LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِMay 30/2010

Bible Of the Day
Psalm 140/1-5: "140:1 Deliver me, Yahweh, from the evil man. Preserve me from the violent man; 140:2 those who devise mischief in their hearts. They continually gather themselves together for war. 140:3 They have sharpened their tongues like a serpent. Viper’s poison is under their lips. 140:4 Yahweh, keep me from the hands of the wicked. Preserve me from the violent men who have determined to trip my feet. 140:5 The proud have hidden a snare for me, they have spread the cords of a net by the path. They have set traps for me

Free Opinions, Releases, letters, Interviews & Special Reports
Ignoring al Qaeda’s ideology is a threat to US national security/By Dr. Walid Phares/May 29/10
'Concrete evidence' Syria arming Hizbullah/By Patrick Galey/Daily Star/May 29/10
From Beirut to Tehran/By:  Hassan Haidar/Al-Arabiya/May 29/10
WH Counterterror advisor: Jihad a 'legitimate tenet' of Islam/By: Rick Moran/American Thinker/May 29/10
Hezbollah's Pal Fails To Enter Israel/By: by Steven Plaut/FrontPage Magazine/May 29/10

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for May 29/10
Child's body brought from Israel to Marjayoun/The Daily Star
Israel Denounces 'Hypocrisy' of NPT Accord/Naharnet
U.S. Appears to Backtrack on Nuke-Free Conference over Israeli Stumbling Block/Naharnet
Zahra: Franjieh’s remarks are shameful, provocative/Now Lebanon
Franjieh Dubs Geagea a Criminal, Urges State to Protect Everyone/Naharnet
Baroud to hold special meeting after double murder /Now Lebanon
Strida Geagea on Franjieh press conference: Strange/Now Lebanon
Election-eve violence leaves two dead in Koura/Daily Star
Report: U.S. Deports 2 Lebanese, Including Man Linked to Aoun/Naharnet
Suleiman Urges Security Forces to Arrest Dahr al-Ain Murder Culprits/Naharnet
Murder of Marada Supporters Raises Fears of Repercussions, LF Says No Cover-up for Killer/Naharnet
Ambiguity in National Dialogue Postponement, No Official Date Set Yet/Naharnet
Stinging Think Tank Report: Iran Could Slip Nukes To Hamas, Hezbollah/Philadelphia Bulletin
Syria seeks room to manoeuvre in harsh region/Reuters
Call for UNIFIL to remove militants/UPI.com
Dahiyeh Locals Block Airport Road with Burning Tires to Protest Power Cuts/Naharnet
Shami Accompanied Hariri to U.S., Limiting Lebanese Representation at Rio Forum/Naharnet
EDL: More Electricity for Polling Stations, Power Cuts in Dahiyeh Due to Repair Work/Naharnet
National Dialogue falters amid debate on defense/Daily Star

Child's body brought from Israel to Marjayoun
By The Daily Star /Saturday, May 29, 2010
BEIRUT: The body of a Palestinian child was transported across the southern borders and into Marjayoun on Friday with the help of the Lebanese Red Cross. The International Committee of the Red Cross transported the body of 3 year-old Carine George Nohra across the border with Israel and handed over the corpse to the Lebanese Red Cross, which then delivered Nohra’s body to her family in Marjayoun. – The Daily Star

Report: U.S. Deports 2 Lebanese, Including Man Linked to Aoun
/Naharnet/The U.S. has deported two Lebanese men, one of them linked to Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun, "an ally of Hizbullah," an official with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement said. The other man was wanted by Lebanese law enforcement on a murder conviction related to a house bombing, he said. In all, 31 people, including four men of "national security interest," were deported from the U.S. Twenty three deportees went to Iraq, six to Lebanon and two to the island nation of Cape Verde off Africa's West Coast. They were flown by charter flight last week, the official said.(AP-Naharnet) Beirut, 29 May 10, 10:07

Israel Denounces 'Hypocrisy' of NPT Accord
Naharnet/Israel denounced on Saturday what it called the hypocrisy of a U.N. nuclear non-proliferation deal on the Middle East that singled out the Jewish state.
"This accord has the hallmark of hypocrisy. Only Israel is mentioned, while the text is silent about other countries like India, Pakistan and North Korea, which have nuclear arms, or even more seriously, Iran, which is seeking to obtain them," a senior government official told Agence France Presse. "The fact that no reference is made to Iran is even more shocking, given that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has disclosed more and more information in recent months on the military character of Iranian nuclear projects," the official added.
On Friday, the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty's 189 signatory nations proposed new steps towards nuclear disarmament and making the Middle East free of atomic weapons.
Diplomats approved by consensus a 28-page final document that laid out for the first time action plans on the three pillars of the treaty -- disarmament, non-proliferation and promoting peaceful atomic energy. The most controversial item was a fourth action plan, on working towards a Middle East free of nuclear weapons, a move that would in the end require a profound strategic re-orientation in the highly volatile region. The NPT called on Israel to join the treaty, which would oblige the Jewish state to do away with the nuclear weapons it is widely believed to have, but which it does not acknowledge. U.S. President Barack Obama welcomed the statement as strengthening "the global non-proliferation regime," but said he "strongly" opposed singling out Israel. Iranian Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh, whom many feared would veto the consensus text, said that despite its ¨limited¨ nature, the final statement was ¨a step forward... towards our common goal of nuclear disarmament.(AFP) Beirut, 29 May 10, 12:49

U.S. Appears to Backtrack on Nuke-Free Conference over Israeli Stumbling Block
Naharnet/After 15 years, Arab nations finally won agreement from the United States and the other nuclear powers to take the first step toward banning nuclear weapons from the Middle East. Now, the next move is Israel's.
Although the U.S. joined the 188 other member nations of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty on Friday in giving a green light to a conference in 2012 "on the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction," senior U.S. officials appeared to backtrack afterward, setting several conditions for the talks to go ahead.
Taking the toughest line, U.S. National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones said in a statement Friday night that the United States has "serious reservations" about the 2012 conference and believes Mideast peace and full compliance by all countries in the region to their arms control and nonproliferation obligations "are essential precursors." The compliance demand appeared to be aimed at Iran, which the U.S. believes is pursuing a nuclear weapons program despite Tehran's claims its only goal is nuclear power.
Jones also strongly defended longtime U.S. ally Israel, which was singled out for not being a member of the NPT. He said the United States "deplores" the naming of Israel which puts prospects for the 2012 conference "in doubt." As a cosponsor of the conference, Jones said the United States will ensure that it will only takes place "if and when all countries feel confident that they can attend."
The Arab proposal for a WMD-free zone — to pressure Israel to give up its undeclared arsenal of perhaps 80 nuclear warheads — was endorsed by the 1995 NPT conference but never acted on. At this month's NPT review, a conference to begin talks on a nuclear-free Mideast was considered by many delegates as "the make-or-break issue," and agreement on the 2012 meeting was widely welcomed after the 28-page final declaration was approved by consensus.
But the U.S. reaction raised questions and doubts about whether Israel, Iran and other countries in the Mideast will even hold a meeting in two years.
Several delegates suggested that earlier comments by U.S. Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher and President Barack Obama's coordinator for weapons of mass destruction, Gary Samore, warning about the difficulties of holding a conference and persuading Israel to attend may have been sparked by the upcoming visit of Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House on Tuesday.
Egypt's U.N. Ambassador Maged Abdelaziz, speaking for the 118-nation Nonaligned Movement of mainly developing countries, said that during the negotiations there was "a little bit of disagreement" on mentioning Israel.
But he said NAM members thought that since the document issued at the end of the 2000 NPT review conference mentioned the need for Israel to join the treaty and subject its nuclear capabilities to International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards there was "no going back on that commitment" and Israel had to be mentioned in the 2010 document as well.
A Mideast conference on nuclear issues would put Israel and Iran, which has called for the destruction of the Jewish state, at the same table. But Abdelaziz told reporters the two countries already sat down at the same table at a meeting in Cairo last December.
"So there is nothing that could prevent any two adversaries to sit at the table and negotiate, and we hope that this is the spirit that everybody is going to be doing," he said.
Iran had loomed as a potential spoiler that would block consensus at this conference, and Iran and Syria dissented loudly on various points in the final hours, but no objections were raised in the concluding session. Facing possible new U.N. sanctions because of its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment and enter negotiations on its nuclear program, the Iranians had sought to turn the spotlight instead on the big nuclear powers, demanding the final document call for speedier disarmament moves. Iran's chief delegate Ali Asghar Soltanieh lamented that the deadline of 2025 sought by NAM for complete disarmament was not included in the final document. Nonetheless, Soltanieh called "the limited measures" in the agreement "a step forward."
While Israel was named, the final document did not single Iran out as a member nation that has been found to be in noncompliance with U.N. nuclear safeguards agreements.
Jones, the U.S. National Security Adviser, said the failure of the resolution to mention Iran, "which poses the greatest threat of nuclear proliferation in the region and to the integrity of the NPT, is also deplorable." Earlier, Tauscher had also criticized Iran for doing "nothing to enhance the international community's confidence in it by its performance in this review conference."
Iran's Soltanieh said the Americans should "think twice" before making such statements. "This was not the right reaction to a positive response, positive measure by our delegation joining the consensus," he said.
According to the final document, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the co-sponsors of the 1995 Mideast resolution — the U.S., Russia and Britain — will now appoint a "facilitator" to conduct consultations in preparation for the 2012 conference.
Jones said the United States "will insist that the conference operate only by consensus by the regional countries" and that any further discussions or actions also be decided on this basis.
Britain's chief negotiator, Ambassador John Duncan, said Friday's decision is the start of a process and dialogue on a WMD-free zone in the Mideast.
"So it would be surprising if Israel was able to agree today to come to the proposed conference before that dialogue has taken place," he said. "But the clear goal of this decision is to have all the countries of the region involved." Under the 1970 nonproliferation treaty, nations without nuclear weapons committed not to acquire them; those with them committed to move toward their elimination; and all endorsed everyone's right to develop peaceful nuclear energy. The last NPT conference, in 2005, failed to adopt a consensus declaration. In sharp contrast, a final declaration was not only adopted this year but for the first time it laid out complex action plans for all three of the treaty's "pillars" — nonproliferation, disarmament and peaceful nuclear energy. Under its action plan, the five recognized nuclear-weapon states — the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China — commit to speed up arms reductions, take other steps to diminish the importance of atomic weapons, and report back on progress by 2014. The plan also has 24 steps to promote nonproliferation including making the treaty universal to include Israel, Pakistan India and North Korea, to encourage tighter inspections and controls on nuclear trade to prevent development of secret weapons programs.(AP) Beirut, 29 May 10, 09:47

