LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِMay 29/2010

Bible Of the Day
Psalm 144/1-15
144:1 Blessed be Yahweh, my rock, who teaches my hands to war, and my fingers to battle: 144:2 my loving kindness, my fortress, my high tower, my deliverer, my shield, and he in whom I take refuge; who subdues my people under me. 144:3 Yahweh, what is man, that you care for him? Or the son of man, that you think of him? 144:4 Man is like a breath. His days are like a shadow that passes away. 144:5 Part your heavens, Yahweh, and come down. Touch the mountains, and they will smoke. 144:6 Throw out lightning, and scatter them. Send out your arrows, and rout them. 144:7 Stretch out your hand from above, rescue me, and deliver me out of great waters, out of the hands of foreigners; 144:8 whose mouths speak deceit, Whose right hand is a right hand of falsehood. 144:9 I will sing a new song to you, God. On a ten-stringed lyre, I will sing praises to you. 144:10 You are he who gives salvation to kings, who rescues David, his servant, from the deadly sword. 144:11 Rescue me, and deliver me out of the hands of foreigners, whose mouths speak deceit, whose right hand is a right hand of falsehood. 144:12 Then our sons will be like well-nurtured plants, our daughters like pillars carved to adorn a palace. 144:13 Our barns are full, filled with all kinds of provision. Our sheep bring forth thousands and ten thousands in our fields. 144:14 Our oxen will pull heavy loads. There is no breaking in, and no going away, and no outcry in our streets. 144:15 Happy are the people who are in such a situation. Happy are the people whose God is Yahweh.

Free Opinions, Releases, letters, Interviews & Special Reports
President Obama's Ayatollah Explains Islam to the Muslims/By Barry Rubin/May 28/10
The age of accountability/Compiled By Daily Star Staff/May 28/10
Sleiman seen as successful consensus leader/By Michael Bluhm/May 28/10
Ahmadi nejad's reckless words/Daily Star/May 28/10
Iran's regime cannot monopolize power/By Arshin Adib Moghaddam/May 28/10
New evidence shows Hezbollah missile bases in Syria/Ha'aretz/May 28/10

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for May 28/10
Lebanon Quietly Postpones National Dialogue as Talk Mounts on Resistance Role/Naharnet
Geagea: I Won't Attend Dialogue Session Because of Other Engagements/Naharnet
Saniora: No Political Group is Capable of Imposing a New Reality through Weapons or Threats/Naharnet
Qawouq Says Israeli Maneuvers Failed: Those Opposing Resistance's Strategy are Popular and Political Minority/Naharnet
Qassem Stresses 'Army, People, Resistance' Equation: Political Stability in Lebanon Owes Itself to Resistance/Naharnet
Mousawi: Elections Demonstrate Desire for Understanding between AMAL and Hizbullah/Naharnet
UNIFIL Meets Israeli Request Not to Give Lebanon Data on Warplanes Activity/Naharnet
Report: Syria Arming Hizbullah from Secret Depots, 2 Scuds Could be Hidden in Bekaa/Naharnet
Syria accused of arming Hezbollah/Times Online
Assad Says Scud Missiles a 'Good Story by Israelis/Naharnet
Singh: UNIFIL Has Not Seen Any Scuds in its Area of Operation/Naharnet
Did withdrawal show weakness?/Kansas City Star
Geagea fears Hizbullah exposing Lebanon to attack/Daily Star
Obama's National Security Strategy seeks US security through peace/Daily Star
Israel: Attackers will be sent 'years backward'/Daily Star
Israel indicts two Arab citizens on charges of aiding Hizbullah/Daily Star
Netanyahu: Time for direct talks with Palestinians/Daily Star
Britain vows arrest rules change after Israel row/AFP
North Lebanon rivals trade barbs as polls draw near/Daily Star  
Jumblatt visits Syria to build ties in face of Israeli threats/Daily Star
Elia Saikaly becomes youngest Lebanese to scale Everest/Daily Star  
UNIFIL marks peacekeeping day in south/Daily Star  
Australian peacekeeper caught up in Lebanon war/ABC Online
UN experts say NKorea is exporting nuke technology/The Associated Press
Hizbollah opens theme park in Lebanon mountains/Telegraph.co.uk
Assad: Iran supports Syria-Israel peace talks/Ha'aretz
Jumblat in Damascus Discusses Need to Confront Intellectual Trend/Naharnet
Aoun Attacks Geagea for Criticizing Suleiman/Naharnet

