also there to meet the President. Khoury said Suleiman and Aoun were "regularly" contacting each other "in an effort to overcome the obstacles facing the formation of the new government."In response to a question, Khoury stressed that Aoun was "the first to suggest Suleiman's name as a consensus President."
News reports on Monday said similar contacts took place on Sunday between Prime Minister-designate Fouad Saniora and Aoun. They said the delay in the formation of the new government revolves around the conditions set by Aoun.
Aoun said on Saturday that giving Suleiman two key cabinet posts entitles him to pick a Muslim candidate for one ministry and a Christian nominee for the other.
"When the President is being (given control over the allocation) of two sovereign portfolios, then one (post) should go to Christians and the other to Muslims," Aoun said. This was interpreted as an indirect attempt to prevent caretaker Defense Minister Elias Murr from keeping his post.
Murr, meanwhile, was reportedly tipped by Suleiman for defense minister. The opposition, however, appeared to be against Murr's appointment to any of the four key ministries. The opposition was earlier reportedly not convinced of deeming Murr a neutral figure. It believed that appointing Murr as part of the president's quota was tantamount to giving the majority an additional cabinet minister. The pro-government majority March 14 coalition was said to be reviewing Aoun's offer.
The daily An Nahar on Monday said March 14 believes that Aoun's suggestion "needs additional clarification."
It quoted sources from the majority as talking about "undeclared" conditions set by the opposition, among them that the issue of arms not be tackled during the coming dialogue. Round-table national talks are expected to take place as soon as the new cabinet is announced. Another condition, according to the sources, is giving Murr a non-sovereign cabinet post and driving him out of the parliamentary elections due in 2009. Beirut, 16 Jun 08, 08:31

Israel to Swap Kantar for 2 Israeli Soldiers?
Naharnet/Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has concluded that the Jewish state should swap the dean of Lebanese prisoners Samir Kantar for two Israeli soldiers kidnapped by Hizbullah in July 2006, a senior government official confirmed. Hizbullah seized Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser in a July 2006 deadly cross-border raid that sparked a monthlong war with Israel. They are thought to have been badly wounded during their capture, and Hizbullah has offered no proof they are alive. Kantar is serving multiple life sentences for killing four Israelis in a 1979 attack on an apartment building in northern Israel.
The Jewish state had hoped Kantar would be a bargaining chip to wrest information from Hizbullah about the fate of a missing Israeli navigator captured in Lebanon in 1986. But Olmert and other senior Israeli leaders have concluded Hizbullah has no new information about navigator Ron Arad, and is willing to swap Kantar for the two Israeli soldiers, the government official said Sunday. Olmert plans to meet with the Arad family on Tuesday to inform them about the impending deal, the official said.Arad was forced to parachute out of his fighter jet on a mission over Lebanon in October 1986 after one of his aircraft's bombs apparently malfunctioned. The jet's pilot was rescued by Israeli forces, but Arad was captured by Amal movement fighters. There have been reports that Arad later was transferred to Hizbullah and then to Iran, but no reliable evidence of his fate has ever surfaced.
Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said last year that he believed Arad was dead. In all, Israel is believed to be holding seven Lebanese prisoners, including Kantar. Four others would be swapped for the soldiers in addition to Kantar, the government official said.(AP-Naharnet) (AP photo shows a street cleaner walking next to posters showing the portraits of Ehud Goldwasser, right, Eldad Regev, left, who were captured in 2006 by Hizbullah, and Israeli soldier Cpl. Gilad Shalit, center, who was captured by Hamas-allied militants in 2006) Beirut, 16 Jun 08, 05:14

Report: Terrorism Returns to Lebanon
Naharnet/A Western intelligence report has warned against the "return of organized terrorist attacks" to Lebanon after monitoring broad movements of al-Qaida, which operates in Lebanon under different names like Fatah al-Islam and Asbat al-Ansar.
The report said "a large number of Islamic fighters" have infiltrated into the Bekaa Valley and north Lebanon across the Syrian-Lebanese border since the summer of 2007. It said these groups "systematically" enter Lebanon and set up positions mainly in villages in the Western Bekaa and near the town of Abdeh north of the country. Financing of these terrorist groups also seemed to be highly organized, according to the report. It said some of these terrorist groups have settled inside Palestinian refugee camps which "take direct instructions from the Syrian regime."The report said the return of terrorism to Lebanon began to increase since U.S. forces started bolstering security in Iraq and after al-Qaida leaders announced that they will not let down Lebanon's Sunnis and accused Hizbullah of attacking Sunnis in Lebanon. Finally, it urged Lebanon to defuse the political tension and recommended that security authorities intensify their surveillance "before it's too late." Beirut, 16 Jun 08, 12:06

Jumblat Ends Saudi Visit with King Meeting
Naharnet/Druze leader Walid Jumblat has ended a visit to Saudi Arabia with a meeting of King Abdullah. The Saudi Press Agency, SPA, said the two leaders discussed on Sunday the current situation in Lebanon. Information Minister Ghazi Aridi, who accompanied Jumblat on his trip, also attended the talks.Jumblat also met U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon in the Red Sea city of Jeddah Ban called for the speedy formation of the national unity government. Beirut, 16 Jun 08, 09:27

Syria Could Open Embassy in Beirut after New Cabinet
Naharnet/Elias Mourad, editor of the Syrian ruling party newspaper Al-Baath, has said that Damascus could open an embassy in Beirut following the announcement of the new cabinet.  "Syria could open an embassy in Beirut after the formation of a Lebanese government of national unity," Mourad told AFP on Sunday.
