LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِOctober 26/2010

Bible Of The Day
1 Peter 1-11/Forasmuch then as Christ suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind; for he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin; 4:2 that you no longer should live the rest of your time in the flesh for the lusts of men, but for the will of God. 4:3 For we have spent enough of our past time doing the desire of the Gentiles, and having walked in lewdness, lusts, drunken binges, orgies, carousings, and abominable idolatries. 4:4 They think it is strange that you don’t run with them into the same excess of riot, blaspheming: 4:5 who will give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. 4:6 For to this end the Good News was preached even to the dead, that they might be judged indeed as men in the flesh, but live as to God in the spirit. 4:7 But the end of all things is near. Therefore be of sound mind, self-controlled, and sober in prayer. 4:8 And above all things be earnest in your love among yourselves, for love covers a multitude of sins. 4:9 Be hospitable to one another without grumbling. 4:10 As each has received a gift, employ it in serving one another, as good managers of the grace of God in its various forms. 4:11 If anyone speaks, let it be as it were the very words of God. If anyone serves, let it be as of the strength which God supplies, that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belong the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.
God has given us spiritual gifts in the body of Christ for the purpose of serving one another.

Free Opinions, Releases, letters, Interviews & Special Reports
Freedom in a cardboard box/Now Lebanon/October 25/10
Adrift in Arabia/by Efraim Karsh/The Journal of International Security Affairs/October 25/10
Jumblat and camouflage/statement/NNA/October 25/10
What Arab role?/By: Hazem Saghiyeh/October 25/10
If I Were to Advise Hariri/By Tariq Alhomayed/October 25/10

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for October 25/10
Attacks Targeting STL a Copy of Campaigns on Former Yugoslavia Tribunal/Naharnet
Jumblatt, Assad agree on need for calm dialogue/Daily Star
Lebanon has Arab world's third most transparent budget/Daily Star
Yugoslavia Tribunal Prosecution Recalls Experience with Telecom Data, False Witnesses, Crime Scene Tampering: Bellemare is Right! /Naharnet
Reports about Confidentiality of Hariri Murder Indictment 'Not True' /Naharnet
STL Reality in The Hague Contradicts Beirut Wishes to Eliminate Tribunal /Naharnet
STL Media Official: Indictment Will Include Names of Accused and Charges against Them /Naharnet
International Media Forum: Indictments to be Issued against Individuals, Not Entities /Naharnet
Court Action Begins in The Hague: International Media Forum Accompanied by STL 'Explosive Experiment' /Naharnet
Cassese Asks Riachi, Shamseddine to File Remarks on Sayyed's Disqualification Motion /Naharnet
Canadian Ambassador after Meeting Hariri: Where there is Impunity there is No Justice and there is Fear /Naharnet
Amin Gemayel threatens Kataeb walk-out from cabinet/Now Lebanon
Nahhas: Israel infiltrated telecommunications sector/Now Lebanon
Abdullah: Cabinet must decide on false witnesses in next session/Now Lebanon
US committed to L army, US general tells Lebanese Army chief, Kahwaji/Now Lebanon
Berri arrives in Paris/Now Lebanon
Sapper Dead, Four Hurt in Yater Cluster Bomb Blast /Naharnet
Jumblat after his Return from Damascus: Assad Sent 'Friendly Signals' to Hariri /Naharnet
Fatfat: Head of Mustaqbal Movement Won't Make Further Concessions over STL /Naharnet
Berri: Cabinet this Week Should Decide on False Witnesses /Naharnet
Hizbullah Dealing with Indictment since Der Spiegel Report /Naharnet
Sarkozy to Suleiman: France Ready to Host Lebanese Meeting to Help Resolve Indictment Crisis /Naharnet
Hariri: Maintaining Christian Presence in Mideast is Wealth for Arabism, Islam /Naharnet
Otari's Statement Drew Angry Reaction, March 14 Urges 'Dealing Strictly with Syria' /Naharnet
Jumblat: Activating Lebanese-Syrian Ties Would Help Prevent Turning Lebanon into Open Ground for Violence /Naharnet

Attacks Targeting STL a Copy of Campaigns on Former Yugoslavia Tribunal
Naharnet/The third day of the International Media Forum organized by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon in The Hague has dropped the "conspiracy theory" which has long characterized Lebanon, sending those harmed by the Court to launch political and media campaigns targeting STL credibility and raising skepticism on the Court objectives.
Media representatives have noticed through the round table held at the headquarters of the Foundation of International Information in The Hague, Netherlands, that attacks against the STL -- accusations and skepticism on its establishment and its goals – are only a replica of the campaign against the Former Yugoslavia Tribunal.
Common ground was found between the positions of those harmed by the Former Yugoslavia and Lebanon tribunals in discussions and exchange of information regarding challenges facing the media covering the work of the International Tribunal, from the standpoint of objectivity in combining between the legal mechanisms involving the investigative work and trials on one hand, and between the positions of political parties on the principle of international tribunals:
1 - Opponents of the Yugoslavia Tribunal who condemned a 1993 U.N. decision to set it up, argued that the Court aimed to divide the former Yugoslavia after the fall of Communism and the Soviet Union to weaken the new independent entities emerging to allow the United States to get hold of the region, just as some voices in Lebanon accused the U.S. of fragmenting the region via the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.
2- Opponents of the former Yugoslavia Tribunal believed upon its establishment that its work and the accusations it was going to issue would ignite sectarian strife between Muslims and Christians, which is what those Lebanese harmed by the Tribunal have been warning of.
3- Opponents of the Yugoslavia Tribunal considered that search for justice through the Court would lead to destabilization through multilateral war in an attempt to overthrow the court and prevent it from carrying out its work, which is actually what happened in the wars and battles of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro and others. In Lebanon, however, the equation of a choice between justice and stability is flourishing given that those who refuse and are harmed by the STL consider justice sought by the Court will destabilize Lebanon and push the country and the region into complicated wars. 4- During the phase of the investigation into war crimes in former Yugoslavia scathing personal campaigns against the General Prosecutor were launched to an extent of describing her as "a bitch." This scenario was repeated with international investigators particularly Detlev Mehlis, who was accused of using his job to ensure lavish spending and meet the invitations to banquets and night life in Beirut. Investigator Serge Brammertz and STL Prosecutor Daniel Bellemare also did not survive accusations.
5- Those harmed by the former Yugoslavia Tribunal work have accused investigators that they were working for the interests of American and international intelligence. The same scenario is repeated today with the probe into the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri when those harmed by the STL have accused Tribunal managers of serving the interests of the United States and Israel.
6- Many during the foundation phase of the former Yugoslavia sought to torpedo the court through regional and international equations and many bet on efforts to try to persuade Russia, heir to the Soviet Union and as Greek Orthodox leader, to work to help bring down the court to protect some Serb leaders indicted for war crimes. But the attempts failed and the Court carried on. 7- Those with the upper hand in the former Yugoslavia tried to stop the International Tribunal, a scenario echoed by STL opponents in Lebanon in the hope that they would succeed in stopping it through withdrawal of recognition. But the STL carried on. 8- Former Yugoslavia Tribunal faced difficulties since its establishment as well as financial obstacles, but every time things end up ensuring continuation of its work. For example, budget for the first year of the former Yugoslavia Tribunal began at $270,000 to reach today an annual budget of $300 million. In short, all the accusations today against the Special Tribunal for Lebanon were previously launched against the former Yugoslavia Tribunal. And after more than 17 years of accusations against the Yugoslavia Tribunal, the Court still operates and has prosecuted Presidents, Cabinet ministers and military commanders, and continues to carry out the task that was entrusted to it via sessions -- between 4 and 5 sessions per week for a period between 6 and 8 hours a day. Beirut, 25 Oct 10, 12:13