Israel: Attackers will be sent 'years backward'
Hariri wins Obama pledge to prevent new war – report
By Patrick Galey and Wassim Mroueh
Daily Star staff
Friday, May 28, 2010
BEIRUT: Israel will send any country or group that launches an attack against it, “hundreds of years backward,” LBCI television quoted Israeli Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau as saying on Thursday, the last day of a civil defense exercise dubbed Turning Point 4. He added that his comments were directly addressed to Syria, “which is behind any attack launched by Lebanon on Israel.” LBCI also quoted Israel’s deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai as saying that Hizbullah’s leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’s role was restricted to “voicing threats,” but added that Israel took the secretary general’s words “very seriously.” In an address to mark the withdrawal of Israeli troops from south Lebanon in 2000, Nasrallah said on Tuesday his group would bomb military, civilian and commercial ships heading to Israel in the event of a new war with the country.
“If you [Israel] launch a new war on Lebanon, if you blockade our coastline, all military, civilian or commercial ships heading through the Mediterranean to occupied Palestine will be targeted by the Islamic resistance,” Nasrallah said. He also accused Israeli leaders of spreading allegations that Syria was transferring long range missiles to Hizbullah in order to garner further US financial assistance. On Thursday, Prime Minister Saad Hariri challenged the United Nations to provide conclusive proof of weapons entering Lebanese territory, as United States President Barack Obama asked Israel to refrain from another assault in the region, according to media reports.
Hariri returned to Lebanon after chairing a UN Security Council session in New York and meeting senior White House officials, during which Israeli claims of Syria transferring long-range Scud missiles to Hizbullah were raised. An-Nahar, quoting sources from Lebanon’s delegation at the Security Council, reported that Hariri had asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon to provide his country with conclusive proof which might corroborate Scud allegations. “The Lebanese government will take action if there is evidence of claims,” Hariri was quoted as saying during a meeting with the UN chief, adding that the Scud allegations had come from an unreliable source. Pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat reported that Ban had raised concerns over the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1701, especially regarding the alleged illegal transit of arms into Lebanon.
Hariri’s visit came against the backdrop of heightened regional tensions following remarks made by Israeli President Shimon Peres in April, alleging that long-range missiles had been given to Hizbullah across Lebanon’s border with Syria.
Members of US Congress had echoed Peres’ claims, which Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated on Wednesday.
In an interview with Parisian daily Le Figaro, the Israeli premier insisted that Hizbullah continued to receive “enormous” amounts of weapons from its regional allies.
“Iran and Hizbullah tried to raise tension on our northern borders and convince Syria that we were preparing for an attack,” Netanyahu said. “All this is nothing but a play. We made clear that our goal is peace with our neighbors, including Syria and Lebanon.
“Unfortunately, Syria and Iran continue to provide Hizbullah with arms and has handed over enormous amounts of weapons,” he added.
Netanyahu will fly to Washington for talks with President Obama next week for discussions on the ongoing peace process.
An-Nahar, quoting ministerial sources, reported Thursday that Obama will ask Israel not to wage another war on Lebanon, “for whatever reason, motive or justification.”
Lebanon’s tenure at the head of the Security Council is set to end next week and it remains unclear as to how it might vote regarding potential sanctions on Iran.
The Central News Agency (CNA) reported that Lebanon’s position on sanctions would be decided by the Cabinet. The vote is likely to come after the end of the month, not during Lebanon’s time as head of the Security Council.
Hariri and his delegation – which included Defense Minister Elias Murr, Foreign Minister Ali al-Shami, Information Minister Tarek Mitri, Lebanon’s Special representative to the UN Nawaf Salam, Arab League Ambassador to the United Nations Yahya Mahmassani, and advisor Mohammad Shatah – also met with Lebanese-born Miss USA Rima al-Fakih and invited her to visit Lebanon. Fakih, who has drawn ire from the right-wing press in the US for her reported links to Hizbullah, thanked Hariri for the reception she had received from her country of birth.
“You are highly cherished, Mr. Hariri,” she said. “I’m proud of the invitation that was extended to me to visit my country. This is equivalent to the crown and the title that I hold.”

Report: Syria Arming Hizbullah from Secret Depots, 2 Scuds Could be Hidden in Bekaa
/Naharnet/Hizbullah is transferring weapons, including surface-to-surface missiles, from secret depots in Syria to its bases in the Bekaa valley or southern Lebanon, a security source told Britain's The Times newspaper. The daily said on Friday that it has been shown satellite images of one of the sites near the town of Adra, northeast of Damascus, where fighters have their own living quarters, an arms storage site and a fleet of lorries reportedly used to ferry weapons into Lebanon. The newspaper added that the military hardware is either of Syrian origin or sent from Iran by sea or by air via Damascus airport. Israel reportedly planned recently to bomb one of the arms convoys as it crossed the border into Lebanon, but the operation was called off at the last minute, The Times said. It quoted Western intelligence sources as saying that the Israelis have yielded — for now — to American diplomatic efforts to persuade Damascus to stop the weapons transfers.Syrian Embassy spokesman in London, Jihad Makdissi, insisted that all military sites in Syria were exclusive to the country's military.
"If these military depots really exist it would be for the exclusive use of the Syrian army to defend Syrian soil, and it is definitely nobody's business," he told the British newspaper.
On recent Israeli accusations that Syria had transferred Scud missiles to the Shiite group in Lebanon, The Times said U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies suspect two Scuds have entered Lebanon and could be hidden in underground arms depots in the northern Bekaa valley. One source told the daily there were indications that the party may even be considering returning the missiles because of the intensified scrutiny. Beirut, 28 May 10, 10:32