His remarks came after the U.S. and French presidents jointly urged Syria to break ties with regional ally Iran, end its support for anti-Israeli militants, and set up formal diplomatic ties with Lebanon for the first time. Beirut, 16 Jun 08, 09:04

Gemayel: Paris in a Hurry to Normalize Ties with Syria
Naharnet/Former President Amin Gemayel has said France was "in a bit of a hurry" to normalize ties with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and invite him to Paris.
Before welcoming Assad, "we would like France to obtain real guarantees from Syria about its behavior in Lebanon," Gemayel told the French daily Journal du Dimanche. He blamed the delay in forming a government on Syria's allies in Beirut. Beirut, 16 Jun 08, 07:06

Paris, Damascus Agree to Encourage Lebanon's Implementation of Doha Accord
Naharnet/France and Syria agree on the need to strengthen relations and work together for peace in Lebanon and the Middle East, the French presidency said Sunday following talks in Damascus. President Nicolas Sarkozy's chief diplomatic advisor, Jean-David Levitte, and his chief of staff, Claude Gueant, also delivered a message from the French leader to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, an Elysee statement said. "The discussions were useful and constructive," said the statement.
The sides discussed bilateral relations, the Middle East, in particular the situation in Lebanon and the Israeli-Syrian peace process, and the Mediterranean Union, it added. "The two parties agreed on the need to strengthen the Franco-Syrian bilateral relationship, pursue coordination efforts toward a just and comprehensive peace in the region and continue to encourage the Lebanese to implement the Doha accord," said the statement.
The talks "reflected a common view on the need to reinforce French-Syrian relations to serve the interests of both countries," Syria's official news agency, SANA, said. The talks came ahead of a planned visit by Assad to Paris to attend July 14 national day celebrations and a summit to launch a new grouping of countries on the Mediterranean rim. The envoys met Assad and Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem in Damascus.(AFP-Naharnet) Beirut, 16 Jun 08, 05:43

Ban Urges Speedy Formation of Unity Cabinet
Naharnet/U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon has called for the speedy formation of a national unity government in Lebanon after last month's power-sharing agreement between rival factions. "We expressed hope that the Lebanese people after the election (of the president) should form a national unity government as soon as possible," Ban said Sunday on the final day of a visit to Saudi Arabia. Ban also met Druze leader Walid Jumblat in the Red Sea city of Jeddah and urged him and other leaders "to expedite the formation of a national government and not lose the momentum."
The Arab-brokered agreement sealed in the Qatari capital, Doha, led to the May election of former army chief Michel Suleiman as president, putting an end to 18 months of political stalemate between the majority and the opposition. The deal gave the opposition the power to veto government decision-making and wider representation in a new line up, with 11 seats to be allocated to the opposition, 16 to the majority and three to be appointed by Suleiman.
But efforts by Prime Minister Fouad Saniora to form a new cabinet over the past two weeks have hit snags as rival factions disagreed over who should head the key defense, interior, finance and foreign affairs ministries. Saniora told reporters on Saturday that he hoped "to be able to make progress at the beginning of next week" while his advisor Mohammed Chatah said the next day that there was a "better than 50 percent chance" the government would be formed soon. Former President Amin Gemayel also said on Saturday he expected a new cabinet soon. "White smoke will inevitably rise next week as things have become clear," Gemayel said, referring to the signal given when a new pope is chosen.(AFP) Beirut, 16 Jun 08, 04:59

UNIFIL Soldier Killed, 2 Wounded in Road Accident
Naharnet/A Spanish soldier serving with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon was killed on Sunday in a road accident in the south of the country and two fellow soldiers were injured, Lebanese and UNIFIL officials said. The officials said the vehicle in which the three soldiers were riding in the village of Blat overturned killing one soldier. No other vehicles were involved in the accident, they said. A UNIFIL military spokesman told AFP that two other soldiers were slightly injured. He would not specify the nationality of the soldiers but a Lebanese security official said they were serving with the Spanish contingent. UNIFIL, which was set up in 1978 to monitor the border between Israel and southern Lebanon, was considerably beefed up in the wake of the 2006 war between Israeli forces and Hizbullah fighters.(AFP) Beirut, 15 Jun 08, 22:23

Will Lebanon's politicians finally start putting their country first?
By The Daily Star
Monday, June 16, 2008
Editorial
The Doha agreement opened up space so that the major challenges facing Lebanon could be addressed by the Lebanese, but it also committed this country's squabbling political actors to changing some of their more loathsome habits. Provided they conduct their politics in a relatively civilized manner, the next phase of Qatar's role is expected to include investment - reportedly as much as $2 billion - in a series of projects designed to stimulate Lebanon's listless economy. Then, so long as these funds are not subjected to the usual "taxes" traditionally levied by sticky-fingered politicians, more can be expected in the future.
These quid pro quos offer all Lebanese the chance for a better future, but they are hardly guarantees. Much will depend on a political class that has failed in too many ways to count over the years, and while the Qataris enjoy enormous wealth, they cannot be expected to throw it away for no useful reason. Regardless of how much they might want to restore stability to Lebanon and re-engage with it on a variety of levels, they are not fools. The experience of their involvement with reconstruction since the 2006 war with Israel has taught them a thing or two about how "business" is done here, and their goal is to help all Lebanese, not to enrich a select few. It has to be said, too, that while the Qatari government has already invested plenty of time and effort in the Lebanese crisis, no one should assume that its leaders will not walk away if their counterparts here fail to honor their commitments.