Amin Gemayel threatens Kataeb walk-out from cabinet
October 25, 2010 /The transfer of the “so-called false witnesses [issue] to the Justice Council is contrary to all rules,” and “we will ask not only our ministers, but [also] those of Prime Minister [Saad Hariri] to withdraw from the cabinet session if the matter is put to a vote,” Kataeb Party head Amin Gemayel said in a press conference on Monday.
March 8 politicians have called for the cabinet to task the Justice Council with investigating the issue of witnesses who gave false testimonies to the international investigation into former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri’s 2005 assassination. Some March 14 figures have said that the issue does not fall within the council’s jurisdiction and that false testimonies cannot be investigated until the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) issues its indictment. “It is unreasonable to vote on an illegal matter that contradicts Lebanon’s international commitments, and the cabinet is not free to act in this matter because the issue is out of its hands and [those of] the Lebanese judiciary,” Gemayel said. “It is impossible to transfer the case to the Justice Council while [the case’s] documents and evidence are in the custody of the STL,” he added. Efforts to transfer the case are a coup against UN Security Council resolutions and the 2009 Ministerial Statement that gave the STL the prerogative to investigate the Rafik Hariri murder, he said. It is as though “we are creating two authorities that contradict each other in order to abolish the STL in practice,” he said, adding that such action would unacceptable. -NOW Lebanon

Abdullah: Cabinet must decide on false witnesses in next session
October 25, 2010 /Youth and Sport Minister Ali Abdullah—who is also an Amal Movement minister—told Al-Manar television on Monday that he expects the cabinet to decide on the false witnesses issue in its next session. “There can be no further procrastination,” he said. Abdullah added that March 8 ministers will not back down from their demand that the cabinet ask the Justice Council to investigate the issue of false witnesses who testified to the international investigation into former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri’s 2005 assassination.
The council is Lebanese, and “either we trust it or we do not,” he said. Minister of State Adnan as-Sayyed Hussein, in turn, told Al-Manar television that he does not support a cabinet vote on the issue, but wants the ministers to reach agreement on the matter by following the constitution. If this fails, “we [will] resort to a vote,” he added. -NOW Lebanon

Nahhas: Israel infiltrated telecommunications sector
October 25, 2010 /During a press conference on Monday, Telecommunications Minister Charbel Nahhas said Israel infiltrated the telecommunications sector and managed to alter and manipulate its data. “Israel was able to control [this sector] through its spies,” Nahhas said, adding that strengthening the sector is important since it should not be this fragile.
There are governmental measures being taken related to this issue, the telecommunications minister also said. When asked if phone calls can be modified, Nahhas said this is a technical issue that investigations by relevant bodies can decide. According to a statement issued by Nahhas’ press office last Friday, the International Telecommunication Union’s (ITU) conference in Mexico condemned Israeli aggression against Lebanon’s telecom networks. Security forces have detained several people during the past few months on suspicion of collaborating with Israel, including three Alfa employees.-NOW Lebanon

Freedom in a cardboard box
October 25, 2010 /Now Lebanon/
Syrian PM Mohammad Naji al-Ottari told Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Rai that the March 14 alliance is a “cardboard box.” (AFP/Yasser al-Zayyat) Syrian Prime Minister Mohammad Naji al-Ottari’s comments to Kuwaiti daily Al-Rai that the March 14 alliance is nothing more than a “cardboard box” are contemptuous and dismissive in the extreme. He went on to say that the Syrian regime “does not take such labels seriously” and was “not concerned with dates like March 14 or March 8.” Damascus looks, he said, at all Lebanese equally and is concerned with both countries’ security and strategic relations. Ottari’s words leave us wondering about the true nature of the relationship between Damascus and the government of Lebanese Premier Saad Hariri as it is unlikely that these words are Ottari’s personal views. In fact, they are part of the ongoing low-level battle between Beirut and Damascus over who controls Lebanon’s domestic affairs. But Ottari should, for the record, remember that March 14 represents the overwhelming majority of the Lebanese people who believe in freedom, sovereignty and independence. The so-called cardboard March 14 alliance was formed in the aftermath of the murder of former PM Rafik Hariri, an act of political terror in which Damascus is still the main suspect. Despite being made of “cardboard,” the sheer force of the March 14’s popular movement was enough to convince Damascus to remove its troops and intelligence services from Lebanon after three decades. Since that day in April, not only has it won two free and fair parliamentary elections, March 14 has also seen its members picked-off in cowardly assassinations and withstood intimidation and rabble-rousing, not to mention an attempted coup d’état, as the pro-Syrian opposition attempted to reverse all March 14’s historic gains.
The reality of regional politics may have forced March 14 to swallow some bitter pills, the bitterest perhaps being the late-2009 rapprochement with Damascus and the bewildering volte-face of Druze politician and Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblatt – one of the iconic figures of those heady weeks in the spring of 2005 – who is now firmly back in the Damascene fold. Yes, PM Saad Hariri is a regular visitor to the regime that many still believe killed his father; and yes, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s October visit to Lebanon gave the impression that the country’s democratically-elected government plays second fiddle to the armed might of Hezbollah.
In light of all these, it is easy to say that March 14 is dead and that it is even “a cardboard box.” Syria might feel that it has, through nearly five years of attrition, clawed back much of its local influence – not least by riding with the regional hounds, while running with the Iranian fox – but it should not assume that March 14 and everything it stands for is the property of the political class.
Syrian Premier Ottari, or anyone else for that matter, should not forget that March 14 was created by, and is still held in the hands of those Lebanese who were prepared to take to the streets and risk their lives because they had enough of political repression and the violence that Syria spawned. March 14 remains the greatest expression of popular determination the Middle East has witnessed in living memory.
That it happened in Lebanon is not surprising. Yes, the country’s multi-sectarian make-up and its flawed confessional system may have contributed to many of its chronic problems, but the liberal strain that was always going to emerge from such a vibrant and diverse society is what finally allowed the people to express themselves in a way that those in other Arab nations, especially Syria, cannot. But before anyone else dismisses the will of the Lebanese people to determine their own destiny, the so-called “cardboard box” alliance has been robust enough to support the creation of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) in a bid to bring to international justice the killers of Rafik Hariri and other subsequent victims of political violence.
The court is now a fully-functioning entity and about to issue its first indictments. If and when it does, the Middle East will witness the setting of the first precedent in the fight against a tradition of political violence that many had come to accept as the way business is done.Not a bad achievement for a cardboard box.