Assad Says Scud Missiles a 'Good Story by Israelis'
Naharnet/Syrian President Bashar Assad has reiterated that the alleged transfer of Scud missiles to Hizbullah was "not realistic" and said he told Prime Minister Saad Hariri that they should be "honest" towards each other."This is very good story by the Israelis. We told them, what evidence do you have? You are scanning the border between Syria and Lebanon 24 hours a day and you cannot catch a big missile—scud or any other? This is not realistic," Assad told a U.S. TV network in an interview conducted by Journalist Charlie Rose.
Asked what action he would take if Washington told him to limit support for Hizbullah and Hamas, Assad said: "How could they convince me to lower such support? Our support is political." Assad acknowledged that he was seeking to build a strong relationship with Hariri and said he told the head of al-Mustaqbal movement during the first visit he made to Damascus that they should be "honest" even if he thought that Syria was involved in ex-Premier Rafik Hariri's assassination. "However, we didn't discuss about the issue," the Syrian president said.
About demands for some distance between Damascus and Tehran, Assad said that the U.S. is contradicting itself because it wants stability in the region which can only start with good relations. On U.S.-Syrian ties and Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Assad told his interviewer that Washington cannot side with the Israelis if it wants to play the role of the arbiter.
"It has to be an impartial arbiter. It has to gain the trust of the different players," the Syrian president said. He said he was "convinced" that U.S. President Barack Obama "wants to do something positive" but believed the Congress would not allow him to do what he wants. Beirut, 28 May 10, 08:11

Lebanon Quietly Postpones National Dialogue as Talk Mounts on Resistance Role
Naharnet/An escalation in talk about the role of the Resistance is likely the reason behind the postponement of a national dialogue session scheduled for June 3.
State Minister Michel Pharaon told the daily An-Nahar that the session has been postponed till June 17. Pharaon, however, said the delay has been debated before the latest controversy stirred by a statement made by President Michel Suleiman regarding the Resistance. State Minister Adnan Hussein, for his part, cited some dialogue participants' "special circumstances" as reason for the postponement. The delay also came it a time of heightened tension in the region over charges that Hizbullah was stockpiling advanced weapons, including Scud missiles, smuggled through Syria. Hizbullah has repeatedly warned the government that its arsenal is not open to discussion. Defense strategy talks, launched in 2006, have been repeatedly postponed due to successive political crises and the thorny issue of Hizbullah arms. The issue of weapons of Palestinian factions outside the 12 refugee camps in Lebanon is also on dialogue's agenda. Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea on Tuesday criticized President Michel Suleiman, saying his latest statement regarding the defense strategy is in contradiction with the inaugural speech. "President Michel Suleiman's position on the defense strategy issue represents the stance of one group of Lebanese and not everybody's view," Geagea said. He believed a consensus President "should not speak on behalf of a group of Lebanese and adopt its position." Suleiman should have expressed "the opinion of the vast majority of citizens," Geagea thought. eirut, 28 May 10, 07:32

Geagea: I Won't Attend Dialogue Session Because of Other Engagements
Naharnet/Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea said Friday that he will not participate in the national dialogue at Baabda palace next month because of previous engagements.
"I won't be able to attend the national dialogue session on June 17 because I have other engagements," Geagea told Free Lebanon radio.The LF leader has recently accused President Michel Suleiman of making contradictory statements on Hizbullah and the defense strategy. The remarks have drawn counter attacks from several politicians.On Thursday, Geagea defended himself against critics. "I didn't attack the president. He has constructive stances but we don't agree with him in the issue of Hizbullah, its arms and strategy," the LF leader stressed.
Beirut, 28 May 10, 14:43

Saniora: No Political Group is Capable of Imposing a New Reality through Weapons or Threats
Naharnet/The head of the Future Movement, former Prime Minister Fouad Saniora stressed on Friday the importance of committing to institutions and the constitution as the "ideal way" to settle differences in Lebanon. He added: "Lebanon's experience has taught us that no political group is capable of imposing a new reality through weapons, intimidation, threats, or labeling people as traitors." "The Lebanese experience needs constant protection from violence, extremism, and the domination of one opinion over the other," he continued.
Saniora also said that it is important not to involve Lebanon in conflicts, but noted: "There can be no neutrality when it comes to Lebanon or dealing with major Arab causes."
Furthermore, he added that Lebanon embodies the values of openness, diversity, mutual coexistence, freedom, forgiveness, and moderation, and "it has proven that despite the hardships it has experienced, no one can take its role due to its great perseverance and ability to adapt to changes.""Lebanon is a unique experience in mutual coexistence, openness, and democracy, that is still trying to prove its success despite the internal and external obstacles that it encounters," he noted. Beirut, 28 May 10, 18:26

