LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
January 23/10

Bible Of the Day
Matthew 9/35-38: "Jesus went about all the cities and the villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the Good News of the Kingdom, and healing every disease and every sickness among the people. 9:36 But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion for them, because they were harassed and scattered, like sheep without a shepherd. 9:37 Then he said to his disciples, “The harvest indeed is plentiful, but the laborers are few. 9:38 Pray therefore that the Lord of the harvest will send out laborers into his harvest.”

Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports
What was behind the colonel’s words/By: Elie Fawaz/January 22/10
Nabih Berri gets the Syria treatment/By: Michael Young/January 22,10
Syria's Lebanese return validates Bashar Assad's waiting game/By Nicholas Blanford/for January 22/10
Testing the waters/By: Bassel Oudat//Al-Ahram Weekly/January 22/10
An explosive message/By: Sana Abdallah/Al-Ahram Weekly/January 22/10
The hidden cost of corruption//Daily Star/January 22/10

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for January 22/10
Clinton sites Lebanon in press freedom speech/Now Lebanon
France Won't Provide Lebanon with Gazelle Missiles for Fear They Could Reach Hizbullah/Naharnet
Hariri Meets Sarkozy amid French Concerns that Lebanon's Real Danger is Hizbullah, Not Israel /Naharnet
U.S. Embassy: Anti-Manar Bill Not Aimed at Curbing Freedom of Expression /Naharnet
Fatah Islam Assassination Plot Uncovered, Ein Hilweh under Strict Control /Naharnet
Young Lebanese Man Killed in Truck vs. Car Accident/Naharnet
Suleiman: Municipal Elections on Time, Beirut's Division Not Considered/Naharnet
Lawsuit Awaits Jumblat in Damascus/Naharnet
Hizbullah on Alert as Syria Reportedly Called Up Reserve Units/Naharnet
Houri defends calls for expatriate voting rights/Now Lebanon
Hezbollah on Alert on Israeli-Lebanese border/Asharq Alawsat
Hezbollah and Syria on alert fearing IDF attack on Lebanon/Ha'aretz
French minister rejects Hariri's plea for guarantees against Israeli aggression//Daily Star
Fatah al-Islam 'plotting attack' against judges//Daily Star
Australian man jailed for terrorism in Lebanon/ABC Online
World Citizen: Iran and Israe l Already at (Cold) War/World Politics Review
The Threat that Iran poses to Iraq/EnerPub
Berri vows to continue anti-sectarianism effort/Daily Star
Lebanese, UN officials honor fallen comrades in Haiti/Daily Star
Primary health care center opens in southern suburbs of Beirut/Daily Star
Iraqi Shiite leader promises Sfeir that Baghdad will work to protect Christians/Daily Star
LADE vows action if politicians fail to pass electoral reforms/Daily Star
Use Iran's people against the country's nuclear program/Daily Star
Syria's Lebanese return validates Bashar Assad's waiting game/Daily Star
Female religious guides are on the rise/Daily Star

Hezbollah and Syria on alert fearing IDF attack on Lebanon
By Haaretz Service /Syria and Hezbollah have gone on alert anticipating an Israeli attack on Lebanon, the London-based A-Sharq al-Awsat daily reported on Friday. According to the report, Hezbollah has been monitoring with caution the reinforcement of Israel Defense Forces troops along the Lebanon border. Hezbollah's deputy secretary general, Naeem Kassem, said the group was preparing to retaliate although it had no proof of any such Israeli plans. Syria has meanwhile begun to call up reserves troops, including nationals residing in Lebanon. The IDF responded to the report by denying any plans for renewing conflict against Lebanon.

Houri defends calls for expatriate voting rights
January 22, 2010 /Naharnet/During a Friday interview with Al-Nour radio station, Lebanon First bloc MP Ammar Houri defended the right to call for Lebanese expatriates to be able to vote from their countries of residence. His comment comes as a possible reference to recent calls by the Lebanese Forces asking for expatriates to be given voting rights.
Houri also said that no one can deny expatriates their right to vote, adding that the parliament should raise the issue and implement it. He also discussed the 2008 parliamentary agreement to lower the voting the voting age from 21 to 18. Houri added that the lowered voting age would be implemented in 2013, and not the upcoming municipal elections. According to Houri, even if the parliament convenes to amend Article 21—which pertains to the legal voting age—it might not be implemented in time for the municipal elections. He also said that holding the municipal elections on time is the top priority. -NOW Lebanon

Clinton sites Lebanon in press freedom speech
January 22, 2010 /Now Lebanon
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged US technology companies on Thursday not to support internet censorship and said countries that carry out cyber attacks should be punished.
Clinton was speaking at a conference at the Newseum journalism museum in Washington DC at which NOW Lebanon’s Hanin Ghaddar was one of Clinton’s guests of honor.
Ghaddar was attending the International Visitor Leadership Program conference among other journalists and bloggers from Lebanon, China, Colombia, Iran and Moldova.
Clinton discussed how freedom of the internet was one of the major challenges of the 21st century. She cited the demonstrations that followed Iran’s presidential elections, saying, “ [A] grainy cell phone footage of a young woman’s bloody murder provided a digital indictment of the government’s brutality.”She said that some citizen journalists in Iran used technology to convey to the international community what is happening in their country. However, she added that some nations used the internet as a tool to target and silence people of faith.
“In Saudi Arabia, a man spent months in prison for blogging about Christianity,” said Clinton, adding, “A Harvard study found that the Saudi Government blocked many web pages about Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and even Islam.”
Clinton said the US is supporting the development of new tools that will "enable citizens to exercise their right of free expression" by circumventing censorship, and called on US technology firms to play a role. Clinton said the State Department would hold a high-level meeting next month with companies that provide network services for talks on internet freedom.
Google, Microsoft, Yahoo! and Cisco are among the US technology giants that have been accused by members of the US Congress and others of helping to build what has been dubbed the "Great Firewall of China." Google, however, following a wave of cyber attacks that originated in China, said last week it would no longer censor its Chinese search engine, even if it means the company has to shut down its business operations there. Clinton called on China "to conduct a thorough investigation of the cyber intrusions" revealed by Google and for "its results to be transparent."-AFP/NOW Lebanon

France Won't Provide Lebanon with Gazelle Missiles for Fear They Could Reach Hizbullah
Naharnet/France was reportedly worried that providing the Lebanese army with weapons, including missiles for the Gazelle helicopters, could end up in Hizbullah hands.
France's stance was conveyed during a visit by Prime Minister Saad Hariri to Paris. It came in response to Hariri's request to provide Lebanon with Gazelle missiles since the Lebanese Air Force used up all the rockets against Fatah al-Islam militants during the battle of Nahr el-Bared in 2007. Pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat on Friday cited well-informed sources as saying that French officials and while expressing willingness in principle to provide Lebanon with weapons, French military commanders, however, voiced fear that such missiles could end up in Hizbullah hands and used in war against Israel. As-Safir newspaper, for its part, said French Prime Minister Francois Fillon has said that talks tackled "specific issues on the process of modernization of the Lebanese army," without being committed to steps toward arming the Lebanese army, particularly to provide helicopters with Hot missiles.
The French position matched the U.S.' stance which was not enthusiastic about the issue of providing the Lebanese Air Force with weapons that could be used against Israel.
The ten Puma helicopters that were part of UAE grant to Lebanon were also to be used for light transport and liaison roles and not for combat. Beirut, 22 Jan 10, 08:06