Berri arrives in Paris
October 25, 2010 /Speaker Nabih Berri arrived in Paris on Monday evening for an official state visit to the French capital, the National News Agency (NNA) reported.
He was received at the airport by Fench Ambassador to Lebanon Denis Pietton, Lebanese Ambassador to France Boutros Assaker, and other officials as well as representatives of the Lebanese emigrant community in France, the report said. Berri will begin meeting with French officials on Tuesday, the NNA added. -NOW Lebanon

US committed to LAF, US general tells Kahwaji
October 25, 2010 /US Air Force Central Command (CENTCOM) Commander Lieutenant General Mike Hostage told LAF commander General Jean Kahwaji on Monday that US President Barack Obama’s administration is committed to working with the US Congress to continue Washington’s support for the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), according to a statement issued by the US Embassy in Lebanon. Following the deadly August 3 Aadaiseh clashes between the LAF and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), US Congressman Howard Berman—chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee—said that he had placed a hold on $100 million in aid to Lebanon's military. Hostage also met with LAF Air Force commander Brigadier General Ghassan Chahine and visited sites of LAF-US Air Force cooperation, the statement added. “The US has provided over $720 million in support to the LAF since 2006 for equipment and training [… and] has committed to refurbishing and arming Lebanon’s UH-1 helicopter fleet,” the statement also said.-NOW Lebanon

Walid Jumblatt
October 25, 2010
On October 24, the National News Agency (NNA) carried the following report:
Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblatt held a crowded political meeting in the town of Anout upon an invitation from the PSP branch in Ikleem al-Kharroub. He said, “First of all, I would like to apologize if my visits to Ikleem al-Kharroub are rare at the level of social and political obligations. However, a phase has passed and we are currently going through an odd one, but I wanted today’s meeting to be one with the elite of the Ikleem among the Sheikhs and the political, social and cultural dignitaries. So, thank you for responding to this invitation.
As you know, we are currently living in light of a brandished sword, if we may call it that. The tribunal and the indictment are the talk of the hour. Allow me at this level to clarify my position, although I know that at times one may be forced to adopt unpopular stands. Still, I am forced to adopt this position and let history hold me accountable when the time comes. I said it before and I now reiterate it: justice is linked to stability. I said justice and stability, together, because we cannot have justice without stability or stability without justice. This is my motto and I conveyed it to Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey Feltman who came to Lebanon. Our talks were friendly, but I corroborated the points of dispute. I told him we should look together into other possibilities but of course he rejected the idea. I told him we were the ones who worked side by side to ensure the formation of this tribunal and secure justice for the martyrs from Rafik Hariri to the last martyr Antoine Ghanem. However, we do not want this tribunal to be the cause of strife or the destruction of Lebanon. There is no value for the tribunal if it were to lead to strife or destruction.
Of course, we had a friendly argument over this issue among others. But I repeat that there may be other possibilities or clues. Let us study them. We were told and I read it in the newspaper, that the indictment was delayed until March. This means that we have delayed the problem until March and cannot wait until then to resume the debates. We need a calm handling and I hope we will reach it. Today, this is being looked into by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Syria, but we must firstly handle the situation on the ground.
Just to go back in history a little, Sheikh Saad Hariri and out of concern for the exceptional and historical relations with Syria, said there were some false witnesses who duped the Lebanese or planted strife and hatred between the Lebanese and Syrian people and between Lebanon and Syria. We humored him or rather supported his statements. So, let us see whether or not there truly are false witnesses.
I personally believe that with or without a Judicial Council, this issue can be handled politically. This is a political issue so let us solve it calmly. I had only hoped that next Wednesday’s [session] will not witness voting, because even if the voting took place, we unfortunately say it will not solve the problem and will lead the country toward a predicament and a ministerial crisis. I believe that maybe, just maybe, it would be better to tackle the issue through calm dialogue.
Yesterday, a dangerous incident occurred in Majdel Aanjar. We have been focusing on only one aspect of Lebanese life, i.e. the international tribunal and the indictment, while forgetting there are other issues. A Lebanese army officer and soldier were killed by extremists. I did not use the terms fundamentalists or Salafis because they are not part of my language. I say extremists or errant. This might be seen again in some regions due to the tensions which are rising at times and retreating at others, and due to this sectarian climate which – were it to escalate – would make it impossible to control the situation again… Consequently, we need calm dialogue to distance this tense popular climate away from us.
We are also forgetting the issue of Israel’s spies as though all of a sudden, all prohibitions collapsed and we no longer cared about what Israel was doing. Why not handle this issue starting with the first spy who assassinated or participated in the assassination of the Majzoub brothers in Sidon. Why did they not execute him? He is a Druze. Execute him and let us get it over with!
We are all calling for the armament of the army and for supporting the army without doing anything for it. Yesterday, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia sealed a major and rare deal for armaments [at a cost of] $60 billion. There is no problem with that. Can we not head to the Kingdom or the Gulf to demand the required sum? We do not want weapons because they will not give it to us, but they gave us the sum at a certain stage. They offered us $100 million which are still in Nahr al-Bared. We call the army whenever an incident occurs. If a man has a dispute with his wife, he calls the army. But this army has limited capacities and must be armed… What are we waiting for? Are we ashamed to ask for arms from Russia or China among others because an American or Western order might ban the armament of the army or might keep this armament linked to them and given in a well-studied way to prevent the fighting of Israel? This is what it looks like. We look ashamed. I reiterate in this context the necessity of reinstating the obligatory military service.
There are hundreds and thousands of young men on the streets and we are hearing about car crashes and drug problems among other things. At least, if they enter the military institution for one hour, they might come out with a different moral and disciplined attitude instead of wandering the streets. This would also give the army an additional momentum, through which it could handle the incidents from Burj Abu Haidar to Majdel Anjar and other places.”

What “Arab role”?
Hazem Saghiyeh, October 25, 2010
Now Lebanon
In a symposium held upon the invitation of Abu Dhabi newspaper Al-Ittihad al-Zabyani on “the Arabs and neighborhood countries,” the same scene repeated itself, i.e. lamenting over the lack of “an Arab role” compared to the major roles played by Iran, Israel and Turkey.
Yet the very title of the symposium points to the crisis. Indeed, there are neighborhood “states” and “Arabs” that cannot be divided into states. Arabs, a purely ideological term, cannot play a “role” in their capacity as Arabs, if by role one refers to those played by Israel, Turkey and Iran. Therefore, the relations between “states” and “Arabs” often go down to relations between Iran and “Lebanon’s Shia,” Turkey and “Iraq’s Kurds,” etc. the broad ideological term is actually divided into sub-state and sub-societal ties.
In contrast, only this or that Arab state may play a “role” according to the definition given to this word. Egypt is the state that has the specifications in principle – and in principle only – to be in that position. Nevertheless, Egypt today is almost devoid of any role, knowing that it has already sponsored two major roles in the mid-1950s and the early 1980s, one linked to Nasserism and the other to Sadat’s rule. With regard to Nasserism, suffice it to remind that it weakened the Arabs on an unprecedented scale, thus trashing the efforts of those who thrived for a “strong role.” Under the impulse of Nasserism, the Iraqi, Jordanian and Lebanese societies split and fought internally between 1956 and 1959. No sooner had the Egyptian-Syrian unity been enacted in 1958 than it crumbled in 1961, resulting in unusual hatred between the two countries and the two peoples. The most dangerous event of all was the Yemeni war, which was the first inter-Arab war in modern history. Things culminated with the 1967 resounding defeat, which wiped out three Arab armies in six days and unraveled the weakness and fragility of Arab societies. In comparison, Sadat had no business calling for a revolution in the Arab world or establishing Arab unity; rather, he sought to end the state of war based on the very interests of states and peoples. It is common knowledge that the remaining Arabs hated that role. Yasser Arafat, who feared the presence of Syria in Lebanon at the time, refused to join the autonomy deal brought in by the Camp David agreement between Egypt and Israel. The Baghdad Summit was then held in 1978 to boycott Egypt and exclude it from the Arab league, the seat of which was moved to Tunisia. Three years later, fundamentalist officer Khaled Al-Islambouli carried out Sadat’s assassination, thus sealing the fate of the only Arab leader who recovered an occupied territory without their being anyone to ask God to have mercy upon him. The fate of those two roles help to explain the Arabs’ current weak role: The first one appeals to the “crowds” but leads to disasters, whereas the second lays the foundations of peace but does not appeal to the “crowds.” Rather than political, the problem is truly a cultural one. This article is a translation of the original, which appeared on the NOW Arabic site on October 25, 2010.

