LCCC
ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِMay
13/2010
Bible Of the
Day
Paul's Letter to the Philippians 4/4-19
4:4 Rejoice in the Lord always! Again I will say, “Rejoice!” 4:5 Let your
gentleness be known to all men. The Lord is at hand. 4:6 In nothing be anxious,
but in everything, by prayer and petition with thanksgiving, let your requests
be made known to God. 4:7 And the peace of God, which surpasses all
understanding, will guard your hearts and your thoughts in Christ Jesus.
4:8 Finally, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are honorable,
whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely,
whatever things are of good report; if there is any virtue, and if there is any
praise, think about these things. 4:9 The things which you learned, received,
heard, and saw in me: do these things, and the God of peace will be with you.
4:10 But I rejoice in the Lord greatly, that now at length you have revived your
thought for me; in which you did indeed take thought, but you lacked
opportunity. 4:11 Not that I speak in respect to lack, for I have learned in
whatever state I am, to be content in it. 4:12 I know how to be humbled, and I
know also how to abound. In everything and in all things I have learned the
secret both to be filled and to be hungry, both to abound and to be in need.
4:13 I can do all things through Christ, who strengthens me. 4:14 However you
did well that you shared in my affliction. 4:15 You yourselves also know, you
Philippians, that in the beginning of the Good News, when I departed from
Macedonia, no assembly shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving but
you only. 4:16 For even in Thessalonica you sent once and again to my need. 4:17
Not that I seek for the gift, but I seek for the fruit that increases to your
account. 4:18 But I have all things, and abound. I am filled, having received
from Epaphroditus the things that came from you, a sweet-smelling fragrance, an
acceptable and well-pleasing sacrifice to God. 4:19 My God will supply every
need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus. 4:20 Now to our
God and Father be the glory forever and ever! Amen.
Free Opinions, Releases, letters, Interviews & Special Reports
Why Syria will keep saying 'no' to Washington/Christian
Science Monitor/May
12/10
Accepting Israel as the Jewish state/By: Daniel
Pipes/Jerusalem Post/May
12/10
Enough tribal chest
thumping/Daily Star/May 12/10
In Egypt Muslims Who Kill
Christians Often Claim 'Insanity/AINA/May
12/10
In the hot seat, Lebanon assumes
the Security Council presidency/By: Farrah Zughni/May 12/10
Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for May 12/10
Netanyahu Near Lebanon
Border: Iran Trying to Drag us into War with Syria/Naharnet
Lieberman Fears NKorea
Arms Could Land in Hizbullah Hands/Naharnet
Hariri Denies Saying he
Supported Hizbullah Rearmament to Defend Sovereignty/Naharnet
Cameron Finally Becomes New British
PM as Brown Quits/Naharnet
French Parliament Adopts Resolution
Condemning Full-face Islamic Veil/Naharnet
PM preaches calm to Syria/Jerusalem
Post
'Iran trying to start Israel-Syria war'/Jerusalem
Post
Threats Posed By Iran And Syria/Voice
of America
The limits of wisdom?/Jerusalem Post
Spain's FM to visit Lebanon for
talks on reviving Palestinian-Israeli peace talks
/Daily Star
Israel will face 'failure' if it launches war - Berri
/Daily Star
Hariri to visit US for talks with Obama, Security Council/By
Agence France Presse (AFP)
Hariri's office denies premier condoned Hizbullah's arms
/Daily Star
No indications of consensus in
Sidon yet - Hariri
/Daily Star
Lebanese minister praises role of
franchises /Daily
Star
Can Lebanon weather Greek economic
crisis? /Daily Star
Culture of heroin use threatens
futures of many of Lebanon's youth
/Daily Star
NGO organizes public discussion
about plight of domestic workers/Daily
Star
Two women vie for mukhtar posts in Sidon
/Daily Star
Media gathering cancelled over lack
of funding /Daily
Star
Education fails to earn women job
promotions /Daily
Star
Workshop to promote animal welfare
/Daily Star
Israel FM: NKorean arms on plane bound for Hamas/The
Associated Press
There will be no economic prosperity without peace/Ha'aretz
Nobody wants war, but Israel's Lebanon border is
heating up/Ha'aretz
March 14 welcomes Beirut municipal
election results/Now Lebanon
Torsarkissian: Aoun’s complex is
Geagea/Now Lebanon
Child survives as more than 100
killed in Libya plane crash/Now Lebanon
Ziade Defends Hizbullah in
Verbal Clash with Israeli Ambassador/Naharnet
State Budget Threatens to
Cause More Splits in Government/Naharnet
Berri Applauds Erdogan:
Army, Resistance and People Will Fight Together Any Israeli Attack/Naharnet
Hariri at Security Council
on May 25/Naharnet
31 Jailed over Fatah
al-Islam Plots/Naharnet
Harb Denies Being Part of
Batroun Elections/Naharnet
Signs of Election Battle
in Jezzine/Naharnet
Aoun: We Reaped Majority
among Beirut Christians, Sectarian Barriers Overcome in West Bekaa/Naharnet
Geagea: Skaff Hasn't
Regained Zahle's Leadership; Aoun Failed in Beirut, Zahle Surveys/Naharnet
Jumblat Attacks Marwan,
Ali Hamadeh Without Naming Them/Naharnet
ISF Arrests Man Wanted for
Beating Wife and Her Child/Naharnet
Ziade Defends Hizbullah in Verbal Clash with Israeli Ambassador
/Naharnet/A verbal clash erupted between the Lebanese charge d'affaires at the
U.N. and Israel's ambassador after the Jewish state's envoy accused Lebanon of
harboring what she called a "terrorist group." "The most dangerous terrorist
organizations threatening Israel's security are Hamas in the south and Hizbullah
in the north," the Israeli ambassador, Gabriela Shalev, said on Tuesday during
an open Security Council debate on how terrorism poses a threat to the world.