U.S. Embassy: Anti-Manar Bill Not Aimed at Curbing Freedom of Expression
Naharnet/The U.S. Embassy said Friday that a bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives calling for punitive measures against Hizbullah's al-Manar TV was not a measure taken against freedom of expression. "This is a bill (meaning a draft-law) that was only passed by the House of Representatives. In order for it to become law, it has to be passed by the Senate and signed by the President," The Embassy's Public Affairs Officer, Ryan Gliha, told representatives of local news portals, including Naharnet.
He made the comment in response to a question on the bill which called for measures against several Middle East television networks seen as fuelling anti-American hatred. The Obama administration "doesn't have an official position on it because it is still an idea," the diplomat stressed. "This is not a question of freedom of speech," he said during the meeting with the journalists at the U.S. Embassy compound in Awkar. "It is about al-Manar which is owned by Hizbullah." The U.S. government believes there is no difference between a terrorist organization and a media outlet run by it, Gliha said. The roundtable discussion, which was aimed at sharing insights and answering questions about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's speech on internet freedom, touched on the issue of free access to information to all Lebanese citizens. "We support initiatives that would allow free access to information in Lebanon," Gliha told the journalists, although he said the U.S. government doesn't have direct support to the telecommunications sector in the country. "It's not our decision to decide on the Lebanese government's policy," he said. Gliha told the journalists, however, that the U.S. would work with the Lebanese private sector and highlight transgressions on the internet in Lebanon as ways to promote more internet freedoms. On Thursday, Clinton urged global condemnation of those who conduct cyber attacks. "A new information curtain is descending across much of the world," she said, calling growing internet curbs the modern equivalent of the Berlin Wall. "We stand for a single internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas," said Clinton in her speech in Washington. She cited China as among a number of countries where there has been "a spike in threats to the free flow of information" over the past year. She also named Tunisia, Uzbekistan, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam. Clinton's speech came on the heels of a Jan. 12 threat from Google to pull out of China unless the government relented on rules requiring the censorship of content the Communist Party considers subversive. The ultimatum came after Google said it had uncovered a computer attack that tried to plunder its software coding and the e-mail accounts of human rights activists protesting Chinese policies. Gliha told Naharnet that internet freedom has always been part of the U.S. foreign policy. However, the Obama administration is now "saying it out loud because it is a very pressing issue." "We are now putting resources into it and doing it in an organized way," he said.
Beirut, 22 Jan 10, 13:27

Hariri Meets Sarkozy amid French Concerns that Lebanon's Real Danger is Hizbullah, Not Israel
Naharnet/Prime Minister Saad Hariri met Friday French President Nicolas Sarkozy, winding up a three-day official visit to Paris. Earlier Friday, Hariri met French and Lebanese businessmen. Sources close to Hariri said the Lebanese premier was in Paris to discuss the Middle East peace process and ways to promote bilateral ties. Hariri on Thursday met Prime Minister Francois Fillon and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner who feared Hizbullah would launch an adventure for the good of Iran. Hariri also met a number of other French officials. Hariri's external affairs advisor Mohammad Shatah said the premier's visit aims at "protecting Lebanon amid a critical regional situation and conflicts threatening the country."
Kouchner said Lebanese' mounting concerns amid Israeli threats of another war were "not justified." "Israel is our friend, and if there was a threat to Lebanon, it will only come from a military adventure carried out by Hizbullah in the best interest of Iran," Kouchner warned. Beirut, 22 Jan 10, 14:57

Fatah Islam Assassination Plot Uncovered, Ein Hilweh under Strict Control
Naharnet/A well-informed official source said Lebanese judicial authorities had uncovered a plot by Fatah al-Islam to assassinate a Lebanese judge in charge of the probe into Fatah Islam cells. He said that information obtained by judicial and political authorities in Lebanon show that the attackers were likely to embark on their mission from the Ein el-Hilweh refugee camp near the southern port city of Sidon.The sources told the daily al-Mustaqbal newspaper that the report urged Lebanese authorities to enforce harsher measures around Ein el-Hiwleh and monitor suspected militant activity. Beirut, 22 Jan 10, 08:53

Young Lebanese Man Killed in Truck vs. Car Accident
Naharnet/A 22-year-old Lebanese man was killed when a six-wheel truck carrying beverages rammed into his car early Friday on Beirut's main Jal el-Dib- Nahr el-Mot highway, causing a huge traffic jam. The truck driver, Jerji Moawwad Kamid, who survived unscathed except for a few bruises, was arrested. It took about three hours to remove the truck and allow traffic to resume. Beirut, 22 Jan 10, 12:05

Suleiman: Municipal Elections on Time, Beirut's Division Not Considered
Naharnet/President Michel Suleiman pledged to hold municipal elections on time, stressing the importance of maintaining a "tradition of democracy in Lebanon."He said in remarks published Friday by al-Mustaqbal newspaper that election is in itself a "step toward reform."Suleiman said the issue of dividing Beirut into three electoral constituencies was not being considered.He pointed out that no one, including Interior Minister Ziad Baroud, has made such a proposal during Cabinet meetings. Beirut, 22 Jan 10, 08:29

Lawsuit Awaits Jumblat in Damascus
Naharnet/It is still unclear how Syria feels about Druze leader Walid Jumblat's visit to Damascus as Syrian officials reportedly prefer not to directly deal with the issue.
Pan-Arab Asharq al-Awsat on Friday cited well-informed Syrian sources as saying that the issue was "not yet ripe.""It's better not to talk a lot in this regard," one source said. Asharq al-Awsat pointed to a 2006 lawsuit filed in Syria against Jumblat by attorney Husameddine Habash. Habash told the daily that the lawsuit was still valid. He said an arrest warrant in absentia against Jumblat also was valid. Beirut, 22 Jan 10, 10:31

Hizbullah on Alert as Syria Reportedly Called Up Reserve Units
Naharnet/Hizbullah members were said to have been put on high alert as Israeli troops continued to mass along the border with Lebanon under the pretext of military maneuvers, pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat reported Friday. It cited well-informed Hizbullah sources as saying that Hizbullah has ordered its members to be on "high alert in the event of a surprise Israeli operation against party headquarters and positions." Asharq al-Awsat said it has obtained information that Syria has begun calling up its reserve units, including workers living in Lebanon.
The report said Syrian workers were told by their parents about the need to return and join the positions assigned to them. Beirut, 22 Jan 10, 09:12

Jumblat: Few Steps Separate Me from Damascus Thanks to Nasrallah Efforts
Naharnet/Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblat on Thursday said that a few steps separate him from Damascus, revealing that Hizbullah Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah made efforts in that direction. In an interview with Al-Manar TV channel, Jumblat said he will do what is required to preserve the dignity of the Syrian and Lebanese peoples and the Druze sect. "The history of Israel with Lebanon is that of hostility and it is seeking revenge from Lebanon after the defeat of 2006," added Jumblat. Jumblat voiced his support for forming a committee to look into the issue of administrative appointments. "This committee has to be neutral, formed from experts, and to take into consideration that the good elements in administration should be given priority," said Jumblat, hoping for a near end to shares distribution. As to municipal elections, Jumblat stressed he backs dividing major cities such as Beirut to smaller electoral constituencies, calling for adopting proportional representation and lowering the voting age to 18 years. Beirut, 21 Jan 10, 20:59