Adrift in Arabia
by Efraim Karsh
The Journal of International Security Affairs
Fall 2010
http://www.meforum.org/2763/obama-adrift-in-arabia
Transforming America's relations with the Islamic world has been perhaps the foremost foreign policy issue through which President Obama has sought to set himself apart from his immediate predecessor. Having long downplayed his Muslim roots—going so far as to disguise not only his middle name, Hussein, but also to substitute Barack with the less conspicuous Barry early on in his career[1]—Obama has embraced them since taking office. As he explained in his much-ballyhooed June 2009 address to the Muslim World in Cairo:
I'm a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith... So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't.[2]
Reverting to standard "post colonial" rhetoric, the president squarely blamed the West for "the great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world." "The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars," he claimed,
More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations... Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims… [culminating in] the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians."[3]
While there is no denying the widespread appeal of this argument, there is also no way around the fact that, in almost every particular, it is demonstratively, even invidiously, wrong. The depiction of Muslims as hapless victims of the aggressive encroachments of others is patronizing in the worst tradition of the "white man's burden," which has dismissed regional players as half-witted creatures, too dim to be accountable for their own fate. Moreover, Islamic history has been anything but reactive. From the Prophet Muhammad to the Ottomans, the story of Islam has been the story of the rise and fall of an often-astonishing imperial aggressiveness and, no less important, of never quiescent imperial dreams and repeated fantasies of revenge and restoration. These fantasies gained rapid momentum during the last phases of the Ottoman Empire, culminating in its disastrous decision to enter World War I on the losing side, as well as in the creation of an imperialist dream that would survive the Ottoman era to haunt Islamic and Middle Eastern politics into the 21st century.
To this very day, for example, many Muslims unabashedly pine for the restoration of Spain, and look upon the expulsion of the Moors from that country in 1492 as a grave historical injustice. Osama bin Laden highlighted "the tragedy of Andalusia" in the wake of the 9/11 attacks[4], while the perpetrators of the subsequent March 2004 Madrid bombings, in which hundreds of people were murdered, mentioned revenge for the loss of Spain as one of the atrocity's "root causes."[5]
Indeed, even countries that have never been under Islamic imperial rule have become legitimate targets of radical Islamic fervor. Since the late 1980s, various Islamist movements have looked upon the growing number of French Muslims as a sign that France, too, has become a potential part of the House of Islam.[6] In Germany, which extended a warm welcome to the scores of Islamists fleeing persecution in their home countries, the radical Muslim Brotherhood has successfully established itself, with ample Saudi financing, as the effective voice of the three million-strong Muslim community.[7] Their British counterparts have followed suit; "We will remodel this country in an Islamic image," London-based preacher Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad told an attentive audience less than two months after 9/11. "We will replace the Bible with the Qur'an."[8]
This goal need not necessarily be pursued by the sword; it can be achieved through demographic growth and steady conversion to Islam. But should peaceful means prove insufficient, physical force can readily be brought to bear.
Nor is this vision confined to a tiny extremist fringe, as President Obama apparently believes. That much is clear from the overwhelming support the 9/11 attacks garnered throughout the Arab and Islamic worlds, the admiring evocations of bin Laden's murderous acts during the 2006 crisis over the Danish cartoons, and polls indicating significant reservoirs of sympathy among Muslims in Britain for the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London in July 2005.[9]
In the historical imagination of many Muslims, bin Laden represents nothing short of the new incarnation of Saladin, defeater of the Crusaders and conqueror of Jerusalem. In this sense, the House of Islam's war for world mastery is a traditional, indeed venerable, quest that is far from over. If, today, America is reviled in the Muslim world, it is not because of its specific policies but because, as the preeminent world power, it blocks the final realization of this same age-old dream of a universal Islamic community, or umma.
It is the failure to recognize this state of affairs that accounts for the resounding failure of Obama's policies toward the Middle East and the Muslim World. For all his hyped outreach to Arabs and Muslims—from the pledged "new way forward" in his inaugural speech to his first major presidential interview, given to the al-Arabiya television network, to his submissive bow to Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, to his instruction to NASA to reach out to the Muslim world—Obama has failed to win the quiescence, let alone the respect and admiration of these societies. On the contrary, in line with Osama bin Laden's handy quip in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks that "when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse,"[10] his prestige has been on a downward spiral since the first days of his presidency. In the recent words of a Saudi academic, who had been formerly smitten with the first black U.S. president: "He talks too much."[11]
Misreading Iran
Take Iran's quest for nuclear weapons, the foremost threat to Middle Eastern stability, if not to world peace, in the foreseeable future. In a sharp break from the previous administration's attempts to coerce Tehran to abandon its nuclear program, Obama initially chose the road of "engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect."[12]
In his al-Arabiya interview, a mere week after his inauguration, Obama already promised that if Iran agreed "to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us." Two months later, in a videotaped greeting on the occasion of the Iranian New Year, he reassured the clerics in Tehran of his absolute commitment "to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us," claiming that this "new beginning" would win Iran substantial economic and political gains, most notably worldwide acceptance of the legitimacy of the Islamic regime derided by the Bush administration as a central part of the "Axis of Evil." This, however, could only be achieved "through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization. And the measure of that greatness is not the capacity to destroy, it is your demonstrated ability to build and create."[13]
In his Cairo address, Obama amplified this suggestion. While warning Iran that its nuclear ambitions might lead to "a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path," he made no allusion to the possibility of coercion, going out of his way to show empathize with Iran's supposed sensitivities. "I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not," he said.
No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that's why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation—including Iran—should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I'm hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.[14]
However appealing as an intellectual sophistry (though China and Russia, among others, have remained conspicuously unimpressed), the framing of Iran's nuclear buildup within the context of the NPT is totally misconceived, for the simple reason that the matter at hand is one of international security rather than international legality. Even if Iran were not a signatory to the NPT, and hence legally free to develop nuclear weapons, it would still be imperative for the international community to prevent this eventuality, since the existence of the deadliest weapons at the hands of a militant regime driven by messianic zeal and committed to the worldwide export of its radical brand of Islam would be a recipe for disaster.
Nor is Obama's professed commitment to a nuclear-free world likely to impress the clerics in Tehran. Quite the opposite, in fact. Since their nuclear ambitions emanate from imperialist rather than defensive considerations, the disarmament of other nuclear powers (notably Israel) could only whet their appetite by increasing the relative edge of these weapons for the Islamic Republic's quest for regional hegemony, if not the world mastery envisaged by its founding father, the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. As Khomeini put it in his day: "The Iranian revolution is not exclusively that of Iran, because Islam does not belong to any particular people… We will export our revolution throughout the world because it is an Islamic revolution. The struggle will continue until the calls 'there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah' are echoed all over the world."[15]
Moreover, Obama's eagerness to demonstrate his even handedness and goodwill to a regime that views the world in zero sum terms has only served to cast him as weak and indecisive, an image that was further reinforced by the administration's knee jerk response to the Islamic regime's brutal suppression of popular protest over the rigging of the June 2009 presidential elections. That the U.S. president, who had made a point in his inaugural address to warn "those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent" that they were "on the wrong side of history," and who lectured Muslim regimes throughout the world that "you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion,"[16] remained conspicuously silent in the face of the flagrant violation of these very principles did not pass unnoticed by the Iranian regime. Iran's leaders responded accordingly; President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad not only demanded that the United States apologize to the Iranian people, but also that it withdraw its troops from conflict zones around the world and "stop supporting the Zionists, outlaws, and criminals."[17]
He reiterated the demand for an American apology five months later, this time for its supposed meddling in the June 2009 Iranian elections, while the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, ridiculed Obama for privately courting Iran while censuring it in public. "The U.S. President said that we were waiting for the day when people would take to the streets," he stated in a Friday sermon. "At the same time they write letters saying that they want to have ties and that they respect the Islamic Republic. Which are we to believe?"[18]
Iran's leaders backed their defiant rhetoric with actions. In a February 2010 visit to Damascus, for example, Ahmadinejad signed a string of agreements with his Syrian counterpart, Bashar Assad, and the two held warm meetings with the leaders of the Lebanese Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas Islamist terror groups aimed at underscoring the indivisibility of their alliance. Coming a day after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged Syria "to begin to move away from the relationship with Iran" and to stop supporting Hezbollah, the summit was a clear slap in the face of the administration—and proof of the abject collapse of Obama's "engagement" policy.
Losing Turkey
So was the Turkish Republic's sudden and dramatic disengagement from the founding principles underpinning its creation in the wake of World War I. This latter setback was particularly galling to the White House, in part because the president had made that country a major cornerstone of his engagement strategy. "This is my first trip overseas as President of the United States," he told the Turkish parliament on April 6, 2009:
I've been to the G20 summit in London, and the NATO summit in Strasbourg, and the European Union summit in Prague. Some people have asked me if I chose to continue my travels to Ankara and Istanbul to send a message to the world. And my answer is simple: Evet - yes. Turkey is a critical ally... And Turkey and the United States must stand together - and work together - to overcome the challenges of our time.[19]
Having praised Turkey's "strong, vibrant, secular democracy," Obama voiced unequivocal support for the country's incorporation into the European Union—a highly contentious issue among the organization's members. In his opinion, Turkey was "an important part of Europe," which had to be "truly united, peaceful and free" in order to be able to meet the challenges of the 21st century. "Let me be clear," he said:
The United States strongly supports Turkey's bid to become a member of the European Union. We speak not as members of the EU, but as close friends of both Turkey and Europe. Turkey has been a resolute ally and a responsible partner in transatlantic and European institutions. Turkey is bound to Europe by more than the bridges over the Bosphorous. Centuries of shared history, culture, and commerce bring you together. Europe gains by the diversity of ethnicity, tradition and faith - it is not diminished by it. And Turkish membership would broaden and strengthen Europe's foundation once more.[20]
"I know there are those who like to debate Turkey's future," he continued.
They see your country at the crossroads of continents, and touched by the currents of history.... They wonder whether you will be pulled in one direction or another.
But I believe here is what they don't understand: Turkey's greatness lies in your ability to be at the center of things. This is not where East and West divide - this is where they come together.[21]
As with his Cairo speech, Obama's reading of the historic Turkish-Western interaction (and its attendant implications) was disastrously flawed. Far from being a bridge between East and West, the Ottoman Empire was an implacable foe that had steadily encroached on Europe and its way of life. It is true that the 19th century saw numerous instances of Ottoman-European collaboration; but this was merely pragmatic maneuvering aimed at arresting imperial decline and holding on to colonial possessions.
This failed, and from the end of the Napoleonic wars (1815) to the outbreak of World War I, Turkey was the most violent part of the European continent, as the Ottoman Empire's attempt to keep its reluctant European subjects under its domination unleashed a prolonged orgy of bloodletting and mayhem, from the Greek civil war of the 1820s to the Crimean War to the Balkan crisis of the 1870s to the Balkan wars of 1912-13.