Franjieh Dubs Geagea a Criminal, Urges State to Protect Everyone
Naharnet/Marada movement leader Suleiman Franjieh on Saturday accused Lebanese Forces chief Samir Geagea of being a "criminal" and said the state should be responsible for everyone's security because it was not his job to stop clashes between rivals. "The most important part of the Dahr al-Ain incident is that only one party was armed," Franjieh said during a press conference in Bnashii. "The judiciary will decide who is responsible." The MP was commenting on the murder of two brothers from Marada in Dahr al-Ain in the northern Koura province which raised fears among locals that the incident would have security repercussions given that their killer was an LF member. Franjieh accused Geagea of being a "criminal" with a project to ignite "strife." "I would like to remind every person who supports this person starting with (Premier Saad) Hariri all the way to all statesmen that they are backing a criminal with no political project," Franjieh said. Franjieh also denied that LF supporter Hanna al-Barsaoui killed the 2 brothers, Tony and Nayef Saleh, in self-defense. "No one can compensate the family on their loss," he told reporters. His comment came after his rivals said the murder was an act of self-defense. He vowed that the municipal elections in the north on Sunday won't be cancelled as a result of the tension. LF leader Strida Geagea snapped back by saying "the spirit we saw today is not new." "We won't call for the cancellation of the elections. I urge everyone to head to the polls with calm," she told LBC TV network. Beirut, 29 May 10, 12:13

Murder of Marada Supporters Raises Fears of Repercussions, LF Says No Cover-up for Killer
Naharnet/The murder of two brothers from the Marada movement in the northern Koura province raised fears among locals that the incident would have security repercussions given that their killer was a Lebanese Forces member. A security source told An Nahar newspaper in remarks published Saturday that the incident in the town of Dahr al-Ain the day before "was not linked to the municipal elections" that are scheduled to take place in northern Lebanon on Sunday. The murder "resulted from a previous personal dispute between the two sides," the source said. However, he didn't rule out electoral repercussions given that the two brothers and their killer belonged to rival political parties and that such an incident was the third in the region in less than two years. Marada issued a statement late Friday saying LF official Hanna al-Barsaoui killed brothers Tony and Nayef Saleh, two days after a quarrel between them.
The three men hail from Bazoun village in Besharri. During the dispute, one of the brothers was beaten and hospitalized and al-Barsaoui's children were arrested by security forces, Marada said. It added that following the movement's mediation, Saleh withdrew his complaint and the suspects were released. However, Hanna al-Barsaoui took revenge by killing the two young men. In their turn, LF MPs Strida Geagea and Elie Kayrouz issued a statement condemning "the painful incident." However, they had a different version of the story.
They said the two brothers entered al-Barsaoui's butchery in Dahr al-Ain and after a quarrel, the man opened fire in self defense. The statement added that Geagea called Army chief Gen. Jean Qahwaji and asked the army to interfere as "Bazoun residents continue efforts to hand over the attacker to involved authorities." "The LF does not give cover to any person linked to the incident," the statement stressed. On Saturday, The LF condemned the murder and urged "security forces to take necessary measures to impose security and prevent the recurrence of such incidents." Marada leader Suleiman Franjieh said he will hold a press conference at noon Saturday to discuss details of the incident. Beirut, 29 May 10, 07:59

Suleiman Urges Security Forces to Arrest Dahr al-Ain Murder Culprits
Naharnet/President Michel Suleiman on Saturday instructed security forces to arrest the culprits in the Dahr al-Ain twin murders and take necessary measures to hold peaceful municipal elections in the north. Suleiman also urged police and the army "to prevent any dispute and crush it in order to preserve the safety of citizens and the security of the electoral process."On Saturday, Suleiman held separate talks with Telecommunications Minister Charbel Nahas and a delegation from the Loyalty to the Resistance bloc in parliament. Beirut, 29 May 10, 14:16

Ambiguity in National Dialogue Postponement, No Official Date Set Yet
Naharnet/Baabda palace is yet to confirm the postponement of the national dialogue to June 17 as sources close to the presidency told An Nahar daily that a statement will be issued to set a new date for the all-party talks. The dialogue was scheduled to be held on June 3. The newspaper said that it was postponed due to a European tour that Speaker Nabih Berri was planning to make starting Saturday. However, the speaker postponed his trip as well. On Saturday, it was not yet clear if the official date for the new dialogue session was on June 17 although Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea has said Baabda informed him about the postponement three weeks ago and announced that he won't be able to attend the talks at that date because of previous engagements. Beirut, 29 May 10, 09:31

Shami Accompanied Hariri to U.S., Limiting Lebanese Representation at Rio Forum
Naharnet/Lebanon's low-level representation at a U.N. forum on civilizations raised questions over why Foreign Minister Ali al-Shami refused to attend the event in the city of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil. When An Nahar newspaper asked al-Shami about information that he had cancelled his visit to Rio without obvious reasons, the FM said: "The cabinet decided that I consult with the president and the prime minister to agree on the delegation. My stance is that the foreign minister, who received the invitation to attend the forum, is the one who forms the delegation."
Lebanon's consul in Rio, Ali Daher, is representing the country at the third Alliance of Civilizations forum May 27-29. Asked if he discussed the issue with PM Saad Hariri during their flight back to Lebanon from the U.S., al-Shami told An Nahar he informed the premier that Daher would represent Lebanon. Beirut, 29 May 10, 08:34