FPM Announces New Committees, Aoun Describes Himself as 'Founder of Abolishing Sectarianism'
Naharnet/Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun on Thursday said, during a ceremony to announce the new FPM committees, that "nothing is constant, neither in life nor in parties.""Those who missed the train of appointments this time have to work without a post, because the cause doesn't search for posts," added Aoun. "The challenge is for officials to move their parties from childhood to accountability age without pushing them into the mazes of adolescence." On the other hand, Aoun described himself as "the founder of abolishing political sectarianism," but added that "the time is not appropriate now, and conditions should be prepared."He added: "Turkey abolished sectarianism and established a secular state, but it is not preserving it today except on the external level due to its interests with the European Union. However, the (Turkish) people are not secular." Aoun announced the new committees of his party. The Constituencies Committee was formed of the members: Pierre Raffoul, Pascal Azzam, Antoine Farhat, Joseph Shahda, Raji Maalouf, Naim Aoun, Ramzi Kanj, Tony Mkheiber, Tanios Hobeika, Tony Bou Younis, Roland Khoury, Najm Khattar, George Attal, Maher Bassila, Bassam Nasrallah, and Walid al-Ashkar. The Municipalities Committee was formed of the members: Jucelyn al-Ghoul, Mansour Fadel, Naji Hayek, Elie Bseibess, Tufiq Bou Nassr, Charbel Habib, George Haddad, Tony Nasrallah, Gaby Leon, Jean Nassr, Malek Abi Nader. Wassim Hannoud was elected as Head of Communication Committee, Rommel Saber as Head of Finance Committee, and Adounis al-Akra as Coordinator of Education Committee.On the other hand, the announcing of the Coordinator of Students Committee and the Organization and Constituencies Committee Officer was postponed. Beirut, 21 Jan 10, 20:29

Qassem: No Imminent Israeli Attack on Lebanon, Mitchell Wasting His Time in Peace Talks
Naharnet/Hizbullah Deputy Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem on Thursday said that the current atmospheres do not indicate an imminent Israeli attack on Lebanon, adding that the possibility "remains existent.""The resistance is preparing and working persistently in order to face such a possibility, whether it was delayed or sudden at any given moment," added Qassem.
In an interview with Russia Today satellite TV network, Qassem said that U.S. special envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell "is wasting his time because Israeli will not respond to any suggestion, and it wants to preserve all of its gains claimed through hostility, not to mention expanding them.""Mitchell is altering facts and deceiving the people of the region because he knows that Israel won't accept (solutions), but through his moves, he is trying to hint that obstacles exist on both sides."Qassem expected failure for Mitchell's mission, saying that "the whole peace settlement is faltered."He called for "practical solutions such as the return of rights to their owners, the Palestinians reclaiming their land, and supporting the resistance because it can stand in the face of those Israeli objectives."On the other hand, Qassem said he does not find "anything that prevents the forming of a National Commission for the Abolition of Political Sectarianism which may convene for 100-year without reaching a result and which also may endorse steps to help remove sectarianism from minds."Qassem stressed that Hizbullah is with forming the commission "as long as forming serves as a dialogue table, because in the end consensus and agreement decide everything." Beirut, 21 Jan 10, 18:00

Nabih Berri gets the Syria treatment
Michael Young, January 22, 2010
Now Lebanon/You have to sympathize with Nabih Berri. His recent proposal to begin a process of political deconfessionalization may have been pure, conniving maneuver, but the parliament speaker is facing genuine difficulty in being unable to find a clear role for himself in the new Lebanese order.
How odd, you might reasonably reply. After all, Berri has always been one of Syria’s more stalwart Lebanese followers, so you would expect him to benefit from the Syrian political return to Beirut. Yet that has not happened. Everyone has been invited to Damascus, from President Michel Sleiman to Prime Minister Saad Hariri to Michel Aoun, who has time and again humiliated Berri. Even Walid Jumblatt holds in his hands a road map of apologies back to Syria’s capital. However, Berri has stayed home. Is this a case of Syrian familiarity breeding contempt?
Things are a bit more complicated than that, but one wonders by how much. The parliament speaker is caught between competing political logics, and his performance in the elections last June was poor enough that he has little leverage to claw back what he then lost. That is one reason why Berri raised the deconfessionalization issue: it is a means of regaining Shia legitimacy, since the perception is that the community, because of its numbers, gains most from abolishing sectarian quotas.
What are the different logics Berri has had to satisfy? For starters, he has adjusted, albeit gingerly, to a new kind of Lebanese state, with a president and prime minister who are no longer moving--at least quite as they once were--to the rhythms of Syrian instructions. Both Sleiman and Hariri in many ways represent an aspiration for, if not quite the reality of, a sovereign state. In that context, and for Berri to retain any authority, particularly after the long stretch during which he closed down parliament, he can no longer afford to be seen as entirely Syria’s man.
But herein lies a paradox. If Berri does not have Syria’s full endorsement, then there seems no overriding reason to defer to Nabih Berri. In fact that is precisely what is happening today. The speaker is trusted neither by his own allies nor by the parliamentary majority. In raising the deconfessionalization issue, Berri allowed himself to become a punching ball for Michel Aoun, while March 14 is not prepared to forgive him for what he did between 2006 and 2008, particularly when his Amal militia brutalized the inhabitants of western Beirut during the May 7 onslaught.
Despite all he did for the opposition, Berri was little rewarded at election time. His Shia partner, Hezbollah, ended up supporting Aoun in Jezzine, while even in places like Baabda and Jbeil, where the speaker had hoped to back candidates independent of Hezbollah and the Aounists, his efforts were negated by a concerted Shia vote in favor of both. Berri, who with Walid Jumblatt perhaps once dreamt of forming the core of a centrist bloc able to play the opposition and March 14 off against each other, saw that scheme dashed. He returned as speaker, as everyone expected he would, but was again beholden to Hezbollah for that appointment.
Berri’s relative weakness has also done him no good in Damascus. The Syrians reportedly don’t much care for his friendly relationship with Sleiman, who will never match Emile Lahoud in submissiveness; they see the speaker’s election performance as a black mark against him; and they know that he has no solid Shia presence separate from Hezbollah. Consequently, it’s simpler to deal with Hassan Nasrallah, who would anyway neutralize a serious Syrian endeavor to inflate Berri politically.
So what is the speaker to do? Unfortunately for him, there are almost no decent options available. He discredited himself so thoroughly during the years of domestic tension after the start of the downtown sit-in in December 2006, that he cannot even buy consideration. Even the conciliatory Jumblatt is too busy repairing his own relationship with Damascus, while simultaneously reassuring his dubious March 14 allies, to help bolster Berri. The speaker is on his own, adrift in a sea of scorn.
There is a lesson here: For all its faults, the Lebanese system can sometimes be unforgiving to those who violate its dictates. When Syria was around, Berri’s legitimacy was a gift from Damascus, with Hezbollah the dominant Shia representative. When the Syrians left, the speaker lost the aura he had enjoyed, even as his subordination to Hezbollah further marginalized him communally. And when Berri closed down parliament, his own institution, he relinquished any remaining esteem, despised by his enemies, owed nothing by his stronger partners.
Certainly, that’s how the Syrians like their Lebanese allies: dependent, isolated, reviled. Which is why they may well continue to give second-class treatment to Berri, someone so debilitated politically that he can but remain loyal to them, but toward which Syria need make no efforts.
**Michael Young is opinion editor of the Daily Star newspaper in Beirut.

