LCCC
ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
January 20/10
Bible Of the
Day
The Good News According to Matthew
5/27-30: "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery;’ 5:28
but I tell you that everyone who gazes at a woman to lust after her has
committed adultery with her already in his heart. 5:29 If your right eye causes
you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it away from you. For it is more
profitable for you that one of your members should perish, than for your whole
body to be cast into Gehenna. 5:30 If your right hand causes you to stumble, cut
it off, and throw it away from you. For it is more profitable for you that one
of your members should perish, than for your whole body to be cast into Gehenna".
Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special
Reports
The Resistance Strategy: The Middle
East's Response to Calls for Peace and Moderation/By Barry RubinJanuary 19/10
Ft Hood's Terror: The US failed by
its own experts/By: Dr. Walid PharesJanuary 19/10
Hold municipal polls on time/The
Daily Star/January 19/10
Egypt
tells Hamas: No more Mr. Nice Guy/By
Gamal A. G. Soltan/January 19/10
Latest News Reports From
Miscellaneous Sources for January 19/10
Israeli intelligence report sets
June 2010 deadline for attacking Iran/Now
Lebanon
Hezbollah behind slaying of Iranian prof?/UPI.com
Berri,
Aoun at Loggerheads Again over Appointments/Naharnet
Franjieh: No Disagreement within
Opposition on Appointments and No Settlement at Iran, Hizbullah Expense/Naharnet
Berri
Ready to Call for Parliamentary Session to Amend Constitution/Naharnet
Mitchell in Beirut on the First Stop of Regional Tour/Naharnet
Baroud Denies Reports
About Dividing Beirut to 3 Constituencies/Naharnet
MEA Plane Heads to Haiti
with Aid/Naharnet
Lebanon Holds Onto
Dialogue Decision as Abu Moussa Tones Down Rhetoric/Naharnet
Phalange Party Warns of
Fatah-Intifada 'Old-New Approach'/Naharnet
Hariri returns to Beirut after talks in UAE/Daily
Star
Cabinet to debate Baroud's proposal on municipal polls/
/Daily star
Lebanese delegation heads to Haiti with aid/Daily
Star
Palestinian militia chief tones down rhetoric over weapons
/Daily star
Iraq's Hakim arrives in Beirut for talks with Lebanese officials/Daily
Star
New
project to replace luxury hotel in downtown Sidon
/Daily star
European leftists meet with local counterparts/Daily
Star
Parliament committee to assess prison conditions/Daily
Star
Judge
sets bail for Nahr al-Bared militants/Daily
Star
Court
condemns Palestinian militant to death/Daily
Star
Baalbek bus crash kills child, injures two others/Daily
Star
France to help boost number of green spaces, improve lighting in Beirut/Daily
Star
AUB
project aims to instill sense of appreciation for biodiversity/
/Daily star
Palestinian
militia chief tones down rhetoric over weapons
Abu Moussa ‘willing’ to coordinate positioning of arms with Lebanese
By Patrick Galey
Daily Star staff
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
BEIRUT: The head of a Palestinian militia said Monday that it will never disarm
in Lebanon but might be willing to coordinate with authorities regarding where
weapons are stored. “Palestinian arms inside or outside the camps are part of
our resistance against the Zionist enemy,” Fatah al-Intifada chief Abou Moussa
said.
“But we are ready to talk to Lebanese officials about the positioning of our
arms.”
Abou Moussa’s remarks represent a toning down in rhetoric following varying
reactions from Lebanese MPs and officials over a statement he made on Sunday.
“We categorically reject the disarmament of Palestinians outside refugee camps
in Lebanon,” Abou Moussa told reporters following a meeting with the mayor of
Sidon. “This is solely a Palestinian decision and not in the hands of any other
power.”
Lebanon First bloc MP Assam Aaraji labeled Moussa’s statement “unacceptable” in
an interview with Future News Monday. He said the need to disarm Palestinian
cells in Lebanon had been agreed upon by the National Dialogue sessions of 2006.
However, Mounir al-Maqdah, a member of the Kifah al-Musallah and Fatah
movements, said the militia leader’s comments contained a message addressed to
Israel.
Maqdah told LBCI television Monday that arms in Palestinian camps demonstrated
to Tel Aviv that there were multiple cells capable of repelling Israeli
aggression.
“We are ready [to retaliate] against any attack; we will be at the service of
the Lebanese Army or the Resistance, and we will act as the soldiers of
Lebanon,” he added.
The pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat, quoting an unidentified ministerial source,
reported that Abou Moussa’s statement came in direct confrontation to the new
Lebanese Cabinet, which is set to address the issue of Palestinian armed
factions in forthcoming National Dialogue sessions.
The presence of non-state arms in Lebanon is a continued source of tension
between political blocs.
The recently drafted Cabinet statement divided opinion through its Article 6,
which recognized the right for the Lebanese resistance to continue to counter
provocation from Israel. Many parties in the March 14 government bloc have
voiced concern over the article, arguing that it essentially legalizes arms
outside of state control.
UN Resolution 1559, drafted in 2004, contains clauses stipulating that no group
other than the Lebanese Army may possess weapons. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon,
during periodic reports on the implementation of the resolution, continually
implores Lebanon to pressure weapons amnesties for non-state actors.