EDL: More Electricity for Polling Stations, Power Cuts in Dahiyeh Due to Repair Work
Naharnet/Electricite du Liban announced that on Sunday it would cut power from several northern regions to provide electricity to areas where polling stations are located. Other governorates could also witness additional power rationing depending on the production capabilities of EDL, the firm said in a statement on Saturday.In a separate statement, it said Beirut's southern suburbs are witnessing more power rationing due to repair work on one of the transformers by a western expert. On Friday, scores of angry residents blocked with burning tires a road leading to Beirut's Rafik Hariri International Airport for around two hours to protest power cuts. Beirut, 29 May 10, 14:46

Ignoring al Qaeda’s ideology is a threat to US national security
By Dr. Walid Phares
Friday, May 28, 2010
In preparation for the publicizing for the new National Security Strategy by the Obama Administration, Mr John Brennan, White House Advisor on Counter Terrorism said the President’s strategy “is absolutely clear about the threat we face.”
From such an announcement one would project that the new narrative would be as precise as it should be. That is to define the ideology and the goals of the forces we’re facing, namely the Jihadists, either Salafists or Khomeinists. Unfortunately, it was just the opposite. M. Brennan said the Obama Administration doesn’t “describe our enemy as ‘Jihadists’ or Islamists,” because (as he argued) Jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenant of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community.”
He added that “the use of these religious terms would “play into the false perception” that al-Qaeda and its affiliates are “religious leaders and defending a holy cause, when in fact, they are nothing more than murderers.” In reality, abandoning the use of terms such as “Jihadists” or even “Islamists” in defining the threat is a strategic set back in the war of ideas fought against al Qaeda, the Taliban, Shabab al Jihad, Hezbollah, the Pasdaran and all other adherents to Global Jihadism. It is the equivalent in a classical war, of banning the use of radars, AWACs and broadcast. In short, this is a shortcut to utter self defeat.
The premise of the new national security doctrine regarding the identification of the threat and the appropriate names to use is flawed in its root. Linguistically Jihad doesn’t translate into “Holy Struggle,” for the latter in Arabic is “al Nidal al muqaddass.” In its substance Jihad doesn’t mean a purification of oneself in abstract, like Yoga. Theologically it is a call for efforts on behalf of Allah (Jihad fi sabeel Allah) which could take different forms, some of which could be in the battlefield.
It is originally a theological notion that US Government officials have no business in defining or redefining as M. Brennan and the national security doctrine of President Obama are attempting to. The United States secular Government shouldn’t enter the fray of stating that Jihad is legitimate or illegitimate from a theological standpoint. Instead they should identify if a particular ideology self described as “Jihadist” is or isn’t a source of threat and radicalization.
الجهاد Jihad is a Theological Notion الجهادية Jihadism is an ideology
However, and that’s the Administration’s second intellectual mistake, “Jihadism” is not the same thing as Jihad: the first is an ideological notion while the latter is originally a theological notion. The Administration’s experts have tried to link Jihadism, and thus the “Jihadists” to the controversially debated concept of Jihad. This is academically flawed: For Jihadism is a movement in contemporary times and their ideology has been established for almost a century. There are geopolitical in nature and involved in conflicts, wars and radicalization. More importantly they’ve declared a war against the US and have waged it for decades. Whatever is the debate about Jihad as a notion, the Jihadists exist in reality and they are the foes of democracies.
An AP story posted on April 7 reported that President Obama’s advisers will remove religious terms such as “Islamic extremism” from the central document outlining the U.S. national security strategy and will use the rewritten document to emphasize that the United States does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terror. It added that “the change is a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventative war and currently states: “The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.” This means that the Obama Administration is saying there is no such thing as “Militant Islamic Radicalism” thus the US narrative should not talk about ideology as a threat to national security. But banning all terms that identifies the threat other than describing it as “extremist” or “violent” not only is scholarly wrong but would in turn constitute a threat to America’s national security. Extremism and Violence are abstract terms used to describe an ideologies, movements and organizations. But “description” is not “identification.” One can say the Nazis or the Bolsheviks are extremists but one must identify the threat before describing it.
For while it is positive to refine and improve the quality of US rhetoric, and thus select the best words to identify the enemy’s identity and doctrines, cleansing the official narrative from all words allegedly “Islam-related” would simultaneously eliminate the very words and terms that determine and specifies the particular network and world vision which are at war with the entire international community including the United States but also the moderate Arabs and Muslims. Arguing that abandoning terms such as “Muslim Terrorists” may be helpful in narrowing the identification process to the very movement and ideologies involved in the threat. Rejecting generalizations against communities is the right thing to do, but eliminating the naming of the actual enemy would be a disaster on many levels. Indeed, the Administration’s experts have accordingly advised for deleting terms such as Jihadists, Jihadism, Salafism, Khomeinism, Takfirism and even Islamists. But these are the vital identification codes for the entire web engaged in war, indoctrination, incitement and Terrorism first against Muslim societies and also against Western and American democracies. These are ideological and political identifications of the threat without which US national security would be as blind as if during WWII word such as Nazism and fascism or during the Cold war, words such as Soviets and Communists, would have been dropped from the rhetoric. The terms Jihadists and Islamists are not descriptive of Islam or Muslims but of the forces which claim to do so. If we drop these very words we would be doing exactly what the Jihadists want us to do: linking them to the entire community instead of separating them from the majority of Muslims. If we accept the premise advanced by some advisors that Jihadism is Islam and mentioning it negatively would offend the Muslim world, al Qaeda wins.
The AP says these revisions “are part of a larger effort about which the White House talks openly, one that seeks to change (…) how the United States talks to Muslim nations.” This is a worse argument as the public debate and narrative in the Muslim majority countries precisely uses this terminology 24/7. How is it arguable that terms such as al Jihadiyya, al Salafiyya, al Islamiyun, al Khomeiniyun, al Takfiriyun are used in on Arab airwaves, in print and in the blogosphere to depict the radicals, extremists and Terrorists from Morocco to Pakistan, and White House advisors claim such words would offend if used in that sense in English? There is something very odd here. If these terms define the enemy within the Arab and Muslim world, who are we trying to confuse here? The only possible answer is that these words would be banned, so that the American public doesn’t use them not that the Muslim world is offended. This looks like a war of ideas to disable American citizens’ understanding by making them believe that the very words that Arabs and Muslims use to isolate the Terrorists also offend them.
*Dr. Walid Phares, Walidphares.com, is the author of the “War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracy” and a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Dr. Phares can be reached at: Phares@walidphares.com

Call for UNIFIL to remove militants
Published: May 28, 2010 at 4:12 PM
JERUSALEM, May 28 (UPI) -- An Israeli army spokesman called on the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon to remove militants in South Lebanon under its U.N. Security Council mandate.
Following Israel's war with Hezbollah in the summer of 2006, UNIFIL's mandate was enhanced under Security Council Resolution 1701. The resolution calls on UNIFIL authorities to monitor South Lebanon for the cessation of hostilities, extend humanitarian assistance and assist the Lebanese armed forces in establishing a military free zone between the Blue Line and the Litani River among other requirements. Avichai Adrai, an Israeli army spokesman, Friday was reported in the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Rai that the resolution calls on UNIFIL to "chase terrorist elements" in South Lebanon, the news site Now Lebanon reported. Adrai said the ongoing implementation of UNIFIL's mandate supports peace along the Lebanese-Israeli border and that the Israeli army's relations with UNIFIL are good.