Michel Sleiman
January 22, 2010
On January 22, Al-Mustaqbal newspaper carried the following report by Managing Editor George Bkassini:
President Michel Sleiman assured that the municipal elections will be held on time, stressing the importance of preserving “our democratic traditions in Lebanon. In this context, the rotation of power is one of the stable principles to which we should hold on because it is one of the most important characteristics of the democratic system… Rumors which circulated during the last few days gave the Lebanese people the impression there was a possibility of seeing the postponement of this event. However, this is not true and is out of the question. I said that during the Cabinet session which addressed this issue and I now repeat it. The municipal election will be held on time because it is a reformatory step in itself. If we are able to secure additional steps at the level of this dossier, we would have accomplished further progress, provided that this does not lead to the postponement of the elections.”
Asked about the demands made by some to divide the capital Beirut into several constituencies during the municipal elections, President Sleiman said: “This is not even on the table. No one suggested that at the Cabinet, including Interior Minister Ziad Baroud… Some are trying to say that I do not want to see the staging of the municipal elections for reasons related to my own region or to avoid the loss of people close to me in this electoral event. However, this is wrong for two reasons: firstly because I am holding on to the principle of the rotation of power and I cannot allow any violation to occur at this level during my term, and secondly because I do not categorize myself in the position of a winner or a loser in my region because I have always considered all the people of Amchit and Jbeil to be members of my own family regardless of the results.”
And just like he is confident about the staging of the municipal elections, he expressed the same confidence in regard to the administrative appointments, saying: “We must reach a specific mechanism to secure these appointments. The state cannot continue to operate in light of a diminished administration. I am the one who asked for the postponement of the discussion of this issue during the Cabinet session, in order to allow it to mature and to conduct the necessary contacts to reach concord over it. We must reach a specific mechanism although the constitution stipulates that the minister should make the proposal, because the constitution was created to serve public interest and this interest requires a mechanism to close this dossier.”
On the other hand, the president of the republic seemed less concerned than others about a possible Israeli attack on Lebanon. He said: “Despite the threats, I believe it is unlikely there will be an Israeli attack on Lebanon. My efforts and those of Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri are ongoing to prevent that from happening. Moreover, there is another factor preventing this attack from happening: the solidarity of the Lebanese people in the face of this possibility... but more importantly the reliance on the Lebanese army mainly and the support of the people and the resistance as it was stipulated in the Cabinet statement.”
According to President Sleiman, this presidential optimism is due to several considerations, the most important of which being the restoration of trust in Lebanon. He said in this context: “Every day we have an Arab or a foreign visitor and I - along with the Prime Minister - are conducting consecutive visits abroad. The country has moved from one stage to a better one whose main headline is stability and this is bringing back hope in the future. A national unity government was formed and everyone wants stability. True, we do face certain problems from time to time, but the situation is still under the ceiling of stability because we are working calmly.” At this level, the president digressed saying: “Some may blame me for adopting a method of calm and silence and for distancing myself from the political and media agitation. However, this is a method I have adopted and of which I am convinced. ‘Le style c’est l’homme’ [to each man his style] and what concerns me is the outcome. This outcome in our case is the country’s stability and this is what reassures me and my conscience.”

What was behind “the colonel’s” words…
Elie Fawaz,/Now Lebanon
January 22, 2010
On the 37th day after PM Saad Hariri’s visit to Syria, the secretary of the Fatah al-Intifada Movement, Colonel Said Abu Moussa, suddenly appeared in Saida - specifically at the residence of the city’s mayor, Abdul Rahman Bizri - to contend with the Lebanese over the sovereignty of their country, a country which has played host to Palestinian refugees since the 1948 Nakba. Moreover, he showed up to inform the Lebanese that “[Palestinian] weapons outside of the camps shall be kept since, until now, the conflict with the enemy has not ended.” He tried using physical signs to convince us that Syria does not make the decisions on this matter, rather, so the story goes, that decision-making pertaining to the issue of weapons takes place in Gaza.
Perhaps sheer bewilderment has prevented prominent state figures in Lebanon from commenting on Abu Moussa’s marginalizing and undermining Lebanese sovereignty. We have not heard about any sort of state of alert from the interior minister as is always the case when some citizens are kidnapped in front of an ATM or their car is stolen in broad daylight. We have not heard the foreign minister protesting Abu Moussa’s view that UN Security Council Resolution 1559 was in effect but subsequently died. Naturally, there has only been silence out of Rabieh, where the “champion” of sovereignty and independence, General Michel Aoun, makes his bed. Here it is most probably the case that the Change and Reform bloc leader has avoided responding to someone without rank. Unfortunately however, he is yet to sick any of his attack dogs on Abu Moussa as he has with Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir.
The colonel has no honorable battle to his name except against the people of his own country in a display of his effort to use decisions pertaining to the Palestinians for the benefit of the Syrian regime, which says – and wants us to believe – that what Abu Moussa said was the product of his own thoughts and has no connection to the Syrian regime – a regime which embraces him and trains and funds his militias.
What is scary is the ability of Mr. Abu Moussa to simply disregard the Lebanese consensus over the disarmament of the Palestinians outside of the camps while indirectly attacking Lebanese sovereignty with an idea we are only to understand as: “Weapons outside of the camps have a different role from those inside of them.”
Now it seems clear that the power and progress which has been built up by the Lebanese leadership and which led to agreement over the clause about Palestinian weapons outside the camps are meaningless and useless. Cancelling the national dialogue is inconsequential for President Michel Sleiman and, as such, what was agreed upon concerning Palestinian weapons will not be implemented. Furthermore, what some wanted to be discussed, namely “the Resistance and its weapons,” also lies outside the scope of debate.
It is also the case that demarking the border with the sister-country, Syria, seems unlikely to be initiated, especially in contentious regions such as Qusaya and elsewhere: the very regions where Abu Moussa and his band of “revolutionaries” are to be found and where observing their liberation activities, which the colonel wants to carry out against the Zionist enemy, is impossible.
Day after day it becomes clearer for all that this atmosphere of reconciliations, be them internal or external, and all the amicable words that mark the meetings held between adversaries serve no function other than facilitating the return of Syrian control over the country. A vow has begun to loom over the horizon. Now the Lebanese, if they want what they have agreed on to be executed, must rely on Syria to control its protégé. Of course, this vow would be accompanied by an end to the fuss about extradition requests directed at judges, journalists and politicians.
The Syrian regime is seeking to tame the country once again; to subject the Lebanese to the authority of the Iran-Syria axis and to the program of an armed Hezbollah domestically; to have the Lebanese identify with oppressive and tyrannical modes of governance that prevail in Damascus and Tehran; and to isolate Lebanon from the outside world and dispel with all international resolutions that protect Lebanon’s sovereignty and independence. Additionally it seeks to transform Lebanon into a bargaining chip for those countries in any possible settlement or into a battlefield in any possible confrontation in the region, all without the Lebanese having a dissenting voice.
**This article is a translation of the original, which appeared on the NOW Arabic site on Tuesday, January 19