Thus far the report card on this score is a mixed one. A president has been elected after a six-month vacuum at Baabda Palace, but the bickering over cabinet seats has a depressingly familiar ring to it. Those who want power should at least try to explain what their purpose would be in wielding it, but that still seems not to have dawned on Lebanon's political establishment. There is also less incitement than was the case in the run-up to the bloody clashes of early May, but both camps - and their respective media mouthpieces - continue to employ a language of hyperbole and provocation. This has contributed to a climate in which young thugs from both sides still think it appropriate to spoil for a fight.
Plainly, the core Qatari concern is that for a variety of reasons - sectarian hatred, partisan rivalries, shameless corruption, etc. - Lebanon's politicians cannot be trusted to put Lebanon's people first. By phasing the follow-on stages of their involvement, the Qataris hoped to retain leverage over the Lebanese parties so that future obstacles could be dealt with in detail. But the same set-up provides this country's would-benefactors with multiple exits that can be used if and when the Lebanese prove unable or unwilling to help solve their own problems.
The onus is on our politicians, therefore, to not squander the chance that they - and all Lebanese - have been given

Arab tourists shying away from Lebanon
Daily Star
Monday, June 16, 2008
BEIRUT: Figures released by the Ministry of Tourism indicate that the number of tourists visitng Lebanon totaled 277,054 in the first four months of 2008, up by 2.6 percent from the same period of 2007. "This increase is not necessarily an indicator of a revival in the tourism sector because the latter's performance during the said period of 2007 was already sluggish, as it was hit by the political stalemate," Bank Audi's Weekly Monitor said.
It added that when compared to the first four months of 2006, during which the sector witnessed a boom, a 20.9 percent plummet in the number of tourists hs been experienced. It added that Lebanon relies heavily on Arab tourists, and with political setbacks hindering the sector's productivity in Lebanon, Arab tourists have been gradually shying away from Lebanon as a destination since the summer 2006 events. "In fact, the number of Arab tourists was 90,394 in the first four months of 2008, down by 14.1 percent from the same period of 2007, noting that the latter period in itself saw a lackluster performance."

What US role between Syria and Israel?
By Ariel Kastner -Daily Star
Commentary by
Monday, June 16, 2008
The recent announcement that indirect peace talks between Israel and Syria are being conducted in Turkey has led many to ask whether this round of negotiations represents anything more than political games. Given that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is facing a deepening corruption investigation with louder calls for him to step down, and in light of floundering negotiations with the Palestinians, many Israelis presume he might be using the cover of peace talks with Syria to divert attention from his political challenges.
But the unusual official announcements - both the Israeli and Syrian governments released coordinated remarks announcing the talks - and reports that agreement has been reached on a number of core issues indicate that something more than political games may be afoot. What remains to be seen and is of the utmost significance for forging a deal, however, is whether the United States will engage as a participant.
Israeli leaders have a history of acting boldly under political fire. Former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, for example, announced plans in 2003 to withdraw Israeli settlers from the Gaza Strip amid a corruption investigation. While political troubles on the Israeli side portend movements toward peace, economic woes on the Syrian side exert pressure on President Bashar al-Assad to make changes to the status quo.
In this climate, it is no surprise that the Israeli and Syrian governments are testing the waters. But, while talks have moved forward, a key component remains missing: the United States.
Until recently, the US was expected to act as the mediator in peace talks between Israel and its neighbors, including Syria. During Bill Clinton's presidency American officials shuttled between Damascus and Jerusalem, overseeing negotiations between the parties. But today the US not only has a shared interest with Israel in pulling Syria away from Iran and halting Syrian weapons assistance to Hizbullah, it has its own interest regarding Lebanon - ensuring it be independent from Syria - that does not concern Israel.
When commenting on the possibility of Israeli-Syrian talks, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made clear that the United States does "not wish to stand in the way of any attempt to achieve peace," but added that "Syria [has] yet to show a desire for Middle East peace, especially vis-ˆ-vis Lebanon." Syria's role in Lebanon, including its alleged assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005, poses a direct assault on one of Bush's priorities in the region: democracy promotion.
At the same time, things have changed on the side of Syria, whose main interest in talks with Israel is no longer the return of the Golan Heights: While this is a basic requirement, it is not incentive enough to reach agreement. Syria is struggling with a stagnant economy that is taxed by rising energy costs (partly due to a loss of illegal oil revenue from Iraq after the US invasion) and an influx of Iraqi refugees who are straining the country's infrastructure.
Some analysts have speculated that the country may face a "day of reckoning" when the economy cannot keep up with population growth and domestic needs. Syria, therefore, seeks any financial and diplomatic relationship it can have with Washington.
While American compensation for making peace with Israel has been the norm - Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority all received large amounts of aid and deepening of trade when they worked out their respective agreements, this time the United States' other interest - that relating to Lebanon - will play a determining role. Consequently, a peace dividend will not result from peace between Israel and Syria alone, but from a peace between Israel and Syria and the United States.
The question for the current round of talks then is whether the United States will engage not as a mediator, but as a participant. So far the White House, while apprised of the meetings, hasn't expressed a willingness to join in the talks. So while Israel and Syria may make progress under Turkey's guidance, a key piece of the peace puzzle will still be missing. But perhaps not for long. Even if the current US administration does not engage, Turkey may well be able to shepherd the talks to a point where at least the next administration can help finalize the deal.