Concrete evidence' Syria arming Hizbullah
By Patrick Galey
Daily Star staff
Saturday, May 29, 2010
BEIRUT: The row over Hizbullah’s weapons reignited on Friday, as reports suggested concrete evidence of the group receiving illegal arms from Syria had surfaced.
The Times in London, quoting an unnamed security source, said that it had been shown satellite images of a compound northeast of Damascus, where Hizbullah members “have their own living quarters, an arms storage site and a fleet of lorries reportedly used to ferry weapons into Lebanon.”
The paper claimed that weapons were held at the depot then trucked over the border to storage facilities in the Bekaa Valley or south Lebanon.
“Hizbullah is allowed to operate this site freely,” The Times quoted the source as saying. “They often move the arms in bad weather when Israeli satellites are unable to track them.”
The allegations came as Syrian President Bashar Assad moved to distance his country from Israeli claims it was providing Hizbullah with long-range Scud missiles.
In an interview Thursday night with a US news agency, Assad called on the White House to back up Israeli charges.
“[Washington] is monitoring the Lebanese-Syrian borders around the clock, but [it] did not find any long-range missile, Scud or others,” he said. “These are Israeli allegations.”
Syria has repeatedly denied comments made by Israeli President Shimon Peres last month, in which he alleged Hizbullah had received Scuds. The accusations have been corroborated by several US defense officials.
During a visit to the United Nations and Washington as part of Lebanon’s headship of the Security Council for May, Prime Minister Saad Hariri asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon to provide proof of weapons transfers.
He vowed to take action if the movement of arms was deemed irrefutable, as it would violate UN Security Council resolutions 1559 and 1701, which stipulate that weapons outside of state control are prohibited entering Lebanon.
Hizbullah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has continued his party’s policy of not commenting on its weapons stockpile, which some estimates put at 40,000 rockets.
Assad stressed that Hizbullah’s arsenal “can be dealt with by [aiming to reach] peace, rather than wasting time talking about the type and number of missiles.”
The Times quoted a spokesperson for the Syrian Embassy in London, who said any weapons currently extant near Damascus “would be for the exclusive use of the Syrian Army to defend Syrian soil, and is definitely nobody’s business.” Several officials in Lebanon, including Lebanese Army Commander Jean Kahwaji, UNIFIL Force Commander Alberto Asarta Cuevas and the head of the European Union Delegation, Patrick Laurent, have gone on record saying that there is no evidence of Scuds in the country. UNIFIL spokesperson Neeraj Singh, in an interview with pan-Arab daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat that was published on Friday, repeated his organization’s stance that none of the missiles have been found south of the Litani River. “UNIFIL has not seen any Scud missiles in its area of operations,” he told the paper. The Times wrote that Hizbullah had acquired SCUD and M-600 missiles and reported on the increasingly likelihood of an Israeli strike against an arms depot or weapons convoy, in order to send a “calibrated signal” to Lebanon and Syria.
It added that two Scud missiles are possibly already stored in the northern Bekaa. Retired Lebanese Army General Elias Hanna told The Daily Star Friday that while the paper’s report didn’t offer conclusive proof the transfer of Scuds had taken place, it demonstrates the potential for the missiles to be launched from Lebanon.
“[The reported Syrian base] does not violate 1701 or international law, but it does send a message to Israel that Syria and Hizbullah are ready,” he said.
While it was unlikely that Scuds were being held in the Bekaa, “this doesn’t mean that the infrastructure to transport these missiles doesn’t exist.
“The rocketry expertise in Hizbullah is highly valued,” Hanna added.

Stinging Think Tank Report: Iran Could Slip Nukes To Hamas, Hezbollah
By DAVID BEDEIN, Middle East Correspondent
http://www.thebulletin.us/articles/2010/05/28/news/world/doc4bff616ad6048986620688.txt
Friday, May 28, 2010
Jerusalem —The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, located at Bar Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel, has issued a stinging report which indicates that Iran could easily deliver radiation or nuclear weapons to Hamas and Hezbollah in an effort to bolster Teheran’s deterrence against Israel.
The report, authored a by a former Israeli senior official, Chuck Freilich, asserted that a nuclear weapon could be slipped into the Jewish state through airports, sea ports or over the land border.
“Hezbollah especially, but also Hamas in the future, might seek a minimal nuclear capability as a means of deterring Israel from attacking them, or from pursuing other objectives.”
The report, entitled “The Armageddon Scenario: Israel and the Threat of Nuclear Terrorism,” said, “Furthermore, even a minimal nuclear capability would enable Hezbollah and Hamas to conduct ongoing low-level attacks -- even severe ones -- against Israel, in the confidence that Israel would be deterred from massive retaliation. This would require a declared capability, or at least a strongly suspected one.” Mr. Freilich, a former member of Israel’s National Security Council, said Hamas or Hezbollah could smuggle a bomb into Israel through ships, airlines or an unmanned aerial vehicle. Other options included the smuggling of a nuclear suitcase bomb or the firing of a nuclear missile into Israel.
“Rockets and missiles, such as those already in the possession of Hezbollah, could be fitted with nuclear warheads, a delivery threat which is largely unique to Israel,” the report said. “While the missiles’ small payloads and basic inaccuracy make them inappropriate delivery vehicles for ordinary nuclear-military purposes, they are effective weapons of terror. The large size of Hezbollah’s and Hamas’ rocket arsenal and their dispersal in civilian neighborhoods make detection and elimination of the threat a particularly severe problem.”
The report said a nuclear Hamas and Hezbollah would gain the confidence to sustain low-level attacks on Israel. Another scenario was that Egypt and Jordan would exploit a Hamas and Hezbollah nuclear threat and further weaken the Jewish state. “Many Israelis believe that the Arab countries, even Egypt and Jordan, remain implacably opposed to Israel’s existence and that they are pursuing a long-term strategy designed to weaken Israel’s determination to live in the region as a Jewish and democratic state,” the report said. “A terrorist nuclear capability would certainly be commensurate with this perception and would greatly strengthen it.” Hamas and Hezbollah could also use nuclear weapons in an attempt to eliminate Israel’s political and military leadership. The report said the two Iranian proxies would also make Tel Aviv a leading target. “The affects of the attack would be further magnified if the perpetrator could threaten additional military, symbolic, or normative targets,” the report said. “The nuclear reactor in Dimona is one such example. An attack could even be “justified” on the grounds that it was merely designed to eliminate the source of Israel’s alleged nuclear capability.”
*David Bedein can be reached at bedein@thebulletin.us.

WH Counterterror advisor: Jihad a 'legitimate tenet' of Islam
Rick Moran
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/05/wh_counterterror_advisor_jihad.html
May 27, 2010 /I know what he was trying to say; that there are some schools of Islamic thought that defines "jihad" as unarmed "struggle" by the pious Muslim against his own weaknesses.
So what?
That's not how our enemies describe Jihad. The Islamists combine religious fervor with a fanatical political ideology that instructs them to kill those who won't submit. It really is that simple and the idea that we have top officials (Brennan isn't the only one who holds this view) in the Obama White House who pretend that Islamists don't believe what they actually believe is worse than self-delusion; it is bordering on criminal negligence:
The president's top counterterrorism adviser on Wednesday called jihad a "legitimate tenet of Islam," arguing that the term "jihadists" should not be used to describe America's enemies.
During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan described violent extremists as victims of "political, economic and social forces," but said that those plotting attacks on the United States should not be described in "religious terms."
He repeated the administration argument that the enemy is not "terrorism," because terrorism is a "tactic," and not terror, because terror is a "state of mind" -- though Brennan's title, deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism and homeland security, includes the word "terrorism" in it. But then Brennan said that the word "jihad" should not be applied either.
"Nor do we describe our enemy as 'jihadists' or 'Islamists' because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children," Brennan said.
Please note in the second paragraph above where Brennan describes violent extremists as "victims." What does that make the targets of their fanaticism? Do we have victim on victim crime? Or perhaps the jihadists targets had it coming? You cannot have a terrorist attack without someone being at fault. And if Brennan is going to excuse the jihadists because they are suffering oppression or something, then he must believe that those who die horribly in those attacks deserved it.
This is the same naive fool who wants to look for and promote Hezb'allah "moderates." Michael Totten, who has forgotten more about Hezb'allah than this fool will ever learn, applies the necessary take down:
There are no moderates within Hezbollah, at least not any who stand a chance of changing Hezbollah's behavior. Sure, the terrorist militia has sent a handful of its members to parliament, as Brennan says, and once in a while they sound more reasonable than its secretary-general, Hassan Nasrallah, but these people are employees. They don't make policy.
If you want to catch a glimpse of Hezbollah's org chart, just rent a car in Beirut and drive south. You'll see billboards and posters all over the place in the areas Hezbollah controls. Some show the portraits of "martyrs" killed in battle with Israel. Others show the mug shots of Hezbollah's leadership, most prominently Nasrallah and his deceased military commander, truck bomber, and airplane hijacker Imad Mugniyeh. Alongside the pictures of Hezbollah's leaders, you'll also see Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the two "supreme guides" of the Islamic Republic regime in Iran.
Sun Tzu famously made the first rule of war "Know your enemy." Brennan has taken that adage a step further. He is pretending there is no enemy, no war - only victims who who need us to address the "root causes" of their fanaticism.
I am not confident that we will escape the next three years without a massive terrorist attack. At this level of denial comes extreme danger. Seeing the enemy as potential welfare customers will not win any battles and will probably get a lot of innocent people killed.