The hidden cost of corruption
Friday, January 22, 2010/Editorial/Daily Star
The United Nations this week released a deeply disturbing report about the level of corruption in Afghanistan, based on interviews with some 7,600 residents of Afghanistan; however, judging from the results of the study, the UN pollsters might well have been collecting their data about endemic corruption here in the land of the cedars. The UN report, compiled by the Office on Drugs and Crime, cites respondents as saying it was impossible to obtain a public service without paying a bribe. Sound familiar?
At the end of the day, we do not view the issue of corruption as an excuse to mount our high horse and rail against moral impurity; what disturbs us most is the UN estimate that an additional 25 percent of Afghanistan’s GDP was lost to the maze of baksheesh and quid pro quo.
Corruption is simply bad public and economic policy. In the briefest terms, corruption is one of the greatest obstacles to expanding our economy. It means substantial losses in productivity, it means missed opportunities and it means slower development, and who would condone a system that invariably leads to these results?
If we want to search for root causes of the phenomenon, we can observe similar arcs of history here and in Afghanistan – a society stuck in the tribal phase with regularly recurring spates of civil war and unrest. But we cannot blame today’s continuing climate of rampant corruption on the 1975-90 Civil War – the outstretched hand of the person with a little power had been a feature of Lebanese affairs for a few centuries before that.
While we’re assigning blame, let’s also make clear that our entire political class – no matter their fervent protestations of their lily-white chastity – bears responsibility for the distressing reality. Some helped create this monster, others participate in it and all have failed to do anything significant to fight it. In Afghanistan, for example, 42 percent of the respondents to the UN study said they viewed nepotism as acceptable; in Lebanon, if it weren’t for nepotism, we wouldn’t have any political class at all.
We are not here to demonize the easy target of this country’s, ahem, leadership. We are advocating a new approach for purely practical reasons that the country’s chieftains would well understand – it will mean a bigger pie for us all.
Corruption will not wither on its own; we must work to chop it down. The antidote is known and has worked elsewhere: an anti-corruption agency with teeth; bringing the bright glare of transparency to the flow of public monies; and raising the salaries of civil servants to reduce incentives for corruption. We might have our doubts about the possibility for success of an anti-corruption drive in Afghanistan, but at least they have the help of the UN; are we ready to fall behind Afghanistan on the list of the world’s most-corrupt nations?

Fatah al-Islam 'plotting attack' against judges
By Youssef Diab /Daily Star staff
Friday, January 22, 2010
BEIRUT: Judicial authorities have been warned of a possible attack by the Fatah al-Islam militant group against one of the judges trying its members, sources revealed Thursday.
The authorities received a security report saying the group aimed to stage an attack against one of the judges involved in trying members of Fatah al-Islam, according to the sources.
A source said the report was based on evidence and information gathered by security forces from calls made by a number of “suspect elements.” The information revealed that the militant group was plotting an attack on one of the judges currently assigned to try Fatah al-Islam members. The source also hinted that the attack would probably be launched from the Palestinian refugee camp of Ain al-Hilweh in south Lebanon. The report also asked military and security authorities to reinforce surveillance around Ain al-Hilweh, to observe the moves of suspected individuals and to check the identities of everyone going in and out of the camp. It also demanded that security be tightened at justice palaces and courts throughout the country, and that judges who are investigating cases involving Fatah al-Islam members be escorted by security personnel. Fatah al-Islam first emerged in 2006 after it split from the Palestinian group Fatah al-Intifada. It comprised a few hundred fighters and was based in the Nahr al-Bared Palestinian refugee camp in north Lebanon. Fierce battles between Fatah al-Islam and the Lebanese Army broke out at Nahr al-Bared in 2007, killing 400 people, including 168 soldiers, and displacing some 30,000 refugees from the camp. Fatah al-Islam has also been linked to deadly bombings targeting UN peacekeepers in the south and civilian buses. Members of the group have been arrested in recent years and sentenced to imprisonment, hard labor or death. The Beirut Criminal Court and the Military Tribunal have on several occasions tried members of the group on various charges, including conducting or organizing terrorist acts. – The Daily Star