Palestinian groups and Hizbullah were the only parties to retain their weapons
after Lebanon’s 15-year Civil War, under the premise that their arms were needed
to defend the country against Israel. In the 2006 National Dialogue sessions,
Lebanese parties agreed on the disarmament of Palestinian factions outside the
country’s refugee camps, where more than 400,000 displaced people are
registered. Nevertheless, Abou Moussa rejected the prospect of disarming cells
outside camps, as “our arms outside the camps serve the purpose of resisting
Israel, in case it attacks southern Lebanon again,” he said, in reference to
Israel’s 2006 summer war against Lebanon.
Abou Moussa, who is based in Syria, made his comments regarding Palestinian
armories less than a month after historic rapprochement between Beirut and
Damascus following Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s trip to Syria for talks with
President Bashar Assad.
His group, Fatah al-Intifada, was founded with Syrian backing and currently
occupies military bases in the Bekaa Valley and close to the Syrian border.
Unlike most Palestinian factions in Lebanon, which are located inside camps and
are largely loyal to the Gaza Strip or the West Bank, Fatah al-Intifada’s
principal support is reserved for Damascus. Ramez Mustafa, the Lebanese
representative of the Syrian-based Popular Front for the Liberation of
Palestine-General Command repeated Abou Moussa’s sentiment that arms outside
camps were vital in deterring Israel. “The presence of Palestinian arms is part
of the resistance against Israeli threats,” Mustafa told AFP.
He added that “the arms are not to be used in Lebanese affairs,” and that
various Palestinian groups were willing to meet with Lebanese politicians to
discuss weapons ownership.
Free and United Lebanon bloc MP Estephan Doueihi told reporters on Monday that
the Lebanese Parliament’s position was unequivocal on the illegitimacy of arms
outside of camps. He added that the issue was purely an internal one. Lebanese
security forces do not have access to the camps and delegate the maintenance of
law and order to Palestinian authorities. This allows arms proliferation to
continue unchecked, according to some security experts. Abou Moussa denied that
Fatah al-Intifada prevented anyone from entering its areas of operations. “We do
not have security zones and will not establish a system or detention camps,” he
added. Another Palestinian militant group, Fatah al-Islam, fought in fierce
clashes with the Lebanese Army in and around the northern refugee camp of Nahr
al-Bared in April 2007, and Abou Moussa was forced to deny any link with the
group on Monday. “We are opponents and ready to track down the party, because
they harmed us,” he said, and insisted that Fatah al-Intifada’s weapons had
never damaged Lebanon. – With AFP
Mitchell
in Beirut on the First Stop of Regional Tour
Naharnet/U.S. special envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell kicks off a visit
to Beirut Tuesday night for talks with top Lebanese officials on peace in the
region.
Mitchell's visit to Beirut comes as part of a tour to the region that will also
take him to Israel, the Palestinian territories and Jordan. The envoy will not
visit Syria, An Nahar daily quoted a U.S. diplomatic source as saying. Mitchell
is expected to meet on Tuesday with Foreign Minister Ali al-Shami and Premier
Saad Hariri who will throw a dinner banquet in the envoy's honor, according to
the newspaper. An Nahar said that Hariri will stress to Mitchell the necessity
of stopping Israeli threats to Lebanon. The envoy will spend the night at the
U.S. embassy compound in Awkar and continue his talks with Lebanese officials on
Wednesday morning. Mitchell's visit is aimed at informing officials in the
region about U.S. President Barack Obama's vision on a final Middle East
settlement.
On January 4, Israel's Maariv newspaper said Washington was pushing a plan to
restart peace talks that foresees reaching a final deal in two years and
agreeing on permanent borders in nine months. Under the plan, the Israelis and
Palestinians will immediately start final status talks that were suspended
during the Gaza war a year ago, Maariv reported, citing unnamed sources. The
Lebanese stance is clear, however. Beirut rejects negotiating with Israel unless
a progress was made on the Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Syrian tracks, An
Nahar said.
Mitchell is also well aware that bringing up the issue of Hizbullah weapons and
its alleged rearming will meet a stiff Lebanese response that the party's arms
will be discussed on the national dialogue table next month. Lebanese officials
are also clear that the international community cannot ask Hizbullah to disarm
as long as Israel continues to occupy the Shebaa farms area, Kfarshouba hills
and the northern part of Ghajar, An Nahar said. Beirut, 19 Jan 10, 08:50
Franjieh: No Disagreement within Opposition on Appointments and No Settlement at
Iran, Hizbullah Expense
Naharnet/Marada movement chief Suleiman Franjieh denied on Tuesday that there is
disagreement within the opposition on the issue of appointments, saying there
are only different points of view. Following talks with Free Patriotic Movement
leader Michel Aoun in Rabiyeh, Franjieh referred to the municipal elections law
drafted by Interior Minister Ziad Baroud, saying some parts of it are difficult
to implement. He told reporters that it is difficult in some towns to find a
person with a BA degree to become a municipality chief. On reports about
dividing Beirut into three electoral constituencies, the MP said: "We are with
finding a formula in some large areas, particularly Beirut, that would create a
balance." Asked about Fatah al-Intifada chief Abu Moussa's latest statements on
Palestinian arms, Franjieh said: "Arms should be discussed at the national
dialogue" table. Turning to relations with Syria, Franjieh said: "Mistaken are
those who think there would be any settlement at the expense of Iran and
Hizbullah." The Marada leader was referring to the visits of U.S. envoys to
Lebanon and reports that an agreement with Damascus will harm Tehran and the
Shiite party. Beirut, 19 Jan 10, 12:45
Berri, Aoun at Loggerheads Again over Appointments
Naharnet/Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun and Speaker Nabih Berri were
on Tuesday at loggerheads over the issue of appointments a week after the MP
rejected the Amal movement leader's proposal to form the committee on the
abolishment of political sectarianism. Aoun on Monday criticized Berri's
proposal to form an expert committee to nominate the candidates for the
administrative posts in state institutions. The speaker suggested that the
cabinet would later choose the right person for the job.