**Ariel Kastner is a research analyst with the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington. THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration with the Common Ground News Service

Convicted murderer is not considered a 'hero' in Lebanon, some say
By BRENDA GAZZAR
Jerusalem Post
Samir Kuntar, the Lebanese Druse prisoner serving four life sentences for the deaths in 1979 of a father, his two daughters and a policeman in Nahariya, and his family are certain that he will be included in any prisoner swap between Israel and Hizbullah, his Israeli lawyer said.
"What I can say with certainty is that we are sure, and we know... that there will not be a deal without Samir," attorney Yamen Zedan, who has represented Kuntar for nearly six months, told The Jerusalem Post. "That we know 100 percent."
Zedan said he was not involved with any negotiations for Kuntar's release, but that he and his client were confidant about his status - partly from conversations the attorney has had with Kuntar's family in Lebanon. "We are in contact with his parents, and [Kuntar] himself, at least, believes in the words of [Hizbullah leader] Hassan Nasrallah."
Nasrallah has promised to make Kuntar, who has been imprisoned for 29 years, part of any future prisoner swap with Israel and a flurry of media reports in recent weeks have suggested that a deal between the two sides is near.
Zedan said he was hopeful his client would be released by the end of the month, as reported by Lebanese media, but said he had no information concerning his release.
Kuntar, a member of the Palestine Liberation Front, and four others sailed from south Lebanon in April, 1979, to Nahariya, where they murdered police officer Eliahu Shahar after he stumbled upon the gang. After breaking into the apartment of a family, some of the men took 28-year-old Danny Haran and his four-year-old daughter, Einat, hostage. After a shoot-out ensued between the gunmen and police, Kuntar shot Haran and threw his body into the sea, then bashed Einat's head on rocks and with the butt of his rifle.
Kuntar's two-year-old daughter was accidentally smothered by her mother while they hid in a crawl space above the couple's bedroom.
Kuntar's brother Bassam, an editor of a Beirut-based newspaper, declined Sunday to comment to the Post, noting that it was "forbidden by our national law" to talk to an Israeli newspaper.
In February, Kuntar vowed in a letter to Nasrallah, published in the Palestinian Authority newspaper Al-Hayat al-Jadida, to continue his struggle.
The letter, in which Kuntar expressed his condolences over the killing of Hizbullah military chief Imad Mughniyeh, was first exposed in Israel by Palestinian Media Watch.
"My oath and pledge is that my only place will be on the front lines, which is soaked in the sweat of your giving and the blood of those who are most dear and that I will continue down the path until complete victory," he wrote, according to the Palestinian newspaper.
As a security prisoner at the Hadarim Prison near Netanya, Kuntar has no telephone contact with family members, Zedan said. In the last several years, he has also been denied personal visits.
Officials with the International Committee for the Red Cross, who have previously coordinated prisoner exchanges between Israel and Hizbullah, said they have not been notified about any imminent prisoner exchange involving Kuntar or any other Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails.
"We did not receive any information regarding an exchange, or a development on this issue," said Beirut-based spokesman Christian Cardon. "Like last time, we stand ready for it, to facilitate, in case it happens." Exactly how popular Kuntar is in Lebanon is up for some debate.
Some say Kuntar is portrayed as a hero in much of the Lebanese press, particularly the Hizbullah-owned Al-Manar television station.
"But I am not sure how many people feel it was worth the 2006 war for him," one Lebanese-born observer noted. "This is a subject that was debated in Lebanon at the beginning of the 2006 war, but then died down after the extent of the Israeli attack became clearer."
Others argue that Kuntar is not considered a national hero, despite the fanfare he has received in certain political circles.
"Nobody had heard about him until Hizbullah made it an issue," Timur Goksel, a former senior adviser/spokesman of UNIFIL who is now retired in Lebanon, told reporters Sunday. "He is a Druse mercenary working for Palestinians, like thousands of other paid militias. You still don't see any articles, calls, etcetera for his release."
Hizbullah will make "much fuss" about it when he is released and the group's supporters will see it as yet another success against Israel, he said, "but it won't mean much in Lebanon."
Meanwhile, several pages - both for and against Kuntar's release - have been set up on the social networking site Facebook. One of the sites, which has more than 1,000 members, quotes Khouloud Saleh of Lebanon, who writes: "Soon Samir, soon you will be out... wow... we are counting the minutes and hours."
Another Facebook page, however, quotes Shlomo Nasser of New York, who writes: "Samir Kuntar smashed a four-year-old girl's head with the butt of his rifle, killing her. Regardless what cause he is fighting for, he is a savage and people who support him have no values."

Syria: Between Tehran and Hezbollah
16/06/2008
By Manal Lutfi
London, Asharq Al-Awsat-
When Mohamed Hassan Akhtari was appointed as the Iranian ambassador to Syria in 1985, relations between Iran and Syria had already entered a stage of strategic coordination thanks to two men; Saddam Hussein and Musa al Sadr.
Through Musa al Sadr, and his Iranian comrades in the Amal movement, including prominent Iranians such as Mustafa Chamran who was the first Minister of Defense of post-revolutionary Iran, the late Syrian president Hafez al Assad’s regime became acquainted with Khomeini’s revolution and his ideas. A number of Iranian activists in Amal had Syrian diplomatic passports, which they used to deter and conceal their identities before the revolution in February 1979.
Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was destined to play a role in strengthening relations between Tehran and Damascus without realizing the effects this would have on Iraq and the region at the time. Saddam engaged in war with Iran shortly after the Islamic revolution. Tehran was not the only one to sense the danger as this feeling extended from Tehran to Damascus where the Baathist regime was not close to its counterpart in Iraq.
The regime of the late Syrian president Hafez Assad stood by Iran in hope of weakening its Iraqi Baathist opponent that Damascus considered a threat, especially if it was to achieve victory in its war against Iran. The Syrian fear of Saddam Hussein’s intentions increased with accusations leveled against Hafez Assad that claimed that he sent Syrian troops to Iran to fight against the Iraqi army.
Abdul Halim Khaddam, the former vice-president of Syria under the regime of Hafez Assad and a key decision maker in Syria during this period, explained to Asharq Al-Awsat the reasons that the Syrian president sided with Iran over Iraq; “Relations between Syria and Iran developed significantly following the Islamic revolution in Iran. There were links between Syria and Ayatollah Khomeini through Musa al Sadr’s group.”
“After the revolution, relations shifted onto a state level. In September 1980, the Iraq-Iran war broke out. Iraq launched a campaign against Syria and accused Syria of sending soldiers to Iran to fight against the Iraqi army. As a result, we considered it a prelude to war between Iraq and Syria and saw that Saddam Hussein believed that war with Iran would be over within a matter of weeks and then he would fight Syria. A conference was held in Moscow where the then Iraqi parliament speaker Naeem Haddad met the president of the Palestinian National Council (PNC), the late Khaled al Fahoum and said: ‘When we’re done with Iran we will turn to Damascus.’ Undoubtedly, this gave us a negative perception of the Iraqi regime.”
“There was communication between Syria and Iran. We condemned the war and refused to rush to support Saddam Hussein as some Arab countries did. When Saddam invaded Kuwait, some states regretted getting involved. During this period, Iranian-Syrian relations developed considerably. These relations were not only based on confronting Saddam Hussein but also on dealing with the regional and international situation. There was a lot of coordination and continuous meetings taking place between the Syrians and Iranians. A joint committee was formed and its members included the vice-presidents and foreign ministers of both countries. This committee would meet every three months and would keep an eye on relations and regional and international situations and offer suggestions for the decision-making process in both countries.”
According to a former Iranian official who agreed to speak to Asharq Al-Awsat on condition of anonymity, one could say that “The common danger is the key” to understanding the nature of Iranian-Syrian relations. Saddam Hussein posed a threat to both Khomeini and Hafez Assad; however a new danger emerged and pushed relations to another level of strategic coordination, namely the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
The Israeli invasion that threatened Syrian influence in Lebanon and the newly-born Iranian republic showed that there was a need to strengthen the defence in both countries and to put together a political organization with military capabilities, which would be able to confront Israel and any other power that might threaten Syria or Iran.
At that time, despite the fact that most leadership figures of the Amal movement were politicians and clerics who were not in favour of the idea of establishing a political party on a religious basis, there was a group within the movement that did not reject this idea. Consequently, when numerous circles within Iran, Syria and Lebanon began to think about the necessity of creating a new partisan, religious, political and armed organization, they withdrew from Amal and advocated a new orientation.
According to the prominent Lebanese intellect Hani Fahs these included both Sheikh Sobhi al Tufeili and Sheikh Abbas al Musawi. The creation of Hezbollah was Iran’s most important and difficult mission abroad in the aftermath of the Islamic revolution. It was the first practical experiment to export the ideas of the revolution to other parts of the region. Consequently, when the idea came about to create Hezbollah by Ali Akbar Mohtashami, who served as the Iranian ambassador to Damascus and later became Minister of Interior under former President Mohammad Khatami, many people carried these ideas so that they may be implemented on the ground. However, the “burden” was shouldered by Mohammad Hassan Akhtari, the Iranian ambassador who succeeded Mohtashami in Damascus, because of the location of Damascus and its influence on Lebanon, making it an indispensable passageway to send fighters, trainers, arms, money or instructions.
Abdul Halim Khaddam, who dealt with Lebanon for many years during the reign of late President Hafez Assad and who was one of Akhtari’s contemporaries when he was serving as Iran’s ambassador to Damascus, clarified the responsibilities assumed by Akhtari: “Akhtari’s basic mission during the first stage was to complete the making of Hezbollah.”
“Akhtari supervised the creation of Hezbollah and its finance, and [was responsible for] getting arms to it in Lebanon with the approval of the Syrian government. He oversaw the political and financial developments of Hezbollah. A group of Iranians took charge of drawing up action and training plans for Hezbollah. There were also Lebanese instructors who were trained in both Iran and Lebanon. The Iranians have contributed to Hezbollah’s training and preparation.”
“In addition, Hezbollah’s leadership adopted theoretical and practical fundamentals from Iran for the establishment and development of the party. However, Hezbollah’s leadership through its own efforts was able to spread their ideas within the Lebanese Shia circles. Moreover, Hezbollah’s resistance gave it considerable moral support in the Lebanese arena.”
“Akhtari used to receive instructions from Iran. Let us suppose, for example, that Tehran wanted to meet a figure from Hezbollah or any other Lebanese figure, or wanted to communicate with a Lebanese party, whether it was Hezbollah or another group linked to Iran; this would be done via the Iranian ambassador in Damascus not the Iranian embassy in Beirut.”