Qawouq Says Israeli Maneuvers Failed: Those Opposing Resistance's Strategy are Popular and Political Minority
Naharnet/Hizbullah official Sheikh Nabil Qawouq stressed on Friday that the Resistance's strategy, that comprises the cooperation of the army, people and resistance, has become a "the pride of the armies and people of the region."He added: "Those who oppose it are a political and popular minority whose isolation is increasing day after day."
This strategy enjoys the greatest popular and political support and therefore the Resistance today is more powerful militarily, popularly, and politically. In addition, he noted: "It is bolstered by a political position that does not allow any decision or agreement to take place at the expense of Lebanese sovereignty to appease the U.S." Qawouq stressed: "The era of appeasing the U.S. at the expense of dignity, national sovereignty, and the Resistance in Lebanon is over and will never return." One of the Resistance's greatest successes, he said, was that it managed to maintain the Lebanese identity of the Shebaa Farms. He added: "As long as the Resistance is here, no one can overlook this issue and it will remain present at all political talks because the international community, Israel, and the U.S. fear the Resistance's power to restore the Shebaa Farms and the Kfarshouba Hills" through its capabilities and not diplomacy. Addressing Israel's recent military maneuvers, the Hizbullah official said: "They failed in restoring the public opinion's trust in the Israeli army," adding that the maneuvers failed with one brave and bold stand taken by Hizbullah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. Beirut, 28 May 10, 17:33

Mousawi: Elections Demonstrate Desire for Understanding between AMAL and Hizbullah
Naharnet/Hizbullah MP Nawaf Mousawi said on Friday that the municipal and mayoral elections in southern Lebanon demonstrated the commitment of its residents to the understanding between AMAL and Hizbullah. He added: "This shows their desire and demand that the understanding between the two sides remains."
He continued: "No one should be fooled by a visit from a foreign envoy, and it is this country's popular capabilities that allow it to defend itself."
The popular capabilities consist of the people, army, and Resistance, and therefore, it is only natural that a defense strategy for Lebanon be based on the cooperation between these three components, he stated. Addressing President Michel Suleiman's recent stand in which he highlighted the role of these three sides, Mousawi said: "Suleiman's position expresses the true national will of the noble Lebanese and not of one group of Lebanese as someone attempted to do." "Those who opposed the Resistance also opposed the President's stand and this is not new as they had always not believed in the Resistance against the Israeli enemy, but they have instead considered it an enemy," he added. Beirut, 28 May 10, 16:50

Jumblat in Damascus Discusses Need to Confront Intellectual Trend
Naharnet/Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblat said in his visit to Damascus on Thursday was "not the first nor the last." Jumblat expressed satisfaction with the atmosphere that accompanied his visit to Damascus, which was of both political and family nature. Jumblat arrived at 4:30pm Thursday on an unannounced visit as Col. Wissam al-Hasan, Head of the Intelligence Bureau of the Internal Security Forces, left the Syrian capital only 40-minute later, Al-Jadeed TV reported.Col. Hasan has close ties with Prime Minister Saad Hariri. Al-Jadeed added that Public Works and Transport Minister Ghazi Aridi was readying for a public visit to Syria next week.Jumblat said in remarks published Friday by the daily As-Safir that his visit comes in the "context of coordination, consultation and ongoing contact regarding the situation in Lebanon and in Iraq as well as the prospects for a settlement in the Arab-Israeli conflict, the risk of what is going on in the Arab world in terms of division and the need to face up to these political and intellectual trends by maximum degrees of awareness and commitment to the fundamental principles."The Druze leader said he met with Syrian President Bashra Assad's Associate Vice President Maj. Gen. Mohammed Nassif. He said he got in touch with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem and that the two men agreed to meet during Jumblat's next Damascus visit. Beirut, 28 May 10, 12:09

UNIFIL Meets Israeli Request Not to Give Lebanon Data on Warplanes Activity
Naharnet/UNIFIL has reportedly met an Israeli request not to provide Lebanon with data on the activity of its warplanes over Lebanese airspace. The Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Rai quoted Western diplomatic sources in New York as saying the agreement came during a meeting in April between Israeli Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi and UNIFIL force commander Maj. Gen. Alberto Asarta Cuevas. Beirut, 28 May 10, 11:07

Aoun Attacks Geagea for Criticizing Suleiman
Naharnet/In the latest reaction to President Michel Suleiman's latest statement on the Resistance, Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun hit back at Lebanese Forces chief Samir Geagea without naming him."These statements, indeed, expose Lebanon and give the enemy the right to do the work that is being done," Aoun said in remarks published by the daily As-Safir on Friday in reference to remarks by Geagea. "Lebanon is already exposed, and Hizbullah is trying to build a deterrent force to repel any attack on Lebanon," he explained.
Aoun said Hizbullah is aware that the group would suffer big losses in the event it initiated any attack on Israel.
Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea on Tuesday criticized President Michel Suleiman, saying his latest statement regarding the defense strategy is in contradiction with the inaugural speech. "President Michel Suleiman's position on the defense strategy issue represents the stance of one group of Lebanese and not everybody's view," Geagea said. He believed a consensus President "should not speak on behalf of a group of Lebanese and adopt its position." Suleiman should have expressed "the opinion of the vast majority of citizens," Geagea thought. Beirut, 28 May 10, 10:05