The meeting was convened to review the work of several committees established by
the Council in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. It is "alarming" that
several U.N. member states support and harbor such terror organizations, Shalev
said. However, Lebanon's charge d'affaires, Caroline Ziade, snapped back calling
Shalev's remark "unfortunate." Closing the debate, Ziade said she wanted to
speak not as the council's rotating president for the month of May, but in her
national capacity. Hizbullah, she insisted, is not a terrorist organization. It
is a "legitimate party" represented in the Lebanese parliament. "We regret that
the name of Hizbullah was used in our debate," Ziade said, accusing Shalev of
trying to "derail the debate from its course." Israel is "a neighbor that
continues to aggress (against) its neighbors. This is why we should
differentiate between terrorism and the legitimate right to resist against
foreign occupation," the Lebanese envoy added. Beirut, 12 May 10, 10:10
March 14: Beirut Won for the Sake of Unity and Coexistence
Naharnet/The March 14 general-secretariat on Wednesday hailed Sunday's municipal
elections in Beirut, saying the capital emerged victorious in its unity and
coexistence.
In a statement following its weekly meeting, the general-secretariat "expressed
relief over the comfortable atmosphere that prevailed during the parliamentary
elections in Beirut and the Bekaa.""The capital won for the sake of its unity
and coexistence" after the victory of the March 14 forces and Armenian parties
in the Mount Lebanon polls.
The statement hailed "sovereign public opinion" for "not using the national
compass in the democratic battle."The general-secretariat also lauded the
efforts of the interior, justice and defense ministries in holding the
elections. Beirut, 12 May 10, 15:31
Netanyahu Near Lebanon Border: Iran Trying to Drag us into War with Syria
Naharnet/During a tour of the Northern Command headquarters in Safed, Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu blamed Iran for trying to drag Israel and
Syria into a military confrontation. During a meeting with reservist officers at
a training base on Tuesday, Netanyahu said: "Iran is trying to stir up war
between Israel and Syria in order to cause tension in the region." "We want
stability and peace … We have no intention of attacking our neighbors, contrary
to false rumors," he said.
During his tour, Netanyahu was briefed on an extensive exercise which simulates
war with Hizbullah. The Israeli prime minister watched part of the drill, which
involved taking over a built-up area in southern Lebanon with fortified
Hizbullah positions from which rockets were fired at Israel.
Netanyahu was asked during the visit about the possibility of restarting
negotiations with Syria following Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's visit to
Damascus.
"We will welcome any contribution to the advancement of the peace process, and
every practical step that our neighbors will take for calm in the region and
entering a political process," Netanyahu said. Beirut, 12 May 10, 09:32
Lieberman Fears NKorea Arms Could Land in Hizbullah Hands
Naharnet/Israeli Foreign Minister
Avigdor Lieberman on Tuesday accused North Korea of transferring weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) to Syria.
Lieberman's office quoted him as telling Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama
at a meeting in Tokyo that such activity threatened to destabilize East Asia as
well as the Middle East.
"The cooperation between Syria and North Korea is not focused on economic
development and growth but rather on weapons of mass destruction" Lieberman
said.
In evidence, he cited the December 2009 seizure at Bangkok airport of an illicit
North Korean arms shipment which U.S. intelligence said was bound for an unnamed
Middle East country.
Lieberman said Syria intended to pass the weapons on to Hizbullah in Lebanon and
to the Islamic Hamas movement, which rules Gaza and has its political
headquarters in Damascus.
"This cooperation endangers stability in both Southeast Asia and also in the
Middle East and is against all the accepted norms in the international arena,"
Lieberman was quoted as telling Hatoyama. Thai officials at the time said that
acting on a tip-off from Washington they confiscated about 30 tons of missiles,
rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons when the North Korean plane landed
for refueling in Bangkok. Israel has accused North Korea in the past of
transferring nuclear technology to Syria, which is technically in a state of war
with the neighboring Jewish state, although the two last fought openly in 1973.