From Beirut to Tehran
Friday, 28 May 2010
Hassan Haidar
It could be a coincidence that the Mercer Foundation issued a report on the world’s most livable cities - with no Arab or Middle Eastern city listed among the first 50 cities - while at the same time, some Arab countries witnessed a number of events and stances that do not reassure any citizen or resident and do not even encourage those who want to come for a visit.
Among the 221 cities around the world surveyed by the report, Baghdad was at the bottom of the list and was considered as the least secure city, due to the very fragile security situation, the attacks and the frequent terrorist explosions, and the increasing crime rates. The killers and thieves and murderers wanted to prove this fact in Al-Rashid’s Capital one day before the report was released, attacking a jewelry market at the heart of the city. They killed 14 people, including policemen, and seized jewelries and money, and placed bombs before they fled.
Two days before that, gunmen with pistols equipped with silencers had assassinated a deputy in the Iraqi Parliament from Iyad Allawi’s list who won a majority [in the elections] by two votes only. Informed sources said this falls in the framework of the “conflict” over the formation of the Iraqi Government.
Indeed, no Yemeni city appeared in the whole list. Those who prepared the report might not have even put any effort into verifying the likelihood of living in the previously happy country. The Yemenis proved that they deserve to be kept outside the list, when armed men from one of the tribes attacked the other day the police and army centers, the oil pipes, the power plants, and the presidential palace in Ma’rab Province, taking revenge for the death of one of their patrons in a raid by the Yemeni warplane that was attacking Al-Qaeda activists.
Attacks and battles have subsequently followed and left many victims amid tension that prevails in most of the cities in Southern Yemen due to the armed protests staged against the deteriorating living conditions and the increasing calls for separatism. This also comes a few weeks only after the northern part of the country emerged from a dreadful war that lasted for months and wreaked much havoc.
The report of the international foundation states that living in the Middle Eastern countries and cities is still a source of widespread concern, giving Israel and the Palestinian territories and Lebanon as an example. Nonetheless, it notes improvement in the situation in Lebanon after the formation of the “national unity” government at the end of last year.
But those who prepared the report would change their mind of course and relinquish their cautious optimism as to Lebanon if they listened to the address of Hezbollah’s Secretary General the day before last when he inaugurated on the “Liberation Day” the forthcoming seafront, and threatened to attack any ship heading to the Israeli harbors in the Mediterranean Sea if the Israelis besieged the Lebanese coast in the coming war, for which both sides are preparing with all their capacities, while they continue at the same time to “reassure” their people that it will not take place. Since politics and security in Lebanon are two “virtual” worlds, Nasrallah started his address as though he was asking the Israelis about what they are waiting for to stage the war, while his arsenal is growing and its ensuing threat is increasing.
In accordance with the “unity of the two destinies” which Hezbollah defends, no one competes with Beirut on “security” except for Tehran whose stability according to the report has dramatically decreased as a result of the violent confrontations between the protestors and the government-affiliated forces, and the remarkable deterioration in the freedom of expression and the restrictions imposed on the communication means, media, and academic work.
As for Gaza, the staff of the “Refugee Relief Agency” is expected to leave after its “conspiracy” to “corrupt” the youths of Hamas was revealed, by organizing summer camps for the children that only deserve to be burnt.
*Published in the London-based AL-HAYAT on May 27, 2010.

Hezbollah’s Pal Fails To Enter Israel
by Steven Plaut
May 28th, 2010 and filed under FrontPage.
Noam Chomsky was one of the organizers and promoters of the MIT-Harvard campaign to boycott and “divest” Israel a few years back. Well, last week Israel decided to boycott one of its own boycotters. Chomsky was refused entry into the country when he tried to cross over from Jordan, for purposes of giving an anti-Israel speech at a Palestinian “university” in Ramallah. As such, Chomsky joined the very select club of people who have been prevented from entering Israel because of their blatant anti-Israel activities and their open collaboration with terrorists.
Chomsky was on his way to give an anti-Israel speech at Birzeit University. (Instead he gave the speech by videoconference from Jordan.) Now, Chomsky had been in Israel for visits before, and was even hosted at Ben Gurion University in Beer Sheba. In fact the entire “ban” was evidently nothing more than some bureaucratic glitch in the instructions to Israeli border passport checkers. Chomsky was invited at the Jordan River Crossing to enter the country instead through the Tel Aviv airport. Ironically, the Israeli bureaucratic glitch resulted in Israel accidentally doing the right thing.
But this did not prevent a worldwide campaign of anti-Israel vilification by the usual crowd, denouncing Israel for the “banning” of Chomsky, complete with denunciations of “Israeli fascism.” Led by the Daily Kos, the leftist blogs declared, “Chomsky was banned by the occupation army,” even though the Israeli army had nothing to do with it. Far leftists inside Israel joined in the brouhaha. Chomsky groupies accused Israel of suppressing freedom of speech. Never mind that there are sufficient reasons to keep Chomsky out of Israel that have nothing to do with his anti-Israel opinions, such as his friendly ties and meetings with the Hezb’Allah terrorist group or his long track record of celebrating and promoting Holocaust deniers. In fact, no sooner was Chomsky denied entry into Israel than he popped over to Lebanon, and there met with the Hezb’Allah terrorists and attended a salute to Hezb’Allah chief murderer Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, as reported in the Ya Libnan, a Lebanese news service.
Chomsky himself denounced the Israeli decision to block his entry as “Stalinism.” To tell the truth, when I first heard that Chomsky accused Israel of Stalinism I assumed he meant it as a compliment. Chomsky has gone out of his way to defend Stalin and he publishes his own articles in all the prominent Stalinist websites. But like most Stalinists these days, Chomsky prefers to label himself an “anarchist.” This, of course, is the very same individual who spent much of his career as the academic spokesman for the Khmer Rouge regime, the ultra-communists who can only be described as Stalinists on steroids. Chomsky defended Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge as they annihilated the Cambodian population and he still doubletalks his way out when asked about the genocide that the Khmer Rouge conducted. He once claimed the Khmer Rouge actually SAVED millions of Cambodian lives. Even far-leftist The Nation demolished Chomsky for his toadying up to Pol Pot.
There have only been a few other cases of people being prevented from entering Israel because of their ties to terrorists or their involvement in anti-Semitic or anti-Israel campaigns. Norman Finkelstein, the unemployed hate-monger fired by DePaul University, was banned from entering Israel a couple of years back because of his intimate collaboration with Hezb’Allah terrorists. Others banned from Israel include Richard Falk, the retired Princeton propagandist who has made a career out of denouncing Israelis as Nazis. He was denied entry into Israel as a UN “investigator,” because that UN “investigation” was nothing more than a campaign of lies and smears about Israeli “war crimes.” Falk earlier had been allowed to enter Israel as a private citizen.
Chomsky has, in the past, been welcomed to enter Israel even though he proclaims that he considers both the US and Israel to be far worse than Nazi Germany. When not dealing with linguistics, Chomsky may be best known for his obsessive cheering on of terrorists and occasionally holding meetings with them. Chomsky has pow-wowed with Hezb’Allah terrorists. He has also long been a major promoter of Holocaust deniers. Like Falk and Finkelstein, Chomsky has long led the campaign to boycott and “divest” Israel. Even a free speech absolutist must concede that there is some logic to a victim of a boycott boycotting that boycotter. Chomsky has led the jihad against Israel’s existence for as long as he has been a public figure. He is also a pathological serial liar.
Now, whether or not one agrees with them doing so, democratic countries, in fact, often deny entrance to people whose opinions or politics they find repulsive. The very same people now whining about Israel refusing Chomsky access to the country to engage in anti-Israel agitation were strangely silent when Britain prohibited 16 people from entering the country on grounds that they held politically incorrect opinions. These included US radio host Michael Savage. Before that, the UK banned Rev. Fred Phelps from entering the country because he is anti-gay. Dutch politician Geert Wilders, a candidate for the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, was barred from entering the UK because of his opinions. The UK has banned a whole host of Israelis from entering their country, including activist Moshe Feiglin.
The United States has banned all sorts of people from entering, not limited to those suspected of having ties to terror groups. In some cases it was because of their political views. Journalist Robert Fisk was banned for this reason. Professor John Milios from Greece was banned. Curiously, few in the world denounced the US for being a fascist country on that basis. Tariq Ramadan, the darling of the pro-jihad Left, was barred until recently from both the US and France. Liberian President Charles Taylor and other leading Liberians were banned from entering the US because of their support for rebels in Sierra Leone. Canada has also banned people because of their views or behavior, most famously the case of George Galloway, the British Member of Parliament because of his intimate ties to Saddam Hussein.
Germany, Austria and some other European countries routinely ban Neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers from entering their territories and sometimes jail them when they enter. Germany banned the Reverend Moon from entering. And so on.
In the late 1970s, a professor of literature at the University of Lyon named Robert Faurisson wrote two letters to Le Monde claiming that the gas chambers in concentration camps used by the Nazis to exterminate the Jews did not exist and were a Jewish hoax. Faurisson was convicted of Holocaust denial and hate speech in two trials in France, in 1983 and 1990.
Noam Chomsky has long been the most prominent defender of Faurisson. Chomsky’s father had been a Hebrew teacher at Gratz College in Philadelphia (which I attended in the 1960s). Chomsky the younger may be the most academically distinguished Jewish anti-Semite on the planet, even though his theories about linguistics have evidently lost much of their favor among researchers in recent years.
In the 1980s Chomsky signed a petition denying that Faurisson was an anti-Semite and saluting Faurisson as a “respected professor.” Chomsky not only defended Faurisson’s “academic freedom” but endorsed the content of Faurisson’s anti-Semitic diatribes.
Chomsky also wrote the foreword to one of Faurisson’s Holocaust denial books. There Chomsky wrote: “Is it true that Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi? As noted earlier, I do not know his work very well. But from what I have read — largely as a result of the nature of the attacks on him — I find no evidence to support either conclusion. Nor do I find credible evidence in the material that I have read concerning him, either in the public record or in private correspondence. As far as I can determine, he is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort.”
In defending Faurisson, Chomsky wrote: “I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers or even denial of the Holocaust. Nor would there be anti-Semitic implications, per se, in the claim that the Holocaust (whether one believes it took place or not) is being exploited, viciously so, by apologists for Israeli repression and violence. I see no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson’s work.”
Now if anyone is looking for another reason why Israel should legitimately prevent Chomsky from setting his paws on the Holy Land, how was that? Add it to Chomsky’s role in the Israeli boycott movement and his associations with terrorists.
Should Israel have prevented Chomsky from entering? It was clearly justified in doing so. But was that the right choice? Personally – I would have let him in and then immediately had him arrested him for Holocaust denial (if not of Jews then surely regarding the genocide of Cambodians) and anti-Semitism. Like many countries in Europe, Holocaust Denial is illegal in Israel, although the law is never enforced against anyone, even Arab politicians. And Israel has an “anti-racism” law on the books, albeit one only used against rightwing Jews, and Chomsky is clearly in violation of it.
Indicting Chomsky under that would have made such a wonderful legal precedent.