Aoun told al-Manar TV network that the adoption of a mechanism to choose the
employees is in violation of the constitution, whose 65th clause states that
appointments are subject to consensus or a two-third majority vote. The FPM
leader's new stance was the subject of a meeting between State Minister for
Administrative Reform Mohammed Fneish and Energy Minister Jebran Bassil on
Monday night, media reports said. Fneish had attended talks between Amal
ministers and Berri before his meeting with Bassil. The reports said that the
conferees discussed the municipal elections draft law and the appointments
mechanism that Fneish would propose to the cabinet on Tuesday. Last week, Aoun
also criticized Berri's controversial proposal to form a committee tasked with
abolishing confessionalism in politics. Beirut, 19 Jan 10, 08:09
Berri Ready to Call for Parliamentary Session to Amend Constitution
Naharnet/Speaker Nabih Berri is reportedly seeking to hold a parliamentary
session to approve a cabinet decision to reduce voting age from 21 to 18 amid
controversy on the issue.
Pan-Arab daily al-Hayat said Tuesday that Berri has asked Interior Minister Ziad
Baroud to pave the way for 18-year-olds to participate in the municipal
elections. Baroud's draft law on the polls has set voting age at 21. Sources
close to Berri told the newspaper that the speaker is ready to call for a
parliamentary session to amend the constitution and set voting age at 18, adding
he would consult with PM Saad Hariri to set a date for the meeting. The sources
added that Berri encouraged Baroud to start preparing the list of voters,
including 18-year-olds, in order for the interior ministry to be ready when
parliament amends the constitution. Beirut, 19 Jan 10, 09:43
Baroud Denies Reports About Dividing Beirut to 3 Constituencies
Naharnet/Interior Minister Ziad Baroud is not aware of reports about dividing
Beirut to three electoral constituencies, sources told pan-Arab daily al-Hayat.
The sources said Baroud denied to Speaker Nabih Berri that he thought about
dividing the Lebanese capital, adding that his proposal in the municipal
elections draft law is clear and based on adopting proportionality in major
cities. A ministerial source expected such a proposal, which is backed by the
Free Patriotic Movement, to face stiff opposition from the prime minister and
majority ministers for fears that the move would strike at coexistence among the
Lebanese.
The source said the amendments proposed by Baroud do not clearly refer to
dividing Beirut. However, his suggestion to adopt proportionality in
municipalities with more than 21 members would hit at the sectarian balance that
former Premier Rafik Hariri had introduced to the Beirut municipal elections in
1998 and 2004. Beirut, 19 Jan 10, 11:20
MEA Plane Heads to Haiti with Aid
Naharnet/A plane carrying 39 tons of emergency aid to quake-stricken Haiti left
Rafik Hariri International Airport at dawn Tuesday, the National News Agency
reported.
NNA said that the Middle East Airlines plane is carrying tents, blankets,
powdered milk, medications and clothes. The official Lebanese delegation aboard
the plane will meet with officials in Haiti and inspect the situation of
Lebanese in the Caribbean nation. It will return to Beirut on Wednesday and
might carry on board several Lebanese nationals injured in last Tuesday's quake.
The delegation includes the secretary general of the Higher Relief Council Yahya
Raad, the consultant of Prime Minister Saad Hariri Fadi Fawwaz, representative
of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs consul Walid Haidar and representative of the
Health Ministry Ali Khalifeh, as well as medical and media teams. On Monday,
U.N. Special Coordinator for Lebanon Michael Williams "warmly" welcomed
Lebanon's decision to dispatch the medical team and emergency assistance to the
people of Haiti. "Lebanon's support is critical at this moment for Haiti. It is
an act of solidarity and underlines Lebanon's commitment as an active partner in
the international community. I thank Prime Minister Hariri, the government and
the people for this generous act. " Williams said. Beirut, 19 Jan 10, 10:02
Franjieh: Palestinian presence inside, outside refugee camps violates Lebanon’s
sovereignty
January 19, 2010 /Now Lebanon
Following his meeting with Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun on
Tuesday, Marada Movement leader MP Sleiman Franjieh said that the Palestinian
presence inside and outside the refugee camps violates Lebanon’s sovereignty. He
also said that no one has the right to determine the fate of the Palestinians in
Lebanon, since they have representatives in the country who speak on their
behalf. Franjieh commented on the amendments to the municipal electoral law
proposed by Interior Minister Ziad Baroud, saying, “If the head of the state is
not required to have a university degree, then why would the candidates running
for the head of the municipality be required to have one?” A formula has to be
reached for those voting in big cities so as to maintain the balance between the
sects, said Franjieh. He also commented on the issue of abolishing political
sectarianism, saying, “The elimination of sectarianism is different from
eradicating political sectarianism.”-NOW Lebanon
Najjar: There will be no amendments made to municipal law
January 19, 2010 /Justice Minister Ibrahim Najjar told LBCI television on
Tuesday that no amendments will be made to the municipal electoral law, adding
that the voting age will not be lowered to 18 due to what he called time
constraints. “The goal is to avoid passing new bills, so that the elections take
place on time,” Najjar said. He also said that calls to divide Beirut into three
or more districts during the municipal elections is dangerous, a reference to
Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun’s proposal. He commented on the
maintenance of the Justice Palace – which Najjar said previously has weak
foundations and could possibly collapse – saying he will meet with Public Works
and Transportation Minister Ghazi Aridi on Tuesday to discuss the issue.-NOW
Lebanon
It won’t just go away
January 18, 2010
Now Lebanon/An image grab from Hezbollah's Al-Manar TV shows Hezbollah chief
Hassan Nasrallah addressing the Arab and international forum in support of
resistance movements in Beirut via video link on January 15. (AFP /HO/Al-Manar)
When asked about the Irish question, Oliver Cromwell was alleged to have said,
“If we forget about it, it will go away.” That was in 17th century England; over
300 years later the English are still trying to answer the Irish “question”. If
the great parliamentarian were alive today, he might have a word or two to say
to the Lebanese, many of whom appear to have forgotten about quite a lot.