Britain's Sunday Times newspaper reported in 2007 that Israel seized North
Korean nuclear material in a commando raid on a secret military site in Syria
and then destroyed the site in an air attack. Syria denied the report. The
communist regime in North Korea has denied collaborating on nuclear activity
with Syria, while Israel has maintained an official silence on the reported
September 2007 raid and strike.(AFP-Naharnet) Beirut, 12 May 10, 09:16
Berri Applauds Erdogan: Army, Resistance and People Will Fight Together Any
Israeli Attack
Naharnet/Speaker Nabih Berri has interrupted Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan as he delivered a speech before the Islamic conference in Istanbul to
applaud him. "The historic speech by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
saved the conference from monotony, and once again proved his zeal for Jerusalem
and concerns over both the Arab and Islamic worlds," Berri said in remarks
published Wednesday by the daily An-Nahar.Berri had interrupted Erdogan halfway
through his speech and stood among the 28 leaders attending the conference to
applaud the Turkish premier when Erdogan said "If Jerusalem burned the Middle
East and the world would burn." Beirut, 12 May 10, 12:24
Hariri at Security Council on May 25
Naharnet/Prime Minister Saad Hariri is scheduled to meet with U.S. President
Barack Obama on May 24 during an official visit to Washington, An Nahar daily
reported on Wednesday. The newspaper said that Hariri would also meet with Vice
President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and National Security
Advisor James Jones. The Lebanese premier will on May 25 head to New York to
preside over the U.N. Security Council meeting that would hold discussions on a
topic chosen by Lebanon: "Dialogue between Civilizations and its Link with
International Security and Peace." Lebanon currently heads the rotating chair of
the Security Council. Agence France Presse said that Hariri's five-day visit
which will kick off in Washington on May 24 comes amid mounting concerns in the
region of a renewed conflict between Israel and Hizbullah. Beirut, 12 May 10,
11:08
Why Syria will keep saying ‘no’ to Washington
The US must get real leverage before talking to its better-prepared and a
tougher-minded adversary, Syria.
.By Bilal Y. Saab / May 11, 2010 /Daily Star
Washington
Washington’s strategy of selective engagement with Syria has not produced any
tangible results. The question is: Why does Damascus continue to do the opposite
of what the Obama administration wants it to?
First, Washington still lacks real leverage in its talks with Damascus. To make
things worse, Syria currently enjoys a relatively comfortable position in the
region, partly because of Washington’s lack of a coherent Syria policy but also
because of its own efforts to develop its military alliance with Iran, enhance
its political relations with Turkey and Iraq, and restore its power-broker role
in Lebanese politics.
The second, and perhaps more important, reason why President Obama’s strategy
has failed is because Syria is not interested in what Washington is currently
selling.
Consider: The chief US goal of selective engagement is to try to take away from
Syria a number of cards it holds in the region (though not all of them, given
the price it would take to do so), be it Hamas, Hezbullah, or its link to
militants in Iraq.
But what Washington needs to realize is that Syria’s aggregate power and
influence in the Middle East is defined by these very cards. Syria will not let
go of any of these, primarily because these are what keep its regime going.
Simply put, Syria will not allow the United States to pick and choose (hence the
selective part of the strategy) what it wants to negotiate on, precisely because
a piecemeal approach, as currently advocated by Washington, puts the Syrians in
a vulnerable position vis-à-vis their adversaries, namely Israel.
Absent a comprehensive package from Washington, which would include Lebanon
first and possibly peace with Israel and the return of the Golan Heights second,
Syria will find it in its best interest to stall, keep its cards relatively
intact, and refuse to engage in serious negotiations with the US.
Indeed, such an all-inclusive package – which Washington would be unable to (and
must not) offer given its stated policy of support to Lebanon’s freedom – is the
Baath regime’s only realistic long-term insurance policy.
Syria looks at its relationship with the US from a holistic perspective, while
the US is currently viewing its relationship with Syria much more narrowly.
Syria wants to completely overhaul the relationship and normalize it to ensure
the survival of its regime, whereas the US just wants to bargain on a specific
set of issues. It doesn’t take a genius to see that it simply won’t work because
the two countries want different things.
One can understand why Obama is pursuing a strategy of selective engagement,
given the setbacks of his predecessor’s policy of isolating Syria and the vast
differences between the two countries on vital issues such as Lebanon. But US
officials should keep this in mind as they talk to the Syrians: Syria will not
lift a finger on any of the issues that touch US interests in the Middle East
unless Washington recognizes first its hegemonic position in Lebanon and
possibly its military return.
So what is the alternative? There is no easy answer, hence the very real and
legitimate debate that took place on April 21 on Capitol Hill between members of
Congress and US assistant secretary of State for Near Eastern affairs Jeffrey
Feltman, following his testimony on Syria. As Washington contemplates a more
viable strategy for Syria, it would benefit from taking note of an old piece of
advice: Get real leverage before you talk to your better-prepared and
tougher-minded adversary.
**Bilal Y. Saab, a senior Middle East consultant with Oxford Analytica and
Centra Technology Inc, is pursuing a PhD at the University of Maryland’s
Department of Government and Politics.