Question: "What does the Bible teach about the Trinity?"
Answer: The most difficult thing about the Christian concept of the Trinity is that there is no way to adequately explain it. The Trinity is a concept that is impossible for any human being to fully understand, let alone explain. God is infinitely greater than we are; therefore, we should not expect to be able to fully understand Him. The Bible teaches that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God. The Bible also teaches that there is only one God. Though we can understand some facts about the relationship of the different Persons of the Trinity to one another, ultimately, it is incomprehensible to the human mind. However, this does not mean the Trinity is not true or that it is not based on the teachings of the Bible.
The Trinity is one God existing in three Persons. Understand that this is not in any way suggesting three Gods. Keep in mind when studying this subject that the word “Trinity” is not found in Scripture. This is a term that is used to attempt to describe the triune God—three coexistent, co-eternal Persons who make up God. Of real importance is that the concept represented by the word “Trinity” does exist in Scripture. The following is what God’s Word says about the Trinity:
1) There is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:4; Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5).
2) The Trinity consists of three Persons (Genesis 1:1, 26; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8, 48:16, 61:1; Matthew 3:16-17, 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14). In Genesis 1:1, the Hebrew plural noun Elohim is used. In Genesis 1:26, 3:22, 11:7 and Isaiah 6:8, the plural pronoun for “us” is used. The word Elohim and the pronoun “us” are plural forms, definitely referring in the Hebrew language to more than two. While this is not an explicit argument for the Trinity, it does denote the aspect of plurality in God. The Hebrew word for God, Elohim, definitely allows for the Trinity.
In Isaiah 48:16 and 61:1, the Son is speaking while making reference to the Father and the Holy Spirit. Compare Isaiah 61:1 to Luke 4:14-19 to see that it is the Son speaking. Matthew 3:16-17 describes the event of Jesus' baptism. Seen in this passage is God the Holy Spirit descending on God the Son while God the Father proclaims His pleasure in the Son. Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 are examples of three distinct persons in the Trinity.
3) The members of the Trinity are distinguished one from another in various passages. In the Old Testament, “LORD” is distinguished from “Lord” (Genesis 19:24; Hosea 1:4). The LORD has a Son (Psalm 2:7, 12; Proverbs 30:2-4). The Spirit is distinguished from the “LORD” (Numbers 27:18) and from “God” (Psalm 51:10-12). God the Son is distinguished from God the Father (Psalm 45:6-7; Hebrews 1:8-9). In the New Testament, Jesus speaks to the Father about sending a Helper, the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17). This shows that Jesus did not consider Himself to be the Father or the Holy Spirit. Consider also all the other times in the Gospels where Jesus speaks to the Father. Was He speaking to Himself? No. He spoke to another person in the Trinity—the Father.
4) Each member of the Trinity is God. The Father is God (John 6:27; Romans 1:7; 1 Peter 1:2). The Son is God (John 1:1, 14; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8; 1 John 5:20). The Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4; 1 Corinthians 3:16).
5) There is subordination within the Trinity. Scripture shows that the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son, and the Son is subordinate to the Father. This is an internal relationship and does not deny the deity of any person of the Trinity. This is simply an area which our finite minds cannot understand concerning the infinite God. Concerning the Son see Luke 22:42, John 5:36, John 20:21, and 1 John 4:14. Concerning the Holy Spirit see John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7, and especially John 16:13-14.
6) The individual members of the Trinity have different tasks. The Father is the ultimate source or cause of the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; Revelation 4:11); divine revelation (Revelation 1:1); salvation (John 3:16-17); and Jesus' human works (John 5:17, 14:10). The Father initiates all of these things.
The Son is the agent through whom the Father does the following works: the creation and maintenance of the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17); divine revelation (John 1:1, 16:12-15; Matthew 11:27; Revelation 1:1); and salvation (2 Corinthians 5:19; Matthew 1:21; John 4:42). The Father does all these things through the Son, who functions as His agent.
The Holy Spirit is the means by whom the Father does the following works: creation and maintenance of the universe (Genesis 1:2; Job 26:13; Psalm 104:30); divine revelation (John 16:12-15; Ephesians 3:5; 2 Peter 1:21); salvation (John 3:6; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:2); and Jesus' works (Isaiah 61:1; Acts 10:38). Thus the Father does all these things by the power of the Holy Spirit.
There have been many attempts to develop illustrations of the Trinity. However, none of the popular illustrations are completely accurate. The egg (or apple) fails in that the shell, white, and yolk are parts of the egg, not the egg in themselves, just as the skin, flesh, and seeds of the apple are parts of it, not the apple itself. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not parts of God; each of them is God. The water illustration is somewhat better, but it still fails to adequately describe the Trinity. Liquid, vapor, and ice are forms of water. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not forms of God, each of them is God. So, while these illustrations may give us a picture of the Trinity, the picture is not entirely accurate. An infinite God cannot be fully described by a finite illustration.
The doctrine of the Trinity has been a divisive issue throughout the entire history of the Christian church. While the core aspects of the Trinity are clearly presented in God’s Word, some of the side issues are not as explicitly clear. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God—but there is only one God. That is the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. Beyond that, the issues are, to a certain extent, debatable and non-essential. Rather than attempting to fully define the Trinity with our finite human minds, we would be better served by focusing on the fact of God's greatness and His infinitely higher nature. “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?” (Romans 11:33-34).
*Recommended Resource: Making Sense of the Trinity: Three Crucial Questions by Millard Erickson.