Obama's exercise in appeasement was wholly unnecessary. By the time he was addressing the Turkish parliament, the country's "strong and secular democracy," lauded by Obama as Atatürk's foremost and most enduring legacy, was well and truly under siege. In the eight eventful years since it won the November 2002 general elections, the Islamist Justice and Reconciliation Party (AKP) has transformed Turkey's legal system, suppressed the independent media, and sterilized the political and military systems, even as hundreds of opponents and critics have found themselves inducted on dubious charges of a grand conspiracy to overthrow the Turkish government.[22]
This process was not confined to the domestic scene. Turkey's growing Islamization has been accompanied by a mixture of anti-Western sentiments and reasserted aspirations for regional hegemony, aptly described by a growing number of Turkish and foreign commentators as "Neo-Ottomanism."[23] Hence Turkey's growing alignment with Iran, exemplified most notably in the attempt to avert the imposition of international sanctions on Tehran by signing (with Brazil) a nuclear fuel swap deal in May 2010, which would have provided for the dispatch of low-enriched Iranian uranium to Turkey in return for fuel for one Iranian nuclear reactor. Similarly evocative has been Turkey's eagerness to wrest the mediator's role between Syria and Israel from the West, despite the AKP's overt hostility to Israel and to Jews more generally. Then there is Turkey's embrace of the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brothers, better known by its Arabic acronym, Hamas, which reached its peak in May 2010 with the sponsorship of a flotilla aimed at breaking the Israeli blockade of the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.
Exacerbating the Arab-Israeli conflict
Instead of backing the Israeli effort to contain a murderous Islamist group, implacably opposed to Western values and ideals and committed to the establishment of "a great Islamic state, be it pan-Arabic or pan-Islamic," on Israel's ruins,[24] the Obama administration viewed the international outcry attending the flotilla incident as a golden opportunity to tighten the noose around Israel—the main, indeed only, defined component of its policy toward the Arab-Israeli conflict.
To be sure, in his Cairo address Obama made a point of emphasizing the permanence of "America's strong bonds with Israel." But then, by predicating Israel's right to exist on the Holocaust (which he diluted by putting on a par with Palestinian suffering), he effectively adopted the Palestinian narrative. Under that telling, the Palestinians are the real victims of the Holocaust, forced to foot the bill for the West's presumed desire to atone for its genocidal tendencies and indifference through the establishment of a Jewish state. Never mind that there was no collective sense of guilt among Europeans, many of whom viewed themselves as fellow victims of Nazi aggression. Anti-Semitic sentiments remained as pronounced as ever, especially in Eastern Europe, which witnessed a few vicious pogroms shortly after the end of WWII.
Nor did Obama's succeed in advancing his avowed commitment to the two-state solution of Israel and a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. On the contrary, by putting excessive pressure on Israel and none whatsoever on the Arabs, and by casting the issue of West Bank settlements as the foremost obstacle to peace while turning a blind eye to continued Palestinian and Arab rejection of Israel's right to exist, he managed to alienate the Israeli public and to harden the position of the Palestinian leadership, which watched the recurrent crises in U.S.-Israeli relations with undisguised satisfaction in anticipation of substantial (and unreciprocated) Israeli concessions. Thus, for example, when on June 14, 2009, in an abrupt departure from Likud's foremost ideological precept, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed to the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state provided the Palestinian leadership responded in kind and recognized Israel's Jewish nature, the Obama administration did nothing to disabuse Arab regimes of their adamant rejection of Jewish statehood and instead pressured the Israeli government for a complete freeze of building activities in the settlements and East Jerusalem.
This behavior is not difficult to understand. Appeasement of one's enemies at the expense of friends, whose loyalty can be taken for granted, is a common—if unsavory—human trait. Rather than reward America's longest and most loyal ally in the Middle East, the Obama administration ruthlessly exploited the Jewish state's growing international isolation for the sake of winning over enemies and critics. It was also a telling affirmation that the Obama administration subscribes to the common fallacy that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict constitutes the root of all evil, and that its resolution will lead to regional peace.
Such a view is wildly inaccurate. For one thing, violence was an integral part of Middle Eastern political culture long before the advent of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and physical force remains today the main if not the sole instrument of regional political discourse. For another, the Arab states have never had any real stake in the "liberation of Palestine." Though anti-Zionism has been the core principle of pan-Arab solidarity since the 1930s, it has almost always served as an instrument for achieving the self-interested ends of those who proclaim it.
Consider, for example, the pan-Arab invasion of the newly proclaimed state of Israel in May 1948. On its face, it was a shining demonstration of solidarity with the Palestinian Arabs. But the invasion had far less to do with winning independence for the indigenous population than with the desire of the Arab regimes for territorial aggrandizement. Transjordan's King Abdullah wanted to incorporate substantial parts of mandatory Palestine, if not the entire country, into the greater Syrian empire he coveted; Egypt wanted to prevent that eventuality by laying its hands on southern Palestine; Syria and Lebanon sought to annex the Galilee; Iraq viewed the 1948 war as a stepping stone in its long-standing ambition to bring the entire Fertile Crescent under its rule. Had the Jewish state lost the war, its territory would not have fallen to the Palestinians but would have been divided among the invading Arab forces.
During the decades that followed, the Arab states manipulated the Palestinian national cause for their own ends. Neither Egypt nor Jordan allowed Palestinian self-determination in the parts of Palestine they had occupied during the 1948 war (respectively, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip). Palestinian refugees were kept in squalid camps for decades as a means of derogating Israel and stirring pan-Arab sentiments. "The Palestinians are useful to the Arab states as they are," Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser candidly responded to an inquiring Western reporter in 1956. "We will always see that they do not become too powerful."[25] As late as 1974, Syria's Hafez al-Assad referred to Palestine as being "not only a part of the Arab homeland but a basic part of southern Syria."[26]
If the Arab states have shown little empathy for the plight of ordinary Palestinians, the Islamic connection to the Palestinian problem is even more tenuous. It is not out of concern for a Palestinian right to national self-determination but as part of a holy war to prevent the loss of a part of the "House of Islam" that Islamists inveigh against the Jewish state of Israel. In the words of the Hamas covenant: "The land of Palestine has been an Islamic trust (waqf) throughout the generations and until the day of resurrection... When our enemies usurp some Islamic lands, jihad becomes a duty binding on all Muslims."[27] That current American policy ignores this reality not only serves to weaken Israel and embolden its enemies, but also to make the prospects of Arab-Israeli peace ever more remote.
A new beginning?
A year after announcing "a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world," Obama's grandiose outreach lies in tatters. The clerics in Tehran continue their dogged quest for the "bomb" and have intensified arms supplies to their Lebanese terrorist proxy, Hezbollah, with Syria's connivance and support. Turkey persists in its Islamist odyssey, and Hamas continues its military buildup and occasional terror attacks, while at the same time promoting its removal from the EU's list of terror organizations. Nor for that matter has the cold shouldering of Israel enhanced Obama's popularity in the Arab world, as evidenced, inter alia, by recent surveys showing a steady decline in his standing and making him only marginally more popular in comparison with his much maligned predecessor, George W. Bush.[28]
Even in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama has failed to chart a course that is different in any meaningful way from that of the previous administration. On the contrary, while credit for the relative calm in Iraq is undoubtedly due to the Bush-era "surge," which Senator Obama had bitterly opposed at the time[29], the military situation in Afghanistan—which he has made the edifice of his struggle against violent extremism—has seriously deteriorated, owing to his indecisive and poorly conceived strategy. Particularly damaging was the pronounced intention to withdraw from the country in the summer of 2011, which has left the Taliban in the enviable position of lying low and biding their time until the departure of American forces, or wearing them down in a sustained guerrilla and terror campaign, so as to portray the withdrawal as an ignominious retreat.
The truth of the matter is that in order to have even the slightest chance of success, Obama's "new beginning" must be promptly ended, with appeasement replaced by containment and counterattack. As a first step, the president and his advisers must recognize the Manichean and irreconcilable nature of the challenge posed by their adversaries. There is no peaceful way to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions, stemming as they do from its imperialist brand of Islamism; a military strike must remain a serious option. Turkey's Islamist drift is bound to make it an enemy of the West, rather than the ally it was over the past half-a-century. Hamas and Hezbollah will never reconcile themselves to the existence of a Jewish state on any part of the perceived House of Islam, however tiny. And there is no way for the U.S. to resolve the century-old war between Arabs and Jews unless the Palestinian and Arab leaders eschew their genocidal hopes for Israel's destruction and accept the Jewish right to statehood. Failure to grasp these realities is an assured recipe for disaster.
Efraim Karsh, editor of the Middle East Quarterly, is Professor of Middle East and Mediterranean Studies at King's College London and author, most recently of Palestine Betrayed (Yale University Press, 2010).
[1] "When Barry Became Barack," Newsweek, March 22, 2008.
[2] The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, "Remarks by the President on a New Beginning," Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt, June 4, 2009.
[3] Ibid.
[4] "Statement of Osama Bin Laden," Al-Jazeera (Doha), October 7, 2001.
[5] "Beyond Madrid," Times of London, November 1, 2007.
[6] Gilles Kepel, Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002), 306.
[7] Michel Gurfinkiel, "Islam in France: The French Way of Life Is in Danger," Middle East Quarterly 4, no. 1 (March 1997).
[8] Lorenzo Vidino, "The Muslim Brotherhood's Conquest of Europe," Middle East Quarterly 12, no. 1 (Winter 2005).
[9] "Poll Shows Muslims in Britain are the Most Anti-Western in Europe," Guardian (London), June 23, 2006; "British Muslims: London Bombing Justified," The Trumpet, October 26, 2006.
[10] As cited in James Poniewozik, "The Banality Of Bin Laden," Time, December 13, 2001.
[11] As cited in Fouad Ajami, "The Arabs Have Stopped Applauding Obama," Wall Street Journal, November 29, 2009.
[12] "Obama's Tone in Iran Message Differs Sharply from Bush's," Washington Post, March 21, 2009.
[13] "Obama to Iran - 'A New Day, a New Beginning,'" Times of London, March 21, 2009.
[14] "Remarks by the President on a New Beginning."
[15] Farhad Rajaee, Islamic Values and World View: Khomeini on Man, the State and International Politics (Lanham, MD: University of America Press, 1983), 82 ‑ 83.
[16] "Text of Barack Obama's Inaugural Address," New York Times, January 20, 2009; "Remarks by the President on a New Beginning."
[17] "Ahmadinejad Says Obama Must Apologize to the Iranian People for Bush," Times of London, January 28, 2009; "Iran Rebuffs Obama's Surprise Offer of a 'New Beginning,'" Times of London, March 20, 2009; "Obama Dismisses Ahmadinejad Apology Request," Washington Times, June 26, 2009; "Ahmadinejad: Obama is a Cowboy Who Follows Will of Israel," Ha'aretz (Tel Aviv), April 4, 2010; "Iran: Ahmadinejad Threatens Obama with 'Tooth Breaking Response to U.S. Nuclear strategy," Los Angeles Times, April 7, 2010; "Ahmadinejad: Iran is Obama's Only Way to Stay in Power," CNN, April 10, 2010.
[18] "Ayatollah mocks U.S. Pre-election Overture," CBS, June 24, 2009.
[19] The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, "Remarks by President Obama to the Turkish Parliament," Ankara, Turkey, April 6, 2009.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibidem.
[22] Michael Rubin, "Turkey, from Ally to Enemy, Commentary, July/August 2010; Dani Rodrik, "The Death of Turkey's Democracy," Wall Street Journal, June 23, 2010.
[23] See, for example, Suat Kiniklioglu, "The Return of Ottomanism," Zaman (Istanbul), March 20, 2007; Omer Taspinar, "Neo-Ottomanism and Kemalist Foreign Policy," Zaman (Istanbul), September 22, 2008; Tariq Alhomayed, "Turkey: Searching for a Role," Al-Sharq al-Awsat (London), May 19, 2010.
[24] This according to senior Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar. He added that "Islamic and traditional views reject the notion of establishing an independent Palestinian state... In the past, there was no independent Palestinian state." "Exclusive Interview with Hamas Leader," The Media Line, September 22, 2005.
[25] John Laffin, The PLO Connections (London, Corgi Books, 1983), 127.
[26] Damascus Radio, March 8, 1974.
[27] Articles 11, 13, 15, 27, The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement, August 18, 1988.
[28] See, for example, Daniel Pipes, "Obama Makes Little Headway among Arabic-Speaking Muslims," The Lion's Den: Daniel Pipes Blog, May 29, 2010; Pew Research Center, Global Attitudes Project, "Muslim Disappointment," June 17, 2010.
[29] See, for example, "Obama: Iraq Surge has Hurt American Interests," New York Sun, July 15, 2008.
 