Iran Upset over Yaalon’s Remarks that Israel Can Strike
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu/Arutz Sheva
Former IDF Chief of Staff Moshe Yaalon’s remarks that Israel can strike Iran,
and that “offense is the best defense” prompted reactions in Iranian media that
an Israeli attack is more theoretical than practical.
The Arab world widely covered the remarks of Yaalon, now Minister for Strategic
Affairs. “We are already in a military confrontation against Iran,” he told a
conference of military experts. "There is no doubt that the technological
capabilities, which improved in recent years, have improved range and aerial
refueling capabilities, and have brought about a massive improvement in the
accuracy of ordnance and intelligence."
Most analysts have questioned whether Israel can do any more than slightly delay
the Iranian nuclear program’s apparent aim to build a nuclear warhead that can
hit Israel. Most attention has been focused on Iran’s having scattered several
nuclear sites throughout the country, buried in deep and reinforced concrete
bunkers in mountainous regions.
However, the failed efforts of U.S. President Barack Obama to engage Iran in
diplomatic talks or to convince the United Nations Security Council to pass
harsh sanctions have left “the military” option as the only alternative to a
nuclear Iran.
Yaalon told the Fisher Institute for Air and Space Strategic Studies that Israel
is in a proxy war with Iran because of its military and financial aid to the
Hizbullah and Hamas terrorist organizations.
"There is no doubt, looking at the overall situation, that we are already in a
military confrontation with Iran," he said. "Iran is the main motivator of those
attacking us."
Beirut-based policy expert Oussama Safa told the Iranian government-monitored
Press TV that Yaalon’s remarks are “diversionary tactics by the Israelis who
fear, under a lot of pressure, their military options are shrinking,
particularly in Lebanon and in Gaza.”
He added that Yaalon’s remarks were “more of a provocation that I do not think
will materialize or has any potential to materialize anytime soon” because an
attack is more theoretical than practical, politically and militarily.
American journalist Danny Schechter, who specializes in the areas of human
rights and the media, told Press TV, “This is part of a war of words not only
directed at Iran but at the United States. Basically, they are trying to
pressure the United States first to stop pressuring them on settlements but
secondly, to take stronger action to impose stronger sanctions by threatening,
you know, kind of a military option…. This is all sort of psychological warfare
staged that was going on now with statements of this type. I think we are going
to see more of it.”
Schechter also charged that if Iran did not exist, Israel “would need to invent
Iran” to divert attention from the Palestinian Authority-Israeli struggle.
Israel is “escalating the rhetoric,” he said, but added, ‘this is, you know as
far as I can tell, a road to nowhere. But it is a road that is convenient for
Israeli politicians and to some degree for Iranian politicians. Iran likes
Israel as an enemy too. You know the more noise that Israel makes, the more the
government in Tehran can also respond in kind and needs to prepare defensively
and all the rest of it. So in a sense, this war of the words is functional for
both sides right now.”
Accepting Israel as the Jewish state
By DANIEL PIPES
11/05/2010 21:24
A base for resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict does exist.
Talkbacks (3)
When a major Arab state finally signed a peace treaty with Israel, it was long
assumed, the Arab-Israeli conflict would end. The Egypt-Israel peace treaty of
1979, however, buried that expectation; it had the perverse effect of making
other states – and also the Egyptian populace – even more anti-Zionist.
The 1980s gave birth to a hope that, instead, Palestinian recognition of Israel
would close the conflict. The total failure of the 1993 Declaration of
Principles (also known as the Oslo Accords) then buried that expectation.
What now? Starting about 2007, a new focus has emerged, of winning acceptance of
Israel as a sovereign Jewish state. Israel’s former prime minister Ehud Olmert
set the terms: “I do not intend to compromise in any way over the issue of the
Jewish state. This will be a condition for our recognition of a Palestinian
state.”
Olmert was Israel’s worst prime minister, but he got this one right.
Arab-Israeli diplomacy has dealt with a myriad of subsidiary issues while
tiptoeing around the conflict’s central issue: “Should there be a Jewish state?”
Disagreement over this answer – rather than over Israel’s boundaries, its
exercise of self-defense, its control of the Temple Mount, its water
consumption, its housing construction in West Bank towns, diplomatic relations
with Egypt, or the existence of a Palestinian state – is the key issue.
Palestinian leaders responded with howls of outrage, declaring they “absolutely
refused” to accept Israel as a Jewish state. They even pretended to be shocked
at the notion of a state defined by religion, although their own “Constitution
of the State of Palestine,” third draft, states that “Arabic and Islam are the
official Palestinian language and religion.”
Olmert’s efforts went nowhere.
ON TAKING over the premiership in early 2009, Binyamin Netanyahu reiterated
Olmert’s point in his diplomacy. Regrettably, the Obama administration endorsed
the Palestinian position, again sidelining the Israeli demand. (Instead, it
focuses on housing for Jews in Jerusalem. Talk about the heart of the issue.) If
Palestinian politicians reject Israel’s Jewish nature, what about the
Palestinian and the broader Arab and Muslim publics? Polls and other evidence
suggest a long-term average of 20 percent acceptance of Israel, whether in the
Mandatory period or now, whether by Muslims in Canada or by Palestinians in
Lebanon.