Jumblatt visits Syria to build ties in face of Israeli threats
By The Daily Star /Friday, May 28, 2010
BEIRUT: Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblatt paid a surprise visit to Syria on Thursday. The Central News Agency said the visit aimed “to promote the strong Lebanese-Syrian ties in light of recent Israeli threats.” Following the June 2009 parliamentary elections, Jumblatt announced his withdrawal from the March 14 alliance saying it was driven by necessity and adopted a centrist position in Lebanese politics moving closer to Syria’s allies in Lebanon. He visited Syria twice in April and Thursday was his third after his reconciliation with the neighbor country. Last week, Jumblatt told Iran’s Press TV that Israel’s insistence on an aggressive stance against Lebanon meant Hizbullah will continue to defend Lebanon. He said supporting the resistance movement in Lebanon was a deterrent against Israel. – The Daily Star

Ahmadi nejad's reckless words
Daily Star/Friday, May 28, 2010
Editorial
The famous 20th century tome by Dale Carnegie, “How to Make Friends and Influence People,” is being re-written by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who seems bent on mastering the art of how to make enemies. This week’s diplomatic and political spat between Tehran and Moscow was, naturally, initiated by Ahmadinejad, who offered public “advice” for a recent guest to his country, his Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev.
Ahmadinejad reminded Medvedev that he was dealing with a “great nation,” Iran, and advised him to do more thinking and employ more caution when formulating policy vis-à-vis the Islamic Republic.
Ahmadinejad earned a prompt and public rebuke from his Russian friends, who offered the Iranian president a crash course in his own nation’s 1,000-year-history, telling him that political demagoguery has never succeeded in the battle to preserve political authority and national status.
In case Ahmadinejad hasn’t noticed, the time for him to rock the boat with Moscow is inopportune.
What sticks in the mind are Russia’s qualitative steps in recent weeks and months, such as Medvedev’s visit to Damascus and talk of a military agreement with Syria, or his trip to Turkey and focus on economic cooperation with a key Middle East state. Russia itself recently promised to open the Bushehr reactor for business some time this summer – it appears to be the worst possible time to take aim at Moscow, which again raises the question of who Ahmadinejad is, and what he knows.
Constitutionally, Ahmadinejad enjoys wide powers as the Iranian president, but his actual influence is a matter of considerable debate. Is he a key locus of policy-making in the regime, and does he have information about a possible split between Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin? Does Ahmadinejad know something we don’t? Or, is he a freelancer with little actual impact on the way policy is formulated?
Ahmadinejad has contributed nothing but bad press and antipathy for his regime; his diatribes against Israel have been a study in poor public relations, while generating an exaggerated sense of the threat that Iran poses for Israel. He embraces non-state actors like Hamas and Hizbullah in a way that wins them few supporters as they battle against Israeli occupation.
Meanwhile, his tenure hasn’t strengthened the country in economic terms, a key point if it is to withstand a new round of international sanctions.
Ahmadinejad remains an enigma for many, cloaked in the mystery of how decision-making in Iran really takes place. The pressing question is whether Ahmadinejad can succeed in breaking his own country, a goal that the West has failed at over the last 30 years.

Did withdrawal show weakness?
More News
Fudging military service an inexcusable offense America finally refusing the lollipop of entitlement Did withdrawal show weakness? Superseeds lead to superweeds Now's the time to brag about Raytown schools Rand Paul's Civil Rights Act comments revisited What Others Are Saying | Jamaica's tarnished image; having lost, Missouri governor wants to disrupt National debt commission should dismiss the value-added tax Rand Paul plays the winning card What Others Are Saying | Water is the new oil France shows how not to intergrate immigrants Children’s view of black and white hasn’t changed much since the ’30s Fruits of weakness in today's foreign policy Making Wichita bicycle friendly Illegal booze makes headaches Moving to KC's Northeast area was a breath of fresh air Dairy co-ops help farmers to remain independent, efficient Real Marines don't lie about their time served What Others Are Saying | BP exec Hayward has priorities wrong; Bristol Palin's message wrong for teen moms Let’s cut the euphemisms and speak the truth On the 10th anniversary of Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon, the country held a huge civil defense drill simulating a missile attack.
But this expensive and lengthy drill was not held to commemorate the event, of whose success then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak is so proud. It was held in an effort to figure out how to reduce the anticipated damage from missile strikes on the home front — especially those likely to be launched by Hezbollah.
Israel indeed needed to end its stay in south Lebanon, but it should have done so in a way that would increase deterrence, not by a humiliating flight that invites continued attacks — which indeed came, and on a large scale. Ever since then, we have been viewed by Hezbollah (and others ) as “a spider web.”
Today, Hamas, like Hezbollah, is celebrating: Gaza is full of missiles that can reach Tel Aviv and Ben-Gurion airport. And Israel, instead of preventing their arrival — or destroying them — is holding a huge preparedness drill (“the biggest in the country’s history”) to get ready for them, too.
That is what flight looks like — and this is its reward.
Israel Harel, Haaretz
Posted on Thu, May. 27, 2010 10:15 PM

