LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِSeptember 17/2010

Bible Of The Day
Galatians 5:1/For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
Today's Inspiring Thought: Celebrate Freedom
The ultimate celebration of independence in your life began the day you surrendered your will to Jesus Christ. At that moment, the Savior set you free from sin's dominion. Death no longer had its hold on you. The spiritual chains fell away from your soul, and you walked away free. You can be sure there were fireworks in heaven on that day. Celebrate your freedom by never forgetting what happened to you on your spiritual independence day. (about.com)
 

Free Opinions, Releases, letters, Interviews & Special Reports
Is Islam the problem?/By: Moshe Dann/September 16/10
State in mind: Civil society group seeks 'sane' country/By Cynthia O’Hayon/September 16/10
Analysis: Syria's 'Peace Commitment' Doubletalk/Christian Broadcasting Network/September 16/10
Millions of Virgins; Millions of Martyrs. These Guys Have Followers and They Really Mean It/By Barry Rubin/September 16/10
ICC: talian FM Condemns Anti Christian Attacks in India Following Qur'an Burning/September 16/10
Much ado about nothing/By: Ana Maria Luca/September 16/10
Syrian pretension and reality in Iraq/By: Tony Badran/September 16/10
Canada’s continuous commitment/By ILAN EVYATAR/September 16/10

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for September 16/10
Abbas in Ramallah: There's no alternative to negotiations/J.Post/AP
Barak says peace with Lebanon, Syria is possible/J.Post
Report: USA House Foreign Affairs Committee Lifts Ban on Sending Military Aid to Lebanon/Naharnet
Barak: Hizbullah Won't Surprise Us Again/Naharnet
Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir : What's the Point of Having Unity Cabinet if Escalation Continues/Naharnet
Mitchell confirms Washington seeks to restart Israeli-Syrian negotiations/Ha'aretz
Report: Sayyed Visited Suleiman Away from Media Spotlight/Naharnet
Hezbollah is behind Sayyed’s acts, Jouzou says/Now Lebanon
Attorney General Judge Said Mirza summons Sayyed for questioning/Now Lebanon
LF: Geagea did not say party will confront objectors to Sayyed’s summons/Now Lebanon
Sleiman: Halt threats against state entities/Daily Star
Suleiman Receives Letter from Ahmadinejad, Lauds French Support for Lebanon/Naharnet
Sayyed's Son: We Ask for Compensation and Accountability/Naharnet
Assad Asked Hariri to Resolve False Witnesses Case but Was Disappointed at Lack of Official Stance/Naharnet
Iranian Embassy Hits Back at Gemayel: False Claims to Distort Iran's Image in Eyes of Public Opinion/Naharnet
Hezbollah prepares hit list to avenge Mugniyeh killing/Ynetnews
EXCLUSIVE: Venezuela Cancels Round-Trip 'Terror Flight' to Syria and Iran/FoxNews
Report: Mossad chief at head of Hezbollah hit list/Ynetnews
The New York Post: Calling Dangerous Criminals Sissy Since at Least 2005/The L.Magazine
The Reading List: Is Hezbollah invading from Mexico?/News Voices
Levant energy stakes keep getting higherUPI
Mysterious death of a Russian spy chief/UPI
Lebanon: Anti-Syrian official accuses Hezbollah of coup/Ynetnews
Hezbollah prints playing cards of top Israeli officials targeted for revenge/Haaretz
Hashem to Gemayel, March 14: You Won't Be Able to Alter Facts that've Become National Axioms whether Some Like it or Not/Naharnet
Iranian President to visit Lebanon on Oct. 13/Xinhua
HRW: Lebanese Justice Ignores Violations Involving Domestic Workers/Naharnet

March 14: Lebanon is being Subject to a Fierce Coup Attempt Setting up the Lebanese's Future for Execution
The March 14 General Secretariat stressed Wednesday that Lebanon is currently being subject to a "fierce coup attempt" the aim of which is to restore the situation in the country to what it was before March 14, 2005. It said in a statement after its weekly meeting, read by its coordinator Fares Soaid: "Hizbullah revealed this plan itself when it announced its refusal of the facts and political, national, and popular equations." "It aims to change the situation through a general who represents the previous security regime in the country, who was followed by MP Michel Aoun and his call to citizens to civil disobedience," it added. It highlighted the March 14 forces' efforts in bridging the gap between it and Hizbullah, recounting its efforts in the July 2006 war and its attempts to issue resolution 1701 under chapter six of the U.N. Charter instead of chapter seven. "Despite the occupation of downtown Beirut and obstructing the functioning of parliament to thwart the formation of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, the March 14 forces extended its hand to Hizbullah, a day after the approval of the tribunal at the U.N. Security Council, in order to restore unity," it continued. Soaid continued that the March 14 forces adopted openness towards Hizbullah after the clashes of May 2008 and even after the forces won a majority in the 2009 parliamentary elections, forming a national unity government that included party members. "Unfortunately, the Hizbullah leadership welcomed all this with attempts to thwart matters of that enjoyed Lebanese consensus: the STL, resolution 1701, Palestinian possession of arms outside refuges camps, Lebanese desire to overcome the memories of the civil war," said Soaid. "Hizullah's ongoing kidnapping of the Lebanese situation for external interests is rejected and will lead to great chaos … No one had the right to violate the rights of a million and a half Lebanese who were united and reconciled, Muslims and Christians, to defend Lebanon," the statement stressed. "The March 14 forces vow to move forward in order to maintain sovereignty and independence, reach a state of law, and support the international tribunal," it concluded. Beirut, 15 Sep 10, 15:49