To learn more about current Arab opinion, the Middle East Forum commissioned
Pechter Middle East Polls to ask a simple question of 1,000 adults in each of
four countries: “Islam defines [your state]; under the right circumstances,
would you accept a Jewish state of Israel?” (In Lebanon, the question differed
slightly: “Islam defines most states in the Middle East; under the right
circumstances, would you accept a Jewish state of Israel?”) The results: 26
percent of Egyptians and 9% of urban Saudi subjects answered (in November 2009)
in the affirmative, as did 9% of Jordanians and 5% of Lebanese (in April 2010).
The polls reveal broad consensus across such differences as occupation,
socioeconomic standing and age. For no discernable reason, more Egyptian women
and Saudi and Jordanian men accept a Jewish Israel than their gender
counterparts, whereas among the Lebanese both sexes rank similarly. Some
significant variations exist, however: as one would expect in Lebanon, 16% of
(largely Christian) north Lebanon accepts a Jewish Israel in contrast to just 1%
in the (mostly Shi’ite) Bekaa Valley.
More significantly, weighting these responses by the size of their populations
(respectively, 79, 29, 6 and 4 million) translates into an overall average of
20% acceptance of Israel’s Jewishness – neatly confirming the existing
percentage.
Although 20% constitutes a small minority, its consistency over time and place
offers encouragement. That one-fifth of Muslims, Arabs and even Palestinians
accept Israel as a Jewish state suggests that, despite a near-century of
indoctrination and intimidation, a base for resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict
does exist.
Would-be peacemakers must direct their attention to increasing the size of this
moderate cohort.
Getting from 20% to, say, 60% would fundamentally shift the politics of the
Middle East, displacing Israel from its exaggerated role and releasing the
peoples of this blighted region to address their real challenges. Not Zionism
but such, oh, minor problems as autocracy, brutality, cruelty, conspiracism,
religious intolerance, apocalypticism, political extremism, misogyny, slavery,
economic backwardness, brain drain, capital flight, corruption and drought.
**The writer (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum and
Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford
University.
Suspected Spy for Hizbullah Heads Anti-Israeli NGO
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu/Arutz Sheva
Amir Makhoul, one of the Israeli Arabs suspected of spying for Hizbullah, heads
a group that has rejected an anti-terror funding clause and promotes boycotts of
Israel, according to NGO Monitor.
Makhoul, of Haifa, and Omar Radwan Said of Kfar Kana were arrested by Israel
Security Agency (Shin Bet) agents for allegedly spying on behalf of the
Hizbullah terrorist organization. A gag order on the arrests was lifted Monday.
Both suspects deny the accusations.
Makhoul is the brother of a former Arab Knesset Member of the Hadash party and
heads the Israel-based Arab organization Ittijah.
NGO Monitor, headed by American-born Prof. Gerald Steinberg (pictured below),
reported that Ittijah is involved in anti-Israel "demonization."
Established in 1985 and based in Haifa, Ittijah describes itself as “the network
for Palestinian non-governmental organizations in Israel Ittijah. NGO Monitor
noted, “Updated funding information is not available due to lack of
transparency,” and added, “Ittijah joined a number of Palestinian NGOs in
rejecting anti-terror clauses in funding agreements.
During Israel’s Operation Cast Lead war against Hamas terror last year, Ittijah
claimed that “the IDF is turning Gaza to kind of an extermination camp, in the
full sense of the word and with the full historical relativity.”
INN interviewed Makhoul then and reposted the interview earlier today.
It also was prominent in the anti-Israel Durban Conference against Racism in
2001, where the United States and other leading Western nations walked out
biased resolutions aimed only at the Jewish State and which ignored the denial
of human rights in the Muslim world.
The group’s website claimed that it “gathered, facilitated and directed the
vision and position of the Palestinian NGOs inside Israel on racism,
particularly Israeli-state racism towards Palestinian citizens, and the
apartheid the State practices” in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
Ittijah also backs the Saudi Arabia 2002 plan that calls for the immigration of
several million foreign Arabs into Israel, in what the Arab world refers to as
“the right of return.” Ittijah organized a 2004 conference entitled “Right of
Return and Just Peace,” according to NGO Monitor.
The same group, besides backing boycotts of Israel divesting of companies having
a presence in Judea and Samaria, also signed a petition against the L’Oreal
company for operating in pre-1967 Israel.
It claimed the firm’s factory in the Lower Galilee city of Migdal HaEmek is
located in a “settlement [that] was established in 1952 on lands belonging to
the ethnically-cleansed Palestinian village of al-Mujaydil...”
Makhoul and Said, who is a member of the Balad political party, are suspected of
a number of serious offenses, including contact with a foreign agent. Police
arrested Said at his house, provoking a string of protests.