An explosive message
By: Sana Abdallah
Al-Ahram Weekly
A roadside bomb targeting an Israeli convoy in Jordan provides an insight into the kingdom's fragile politics, writes Sana Abdallah in Amman
While no one was hurt and damage was minimal as a result of a roadside bomb that targeted an Israeli embassy convoy heading towards the Jordan valley on 14 January, the attack and the fact that no one has claimed responsibility for it raise significant questions about an incident that could have been carried out by any number of groups frustrated by Israel's belligerence and Jordan's relations with Israel and pro-US policies.
The Jordanian authorities are revealing very little about the investigation into the first-recorded roadside bomb to go off in Jordan, and no one has thus far been arrested in connection with the attack. This has given commentators a field day in speculating about the identity of possible perpetrators, ranging from Al-Qaeda elements to Hizbullah in Lebanon or Hamas in Palestine, with some pointing the finger at Israel itself. Yet, regardless of the real perpetrators and target, Jordan, which boasts advanced security services and provides non-stop security for the country's foreign diplomatic presence, sees the bomb as a message that its security can be breached.
The 14 January attack is the second blow to Jordan's security in as many weeks, after a Jordanian doctor blew himself up inside a highly-secure US base in eastern Afghanistan on 30 December, killing seven CIA agents and a Jordanian intelligence officer. The suicide bomber, Humam Al-Balawi, had played the role of an informant and had duped Jordanian and American intelligence into believing that he could provide important information on the whereabouts of top Al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders.
Although views differ on who might be responsible for the unsuccessful roadside bomb blast in the Jordanian area of Adasiya last Thursday, Jordanian officials seem to agree that the anonymous attackers had access to information on the movement of Israeli diplomats who live in Amman without their families and travel to Tel Aviv at weekends often using different routes. The attackers also seem to have tried to make sure that there would be no civilian casualties during the attack in their choice of timing and of a location where there would be hardly any traffic. In the event, the bomb went off seconds after the Israeli convoy had passed on the right-hand side of the road half way between Amman and the King Hussein, or Allenby, bridge that divides Jordan from the West Bank.
The bomb left a one-metre hole at the side of the curving downhill road, damaging a guardrail overlooking the valleys below. Security analysts said that the attackers may have hoped that the cars would have taken a fatal plunge if the device had exploded on time. Some Jordanian officials have also privately guessed that the attack may have been carried out by Al-Qaeda elements in order to show that the movement can establish a presence in Jordan by "capitalising on the growing hatred towards the Israelis" after the extremist group's popularity dropped significantly following the deadly 2005 suicide attacks targeting three hotels in Amman. However, analysts say that Al-Qaeda or its affiliates would have claimed responsibility by now had it carried out the attack, and they note that the attack does not appear to carry the traditional fingerprints of Al-Qaeda suicide bombings, which have hardly ever targeted Israelis.
Others believe that Palestinian Islamist groups, such as Islamic Jihad or Hamas, could have been responsible. Alternatively, Palestinian leftist factions or their supporters may have intended to warn Israelis against feeling too safe in a country in which the vast majority is unhappy about Jordan's continuing diplomatic ties with Israel, established following the 1994 signing of the unpopular Wadi Araba peace treaty.
It thus came as no surprise when Jordanian information minister Nabil Sharif was quick to deny reports that Israeli security officials had come to Jordan to participate in the investigation and assured the public that the visiting officials' probe would be confined to the embassy in Amman.
The last thing the Jordanian government needs after the level of Jordan's intelligence and security collaboration with the CIA in Afghanistan was exposed is information being made public on Amman's security cooperation with Israel.
Meanwhile, some Jordanian analysts have agreed with Israeli commentators in speculating that the Lebanese Shia group Hizbullah, which frequently resorted to roadside bombings during Israel's occupation of South Lebanon, could have been behind the Adasiya attack.
Such analysts point out that Hizbullah has made no secret of its wish to avenge the assassination of Imad Moghniyah, the group's military commander who was killed by a car bomb in Damascus in February 2008. It is widely believed that the Israeli intelligence organisation Mossad was behind Moghniyah's assassination, although Israel has not admitted its involvement.
And then there are the pundits and bloggers who have pointed the finger at Israel itself, suggesting that Israel might have planted the bomb and deliberately detonated it just after the convoy passed to make sure that the diplomats would not be physically harmed.
Such observers argue that the allegedly Israeli perpetrators appear to have known that the Israeli ambassador in Amman, Daniel Nevo, was not among the passengers in the two armoured vehicles making up the convoy, and they had information about the diplomats' travel plans, timing and route. Most importantly, the observers argue, the Israelis would have had a motive in carrying out the attack. In an article entitled "Adasiya blast served Israel" that appeared in the Jordanian newspaper Al-Ghad, political analyst Ibrahim Gharaibeh wrote that the explosion was a "huge gift for Israel, to a point that tempts speculators to conclude it was actually orchestrated by Israel." The Jordanian journalist said that even if the bombing had not been part of a conspiracy, it had nevertheless come at "the best time for Israel and the worst for the Arabs and Muslims, as the war on terror was ending... It is mind boggling that this operation has come amid a new wave of terrorist activities in the United States and across other parts of the world. Was the timing innocent?" Gharaibeh asked. In his article, Gharaibeh argued that Israel could have organised the bombing in an attempt to claim that it was being targeted by terrorism and in order to join a revived war on terror, becoming a partner in any future international military campaigns. There is no doubt that Israel and others will try to exploit this roadside bomb in order to further their agendas. However, until the Jordanian authorities announce credible arrests, or a group claims real responsibility, the origins of the first-ever roadside bomb to have been detonated in Jordan will be open to speculation.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved

Testing the waters
By: Bassel Oudat
Al-Ahram Weekly
Will warmer Syrian-Saudi relations help resolve the thorny regional conflicts, wonders in Damascus
Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad arrived in Riyadh last week on his third visit to Saudi Arabia since the two countries embarked on a course of rapprochement. In a terse statement following his meeting with King Abdullah, the Syrian president said that the talks focussed on inter- Palestinian reconciliation, the peace process, Iran, the war in Yemen, and the upcoming Arab summit in Libya. Al-Assad spent three days in all in Saudi Arabia, but only the first day was reported fully in the media. The rest of the visit was considered private. According to Syrian sources, "the visit was of an 'intimate nature' and aimed to develop 'amity and friendship' between the two countries and their leaders."
Only days before the visit, news reports speculated about a possible three-way summit in Riyadh involving Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Syrian officials voiced their belief that a three-way summit would have been helpful because of Egypt's Arab and regional status. But Saudi sources said that no arrangements were made for such a summit.
This prompted Syrian analysts to conclude that Syrian-Egyptian relations are still sour despite reconciliatory meetings held between Al-Assad and Mubarak in Kuwait in January 2009 and in Riyadh two months later. According to Syrian sources, Al-Assad and Abdullah discussed inter-Palestinian reconciliation and its impact on inter-Arab reconciliation. The two leaders stressed the need for active Arab efforts to achieve reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas as a step towards lifting the siege on the Palestinian people.
Bothaina Shaaban, a top Syrian presidential aide, said that Syria supports Palestinian reconciliation and is exerting efforts to achieve it. The Syrians, she added, "are not looking for a role to play, but want to achieve reconciliation at any time and place."
Her remarks should be taken as a hint that Syria welcomes the Egyptian sponsorship of the inter-Palestinian reconciliation. Shaaban said that this is the most important thing Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas would discuss in Syria in his upcoming visit to Damascus in a few days. Two days before leaving for Riyadh, Al-Assad met Hamas Political Bureau chief Khaled Meshaal to discuss matters related to Palestinian reconciliation. Earlier, Meshaal visited Riyadh and met with the Saudi foreign minister to discuss the same issue.
Hamas sources told Al-Ahram Weekly that the Saudis sent Meshaal a firm US warning to the effect that reconciliation should take place and that Hamas must accept US peace proposals.
Developments in Lebanon and Iraq were briefly discussed in the Syrian-Saudi talks, with both sides voicing satisfaction over the progress in Syrian-Lebanese relations. Al-Assad and Abdullah also voiced hope that the Iraqi elections would bring the Iraqis together and help resolve their differences.
The Iranian and Yemeni questions were among the most complicated issues facing the two leaders. Observers say that it is unlikely that Al-Assad and Abdullah reached a satisfactory agreement on these two questions. On the eve of his departure to Riyadh, President Al-Assad received a phone call from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. According to the Iranian news agency IRNA, Al-Assad said that, "relations between Tehran and Damascus are strategic and doctrinal," adding that, "the enemies will not be able to undermine the good relations between our countries... and the defeatists will not achieve anything in the end." Syria's news agency didn't report the phone call.
The day Al-Assad arrived in Riyadh, Ahmadinejad lashed out at the Saudi role in Yemen. Speaking on television only hours before Al-Assad arrived in Damascus, Ahmadinejad said that, "Saudi Arabia should seek to consolidate peace not to use weapons against Muslims," a reference to the operations Saudi troops are carrying out against infiltrators from the Huthi tribes.
"If only a small part of Saudi weapons were used for Gaza's sake against the Zionist regime, that regime would have disappeared from the region," the Iranian president added. His remarks were widely seen as an attempt to embarrass Al-Assad and dampen Syrian-Saudi ties.
Only one day before Al-Assad's visit, Syrian Ambassador to Riyadh Mahdi Dakhlallah, said that the Syrian-Saudi summit would look into "the Iranian dossier and its repercussions for the security of the Gulf and the Arab region". This was the first Syrian admission that the Iranian dossier affects Gulf security.
Al-Assad's advisor Shaaban said that Damascus was trying to narrow the differences between Saudi Arabia and Iran. "Saudi Arabia doesn't want to have bad relations with Iran, and the opposite is true," she pointed out.
Syrian sources tried to give the impression that King Abdullah asked Al-Assad to stop Iranian support to the Huthi rebels who have infiltrated into Saudi territory. But official Saudi forces denied the request, saying that Saudi officials "only wanted to hear the Syrian point of view on the matter. We didn't ask the Syrians for anything in this regard."
According to official Syrian sources, the discussion between Al-Assad and Abdullah concerning Yemen was "profound, cordial, and transparent" and involved "deep discussions, expected to produce results". Al-Assad and Abdullah voiced support to Yemen and its leadership and said that they were concerned for Yemen's peace, security and territorial integrity. A Saudi source declined to confirm news that the Syrians were trying to resolve the crisis in Yemen.
About a month ago, Syria denounced the violation of Saudi territories by Huthi rebels from Yemen. Syrian officials voiced support for the kingdom's right to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity, a view that conflicts with Iranian policy. Emad Fawzi Al-Shoeibi, director of the Centre for Strategic Studies in Damascus, told the Weekly that Al-Assad and Abdullah agreed that Yemen's problems should not be internationalised and that Yemen should remain united as a land and people. Al-Shoeibi added that the internationalisation of the situation in Yemen may lead to "grave dangers". He said that Syria believes that "the mere introduction of another Arab country in the equation of internationalisation would make the snowball of internationalisation, which is encroaching on Arab sovereignty, grow bigger and bigger." The Syrian and Saudi leaders also discussed the two matters of Arab reconciliation and the upcoming Arab summit due to be held in Libya in March. According to Syrian sources, Al-Assad's talks in Riyadh furthered the efforts for Arab reconciliation and aimed to resolve Arab issues without foreign intervention. The two leaders, sources said, discussed preparations for the upcoming Arab summit and affirmed the need to take a firm and even-handed position.
Political analysts believe that Syrian and Saudi officials are still "testing the waters" with regard to their future relations. The Saudis still view Syrian-Iranian relations with suspicion. Most likely, the Saudis are waiting to see Damascus take a clear position on Iranian intervention in the region, especially in Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq and Palestine.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved

The Terrorism Conundrum
by Philip Giraldi, January 21, 2010
Antiwar Forum
In the wake of 9/11, almost anything the US government did was accepted uncritically by the public. The Patriot Act was quickly passed, abridging the freedoms that Americans had enjoyed for more than two hundred years with barely a whimper from Congress and the media. George W. Bush declared war on the world, defining his security doctrine as the right of the United States to act preemptively anywhere and at any time against any nation that the White House perceived to be a threat. Bush also declared his global war on terror, committing his administration to intervene using military and intelligence resources wherever his definition of terrorists was to be found. It was a devil’s bargain, reassuring the American people that the government was doing something to make them more secure while at the same time stripping them of many fundamental rights and turning topsy-turvy the international order where acts of war had hitherto been condemned as the gravest of crimes.
Right from the beginning, some voices even in Congress and the mainstream media urged calm, but they were overwhelmed by those who were crying out for revenge. Revenge soon morphed into a number of ill-advised policies leading to the disastrous invasion of Iraq. Looking back on those years from the perspective of 2010 it is possible to see that it was fear that drove the nation at that time. Fear enabled the process that turned America down a dark path and was itself fed by the shapeless threat of terrorism, which was regularly invoked by those in the government.
Unfortunately little has changed since 9/11 and it would be easy to close one’s eyes in Barack Obama’s America and imagine that it is 2001 and that George Bush is still president. American soldiers are ensconced in Iraq, surging in Afghanistan, and poised to intervene in places like Yemen and Somalia. Hellfire missiles fired from pilotless drones rain down on Pakistani tribesmen more frequently now than under George W. Bush. Guantánamo Prison is still open and Bagram Prison promises to become the new Abu Ghraib. And there is still fearmongering to drive the entire process, solemn words from the White House warning the American people about the continuing global terrorist threat.
From the start many Americans were skeptical of George Bush’s global war on terror, recognizing it for the sloganeering that it was, security policy by bumper sticker. Terror is not a nation nor is it a group. It is a tactic. It has existed since men first picked up rocks to strike each other but in its modern form it was developed in Palestine in the 1940s when the Haganah and Stern Gangs struck against civilian targets like the King David Hotel to drive the British out. It was then used by the nascent state of Israel against Palestinian Arabs to force them to leave their homes. Terrorism consists of attacking civilian targets to demoralize the local population and weaken its ability to resist.
So a terrorist must be someone who uses terror, right? Well, by some definitions yes, but not really and the word terrorist is ultimately no more enlightening than references to terror. It is much more useful to regard the groups that employ terror as political entities, using the tactic in support of what is almost invariably a broader agenda. Recognizing that reality, it has become cliché that today’s terrorist can become tomorrow’s statesman as the political winds shift. One might profitably look at some examples from groups currently or at one time considered to be "terrorist" by the world community, like Hezbollah. Hezbollah became prominent because it resisted the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. To be sure, it used the terror tactic to attack Israeli civilians in the settlements in the northern part of the country, but its principal objective was to drive out the Israeli occupiers. It finally did so in 2006, using conventional military tactics, not terror, while burnishing its reputation by providing goods and services to many of the poor in the area where it holds sway. It has become a partner in government in Lebanon, morphing into a largely conventional political party. It still skirmishes with Israel along the border between the two countries but its ability to threaten the rest of the world and, more particularly the United States, is zero.
And then there were the Viet Cong in Vietnam. Did they use terror? Certainly. But they did so to establish political control over a large part of the countryside and also to spread fear in Vietnam’s cities. When they felt themselves strong enough they also engaged in stand up fights with US forces and the South Vietnamese Army. And they were overwhelmingly a political group with a political objective, i.e to replace the US puppet Vietnamese government. Did the Viet Cong ever threaten the United States through its ability to employ the terror tactic? Not in the least.
Finally there is the example of the Taliban. The Taliban is referred to by the US government as a terrorist organization and it has indeed killed civilians to establish control over parts of Afghanistan. But it also fights against US and NATO forces in a conventional fashion, has worked to defeat the warlords and root out corrupt government officials, and has promised equal justice under Islamic Sharia law for the Afghan people. In many areas it is more popular than the government of President Hamid Karzai. When it previously ruled Afghanistan, it introduced strict religious rule but also eliminated drug production and warlordism. So calling it a terrorist group and indicating that you will not deal with it, except by imprisoning or killing its adherents, means that you are missing something. The group is essentially political and sees itself as a potential party of government only using terrorism as a tactic when it considers it to be necessary.
The US government has essentially adopted an Israeli paradigm in refusing to deal with political opponents who employ terror. Its dismissal of groups like the Taliban as terrorists means that opportunities to engage them in terms of their true interests are being wasted. And it also makes for convenient political shorthand, rendering it unnecessary to consider the possibility that the groups involved have either legitimate grievances or positive motives. And it shapes the entire argument so as to avoid conclusions that might be considered unpleasant. It is frequently argued that the US is fighting in Afghanistan because it is better to fight "them" over there than over here. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Taliban has absolutely no interest in the United States except insofar as the US is occupying Afghanistan. As Ron Paul puts it, correctly, when there is a terrorist incident they are only over here because we are over there. When we leave "there" the "they" will not be coming over here because they have no reason to do so.
So the problem is that the language we use shapes how we think about an issue. Once you get rid of the buzz words terror and terrorist, meant to create fear and uncertainty, it is possible to come to grips with a reality that is quite different. The groups that the White House and State Department calls terrorist are really political organizations that seek change that will favor their own assumption of power. There have always been such groups and always will be. Most want US forces to leave their countries, many want Washington to stop supporting corrupt and autocratic Arab governments, and nearly all want the US-tolerated Israeli humiliation of the Palestinians to cease. Looking at them in that light, it is not difficult to discern what their motives are in opposing the United States. And it is also possible to see the various groups as individual cases that have to be dealt with selectively, not as part of a nonexistent worldwide conspiracy.
The truth is that the US government prefers to have an enemy that can be defined simply, in Manichean terms. It seeks to create fear among the American people by presenting terrorism as some sort of monolith while it is in reality little more than a hodge podge of diverse political groupings that have varying motivations and objectives. The only thing that they have in common is that they sometimes use terror as a tactic. And the terror tactic is itself losing appeal. The only reason that groups that espouse terror appear to be increasing in numbers is because the countries the US is occupying or attacking are also growing in number, but nevertheless the numbers are unimpressive. There are certainly fewer than a couple of thousand adherents to groups that use terror worldwide. Young Muslim men are increasingly reluctant to be drawn into the fray and there are signs that the allure of jihad as a religious duty has waned. And those who use terrorism are themselves becoming more marginal and amateurish, as was evident in the Nigerian underwear bomber, a plot that could hardly succeed even with the best of luck. If there had not been errors made in the security process and exchange of information, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab would have been detained before boarding the plane in Amsterdam.
Americans should no longer talk of terrorism or fear it because it is largely an empty threat. One is more likely to be eaten by a shark than killed in a terrorist attack. The effectiveness of the US government in sustaining fear through its combating of terror guarantees continuous war, makes for big government, and blinds America’s policymakers to reality. There are many groups out in the world vying for power. Some are unscrupulous in how they would achieve control, including willingness to employ terror. But most could care less about Washington as long as the United States leaves them alone. Leaving them alone might well be the best foreign and security policy that the United States could embrace.