With the establishment of Hezbollah, the Amal movement had no remarkable position as part of the resistance in its new sense, that is, the armed resistance rather than the political civil resistance that was adopted by some leadership figures of Amal, most prominently Sheikh Mohammed Mahdi Shams al Din.
Hani Fahs, who used to liaise between Fatah and the leadership of the Iranian revolution during those decisive years, told Asharq Al-Awsat: “It was natural for this work to be completed in an objective manner at the expense of the Amal movement from which leaderships emerged insisting upon resistance and cooperation with Hezbollah before and after it was created, civil Palestinian leaderships and leaderships that called for deliberation and agreed to comprehensive civil resistance until the May 17 Israeli-Lebanese agreement was completed.”
“There were internal political changes that the Amal movement dealt with in a way that made resistance its only option; without which it would be weak and toothless. At a later stage resistance had to be restricted and so it was exclusive to Hezbollah. This is what explains many Lebanese events and the absence of national movement from the field of resistance after it had once participated in its launch. It may also explain the war between camps and between Amal and Hezbollah.”
There was conflict between Hezbollah and Amal during the Lebanese civil war in the early 1980’s shortly after Hezbollah was created. It was a decisive and fierce confrontation that changed the balances in Lebanon to the advantage of Iran and at the expense of Syria. However, Hafez Assad and his followers, according to Khaddam, were not fully aware of the dimensions and the consequences of strengthening Hezbollah at Amal’s expense.
Khaddam indicated, “The Amal movement existed in the Lebanese arena during this period. Hezbollah was still under construction and it grew at the expense of Amal, Syria’s ally. It was not given importance in Damascus because Tehran is allied with Damascus…the decision to support and develop Hezbollah was an Iranian decision.”
“The Iranians have benefited from the nature of relations with the regime in Syria, particularly with President Hafez Assad. They would frequently ask him to create openings to assist Hezbollah. For instance, if the Iranians wanted to dispatch arms, there would be a lot of communication on various levels; accordingly President Hafez Assad would be responding. When the Iranians began to establish Hezbollah, they sent elements of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to Lebanon and this did not take on strategic dimensions with regards to the Syrian regime.”
“The idea that Iran would seek to control the Shia in Lebanon did not exist because historically there were no problems between the Sunni and the Shia in Lebanon. For example, four Lebanese prime ministers adopted the Shia doctrine due to issues related to inheritance. No Lebanese prime minister could register himself as Shia since there was no distinction between Muslims in Lebanon.”
“The split began to emerge when Iran intervened. The political assessment in Syria was that the Iranians wanted to form resistance in Lebanon against Israel, which was a good thing. The idea of Iranian control over the Shia in Lebanon was not even considered; however, Hezbollah began to grow due to the financial aid it would receive from Iran.”
Khaddam continued: “Fighting broke out between Amal and Hezbollah. There was tension; however, the surprise was that Hezbollah launched the campaign to dominate areas where the Amal movement was present such as Bekaa Valley and the southern suburbs. Numerous conflicts broke out claiming lives and inflicting wounds. The last battle took place in the south and we practically helped and supported the Amal movement since it was becoming weak. Some of those in charge of the Lebanese issue in Syria had some ideas about Iranian objectives in Lebanon but President Hafez Assad’s position was firm. Consequently, when the fighting erupted, Iran and Syria mediated and the fighting stopped and each party’s influence was restricted but in practice this was not applied since Hezbollah began to expand through the services that it provided to the people, especially the poor in Lebanon.”
“Hezbollah established institutions for construction and reconstruction, and economic and social organizations, which played a role in strengthening the Shia base of Hezbollah. At the same time, there was a revival of Shia fanaticism in Lebanon because more fanaticism would mean a stronger allegiance to Iran to the extent that Iran has become a political and ideological reference for the majority of Shia in Lebanon. Nabih Berri realized the gravity of the situation however matters were out of his hands.”
There is no doubt that Hezbollah activists and affiliates played a major role in consolidating the party’s presence and dominance over the Shia regions of Lebanon. Most activists were clerics or young religious men who spoke about religion in simple terms. Many of them attended Hawzas in Lebanon, Iraq and Iran and worked in the field of politics from the angle of religious resistance.
Sheikh Ali al Amin, the Mufti of Tyre and Mount Amel, told Asharq Al-Awsat: “Iran began to work on forming a party through young, strong believers and clerics who later named the party Hezbollah.”
“Iran has paved the way for it through religious mobilization amongst clerics and in religious Hawzas and institutes under its control and by stating that the Amal movement is not religious nor legitimate because it is not linked to Waliyat-e-Faqih [Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists]. It then began to label its followers and affiliates as believers, or secularists or as immoral and it monopolized their religious standing. The fact that the Amal movement neglected the religious culture was also of assistance since the Supreme Shia Islamic Council failed to organize religious action and to bring together the clerics so Iran did this and formed the nucleus of Hezbollah and the clerics created propaganda that influenced the Shia public. The conflict began between a new culture supported by Iran and pro-Iran clerics and the Amal movement and the Supreme Shia Islamic Council, which could make official religious and political decisions.”