For a while many of our politicians have kissed and made up with their so-called
former rivals, and while senior diplomats have echoed their respective nations’
approval of the reconciliations, there is still the little “question” of
Hezbollah, its weapons and its martial posture, which, if the rhetoric of the
last few days is anything to go by, is becoming increasingly belligerent. In
fact such is the level of saber rattling that we have to ask ourselves who is
running the show in Lebanon.
Sunday saw the wrapping up of a three-day Arab and international forum in Beirut
on supporting the Resistance. In the final statement, the delegates called for
Arab states to announce the failure of the Middle East peace process and adopt a
“confrontational” approach with Israel. Nothing new there you might say, but it
was the call for the “strengthening of resistance culture in educational
curriculums, literature and arts” that will send a shiver down the spines of
Lebanese who have witnessed firsthand what the Resistance has achieved in recent
years.
Then we have Loyalty to the Resistance bloc MP Ali Fayyad, who, earlier on
Sunday, said his group is “dealing with Israeli threats with utmost
seriousness.” That the Loyalty to the Resistance bloc has a say in foreign
policy will also come as a surprise to many Lebanese who like to think of their
government – one that that was borne, albeit painfully, out of the result of a
democratic election – as dealing with such matters.
But then again Fayyad was merely taking his lead from Hezbollah Secretary
General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, who, on Friday opened the forum by saying that
his party would defeat Israel in any possible confrontation and “change the face
of the region.” Such is the binary mindset of those who see the world divided
into the pro- and anti-Israeli camps that Nasrallah could have said anything and
they would have applauded and forgotten the small matter of the majority of
Lebanese who would like to have some say in such an eventuality (as they no
doubt also would like have some say in Nasrallah’s stated yearning for a new war
with Israel, one that would give Lebanon “renewed pride and renewed victory”).
We have said it before and we will say it again because it won’t just go away by
itself. Lebanon cannot exist as a sovereign state with sovereign institutions
while there exists outside the state and its institutions an armed militia that
publically declares that it longs for war with Israel, a scenario that will have
potentially lethal repercussions for every Lebanese. This is not how a country
operates. Hezbollah exists because it chooses to exist. No one can control it.
The state cannot decide to end the Resistance. Lebanon is hostage to its whims.
In such an atmosphere, it doesn’t matter how dynamic Ziad Baroud is as interior
minister; it doesn’t matter how hard our other ministers are working to finally
get things moving, to boost tourism, to increase consumption, to make lives
marginally better, because at any time the hair trigger that is Hezbollah can
drag us into another conflict, one that by all accounts will make 2006 seem like
a walk in the park.
Nasrallah said in his speech that the Resistance has been forbidden from
“voicing itself” by the international community. He needn’t worry; we hear him
loud and clear.
Israeli intelligence report sets June 2010 deadline for attacking Iran
January 19, 2010 /An Israeli intelligence report issued by the Jerusalem Center
for Research and Documentation set June 2010 as the deadline for Israel to
launch a military attack on Iran. The report outlined a number of
recommendations for the Israeli government to better confront possible security
threats in 2010.
For that purpose, the report called on Tel Aviv to maintain “good communications
and coordination with countries that could provide the use of their airspace
during Israel’s attack on Tehran.”The research and analysis unit operating
within the Israeli intelligence and the Center for Political Research allegedly
compiled intelligence information and in-depth analysis, which were discussed by
the Israeli inner cabinet. Iran topped the list of threats facing Israel in
2010, said the report, urging the Israeli leadership to take the “difficult
decision” and rise up to the challenge. It remains unlikely that Western efforts
will succeed in convincing Iran to accept the deal proposed by the P5 powers on
Tehran’s nuclear drive, added the report.
It also expected that the US administration will begin to shift toward imposing
harsher sanctions on Iran in February. The US administration will look into
alternatives for diplomacy, primarily opting for a military operation, which,
according to Israeli intelligence, has become the most realistic option.