Syria's Lebanese return validates Bashar Assad's waiting game
By Nicholas Blanford
Daily Star
Friday, January 22, 2010
Wearing a neatly pressed dark gray suit and blue silk tie, Rustom Ghazaleh, the head of Syrian military intelligence in Lebanon, sat among rows of uniformed Syrian army officers watching without expression a short but colorful ceremony at Rayak military airport in the Bekaa Valley. It was April 26, 2005, and these were the last moments of Syria’s military presence on Lebanese soil after 29 years.
The assassination of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese prime minister two months earlier, was widely blamed on Syria and had sparked a momentum through mass street protests in Beirut and international pressure that compelled Damascus to withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
A United Nations investigation into Hariri’s murder was about to begin and many believed that it would lead to indictments against senior Syrian officials, possibly Ghazaleh and even Bashar Assad, the Syrian president. The Syrian regime, it seemed, was in deep trouble. Rumors abounded that Assad was packing his suitcases and that one of his top advisors was exploring job opportunities with the United Nations.
Fast forward to December 2009, and a very different picture emerges. Saad Hariri, son of the slain Rafik and the newly-appointed prime minister of Lebanon, embraces Assad in Damascus, symbolically marking the end of five years of bitterness and tension between the two countries and confirming Syria’s remarkable comeback from the doldrums of 2005.
How the relationship evolves in the months ahead remains to be seen, but already Lebanese politicians, sensing Syria’s restored fortunes, have once more begun treading the well-worn path to Damascus, a ritual act of obeisance toward Lebanon’s powerful neighbor.
Syria’s survival strategy during this period was based on the element of time. President George W. Bush had just begun his second term in office when Hariri was killed and Syria decided to hunker down for the next four years while strengthening its alliance with Iran. After decades of experience, the Syrians understand the Lebanese political milieu very well, and, along with their Lebanese allies, chiefly Hizbullah but also a smattering of individual politicians who gambled on a Syrian comeback, manipulated the situation in Lebanon with consummate skill.
Syria’s involvement in the assassinations and isolated bombings that occurred following Hariri’s murder is unclear, but it created a climate of fear in Lebanon that played to the advantage of Damascus. Hizbullah, of course, had other calculations than merely pleasing the interests of Damascus, but the grinding political crisis that polarized the country helped weaken the US- and Saudi-backed government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. The March 14 coalition of Sunnis, Druze and Christians, which had led the anti-Syria demonstrations of the “Beirut Spring” in 2005, began to fragment.
Everyone knew that the Annapolis summit in November 2007 to help revive Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking was doomed to failure and smacked of insincerity from a Bush administration that had disregarded Arab-Israel peace for seven years. But many March 14 leaders could look no further than the fact that Syria had been invited to the summit and concluded they had been “sold out” by the Bush administration.
Syria’s “bunker” policy began to bear fruit in May 2008 when Hizbullah and its allies briefly seized West Beirut in an armed insurrection that raised the specter of civil war. Qatar, a wily Gulf player and one of Syria’s few friends in the Arab world, hosted a fence-mending conference that brought some welcome stability to Lebanon.
In the wake of that Doha meeting, Assad was feted in Paris by French President Nicolas Sarkozy. The Syrians had even side-stepped Washington’s traditional role as Middle East peace broker by relying on Turkey to host a series of indirect talks with Israel, the first in eight years, which only ended with Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip beginning in December 2008. In the aftermath of that war, in early 2009, there was a substantial new development affecting the balance of power in Lebanon, when the Saudis healed their rift with Damascus. This paved the way for Saad Hariri’s groundbreaking visit to Damascus last month.
Walid Jumblatt, the “weathervane” of Lebanese politics who had been an arch critic of Syria since Hariri’s death, began his latest U-turn after the Doha conference. By August 2009 this had resulted in him formally leaving the ranks of March 14 and charting a new centrist position.
Although the Syrian-backed opposition was narrowly defeated in the Lebanese parliamentary polls in June 2009, the March 14 bloc was unable to form a government of its own choosing and was forced, after four months of deadlock, to accept a compromise over the share of Cabinet seats.
In tandem with Syria’s rising fortunes, the mixed international-Lebanese tribunal investigating Hariri’s murder dragged on with little indication that the truth about who had killed the former premier was imminent. The slow pace of the investigation and the lack of details of progress have fostered doubts that the case will ever reach trial.
Given all that has transpired of late, Assad could be forgiven for feeling a little pleased with himself right now. Even Rustom Ghazaleh can perhaps afford a little smile after the humiliation of that military farewell ceremony nearly five years ago: The prosecutor of the Hariri tribunal recently agreed to allow his Lebanese bank account, which was frozen in 2005 on the advice of an earlier UN investigator, to be unfrozen.
**Nicholas Blanford is a Beirut-based correspondent for The Christian Science Monitor. This commentary first appeared at bitterlemons-international.org, an online newsletter.