President Obama's Ayatollah Explains Islam to the Muslims
By Barry Rubin
Friday, May 28, 2010
The president’s advisor on terrorism, John Brennan, who I’ve dubbed the worst foreign policy official in the Obama Administration, has made a new statement that is very interesting and deserves serious debate, not just dismissal or endorsement.
You can see his basic line as it has developed, with full administration support, over the last year:
“Nor does President Obama see this challenge as a fight against jihadists. Describing terrorists in this way, using the legitimate term `jihad,' which means to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal, risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve. Worse, it risks reinforcing the idea that the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself. And this is why President Obama has confronted this perception directly and forcefully in its speeches to Muslim audiences, declaring that America is not and never will be at war with Islam.”
Brennan also said that the United States is not at war with “terror,” which is merely a tactic, but only with al-Qaida.
There are two issues here:
1. Should U.S. strategy be to make a theological judgment about the relationship of Jihad and Islam, deciding what is the "proper" Muslim stance?
2. Should U.S. strategy be to declare that there is a war only with al-Qaida and not with terrorism or anyone else?
Regarding the first point, for Ayatollah Brennan to define jihad as peaceful and for “a moral goal” is ludicrous. All Muslims know that, at a minimum, jihad also includes a violent struggle for conquest as its main component, even if they also believe there is an internal moral aspect to it or a non-violent jihad (a jihad to be a better person; a jihad against illiteracy). Brennan saying otherwise isn’t going to change any minds or win over any hearts.
In English there's a mocking saying about one trying to be "more Catholic than the Pope." Isn't Brennan trying to prove he is a better understander of Islam than Usama bin Ladin? Should we say speak of those-who-claim-to-be-Jihadists-but-aren't?
At any rate, the key point made by al-Qaida and other contemporary Jihadists is that they are waging a “defensive jihad” to save Muslims from a Western “Crusader-Zionist” attempt to destroy Islam. They define this as “a holy struggle for a moral goal.” At times, they are more open about the use of Jihad to gather all Muslims into a single state ruled by a caliph.
So it is reasonable to have a U.S. policy that doesn’t define the enemy as Jihad; it is mandatory to have a U.S. policy that doesn’t define the enemy as Islam (President George W. Bush set that theme on September 12, 2001) but it is ridiculous for the United States to compete with imams and ayatollahs in defining Islam. And this is especially true when the specific claims made about Islam are so obviously nonsensical.
And doesn't this whole approach seem to be the very act of aggression against Islam to many Muslims, a war on Islam, that Brennan and the Obama administration want to avoid? After all, if the U.S. government sets itself up as interpreter of Islam that really does seem like a threat to reshape Islam in an American image. Already, radicals, not all of them Jihadists, proclaim that there is a battle between “proper Islam” and “American Islam.” And that tactic is certainly used to enhance the "religious legitimacy" of the revolutionaries.
If U.S. policy wants to deal with this issue, it should suffice to cite a long list of Muslim theologians and leaders who disagree with al-Qaida and denounce it as proof that the group does not deserve the religious legitimacy it claims. The U.S. government should cite the casualty figures of Muslims murdered by the revolutionary Islamists, the cost in living standards, and overall suffering produced by them.
Regarding the point as to who is the enemy, an argument can certainly be made for narrowing the conflict in terms of definition. Having fewer enemies is preferable. Yet doesn't this pose of a U.S versus al-Qaida war send a signal to all attacked by anyone not part of al-Qaida that the United States is standing on the sidelines.
The United States isn't "at war" with Hamas, Hizballah, or revolutionary Islamists who attack Indonesia, India, Israel, the Philippines, Thailand, and other countries. But should it go out of its way publicly to define them as non-enemies, even when these groups have killed Americans? In fact, Brennan has repeatedly defined Hizballah, the group which has murdered--if one omits September 11--more Americans than al-Qaida to be not terrorist at all in large part.
And what about the Taliban in Afghanistan? Why are U.S. troops there if it isn’t an enemy? All that would be needed are small numbers of Special Forces’ soldiers seeking to kill al-Qaida leaders in hiding.
In discussing all these issues, U.S. policy should stick to national definitions. It was wrong of Obama to make a pitch to Muslims in the Cairo speech. After all, if the great conflict is between those seeking a national and those seeking a religious definition of their identity, why should the United States undermine this? Let it speak instead of Iraqis and Egyptians, Saudis and Pakistanis.
By the way, a further convenience here is that technically al-Qaida doesn’t have state sponsors. Yet Syria and Iran have been enablers of al-Qaida, most notably in Iraq, and Pakistan has done so in Afghanistan. Part of the administration’s effort here is to provide an excuse not to deal with these aspects of the problem.
It is better not to have a simplistic definition at all. The United States is at war with those who have attacked it. The United States is in conflict with those who are trying to destroy its allies—whether it be Israel or Saudi Arabia, Thailand or India--since, if that isn’t true, in what sense are those countries allies?
There is also a hint of a sleazy side-stepping plea: Don't attack me, attack those Lebanese and Israelis, Thai Buddhists and Filipino or Nigerian or Sudanese Christians! It is a tactic reminiscent of those "anti-terrorist" Muslim clerics whose opposition to murder is restricted to proclaiming that those who kill fellow Muslims are not proper jihadists, where as those who kill non-Muslims are A-OK.
What Brennan does have in mind, and says so elsewhere, is something prevalent in administration thinking: drawing a line between good and bad guys, moderates and radicals, in which those who seek to overthrow allied countries or destroy U.S. interests are redefined as good guy moderates. Like those nice clean-cut Muslim Brotherhood revolutionaries who, for tactical reasons, believe the revolution requires mass organizing today, leaving armed struggle for some future stage.
You don’t have to be at war with Iran and Syria, Hamas and Hizballah, the Turkish regime and various others to recognize that they are in fact enemies of the United States. You don't have to see groups like the Muslim Brotherhood blow up things to know that they, too, are enemies of the United States.
And no verbal gymnastics will change that fact; they will only weaken the U.S. ability to deal with the struggle at hand.
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2010/05/president-obamas-ayatollah-explains.html#comment-form