However, the report warned against any unilateral military action carried out by
Israel against Iran. Yet, it stated that there is still enough time to launch a
military attack on Tehran to set back its nuclear agenda for several years. “The
Free World and moderate countries in the region support this military option,”
said the report. The second security challenge facing Tel Aviv is Israel’s
northern border with Syria and Lebanon, stated the report.
According to Israeli intelligence information, tension will rise in the Golan
Heights in 2010 despite the long-standing calm in the area. The report,
therefore, recommended keeping IDF troops stationed in the Golan Heights on high
alert to avoid any crisis. On the issue of Hezbollah, the report said that the
party adheres to a military and political strategy that serves Lebanon’s
interest as well as the party’s foreign ties, a reference to Iran. The report
added that some extremist groups have infiltrated Lebanon with the intent of
carrying out attacks on Israeli posts. If such plots were executed, Tel Aviv
will have to hold the Lebanese government responsible for the attacks, said the
report, which will in turn escalate tension along the Lebanese-Israeli
border.-NOW Lebanon
Ziad Baroud
Now Lebanon
January 18, 2010
On January 17, the Lebanese National News Agency carried the following report:
The Joint Committee for Citizenship Education organized a seminar on
“Citizenship in the Municipal Context” at the Convent of Our Lady of the Well in
Bqinnaya Jal el-Dib, with the participation of Minister of Interior and
Municipalities Ziad Baroud who considered that the “citizenship predicament has
existed for decades, and its main problem does not reside in the Lebanese system
or the Lebanese people, rather in the obstacles which opposed this system since
the establishment of the independent state and the crises which prevailed over
the region in 1948 and extended until 1967, 1973 and 1975. This regional
situation affected our behavior on all levels.” He then assured that civil peace
in Lebanon was “the most important thing to hold on to, just like the
coexistence pact which was pointed out in the introduction of the constitution
as part of the Lebanese people’s right to live in a state peacefully and to
manage their diversity as best as possible.
“The problem does not lie in the diversity itself, rather in its management. All
the communities around the world are heading toward this diversity, but what is
required is to manage it the proper way at the level of the constitution and the
municipalities… Democracy cannot be imported and must look like the country in
which it is being implemented.
“Lebanon’s democracy is built by the Lebanese people alone, based on historical
accumulations and a vision for a future in which everyone is part of the
equation. No one can annul anyone in this country, and its beauty lies in its
diversity. Therefore, we must not only protect the sectarian minorities, but
also the political and intellectual minorities among other forms… The democracy
which is based on the coexistence pact is extremely important and will secure
the proper management of diversity to serve the country’s best interests. The
municipalities are part of this condition, and are the main action cell on the
local level. They have been a model in more than one situation and they must be
developed and improved whether in terms of the law or the implementation.”
Minister Baroud then expressed his surprise over the “talk about the
postponement of the municipal elections and the talk about a Cabinet decision to
stage them or delay them,” hoping that these elections will be held on time
“because we are forced to do so by law. The Interior Ministry for its part is
working to ensure full preparedness for these elections… Regarding the reforms,
they can be discussed and ratified before the elections. This issue should be
looked into inside the Cabinet and Parliament, but the general position is that
we should stage the elections on time and honor these events whether they are
constitutional or legal. The transfer of power is basic, and although the law
requires certain minor amendments, this is not a reason to postpone the
elections. In any case, the issue will be put forward before the Cabinet on
Tuesday, considering that this is where all matters should be resolved. It will
also be discussed in parliament whose role we greatly respect at this level.”
Minister Baroud then believed that the municipal electoral law was not bad, but
required certain improvements, stating: “The prerogatives of the municipal heads
and councils are extremely wide, but what is more important are the capacities
which are not always available.” He then stressed the necessity to unify and
merge the municipalities and the importance of the role of experts in municipal
action, revealing that the Ministry will establish “a municipal training center
to train all the municipal employees on how to organize things in a better way.”
On the other hand, he called for the implementation of administrative
decentralization, indicating that the Interior Ministry already completed a big
portion of the project to ensure the professional work of administrative
decentralization. In response to a question, Minister Baroud said: “We are
committed to staging the elections in May and are introducing all the necessary
amendments before that date. This can be accomplished but is part of the
prerogatives of parliament. We are still within the legal deadline if the
proposed amendments are adopted.”
Asked about the quota for women, he stressed: “We cannot elude the quota during
a temporary phase. A Women's quota is a positive segregation to move forward and
we do not see any other way to encourage women to enter public life except
through this quota.” He then assured that he was in favor of lowering the voting
age to 18, indicating: “This issue is awaiting ratification in parliament. If it
is not ratified before February 10, we technically cannot introduce the names of
voters between 18 and 21 years of age on the voters’ lists.”
Phalange
Party Warns of Fatah-Intifada 'Old-New Approach'
Naharnet/Phalange Party on Monday lashed back at Fatah-Intifada leader Said
Moussa over his latest stances which "bypassed the understandings and
resolutions unanimously adopted by the Lebanese leaders at the national dialogue
table." After its weekly meeting Monday under party leader, former president,
Amin Gemayel, Phalange Party's politburo warned against "the dangers of staying
silent regarding this old-new approach which contradicts with the latest
ministerial Policy Statement and the resolutions of the national dialogue
committee which voted unanimously on disarming (Palestinian factions) outside
the camps." The latest stances by Fatah-Intifada leader Said Moussa contradict
with "the positive atmospheres which prevailed in parallel with the visit of PM
Saad Hariri to the Syrian capital … after the (Syrian-Lebanese) dialogue tackled
the fate of these Palestinian weapons," according to Phalange Party's statement.