“At a later stage, this difference in opinion, vision, orientation and method led to an armed conflict, which saw a lot of blood spilt in the name of religion. This happened when Syria was in Lebanon and had good ties with Iran. In the end, Hezbollah became Iran’s representative and was present in the political and religious decision-making process. Through that, it gradually extended its influence to become the strongest partner within the Shia sect and Lebanese authority. Both the Amal movement and the Supreme Shia Islamic Council backed down on the cultural and political levels until Hezbollah dominated religious culture and became the top political representative of the Shia sect.”
The creation of Hezbollah had a direct effect upon the Iranian existence in Lebanon. Although the Amal movement is also Shia, it does not originate from Iran. In this respect, Khaddam said: “Khomeini’s group had no presence in the Lebanese arena unless Musa al Sadr’s presence is considered part of Khomeini’s group. It can be argued that he was close to Khomeini; however, he used to avoid giving off the impression that he had links to Iran. He had strong ties with Arabs. At that time, neither Iranian action nor support for Khomeini in Lebanon was organized.”
“However, there were individuals in Lebanon that were close to Khomeini. When Khomeini was exiled in Iraq, there was a large number of Lebanese studying at the Hawza Ilmiyya in Najaf. Consequently, these Lebanese became acquainted with Khomeini but at that time there was no movement in Lebanon that linked itself to Khomeini. This came only after Hezbollah was established.”
But why did Iran support Hezbollah over the Amal movement, some members of which were also Iranian activists such as Mustafa Chamran? Khaddam answered, “It is true that the Amal movement is also exclusively Shia but the difference between Amal and Hezbollah is that Amal is more open to other sects. Culturally, it is more open in that there is no religious culture that dominates its leadership. The entire leadership of Amal is made up of politicians, while the entire leadership of Hezbollah consists of sheikhs.”
Relations between Amal and Hezbollah after the armed conflicts had ended saw the division of roles between a stronger party and a weaker party or between an armed party and unarmed party.
However, there are those within Amal that do not believe that the movement was gradually marginalized within Lebanon’s political arena as a result of Hezbollah and its monopoly of arms. In this regard foreign relations official Mohamed Bazzi from the Amal movement told Asharq Al-Awsat: “There is no such thing as a Shia arena, a Christian arena, a Sunni arena or a Druze arena in Lebanon; there is one nation and it is called Lebanon. This is our opinion in the Amal movement. Perhaps some of the most important factors regarding disintegration and the collapse of Lebanese society are doctrinal and sectarian loyalties.”
“Amal movement is not weak at all; we had arms in the past and we were the first to resist against the Israeli occupation from 1978 to date. However, with respect to arms, we cannot be compared to Hezbollah.”
Despite that the late Syrian President Hafez Assad was not concerned about strengthening Hezbollah at the expense of the Amal movement, there were circles in Syria that were not comfortable to the extent that relations between Damascus and Hezbollah during its early stages were troubled and this pushed Hezbollah further towards Iran as it is a safe haven with respect to training or finance. The relation between Hezbollah and Iran has been explicit from day one with no need for mediation from Damascus.
Khaddam stated, “Relations [between Syria and Hezbollah] were not good in the early years [of Hezbollah’s establishment]. There was a problem with elements of the Syrian forces in one of Beirut’s districts. The Syrian forces that were present took decisive measures against Hezbollah so there was tension at the beginning but this soon disappeared. Because of this tension early on there was no Syrian weight to support Hezbollah; but Syria represented a pathway that benefited Hezbollah through which Iranian support could pass.”
At a later stage, due to the circumstances of Hezbollah’s early years, there was a lot of sensitive communication between Syria and Hezbollah via Iran, while the daily matters would be coordinated between Damascus and Hezbollah.
Khaddam spoke about two kinds of coordination between Hezbollah and Syria; “Daily coordination was carried out by security apparatus in Lebanon and sometimes with the political reference responsible for Lebanon in Syria. Not every matter was dealt with via Iran; there was direct contact with Hezbollah’s leadership at different stages and we disagreed with them at times. For instance, when TWA Flight 847 was hijacked, we tried hard in Syria to end the hijack and have the hostages released. We disagreed strongly with Hezbollah and then we spoke to Iran. The then Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani at the time was visiting Damascus and we asked him to put pressure on Hezbollah and he promised to do so. He had already called in Hezbollah leaders and asked them to facilitate matters. After many talks, the hostage issue was solved. Therefore, in general, communication between Hezbollah and Syria did not necessarily take place through Iran. However, there were matters that involved coordination between us and Iran and there were matters that Hezbollah could get Syrian approval for so it turned to Iran and Tehran would talk to us.”
“However if Syria wants something directly from Hezbollah it would make contact with it. There would be a response and discussions would take place about the benefits and dangers but in the end Hezbollah would respond to what is required of it.”

Free Speech on Trial
By Jacob Laksin
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, June 16, 2008
Earlier this month, the columnist Mark Steyn went on trial for being mean. Steyn’s offense was to have published, in the fall of 2006, an excerpt from his book, America Alone, in the Canadian newsweekly Maclean’s. In it, Steyn advanced the provocative but by no means untenable argument that plunging birthrates in Europe would precipitate a demographic decline, forcing Continental countries to reach an “accommodation with their radicalized Islamic compatriots.” Europe’s future, Steyn suggested, “belongs to Islam.”