A decade later
May 27, 2010
Now Lebanon
Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’s greatest achievement as a leader was the withdrawal of Israeli forces from South Lebanon a decade ago this week. Simply put, Israel’s 18-year occupation of Lebanon south of the Litani River came to an end because Hezbollah’s tactics worked. Throughout the 1990s, the only militia to keep its weapons at the close of the civil war used those weapons to great affect against an entrenched enemy army. Hezbollah’s fighters succeeded in inflicting more pain on Israel’s conscripted soldiers than public opinion in the Jewish State was willing to bear.
For that success, the vast majority of Lebanese, those at this website included, are grateful.
But had Hezbollah handed over its arms to the state in the wake of the Israeli withdrawal, or, more realistically, in the wake of Syria’s withdrawal from Lebanese territory five years later, the Party of God would likely still be the most influential force in the country. To have expelled the enemy and then voluntary given up the weapons it used to secure that victory, most plausibly by integrating them into the Lebanese Armed Forces, would have given the party a nearly incontestable political stature and, if not put to rest, at least pushed to the margins even the most strident Christian and Sunni fears of a creeping Iranian-Islamist agenda.
That, of course, is not what happened. And while Hezbollah today is certainly the most powerful party in Lebanon, it wields that power by force of arms, not force of argument.
Moreover Hezbollah’s actions over the last decade have given credence to the Lebanese’s worst fears about the party.
Nasrallah, respected by even his most bitter foes in Israel for his cunning, has shown himself capable of devastating miscalculations and terrifying recklessness.
Even if the Israeli response to Hezbollah attacks in the preceding six years had been subdued, was it really so inconceivable that a politically weak Israeli government would choose to respond to a Hezbollah attack with a viciously disproportionate assault on all of Lebanon, as it did in July 2006? Certainly, the odds were more than the 1 percent that Nasrallah asserted in his post-war mea culpa.
Lebanon paid a terrible price for the war Hezbollah unleashed in the summer of 2006, yet, Nasrallah’s half-apology aside, the party, by no stretch of the imagination, emerged from the conflict chastened.
But Lebanese civilians so battered by Israel’s weapons during the July War would, less than two years later, find themselves the targets of Hezbollah’s weapons as well during the 2008 May events.
In the years following the end of the civil war and the Israeli withdrawal, Hezbollah’s politicians defended their party’s retention of arms with a promise that they would be directed only toward external threats, and would never be turned on fellow Lebanese. But faced with an investigation into its private security and telecommunications systems by a democratically-elected government, it did just that.
The May events and the July War before it were both tragic points in Lebanon’s recent history and are reason enough to oppose Hezbollah, but they are not, in final calculation, the party’s most damaging offense.
For that distinction one must look to the Lebanese state, the current weakness of which, Hezbollah, with Syrian and Iranian backing, is primarily responsible for.
Nasrallah now claims that his military forces will keep their weapons until state institutions are sufficiently strengthened, when in fact it is those very weapons that keep the state perpetually weakened.
Indeed, Lebanon’s governmental institutions, which grow ever more ineffectual by the day, are living proof of how irreconcilable a contradiction it is to have an armed religious militia entrenched in an otherwise vibrant and pluralistic society. The “consensus” national unity cabinet that Hezbollah imposed on the government of Lebanon after Doha in 2008, and which it has managed to maintain despite having failed to win control of parliament in 2009, is at once deeply undemocratic and desperately ineffective.
But if a government that cannot govern is bad, one that is not even sovereign is worse. That is the reality in Lebanon on the 10th anniversary of Israel’s withdrawal. The state has no monopoly on violence. The Lebanese Armed Forces are almost completely emasculated, and having been subjugated by a religious militia, they are reduced to concerning themselves with domestic policing.
There isn’t even a pretence that decisions of war and peace are made by anyone in Lebanon, not even by Nasrallah – the people with those powers live in Tel Aviv and Tehran.
Meanwhile, one former occupier threatens all of Lebanon with mass destruction, while the other, rapacious and resurgent, goes about the business of reoccupation.
In both cases, Lebanon has Hezbollah to thank.