Phalange Party called on the security and judicial officials "to face 'this
trend' and to investigate with any Palestinian individual or official over the
reasons and conditions pushing them to such stances which contradict with all
guarantees presented by Palestinian leaders in terms of abiding by all Lebanese
laws governing their residence and Lebanon's security."
The party warned of "the risks of this approach which connects all illegal
weapons on the Lebanese soil to the crisis of the region."
On the other hand, the party stressed that municipal elections should happen at
the appointed time. The party also inquired "about the outcome of investigations
in some mysterious crimes, especially the results of the investigation in the
explosion which targeted a Hamas bureau in Dahiyeh." Beirut, 18 Jan 10, 20:27
Hold
municipal polls on time
By The Daily Star
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Editorial
The Lebanese public is being showered with the usual barrage of statements by
politicians about the need to hold the next round of municipal elections on
time. It’s a disappointing phenomenon to begin with: Hearing such anguished
calls means that there are worries that the polls could easily be derailed, for
the usual type of excuse, namely that the law, or some crucial amendments, won’t
be ready in time.
The first round of post-war local elections took place in 1998, and after such a
long interruption (more than three decades), the event functioned as a kind of
dry run for politics at the local level. When the next opportunity rolled
around, in 2004, the refreshing results were a clear indication that the
Lebanese voting public could enact change, as it supported a number of serious
candidates who weren’t completely beholden to the national powers-that-be. Some
big cities were naturally hampered by a political landscape that mirrored the
divisiveness of our national politics. But in many smaller municipalities, a
degree of accountability came into play and it was refreshing to see “new blood”
brought in.
Unfortunately, the 2004 round was followed by a series of tragic and
disappointing events, which can be summarized as: the assassination of Rafik
Hariri and the polarization of Lebanese society into warring camps that took an
approach of (our) good versus (their) evil. Now, with a national unity
government in place, the politicians who earlier mobilized the country around
sloganeering and excommunicating the other side stand before a golden
opportunity to right these political wrongs. By untying all of the municipal
knots in time for a round of local elections in May, our political class can
achieve a degree of redemption for all of the lost time and effort of recent
years. Holding local elections on time is an absolute necessity, as is ensuring
that we have a sound law in place. The amendments that are on the table aren’t a
case of rocket science – the central question is whether the people can be
“trusted” to elect their own mayors and deputy mayors, instead of letting
elected municipal council members do it themselves. We need a municipal law in
place for this round, and soon. Provided that they emerge from a level playing
field, elected municipal officials can provide a much-needed layer of stability
for our political system. Letting voters select the right people for the job
will relieve some of the burden on our central authorities, and enhance the
balance in our political system that we desperately need.
European
leftists meet with local counterparts
Daily Star staff
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
BEIRUT: European leftist delegations visited the Lebanese Communist Party on
Monday to discuss local and regional affairs. Vice Secretary General of the
Lebanese Communist Party Mary Nassif al-Debs met with a delegation from the
Italian Communist Party and the Network of Italian Communists as well as a
delegation of the French Left Party. The meeting discussed US influence,
especially in Sudan, and the escalation of Israeli aggression against the
Palestinians in Gaza. They also tackled the issue of Israeli threats on Lebanon
and certain Lebanese governmental projects that could result in a loss for the
working class such as a social welfare project, rent laws, privatization
projects and raising taxes. The European parties expressed their support for
Lebanon and for liberating the remaining of its territories. – The Daily Star
The Resistance Strategy: The
Middle East's Response to Calls for Peace and Moderation
By Barry Rubin*
January 19, 2010
http://www.gloria-center.org/Gloria/2010/01/resistance-strategy
Have you heard from any of the Western mass media about the Resistance strategy
of Middle East radicals? I'm sure you haven't. Yet without understanding this
powerful and widely accepted worldview how could anyone possibly comprehend
events in the region? /Daily star
"Resistance" is the slogan used by Syria, Hamas, and Hizballah especially but
also is used by Iran's regime, other Lebanese supporters of the Iran-Syria bloc,
and assorted radicals throughout the region. While the word has echoes for any
Western auditor of the French Resistance against the Nazis, this is not the
origin of this Middle East usage.
Rather, it means on the one hand, Resistance to supposed U.S., European, and
Israeli intentions to turn the Arabs into slaves and destroy Islam. It also
signifies Resistance to Westernization and modernization. And then, too, of
equal significance, it means Resistance to attempts to promote peace or even a
peace process with Israel and moderation in general.
Most obviously, Resistance means rejection but it also implies the use of
violence, to resist is to reject diplomatic solutions and to fight instead. No
matter how many people die, how much destruction will hurt the societies of
those resisting, how long bloody conflict will continue, and how remote the
prospects for victory seem to be, this is the preferred option. In contrast,
moderation, compromise, and negotiation are seen as cowardly and treasonous.