His arrest last Thursday sparked angry protests in the Haifa Arab community,
although the gag order had prevented reports in the media. The Arab rights group
Abdullah charged that the arrests were political motivated because the suspects
are not members of mainstream Israel parties.
Their arrests are the latest in an increasing phenomenon of Israeli Arabs being
involved with Hizbullah. Former Knesset Member Azmi Bishara remains outside the
country after being indicted on charges of selling classified information to
Hizbullah durng the Second Lebanon War in 2006.
Earlier this year, an Israel Arab was arrested on charges of working out in the
health club as IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi and passing on to Hizbullah
information on his approach route to the facility.
In Egypt Muslims Who Kill Christians Often Claim 'Insanity'
http://www.aina.org/news/20100511203439.htm
GMT 5-12-2010 1:34:51
Assyrian International News Agency
(AINA) -- In Egypt an often used defense by Muslims accused of killing
Christians is insanity. According to said Coptic activist Maged Bishay,
"Islamist investigators, judges and psychiatrists are only too willing to go
with this pretext, to allow their fellow Muslims to 'get away with murder' based
on the Islamic law 'Help your brother, whether he is an oppressor or he is an
oppressed one.'"
One of the latest examples if the insanity defense was the murder of the Coptic
Christian deacon George Fathi, who was killed in Alexandria on October 6, 2009,
deliberately and with premeditation, by two fundamentalist brothers, 21-year-old
Mohamed Abdel-Moneim and his 17-year-old brother Ahmed.
The two brothers visited George in his flat at mid-day, strangled and
electrocuted him until his intestines burst out. His father, who was sitting in
a coffee house facing their flat, saw smoke coming out and when he opened the
door he found his son dead and disfigured. The killers opened a butane cylinder
and made a fire to cause an explosion but this was averted by the father and
neighbors, who testified having seen three bearded men enter the flat earlier.
When the Abdel-Moneim brothers were arrested, they said the victim tried to
sexually assault them, so they killed him in self-defense. The 17-year old
brother was released for being under-age and handed over to his family.
The media, orchestrated by statements issued by the Egyptian State Security,
immediately propagated the claim of sexual assault and, as expected, it found
support and empathy for the killer from the Muslim public.
"The accused tried to take us down this path but the investigation found no
evidence that deacon George practiced homosexuality," said Mokbel Sobhy, the
victim's family attorney. "I will file lawsuits against those newspapers for
defamation of character."
Friends of George Fathi said that he was known all over Alexandria for
proselytizing Christianity, and the reason behind his killing was that he helped
the sister of the Abdel-Moneim brothers convert to Christianity, and they killed
him in retaliation.
During a court session on January 24, 2010, the lawyer for the defendant argued
that the defendant Mohamed is suffering from mental illness and was not
responsible for his actions, and asked for his client to be referred to
psychiatric assessment to determine whether he was competent. The court accepted
this request and adjourned the hearing until 4/24/2010.
On April 24, 2010 the presiding judge stated the psychiatric assessment of
Mohamed Abdel-Moneim confirmed that he was suffering from insanity. The lawyers
of the victim requested to question the doctor who issued the report and to
refer the defendant to a psychiatric committee. The judge said they could choose
on of the two requests, so they chose the latter.
On September 16, 2009, 35-year-old car painter Osama Araban (El-Bohyagi) went to
the village of Bahgour, stabbed 63-year old Coptic Christian Abdo George Younan
nine times until his intestines fell out, then severed his head from his body --
an Islamic ritual beheading. He washed his bloody bayonet with the water hose
which the victim was previously using, before setting off on his Harley-Davidson
motorcycle, to stab with intention to kill, two other Copts in two different
villages, at least 10 km apart. When arrested, he confessed fully to his crime (AINA
9-21-2009).
Renowned attorney and activist Dr.Naguib Ghoraeel, head of Egyptian Union Human
Rights Organization, issued a press release on September 17, accusing the
Interior Ministry of lying by suggesting the incident "is a mere quarrel," and
warned them that no one will believe that the murderer is "mentally unstable,"
should they use this defense.
In November 2009, Osama was referred to a psychiatric hospital for assessment,
Mr. Ahmed Kelany, lawyer of the family of the beheaded victim, in an interview
with The Freecopts said that "the assailant resorting to mental disorder is an
attempt to escape the penalty for his crime, which is premeditated murder. This
was confirmed by all the circumstances and the eyewitness testimonies."
Another high-profile case which had the same ending, took place in Alexandria on
April 14, 2006, during the last day of the Holy Lent. A series of knife attacks
at three Alexandria churches resulted in the death of a 63-year-old Christian
man, Noshi Girgis, and injuries to several other Christians. An attack on a
fourth church was foiled. Witnesses said that the assailant called out Jihad
chants during the attacks. The interior ministry claimed that only one man was
responsible for the attacks and named Mahmoud Salah-Eddin Abdel-Raziq, 25, and
described him as "psychologically disturbed", even before his arrest. "This was
a way to close the case file before investigations have started," commented
activist Mark Naguib at the time.