If I was an advisor to Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri, having read the interview with Syrian Prime Minister Muhammad Naji al-Otari, in which he said “we do not consider things in terms of the 14th, 15th, 16th of March, for it is a cardboard box”, and added, “March 14th and March 15th, who are these [groups]?” I would say to myself (as Hariri’s advisor): “If this is how an official representative of Syria talks, I can’t imagine what ruder individuals might say!” Then I would hurry to my office and write Hariri the following letter:
If I Were to Advise Hariri
25/10/2010
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asshaq Alawsat
Dear Prime Minister,
Greetings,
You must be aware, since the resumption of relations between you [Lebanon] and Damascus, about an unprecedented attack launched by the Syrian Prime Minister against the March 14th forces. Your country knows that this attack comes after a series of media insults issued from Damascus, undermining your rights and the right of the March 14th Alliance, via media outlets funded by Syria, Hezbollah, and Iran, in addition to what you already know and what's been revealed to you by those that are informed. So I am writing to you, as a trusted advisor, to inform you that the time has come to make the appropriate decision, according to current circumstances and interests. This decision, your Excellency, is to resign as Prime Minister.
Your Excellency…
You fought the elections with your movement behind you, and your supporters, of whom there are many, and you secured a victory. However, you were unable to form a government, but you sensed your responsibility, went to Doha, and made concessions in order to preserve Lebanon. Then came the battle regarding the International Tribunal [investigating the murder] of Rafik Hariri and his companions, and you set up camp for justice in the heart of Lebanon. The court has now become an untouchable reality. You opened a new page of relations with Syria, and the Syrian President, and you visited Damascus. Furthermore, you spoke with positive language in your interview with ‘Asharq al-Awsat’, where you said: “Yes we made mistakes. The matter does not end at this point, but they ask the impossible today”.
The [current situation] is an impossible one, your Excellency. Either you contest the International Tribunal, merely so Hezbollah are acquitted, or they [Hezbollah] will continue to disrupt your work, paralyzing the government by calling for an investigation into false witnesses, although the Tribunal has stated that it has not and will not be based on such witnesses. All that is happening today is blackmail, in order to damage the reputation of the Tribunal before it issues its indictments, and this is political, moral and leadership suicide, your Excellency.
Accordingly, we believe that you should offer your resignation as Prime Minister, for no other Sunni politician will be able to assume office and make a decision that affects the Tribunal. Whoever the next Prime Minister is, the [implementation of the] Tribunal was an international decision, and thus any attempt to infringe upon it would be a great betrayal, and would not be accepted by influential Arab countries, let alone the West. Afterwards you will become, wherever you may be, a sanctuary [for the new leaders]. They will come to you because you will be their saviour. They will not be able to endure the Lebanese public, who will discover the threat they pose.
Resign today your Excellency as you have completed your duties, and made enough sacrifices and concessions. The time has come, your Excellency, to do as your father did, God bless his soul, when he found that all his roads were blocked, and entrusted Lebanon and its people to God.
This is what we have seen, and this is what our conscience dictates, may God watch over you.
The question now is will Hariri resign?