But those preaching Resistance also believe they will be victorious by dividing
and wearing down their opponents. Indeed, they think-even though they are more
wrong than not-that they are winning now. They think the West is weak and
corrupt, while Israel is going to fall apart and give up. A lot of the arguments
made and policies put forward in the West-apology, concession, misconception,
self-criticism-feed this confidence and thus contribute to more violence and
conflict.
In many ways, the Resistance philosophy is a close parallel to Arab thinking in
the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, a new version of what used to be proudly called
Rejectionism by Arab regimes. Now, however, it is reformulated in a version to
be palatable to Islamists as well as nationalists and semi-Marxists.
If there was a founding statement regarding the Resistance strategy it was the
speech of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to the Syrian Journalists' Union on
August 15, 2006. Assad said he was formulating his alternative to the "new
Middle East" proposed by the West and Israel in which political peace would
produce prosperity, democracy, and stability. "The world does not care about our
interests, feelings and rights except when we are powerful," Assad stated.
Otherwise, they would not do anything."
Instead, Assad offered the prospect of triumph through bloodshed. Why compromise
if you believe you can achieve total victory, revolution, and wipe Israel off
the map with armed struggle and the intimidation of the West? Why engage in the
long, hard work of economic development when merely showing courage in battle
and killing a few enemies fulfills one's dreams. Victory, said Bashar, requires
recklessness.
Here's an example of a recent statement of the Resistance concept. It comes from
Hizballah Deputy Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem, a man who often
successfully conveys the false message to gullible Western journalists and
"experts" that Hizballah is becoming moderate.
In a lecture to the Lebanese University's Faculty of Science-an interesting case
of how the extremist fantasies of the Resistance philosophy is accepted even in
academic and intellectual circles-Qassem called the Resistance option:
"The best choice for liberating the land....The [peace] settlement is an
illusion that won't lead to any results, but rather would squander what is left
of our land because Israel needs the peace process to annex lands and extend
occupation."
Yet Resistance has much wider implications as well:
"The Resistance is not a local, regional, or international political tactic. It
is not a part of deals among nations, and not a negotiation tool for political
gains."
Thus, while Resistance is a good slogan for revolutionary Islamist groups it is
also valuable in bringing together a wider base of supporters among the more
militant Arab nationalists and ideological leftists as well. This is why it is
perfect for the Syrian regime, which is part of the Iran-led Islamist alliance
without being Islamist itself.
Another advantage is that it allows anyone who is relatively moderate-for
example, the governments of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia-as effeminate
traitors following the path of defeat. That is why in his speech quoted above,
Assad called those who didn't agree with him-explicitly mentioning the leaders
of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia--were mere "half-men," midgets who lacked his
courage, and even outright traitors.
Thus, too, the experience of the last half of the twentieth century is negated.
Objectively, that history shows the Arabs and Muslims cannot defeat Israel and
the West, thus it is better to make a compromise deal. Specifically, it claims
that a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority resulting in
a two-state solution will never lead to anything good and is at any rate
unnecessary since the Palestinians can win total victory if they go on fighting
for enough decades.
The Resistance strategy is the response of the regional radicals to the West's
call for a "pragmatic" moderation. As so many leaders, officials, experts and
journalists in the West claim that their enemies are eager to moderate and will
make deals if they are only offered enough and given sufficient concessions,
Resistance is the response these forces are giving. That's why the commonly
heard Western arguments about the meaning of regional events and the proper
policies to manage them are completely wrong and won't work.
Note: These issues are dealt with in more detail in the author's books The
Tragedy of the Middle East and The Truth About Syria.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs
(GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA)
Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with
Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria
(Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp
Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy
in the Middle East (Wiley). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or
to order books, go to http://www.gloria-center.org
The Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, P.O. Box 167, Herzliya, 46150, Israel
info@gloria-center.org- Phone: +972-9-960-2736 - Fax: +972-9-960-2736
© 2009 All rights reserved | Terms and Uses
Ft Hood's
Terror: The US failed by its own experts
19/01/10
by Walid Phares, Ph.D.
World Defense Review columnist
The Pentagon's review of the act of Terrorism committed at Fort Hood by Major
Nidal Hasan deserves national attention not only regarding its important
conclusions but also what it missed in terms of analysis. In this piece, I'll
address major points made public in the media and raise issues about the bigger
picture regarding the terror threat America is facing today.
Jihadi Penetration: Part of a War
As announced by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the report "reveals serious
'shortcomings' in the military's ability to stop foreign extremists from trying
to use America's own soldiers against the United States." The Pentagon's review
of the Fort Hood massacre stated that "serious shortcomings" were found in "the
military's ability to stop foreign extremists from trying to use its own
soldiers against the United States." The first question that comes to mind is to
know if the issue is about "shortcomings," as described by the Pentagon, or is
it about "systemic failures" as announced by President Obama in his evaluation
of the Christmas Day terror act? For as underlined by the Department of Defense
in the case of Major Hasan, these failures were about the military's ability to
"stop foreign terrorists from using American soldiers against the United
States." Such a statement is extremely important as it finally informs the
public that US personnel is indeed being infiltrated and recruited by foreign
Jihadists, which are described politically by the Administration as
"extremists." Hence, the first logical conclusion from that finding is that
Jihadi networks are performing acts of War (and thus of Terrorism) against US
defense assets and personnel in the homeland. Thus this warrants the
reevaluation of the conflict and re-upgrading it to a state of war, even though
it would still need to be determined "with whom."