Christians were enraged by the government's scenario that Abdel-Raziq had
attacked alone three churches, miles away from each other, by walking and using
public transport, all in the same morning. This version of events contradicted
earlier police reports which told of three simultaneous attacks and that three
men who were involved in these attacks had been arrested. Most Copts believed
that it was an Islamist pre-planned attack, carried out by more than one person.
During the funeral of the murdered Copt Noshi, clashes between Muslims who were
hurling stones and Christians took place, leading to arrests on both sides. The
way the government dealt with this case sparked global condemnation and Coptic
rallies worldwide.
Freecopts reported on Al Jazeera News report aired on April 14th, detailing the
attacks on the churches and naming four different Muslim perpetrators, which
corresponded with the description of the assailants given by witnesses in the
different churches.
On June 29, 2006 Egypt's prosecutor-general ordered Mahmoud Abdel-Raziq to be
committed to a mental hospital after a medical evaluation and without trial, the
duration of his incarceration was not specified. No news was ever heard of him
after that.
Rasha Nour, head of Egypt4Christ advocacy, believes there are many "insanity"
incidents which are not reported by the police; on presentation of a medical
certificate, sometimes supplied by the police, the assailant is then released
after the Coptic victim is forced by them to sign a reconciliation note.
By Mary Abdelmassih
In the hot seat
Lebanon assumes the Security Council presidency
Farrah Zughni, May 12, 2010
Now Lebanon
May 5 marked the beginning of Lebanon’s month-long reign as United Nations
Security Council (UNSC) president, a post it has not held in 50 years.
Yet skepticism of Lebanon’s participation on the Security Council was evident
even before it was elected last October as a two-year, non-permanent member.
From resolutions 1559 and 1701 to the Special Tribunal’s ongoing investigation
into former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri’s 2005 assassination, critics have
argued that the nation is directly involved in too many issues active before the
council to adequately fulfill the position.
But among these serious concerns, the current US-led efforts to sanction Iran in
response to its nuclear program loom largest. If at any point during Lebanon’s
tenure on the council – and especially during its presidency this month – the
matter is put to a vote, the small nation will not only have to choose between
powerful global blocs but it also risks disturbing the delicate sectarian
balance within the country.
In the words of An-Nahar writer Ali Hamade, a UN vote would compel Lebanon “to
take a stand that will have repercussions inside its borders given that Iran is
central in its political and security systems,” not to mention the Islamic
Republic’s strong backing from Hezbollah.
In the past four months that Lebanon has sat on the council under the leadership
of Ambassador Nawaf Salam, Lebanon’s mission to the UN has avoided crises and
maintained neutrality.
"How Lebanon will vote is a matter that will be decided upon our national
interests," Salam reiterated to reporters at a press conference last Tuesday.
Other public officials, however, have not been so discreet. Only a week before
Lebanon joined the council, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri assured Iranian
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki that the nation would “back Iran in all
international bodies and organizations.”
Looking forward, if council membership requires strategic footwork on Salam’s
part, the presidency will demand acrobatics.
“Lebanon will have many issues coming before it,” James Paul, executive director
of the Global Policy Forum, told NOW Lebanon. “Lebanon as the [UNSC] president
has to decide on the meetings that are convened [and] how certain matters will
be handled in those meetings.”
In other words, if council members call for sanction talks in May, Lebanon, and
Lebanon alone, will decide if such meetings proceed – further compounding
already ample pressure from both the West and Iran.
At this point, no such negotiations have been scheduled. When Salam first
unveiled the UNSC provisional agenda on May 4, Iran was not on the table
because, he said, no member had requested it to be. While Paul expects the issue
of the Iran sanctions to be put on hold for this month, Lebanon is by no means
out of the woods. Katia Badr, press attaché of the Permanent Mission of Lebanon
to the United Nations, told NOW Lebanon that these matters are always “subject
to change,” pending political developments.
Meanwhile, the United States has been ramping up pressure and making steady
progress – including gaining traction with UNSC heavyweights Russia and China –
toward imposing sanctions in “weeks, not months,” as President Obama promised in
a March speech.
It comes as no surprise, therefore, that the United States, at least officially,
is giving little sway to the Lebanese presidency. An American official, who
wished to remain anonymous due to the sensitive nature of the issue, told NOW
Lebanon that the US “anticipate[s] it will be a normal month of business" at the
Security Council.
From the look of things, the Iranians are not backing down either. In the past,
Security Council sanctions on Iran have been approved unanimously, with the sole
exception of Indonesia’s abstention in 2008 – a record the Islamic Republic is
actively trying to change. In recent weeks, it has sent delegations to various
permanent and non-permanent Security Council members, Lebanon included. But
until there are further developments on the Iran issue, there is little Lebanon
can do to forestall it. On the other hand, both Paul and analyst James Traub
emphasized that though the UNSC president is granted mostly obstructive powers,
the position does have a constructive side as well – one that can foster immense
benefits when managed wisely.