Jumblatt, Assad agree on need for calm dialogue
Otari’s ‘House of cards’ remarks draw March 14 criticism
By Elias Sakr /Daily Star staff
Monday, October 25, 2010
BEIRUT: Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt said after talks in Damascus with President Bashar Assad Sunday that he was in complete agreement with the Syrian leader over regional issues, particularly the need to adopt calm dialogue in Lebanon. “Under the current circumstances when Arab and nationalist security is threatened, we are required to cooperate and coordinate with Syria,” Jumblatt told Hizbullah-affiliated Al-Manar TV upon his return from Damascus. “Exactly like the past period, when we went through similar circumstances and triumphed, we will prevail again,” Jumblatt added.
A statement by Syrian state-run News Agency (SANA) said “discussions addressed the latest developments on the Lebanese arena and the importance of efforts to unite Lebanese parties to maintain calm, consolidate national unity and to promote Lebanon’s strong points against future challenges.”
Jumblatt’s visit to Syria followed Syrian Premier Mohammad Naji al-Otari description Friday of the March 14 coalition as a “house of cards.”
Otari’s comments drew sharp criticism Sunday from March 14 parties after a period of relative calm between the alliance and Damascus, amid Syrian-Saudi talks in a bid to put an end to the political standoff between Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s coalition and Hizbullah.
Jumblatt, once a leading figure of the March 14 coalition, withdrew from the alliance following the 2009 parliamentary elections and undertook a ritual of apologies for accusing Damascus of involvement in former Premier Rafik Hariri’s murder, stances that brought him closer to Syria and its allies in Lebanon.
While the Druze leader’s position regarding the ongoing dispute remains ambiguous so far as he continues to urge rival parties to reach consensus over Special Tribunal-related controversies, pro-March 8 media outlets have reported on recent occasions that the Chouf MP was explicitly requested to take sides with Syria’s allies.
Prior to his visit to Damascus, Jumblatt said a solution for the dispute over the investigation of false witnesses, an issue which the parliamentary minority insists that the Cabinet refer to the Justice Council, could only be solved through a political agreement, rather than a vote in the Cabinet. Contrary to the insistence by March 14 parties on the STL’s role as a guarantee of justice and consequently stability, by putting an end to political assassinations, Jumblatt said justice was tied to stability and could not be achieved on its own.
“I insist that justice is tied to stability … we cannot achieve justice separate from stability nor stability separate from justice, this is the message which I conveyed to US Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey Feltman during his visit to Lebanon,” Jumblatt said.
“We do not want this tribunal to be a cause for strife or the destruction of Lebanon; the court has no value if it leads to strife and destruction,” he added.
Feltman who briefly visited Beirut on October 17 coming from Riyadh, said the US was supportive of the UN-backed tribunal to put an end to political assassinations and achieve stability, a stance that was echoed by France as well. French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly conveyed Saturday to President Michel Sleiman France’s support of the STL and his country’s readiness to receive Lebanese political leaders to help put an end to the political deadlock, the daily An-Nahar reported in remarks published Sunday.
The paper reported that Sarkozy expressed concern over tensions in Lebanon as well as the repercussions feared following the release of the STL indictment by the stand adopted by Hizbullah. Hizbullah has condemned the STL as an Israeli plot aimed against the resistance, saying the Western-backed tribunal was fabricating an indictment set to falsely implicate Hizbullah members in Hariri’s assassination. Hizbullah officials have also warned that they would regard those backing an indictment against Hizbullah as “Zionist agents.”
While it was rumored that the indictment would be released by the end of 2010, Jumblatt said “he heard and read that the indictment was delayed to March 2011.”
“This means we delayed the problem to March but we cannot wait until March to resume discussions so we should resolve the issue calmly,” he added.
However, Minyeh lawmaker Ahmad Fatfat, a Future Movement official, said Hariri would not bow to pressure to make additional concessions.
“Pressure on Premier Saad Hariri will fail because he will not make additional compromises that he does not enjoy when it comes to the STL,” Fatfat said.
Fatfat’s colleague, Chouf MP Mohammad Hajjar, said the STL indictment would eventually be released whereas the tense discourse adopted by the March 8 coalition would “lead nowhere.” The Future Movement said in a statement released over the weekend that Otari’s remarks were inappropriate since they were aimed against a large popular movement, of which the Future Movement considers itself an inseparable part. The statement added that the comments were also an intervention in Lebanese internal affairs.
Tripoli MP Mohammad Kabbara said objections against Otari’s description of the March 14 coalition as a house of cards shook Damascus’ image as a solid power since it was the March 14 movement that drove Syria’s army out of Lebanon. Meanwhile, Zahle MP and Phalange Party official Elie Marouni said Otari’s statement was a violation of diplomatic norms, adding that Syria was still unconvinced of its withdrawal from Lebanon.