Self radicalization
Secretary Gates said "military supervisors are not properly focused on the
threat posed by self-radicalization and need to better understand the behavioral
warning signs." He added that "extremists are changing their tactics in an
attempt to hit the United States." Concluding that the Fort Hood massacre
"reveals shortcomings in the way the department is prepared to defend against
threats posed by external influences operating on members of our military
community," he said. "We have not done enough to adapt to the evolving domestic
internal security threat to American troops and military facilities."
The bottom line of the Department of Defense report is, as I relentlessly argued
before and since Hasan's shootings, that the US military and intelligence lack
the capability of detecting radicalization, should it be "self" developed or
activated from overseas. American analysts are not able to "detect"
radicalization from where it is generated. In my last three books and dozens of
briefings and testimonies to legislative and executive forums, I underlined the
crucial importance of identifying the ideology behind radicalization. For the
latter is produced by a set of ideas assembled in a doctrinal package.
Unfortunately the Bush and Obama Administrations were both poorly advised by
their experts. They were told, wrongly, that if they try to identify a
"doctrine" they will be meddling with a religion. Academic and cultural advisors
of the various US agencies and offices (the majority of them at least) failed
their government by triggering a fear of theological entanglement. To the
surprise of our Arab and Muslim allies in the region, who know how to detect the
Jihadist narrative, Washington disarmed its own analysts when bureaucrats of the
last two years banned the reference to the very ideological indicators that
could enable our analysts in detecting the radicalization threat. And it is not
about "extreme religious views" inasmuch as it is about an ideology. If Arabs
and Muslims can identify it in the Middle East, why can't Americans do this
also? Simply because Jihadi propaganda already penetrated our advising body and
fooled many of our decision makers into dropping the ideological parameters.
Hence stunningly Major Hasan, who amazingly displayed all the narrative of
Jihadism, was not spotted as a Jihadist. The report tried to blame his
colleagues and other superiors for failing to find him "suspicious enough" and
thus for causing a shortcoming. I disagree: what allowed Hasan to move
undetected was a bureaucratic memo issued under both Administrations and made
into policy last summer, ordering the members of the public service to not look
at ideology or refer to words that can detect it. We did it to ourselves.
The strategic threat ahead
The report raises "serious questions" about whether the military is prepared for
similar attacks, particularly "multiple, simultaneous incidents." In my book,
Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against America published half a decade ago,
I sternly warned about the strategic determination of Jihadists, al Qaeda and
beyond, to target the US homeland, not just in terms of terrorizing the public,
but in the framework of a chain of strikes widening gradually until it would
evolve to coordinated, simultaneous attacks. In 2006-2007, I served on the then
Task Force on Future Terrorism of the Department of Homeland Security and
developed an analysis clearly showing the path to come. My briefings to several
entities and agencies in the Defense sector clearly argued that implanting,
growing, and triggering homegrown Jihadists to strike at US national security is
at the heart of the enemy's strategy. I even projected the existence of a "war
room" that directs these operations; Imam al Awlaki's example of multiple
operatives' coordination is only a small fragment of what it would be like. In
facing this mushrooming threat, not only do we not have a detection capacity to
counter it, but we have been induced in error to adopt the opposite policies
suitable to our national defense. The misleading advice that the US Government
relied on is deeply responsible for the failure to counter, stop and reverse
radicalization. The report, although a step in the right direction, has
troubling shortcomings:
a. It claims "fixation on religion" is a missing indicator. Meaning if Muslims
insist on praying or Catholics refrain from eating meat on Fridays during Lent
this could be a lead to radicalization. Obviously it is a dead end; for the
indicator is the substance of the fixation, not the mere fact of religiosity.
One statement of commitment to Jihad is by far more important than fasting
during the whole month of Ramadan. It is not theology it is ideology, even
though many writers in town insist on merging both based on their readings of
text. I offer our government an easier way to detect the threat, without
venturing in inextricable religious debates or unnecessarily apologizing for one
or other particular faith.
b. The report describes Hasan as "an odd duck and a loner who was passed along
from office to office and job to job despite professional failings that included
missed or failed exams and physical fitness requirements." Nice shot, but it
leads nowhere. For the other potential Hasans amongst us aren't all necessarily
odd, failed students and physically unfit. The next Jihadists could be sharp,
are professionals and extremely social. It all depends on what the "War Room" is
going to surprise us with. Medical doctors in Britain, rich young men from
Nigeria or converted farmers from North Carolina aren't all in one profile
basket. So let's stop looking for framing "profiles" and start detecting
ideology.
c. The report calls on the Defense Department "to fully staff those teams of
investigators, analysts, linguists and others so the Pentagon can quickly see
information collected across government agencies about potential links between
troops and terrorist or extremist groups." This is a long awaited initiative
short of creating further catastrophes by staffing our bureaucracies with more
cultural advisors, who would mislead our leaders further and worsen the already
fledgling counter ideology sectors already in place. I am making the bold
statement that our problem is precisely that the expertise we sought over the
past eight years is the reason for our inability to detect radicalization. Hence
I would recommend an additional inquiry into our own specialization body before
we re-contract it to lead the war of ideas.
The beef is there. Everything else is dressing.