Islamic radicals, one might think, would be heartened by the backhanded vote of confidence. Instead, led by a group called the Canadian Islamic Congress, they elected to take offense. Had they limited their remonstration to an angrily worded letter to the editor or a rebuttal in another magazine, they would have been unobjectionably within their rights. But several of the group’s more aggrieved members decided to press things further. First, they demanded that Maclean’s publish an equal-length rejoinder to Steyn’s article – a crude attempt to dictate content no independent publication would accept. Failing to hijack the magazine’s pages, Steyn’s disgruntled detractors did the next best thing: they took the author and the publication to court.
The resulting case brings into bold relief the outsize power that political correctness and its more ardent executors wield in Canada. In the United States, a suit purporting to seek justice for a perceived slight involving nothing more than a difference of opinion would be laughed out the docket. But tolerance for legal frivolity seems to increase above the 49th parallel. A subsection of Canada's Human Rights Act defines hate speech as speech “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.” By that impossibly opaque standard, Steyn’s article – or, indeed, any article – could theoretically be considered hate speech. In practice, as well, that has been the case. The Canadian Human Rights Commission, which enforces the act, has a record of conviction that recalls the awful efficiency of Soviet courts: In over three decades of existence, the commission has yet to find someone innocent.
Undoubtedly mindful of the fact, the Canadian Islamic Congress turned to the Human Rights Commission to adjudicate its case against Maclean’s. Shopping around for a friendly forum, the group initially took up their complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. They met with partial success. Although the commission declined to hear the CIC’s complaint, it did so on narrowly technical grounds. And, lest anyone doubt what the verdict would have been, the commission issued a censorious ruling effectively finding in the CIC’s favor. Reproaching both Steyn and Maclean’s, the commission wrote that it “strongly condemns the Islamophobic portrayal of Muslims” they had supposedly published. Never mind that neither Steyn not Maclean’s were afforded the opportunity to contest the charges against them. In the commission’s crypto-totalitarian calculus, Steyn’s article had offended someone. Ergo: hate crime.
Even more fulsomely accommodating was the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, the complainants’ next choice of venue. Between June 2 and June 6, the tribunal heard the case against Steyn and Maclean’s. In keeping with historical precedent, one might have expected the “trial” to be farce on a grand scale. According to those in the audience, it was that and more.
“You didn’t have to be a lawyer to see how it ridiculous it was,” says Ezra Levant, who attended the tribunal. Levant is no stranger to such proceedings. A former publisher of Canada’s Western Standard magazine, he was hauled before the Alberta Human Rights Commission for publishing the Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad. Even so, Levant was shocked by what he saw at the recent hearing.
Most striking, Levant said, was the incompetence of the tribunal’s three judges. “You had a room full of professionals – the two top lawyers in the country [for the defense], journalists, including from the New York Times – presided over by three crackpots,” Levant recalled. “It was a weird juxtaposition between people living in the real world and a kangaroo court with three radical, Marxist clowns.”
Just how about was it? Levant noted that on one occasion, the accusers produced blog posts – some from the U.S., some from Belgium, and none written by Steyn – that they submitted as incriminating evidence. It is a commentary on the benthic standards of such tribunals that some of this “evidence” literally had been printed out the day before. “There are so many reasons why that evidence would be inadmissible,” Levant, himself a lawyer, observes. “But the tribunal said, ‘Sure, we’ll look at it.’ None of the judges knew how to run a trial.”
If the judges were inept, the prosecution was scarcely more competent. Attempting to prove Steyn’s “Islamophobic” views, the prosecution’s lawyers summoned Andrew Rippin, an expert on Islam and a professor at the University of Victoria in British Columbia. At issue was Steyn’s use of the word “Mohammedan” to describe Muslims. The prosecution charged that this was insulting, possibly even hateful. Only, their star witness disagreed. Professor Rippin pointed out that just as Christians adopted the name of Christ, Muslims in various parts of the world referred to themselves as followers of the prophet Mohammed. “The prosecution was so stupid that their own expert witness made the case for Steyn,” Levant says.
Similarly wince-inducing moments were a regular feature of the five-day hearing. All the more so if one happened to be a supporter of free speech. One such moment came when Faisal Joseph, the lawyer for the complainants, accused Steyn of failing to provide alternative points of view in his article. In a trial about hate speech, it was the equivalent of saying that all journalism that didn’t meet Joseph’s specifications was punishable as hate. Equally revealing was a comment from Dean Steacy, an investigator for the Canadian Human Rights Commission. When asked what value he gives to free speech in his investigations, Steacy breezily dismissed the question. “Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value,” he said.
With the tribunal thus revealed as a travesty of justice, Steyn and Maclean’s wisely decided to focus their attention on the absurdity of the proceedings. Maclean’s lawyers refused to provide any witnesses. Meanwhile, Steyn said that he would be happy to loose, if only to demonstrate how far the Human Rights Commission had gone in trampling on freedom of speech and the liberty of the press in Canada. As he put it to one interviewer: “We want to lose so we can take it to a real court and if necessary up to the Supreme Court of Canada and we can get the ancient liberties of free-born Canadian citizens that have been taken away from them by tribunals like this.”
Supporters applaud that strategy. “Six months ago it would have been unrealistic for any politician to tackle the human rights commission. It would have been like going after apple pie,” says Ezra Levant. “But a year from now, their reputation will be so tarnished that politicians can act. The first step to reform is to publicize its insanity.” In that sense, it may be said that even if Steyn and Maclean’s lose, Canadians have already won.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Laksin is a senior editor for FrontPage Magazine. He is a 2007 Phillips Foundation Journalism Fellow. His e-mail is jlaksin@gmail.com