Sleiman: Playing by the book
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Editorial/Daily Star
Two years have now elapsed since former Lebanese Armed Forces chief Michel Sleiman ascended to the presidency of this country, although an evaluation of his performance tells us more about the ills of Lebanon than about any failing of his.
Of course, any president of this tiny, fatefully located nation will find himself (or one day, inshallah, herself) between the proverbial Scylla and Charybdis; some heads of this state have splayed themselves at the feet of the US, while others have joyfully played the Syrians’ game. Sleiman, to his credit, has not yet completely joined the roster of any side.
All in all, we do not have grave complaints against him. He arrived in the political maelstrom with a slight edge, in that he did not carry the scarlet letter of the Civil War as most other key actors. He also has yet – to the best of our knowledge – to indulge in the kleptocratic or mafia-like tendencies of many high officials.
He has done well to keep a firm grip on the keys of the state, as it were; he has been even-handed and patient. After all, he is a military man, so he works faultlessly by the book. In this country, however, he might be following the book to a fault. For in Lebanon, the book does not work; the Constitution cannot solve the serious and worsening problems tormenting Lebanon.
The solutions to the various crises and extraordinary circumstances here lay outside the book. Sleiman has not displayed ability to present any extraordinary solutions. In a sense, he has not even seriously reacted to the plight of the citizens or the deterioration of the state.
He must know that things could yet get worse; we are surprised that it took this long to wear out the patience of the citizens with the corruption and incompetence that deprives them of electricity for hours every day. The state has escaped scot-free for its ineptitude, while at the same time it continues to disintegrate a little more each day. Someone needs to take exceptional measures with this country’s electricity, its water, education, medicine and environment, just to name the most pressing issues.
At the same time, the National Dialogue is disintegrating; neither Sleiman nor any of the other participants are pursuing the constituent steps that would allow them to address the critical matters later. The Cabinet is disintegrating, if it ever qualified as a solid form. In the latest episode of decay, the municipal elections showed that the political capos have corralled local government, as well. Michel Sleiman has a long and desperately important list of things he could be doing; alas, the political elite with which he is sentenced to work is part of the problem that he – and we – need to fix.

Zahra: Franjieh’s remarks are shameful, provocative
Now Lebanon/May 29, 2010
Lebanese Forces bloc MP Antoine Zahra told MTV on Saturday that Marada Movement leader MP Sleiman Franjieh remarks earlier in the day are shameful, provocative and cause sedition between the Lebanese. This comes after Franjieh called LF leader Samir Geagea a criminal in response to Friday’s incident—in which alleged LF supporter Hanna al-Barsaoui shot and killed Tony Saleh and his brother Nayyef, who are affiliated with the Marada Movement. Franjieh’s remarks were clearly made to escalate further tension, Zahra said, adding that “Syria and Hezbollah are making a smear campaign against the LF through [Franjieh’s] statements.”He also said that the shot men broke into Barsaoui’s butcher shop, a reference to the report that they entered the store to start a fight. Zahra added that the incident is painful and expressed his condolences to the families of the victims.
-NOW Lebanon

Strida Geagea on Franjieh press conference: Strange
May 29, 2010 /Now Lebanon
Strange. That was Lebanese Forces bloc MP Strida Geagea’s response on Saturday to Marada Movement leader MP Sleiman Franjieh’s press conference about a deadly double-shooting in the Koura town of Dahr al-Ain, LBCI television reported. Franjieh called LF leader Samir Geagea a criminal in response to Friday’s incident - in which alleged LF supporter Hanna al-Barsaoui shot and killed Tony Saleh and his brother Nayyef, who are affiliated with the Marada Movement. “What we heard [from Franjieh] is not new. We suffer from this and we were trying to avoid problems,” Strida Geagea said. “We were preparing to send a delegation in the name of the LF to offer condolences [to the victims’ family],” she added.
Geagea also responded to Franjieh’s remark that the LF does not believe in state control. The MP said she called Lebanese army Commander General Jean Kahwaji after the fight broke out on Friday and told him the LF wants justice for the victims. She also said the LF does not want Sunday’s municipal elections in the North to be postponed, voicing hope the vote would proceed calmly.-NOW Lebanon

Baroud to hold special meeting after double murder
May 29, 2010 /Members of the Interior Ministry’s internal central security council will hold a special meeting on Saturday to follow up on Friday’s deadly double-shooting in North Lebanon, a statement said. According to media reports, alleged Lebanese Forces supporter Hanna al-Barsaoui shot and killed brothers Tony and Nayyef Saleh, who are affiliated with the Marada Movement, in the Koura town of Dahr al-Ain on Friday. The incident comes ahead of Sunday’s municipal and mukhtar elections in the northern district.The statement said the meeting will be headed by Interior Minister Ziad Baroud, and will assess the possible repercussions of the shooting ahead of Sunday’s vote.-NOW Lebanon

Shia versus Shia
Hanin Ghaddar, May 29, 2010
Now Lebanon
Last Sunday’s municipal elections in South Lebanon saw Hezbollah and the Amal Movement win the majority of council seats throughout the region. This was not a surprise. What was, however, were the signals sent out by the electoral dynamics in some Shia towns and cities, where it was demonstrated that the two parties, despite their consensus and hard work in forming what they thought were uncontested lists, were not able to take the polls by storm.
Although Hezbollah still enjoys the political support of the Shia in general, independent candidates, incensed at how the Hezbollah and Amal alliance pooled resources without taking into consideration the sensitivities of local families and other political groups, ran against the coalition. Not only that, they actually won seats, and these wins reflected a growing resentment within the Shia community at Hezbollah’s arrogance. The message was clear: They would no longer give blind support.
In the past, a few independent figures have run against Hezbollah, but they were either affiliated with opposing political camps, or ran individually with no local backing. This time, the opposition to Hezbollah and Amal was part of the social fabric, backed by families and political groups like the leftists and the communists, who had held the banner of resistance for years before Hezbollah was formed in the beginning of the 1980s but who now felt ignored and marginalized. Their strength lay in the fact that they were not politically opposed to Hezbollah and that they were part and parcel of the community.
Hezbollah’s leadership thought that they had tamed the Shia community under the banner of Resistance and the provision of social services. This worked during the parliamentary elections, when Hezbollah was perceived by the Shia as the “opposition,” but it appears to have backfired at the municipal level, where Hezbollah sold itself as the “authority,” one that tried to impose its will with an iron fist.
Despite attempts at pressure and coercion, the “independents” did not pull out of the race. Their position was simple: While there were no political objections to Hezbollah and Amal, there were concerns that the parties had taken the community for granted, that political calculations and the consolidation of power had taken priority over development goals, as happened after the 2004 polls.
Hezbollah saw the writing on the wall and rolled out the big guns. The party’s secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah, delivered a speech two days before the elections urging voters to cast ballots in favor of candidates backed by his group, as they formed part of "a strategic alliance that protects the [anti-Israeli] Resistance and boosts its immunity," arguing that such a position took precedence over family loyalties.
“I call on Hezbollah supporters to commit fully to the Hezbollah and Amal electoral lists and urge them not to be influenced by personal or family interests because the success of these lists holds major political value,” he declared.
But many considered this speech a blow to free competition. In Srifa, the home of Miss USA Rima Fakih, and in Toura, the hometown of Imam Moussa al-Sadr, Hezbollah-Amal lists were successfully penetrated by independents. The same happened in Deir al-Zahrani, Al-Ramadieh, Siddiqin, Sir al-Gharbieh and elsewhere. In Houla and Ansar, where Hezbollah-Amal lists won, it was by a small margin, with the competing lists winning 32 to 45 percent of the votes.
Essentially, the secular resistance, made up of leftists and communists, were demanding the respect and recognition they felt they deserved within the political mosaic of South Lebanon. In the 1980s, Hezbollah – then known as “Islamic Amal” – attempted to eliminate secular and national resistance movements, liquidating many leftist leaders, fighters and intellectuals like Mahdi Amel and Hussein Mroueh. It was part of a Syrian strategy to keep military resistance under their control.
Indeed, following a major prisoner swap with Israel in early 2004, in which more than 400 prisoners were released to Hezbollah in exchange for an Israeli reservist colonel and the bodies of three Israeli soldiers, the communist party was not even allowed to attend the reception held at the airport, despite the fact that most of the Lebanese prisoners were communists.
History aside, many leftist groups today now support the Party of God. Hezbollah’s hatred of the US, Israel and its exploitative globalization, in addition to its defense of the Palestinian cause, has driven many in the left to support it as a new form of international anti-imperialism. The Democratic Left, now with March 14, is the only major exception.
But something had to give. A history of marginalization, in addition to being alienated from the Hezbollah-Amal lists in recent elections, saw a new local political steam emerge. This does not mean there are chronic cracks in the ranks of the Shia community, but it is worth noting that Hezbollah no longer has the final word in local politics. Watch this space.
**Hanin Ghaddar is managing editor of NOW Lebanon