Lebanon has Arab world's third most transparent budget
Index ranks Country at 57th place globally
By The Daily Star /Monday, October 25, 2010
BEIRUT: The International Budget Partnership’s Open Budget Index for 2010 ranked Lebanon in 66th place among 94 countries globally and in third place among nine Arab countries included in the survey. Lebanon ranked in 57th place globally and in third place in the Arab world in the 2008 survey, as reported by Lebanon This Week, the economic publication of the Byblos Bank Group.
The change in Lebanon’s global rank is due in part to the addition of nine new countries to the index. Lebanon also ranked in 31st place among the 24 Upper Middle Income countries (UMICs) included in the survey. The index evaluates the level of governments’ commitment to give public access to budget information and provides opportunities to participate in the budget process at the national level.
The survey scores countries on a scale from zero to 100, with zero representing the lowest level of transparency and 100 the highest. Each country is classified as a provider of “extensive” information, “significant” information, “some” information, “minimal” information or “scant” or “no” information. A country’s placement within a performance category was determined by averaging responses to 92 questions related to information contained in eight key budget documents that all countries should make available to the public, such as a pre-budget statement, executive’s budget proposal, enacted budget, citizens’ budget, in-year reports, a mid-year review, a year-end report and an audit report. The questionnaire for Lebanon covered the budget year for 2009.
Globally, Lebanon ranked ahead of Ecuador, Mozambique and Morocco and came behind Trinidad & Tobago, Albania and Venezuela. It also came ahead of the Dominican Republic, Algeria and Fiji and behind Venezuela, Kazakhstan and Malaysia among UMICs. Lebanon’s level of budgetary transparency reached 32 percent, unchanged from 2008, placing it in the category of governments that provide “minimal” budgetary information, with 19 countries falling in this category. Its level of budget transparency came significantly above the Arab average of 22 percent, but below the global average of 42 percent and the UMICs’ average of 49 percent.
The International Budget Partnership indicated that countries classified as providing “minimal” budgetary information, provide some but incomplete information to the public, which means that citizens do not have a comprehensive picture about the government’s plans for taxing and spending for the upcoming year.
The survey noted that countries providing minimal information should improve their performance on three key aspects. It said that the published Executive’s Budget Proposals of these countries are considerably less comprehensive than those of high-scoring countries, and that such proposals should include essential information. Countries should also improve the comprehensiveness of Audit Reports and be sure to publish them.
Finally, they need to begin to produce and publish Mid-Year Reviews, a key budgetary document. In parallel, the IBP indicated that the released budget documents should also include information on the relationship between the government’s budget and its policy and macroeconomic goals, on policies that are intended to directly benefit the country’s most impoverished populations, on outcomes expected and achieved, as well as on fiscal activities outside the standard budget process such as extra-budgetary funds and quasi-fiscal activities. In parallel, the survey added that, beyond improving access to key budget documents, the budget process can be made more open through ensuring the existence of strong legislatures and supreme audit institutions, as well as providing greater opportunities for the