Sleiman Franjieh
May 28, 2010
On May 27, the website of the Free Patriotic Movement, Tayyar.org, carried the following report: “In an interview on the Al-Haqq Yukal [Truth Be Told] on OTV, head of the Marada Movement Sleiman Franjieh addressed the municipal and mayoral election in Zgharta Zawyi and in the North, the overall political situation in Lebanon especially on the anniversary of the liberation and the international tribunal.
He began by saying: “The series of slogans they are using in the battles, defining the battles first and then raising slogans. This is something they have become accustomed to. Today, they are being selective in the way they are depicting the battle, saying it is over the municipalities union [of the Zgharta district], whereas in Zahle, they said it was over the city. Now in Zgharta, they want the battle to be limited to certain small villages, with all due respect to those villages, knowing that they are being marginalized in their own town…”
Regarding the failure of consensus, he said: “Had I not been serious, I would not have met with Michel Mouawad. If there was no intention to reach concord, why would we sit with him? He is the son of President Rene Mouawad and is part of the fabric. Therefore, we wanted consensus in elections which are developmental and not political and engaged in the dialogue which lasted five hours and was positive… We reached a quasi agreement and the name of Habib Torbey was proposed. We said he was a good man, provided that the sensitivities which used to prevail between the city of Zgharta and the Zgharta district are not raised again… We then agreed that the meeting should be kept secret but I was surprised to learn that Habib Torbey was informed about the agreement from Mr. Mouawad. Later on, he met with Minister Youssef Saade after he had visited Samir Geagea and Boutros Harb and told him he was in a difficult spot. But in the next meeting, I asked him why an announcement was made about Zgharta from Samir Geagea’s [home] or that of any other.”
After he addressed the content of the talks, Franjieh said: “Following the discussions, we drafted a hand-written agreement and made two copies of it… However, a couple of days later, we received a copy of a statement drafted in a way that went against our agreement and priorities. It is insulting to citizens to tell them we have agreed on a union chairman and we will inform you about the name soon. Is this democracy? If there is any doubt surrounding my statements, let it be known that my history is written on my forehead. As for [Mouawad], he adopted a statement to convince his allies. All this talk aims to generate tensions in Zgharta as he was taught by his master Samir Geagea...
“I swear on the Bible that what Michel Mouawad said during the meetings was the complete opposite of what he said in the media and I will not address his statements in those meetings. Next time, I will be the one to put a tape recorder because we were talking about issues related to Zgharta and these issues do not concern March 8 or March 14…”
In regard to Koura and Batroun, he stated: “We have always enjoyed an influence [in Batroun] through our friends and despite the fact that the Marada is present there, we never nominated a Marada candidate. Usually, Batroun chooses and we respect its choices. The same goes for Koura…”
Regarding the campaign launched by Samir Geagea and the March 14 forces against President Sleiman, he said: “When General Aoun formed a list in Jbeil, all hell broke loose because he formed a list against the president. Today, these same people are attacking the president. The president is entitled to adopt the position he sees fit. We have all agreed on him but he has the right to have his own stand. Around six months ago, Saad al-Hariri called for the support of the resistance. Why was there no campaign against him? Why did they not dare respond to Walid Jumblatt? All they said at the time was ‘how sweet it is to be hit by a loved one!’ They are demonstrating their strength when dealing with the president of the republic because they have nothing to gain for him, unlike the case with the prime minister. The president adopted an honorable position for his country…”
On the other hand, Franjieh denied any intention to distance himself from the General [Aoun] saying: “Doing that would not serve our interests. There is always someone playing that tune. The personal relationship between us is one of friendship and no one can undermine it or change it. Today, we added the political agreement, although each movement continues to enjoy its individuality. My personal relationship with President Al-Assad is stronger than that of General Aoun, but if we were to assess relations with the Syrian state, that of General Aoun is stronger because Syria operates as a state…” In this context, he denied what was said in the media regarding the possible formation of a front in parallel to the Change and Reform Bloc, saying that such talk harmed the President of the Republic.
“This was carried by the Akhbar al-Yawm agency. My relationship with President Sleiman is excellent and I do not need a weekly visit. Everything that is external can be arranged. Regardless of the size of the foreign threats, they remain less dangerous than the smallest strife on the domestic arena. Every time Israel is in a difficult spot internally, it heads toward war… What is important is to enhance our domestic front and what was said by Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah aimed to create a balance of terror to protect us. Following the truce agreement, how many times did [Israel] strike, invade, kidnap or occupy? The July war changed the equation and what is seen today is a balance of terror…”
Regarding the international tribunal and the decision it may issue, he said: “All the international tribunals that were formed, whether for Yugoslavia and before that for Sudan in Darfur and Libya, aimed to separate the two sides. This is the first time that a tribunal is formed in a country where the people are living together. Why is Hezbollah being accused today? Is it because all the negotiations have failed? Why has the Kuwaiti As-Seyassah resumed its reports and why have we seen the return of Zuhair al-Siddiq as a key witness? Why not ask the people whether or not they think that the tribunal is politicized? Moreover, won’t any decision lead to strife?... As for talk of elements from Hezbollah, i.e. not the party, it is nonsense. Yesterday, they accused four officers and after four years of injustice, they were released. What kind of court is that?...”