Family ties bind Zgharta
Ana Maria Luca, Now Lebanon
May 27, 2010
Now Lebanon/Elie sat outside his house in his Zgharta neighborhood with a few friends on a sunny May afternoon. The four men were all in their 20s, and aside from making occasional jabs at one another, they concentrated on this Sunday’s municipal elections.
“I don’t know much about the lists themselves or about development projects. I had a brochure someplace with that on it,” Elie said. “But I will go to vote, of course, because I am loyal to my family and we were raised that way.”
Many Zgharta residents will go to the polls on Sunday based on family loyalties. This is a legacy the local youth feels they received from their families.
The municipal elections in the biggest Lebanese Maronite city will see a faceoff between the families allied with the March 8 and March 14 coalitions, as a consensus ticket was never forged, despite a lengthy negotiation process.
Though partisanship is not new to Lebanese elections, what is unusual about the competing Zgharta tickets is that they are heavily populated with young, educated people who have experience in management or development projects. They themselves are not well-known, but come from major political families in the city.
The March 8 list, which is favored to win the city this year as it did in 2004, is backed by MP Sleiman Franjieh and his Marada Movement. The list is supported by the Franjieh and Karam families and by some members of the Doueihy clan. Together they outnumber March 14 supporters by far.
The March 14 list, on the other hand, is supported by MP Michel Mouawad, and is backed by the city’s Mouawads, their loyal family friends, and part of the Doueihy family.
Once it became clear after the failed talks that there would be no united list, the two opposing parties went into a battle of statements, accusing each other of thwarting the consensus.
"Mouawad did a back flip and ignored what we agreed upon when he altered the drafted agreement to please his allies," said MP Sleiman Franjieh in an interview with OTV this week.
On the March 14 side, the explanations are a bit different. “Sleiman Franjieh is under a lot of pressure from more radical members of his party, such as his uncle Robert,” Nasri Mouawad, the head of the March 14 list’s campaign, told NOW Lebanon. Zgharta residents say Robert Franjieh is radically opposed to any alliance that is backed by Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea and threatened to come up with his own list in case Sleiman Franjieh made a deal with Michel Mouawad.
Nasri Mouawad, meanwhile, says that the battle on Sunday is a lost cause for March 14, but that he is still optimistic. “We’re not trying to win the elections, but we feel that our victory is in the change we want to bring to this town,” he said. “If it wasn’t for us, we wouldn’t have had published lists is Zgharta with the names and the CVs of the candidates. That is progress. Because we published the list, they had to publish one too,” he said.
Despite the seeming long-shot of any surprises happening in Sunday’s polling, both sides are still running their campaigns. Residents are saying they’ve received short phone calls telling them to go to vote, and rumor has it that some residents, especially in the surrounding villages where every vote counts, have gotten “electoral presents.”
But rumor also has it that March 14 has no campaign funds to spend in Zgharta, while March 8 is pouring money into the town. “Money wins the elections here, isn’t it clear?” said one resident.
**Nadine Elali contributed reporting to this article.

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?...”

From Beirut to Tehran
Thu, 27 May 2010
By: Hassan HaidarIt
could be a coincidence that the Mercer Foundation issued a report on the world’s most livable cities - with no Arab or Middle Eastern city listed among the first 50 cities - while at the same time, some Arab countries witnessed a number of events and stances that do not reassure any citizen or resident and do not even encourage those who want to come for a visit.
Among the 221 cities around the world surveyed by the report, Baghdad was at the bottom of the list and was considered as the least secure city, due to the very fragile security situation, the attacks and the frequent terrorist explosions, and the increasing crime rates. The killers and thieves and murderers wanted to prove this fact in Al-Rashid’s Capital one day before the report was released, attacking a jewelry market at the heart of the city. They killed 14 people, including policemen, and seized jewelries and money, and placed bombs before they fled.
Two days before that, gunmen with pistols equipped with silencers had assassinated a deputy in the Iraqi Parliament from Iyad Allawi’s list who won a majority [in the elections] by two votes only. Informed sources said this falls in the framework of the “conflict” over the formation of the Iraqi Government.
Indeed, no Yemeni city appeared in the whole list. Those who prepared the report might not have even put any effort into verifying the likelihood of living in the previously happy country. The Yemenis proved that they deserve to be kept outside the list, when armed men from one of the tribes attacked the other day the police and army centers, the oil pipes, the power plants, and the presidential palace in Ma’rab Province, taking revenge for the death of one of their patrons in a raid by the Yemeni warplane that was attacking Al-Qaeda activists.
Attacks and battles have subsequently followed and left many victims amid tension that prevails in most of the cities in Southern Yemen due to the armed protests staged against the deteriorating living conditions and the increasing calls for separatism. This also comes a few weeks only after the northern part of the country emerged from a dreadful war that lasted for months and wreaked much havoc.
The report of the international foundation states that living in the Middle Eastern countries and cities is still a source of widespread concern, giving Israel and the Palestinian territories and Lebanon as an example. Nonetheless, it notes improvement in the situation in Lebanon after the formation of the “national unity” government at the end of last year.
But those who prepared the report would change their mind of course and relinquish their cautious optimism as to Lebanon if they listened to the address of Hezbollah’s Secretary General the day before last when he inaugurated on the “Liberation Day” the forthcoming seafront, and threatened to attack any ship heading to the Israeli harbors in the Mediterranean Sea if the Israelis besieged the Lebanese coast in the coming war, for which both sides are preparing with all their capacities, while they continue at the same time to “reassure” their people that it will not take place. Since politics and security in Lebanon are two “virtual” worlds, Nasrallah started his address as though he was asking the Israelis about what they are waiting for to stage the war, while his arsenal is growing and its ensuing threat is increasing.
In accordance with the “unity of the two destinies” which Hezbollah defends, no one competes with Beirut on “security” except for Tehran whose stability according to the report has dramatically decreased as a result of the violent confrontations between the protestors and the government-affiliated forces, and the remarkable deterioration in the freedom of expression and the restrictions imposed on the communication means, media, and academic work.
As for Gaza, the staff of the “Refugee Relief Agency” is expected to leave after its “conspiracy” to “corrupt” the youths of Hamas was revealed, by organizing summer camps for the children that only deserve to be burnt.