For instance, an earlier NOW Lebanon article by Matt Nash outlined the
considerable monetary aid a country stands to gain as a result of its Security
Council membership – but there’s more. The presidency also provides a country a
chance to involve itself in a number of pressing international issues. Somalia,
Kosovo, and Bosnia and Herzegovina are among many countries that have business
with the council this May – and each instance provides an opportunity to foster
relationships and strengthen Lebanon’s status.
“A state like Lebanon, a very fragile democracy from a very turbulent part of
the world, could use its presidency to show that it is a responsible member of
the international community… as opposed to a spoiler country,” said Traub.
Further, it has become common practice for UNSC presidents to select a “theme”
for their tenure. The chosen topic is then discussed in a series of meetings
scheduled on the agenda, thereby allowing any country to take a leadership role
and “focus attention on its pet issue,” according to Traub. As of press time,
the Lebanon Mission has not yet articulated a theme, nor has it announced plans
for Ambassador Salam or another official to join the UN’s mission to the
Democratic Republic of Congo, one of the most pressing events scheduled for this
month. Nonetheless, as the clock ticks, the likelihood for Lebanon to leave a
positive impression on the global stage, along with its chances of facing the
Iranian question, are swiftly waning.
Michel Aoun
May 12, 2010
On May 11, the Lebanese National News Agency carried the following report:
The head of the Change and Reform bloc, Deputy General Michel Aoun, headed the
bloc’s weekly meeting in Rabieh and issued the following statement:
Today, in our weekly meeting, we assessed the second stage of the elections
which was more than satisfactory. It was clear and broke the sectarian barriers
that surfaced following the parliamentary elections, especially in the West
Bekaa region. Therefore, congratulate everyone on these results and with God’s
will, we shall move forward in the Bekaa and Beirut despite all the blemishes
that could be put forward before the Shura Council. The results in Beirut were
fine and I will not address the details for the time being. There were fifty
unjustified votes and one name which did not get one vote although the list
which he was on was elected in full. All of this will be settled before court
but the results in general were satisfactory.
During this stage, we focused on the municipal elections at a time when
campaigns were launched against Telecommunications Minister Charbel Nahhas. We
consider these campaigns fabrications and saw similar ones targeting Minister of
Interior and Municipalities Ziad Baroud. Despite the containment of criticism
and threats issued against the interior minister and the apologies these were
not considered sufficient. We condemn this behavior which is outside the
framework of democracy, political traditions and the nature of relations within
the same government. One can accuse a minister of having shortcomings but cannot
make accusations about this minister’s opinions. This indicates we are moving
backward instead of forward at the level of our democracy and our relations with
each other.
The campaign against the minister of telecommunications started with a falsified
report. It later was confirmed to be untruthful later and the army command made
a clearly announced this… The campaign moved to the resignation of an employee
from the committee regulating the telecommunications sector. He said that his
resignation was presented because he received a better job offer or because he
did not feel as productive as the others. I do not know. However, this
resignation was turned into a political issue which prompted the interference of
the entire republic to ensure calm… What is worse is that someone even said:
“The minister of telecommunications is threatening a free economy,” as though we
were drawing up nationalization decrees in the command of the council of the
revolution…
For twenty years, we have carried a weight as Lebanon has been robbed but not
broken. We have carried all that and now the smallest of the small are accusing
us of corruption and escalating the situation because we are silent. I can
reassure the latter that what they are doing will not serve their interests.
No one can use, threaten us or frighten us. There is only one thing which may be
forcing us to bend and accept things we would normally reject and that is the
position of political responsibility we have reached… We may offer certain
concessions and shift a little to adopt the right path due to this
responsibility, but let no one dare mess with such basic issues. We are the ones
protecting free economy and rejecting the mafia economy…
We must tackle the issue of the last elections and the low level participation
in Beirut on the municipal level, along with what you referred to as being a
referendum at the level of the Mukhtar [mayor] elections especially within the
Christian circles. What does the General have to say in this regard and do you
consider the Free Patriotic Movement to have lost this referendum?
We did not lose this referendum because we earned the majority of the Christian
votes in Beirut. If anyone wants to check the results on a sectarian bases, they
will see that the majority of Christians voted in our favor. Although we should
not be talking about the Christian majority solely, I unfortunately had to
answer this way because the question forced me to do so to avoid any
misunderstanding which may affect my response. Those directly concerned by this
issue gave us the majority.
Geagea said that these elections revealed the true size of the Free Patriotic
Movement, that the FPM has failed in the referendum and that the Zahle results
showed the clear advance of the March 14 forces…
To each person his own habits and this is what he [Geagea] is accustomed to.
Following the second round of the municipal elections, how true are the claims
that the allies gave up on General Aoun in Jbeil and Metn especially during the
last elections in Zahle?
I do not wish to comment on this issue for the time being and let those who want
to jump to conclusions do as they wish. Each person is free to adopt whichever
position they want...