Sleiman: Halt threats against state entities
March 14 General Secretariat accuses opposition of coup attempt
By Elias Sakr
Daily Star staff
Thursday, September 16, 2010
BEIRUT: President Michel Sleiman called Wednesday on political officials to refrain from threatening state institutions amid a series of accusations launched against the president and the premier over the past few days. Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun, echoing former head of General Security Jamil al-Sayyed, has on several occasions accused the president, the premier and judicial authorities of failing to supervise state institutions, particularly the “illegal” status of the Information Branch of the Internal Security Forces (ISF).
While Sleiman only condemned the remarks, the March 14 Secretariat General tied Aoun and Sayyed’s campaign to Hizbullah’s attempt to overthrow the Lebanese state authorities which, according to the secretariat, raised fear of civil strife. “Lebanon is witnessing a coup attempt that aims to turn the clock back to before the independence revolution on March 14, 2005, and sentence your future to death,” the March 14 Secretariat statement said. “Hizbullah revealed [its intentions] of a coup attempt since it announced its rejection to the present political, national and popular equilibrium and revealed its determination to change it,” the statement added. The March 14 attendees said Aoun and Sayyed’s stances were part of Hizbullah’s plot to overthrow state institutions by inciting the Lebanese to disobey legal authorities. For its part, Sleiman emphasized the need to commit to the Taif Accord, which guaranteed the participation of all factions in power while condemning statements against “brotherly states,” a reference to Phalange Party MP Nadim Gemayel’s accusation that Syria had assassinated March 14 figures. “Disputes proved that it does not build a state … competition through raising the tone of unconstructive political discourse raises the atmosphere of tensions. Let us have mercy on this nation,” Sleiman said. “I urge citizens to disobey any demand by the [ISF’s] Information Branch and to quarrel with it because it is illegitimate,” Aoun said in a news conference Wednesday.
Aoun reiterated Thursday that “what is happening in Lebanon was not politics but a mafia network from head to toes amid the resignation of the public from its role under conflicting media coverage that distorted the truth.” Earlier, Aoun, along with Sayyed, had also slammed Hariri for protecting the Information Branch and State Prosecutor Saeed Mirza for “backing false witnesses in investigations into the murder of former Premier Rafik Hariri.” “When we say this we are accused of attacking the president and other figures but I have been saying this for a long time and calling for reform but no one is listening,” Aoun added Thursday. “I stress the importance of preserving, respecting and working within the framework of state institutions by continuing to reform it because it is the shelter that protects everybody,” Sleiman said in response to Aoun and Sayyed without naming them. But March 14’s Secretariat General went further to warn against Hizbullah’s arms as a threat to Lebanon’s stability and civil peace. “Facing the weapons which they are threatening us with, our everlasting weapon is all the Lebanese factions, their competence and struggle,” the statement said. The secretariat also accused opposition forces of seeking to sabotage Syrian-Lebanese “state-to-state” ties.
“Everybody knows that following the independence revolution and its success, we did not seek monopoly over authority but reached for Hizbullah … but Hizbullah’s leadership met that by overthrowing Lebanese consensus over the UN-backed tribunal, Resolution 1701,” the statement said.
It also slammed Hizbullah for taking Lebanon as “a hostage for foreign powers,” an implied reference to Iran, through a position that “exceeds the boundaries and could lead to catastrophe.”
Hizbullah’s Loyalty to Resistance bloc MP Qassem Hashem tied the March 14 Secretariat General’s stances to a US green light to raise tensions in Lebanon in line with US-sponsored Israeli-Palestinian peace talks in Shram el-Sheikh, Egypt. “These voices and statements are made at a political moment in line with foreign political development that started in Washington before arriving to Sharm el-Sheikh with what could follow them,” Qassem said.
“It seems that someone gave the signal for those groups to spread their poison again,” he added.
The Loyalty to Resistance bloc said in a statement Tuesday that the Cabinet and Hariri’s acknowledgement of false witnesses underscored the need to put them on trial to uncover those who fabricated them. Hizbullah has stressed repeatedly that false witnesses misled investigations by the UN probe and stripped the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) – which the party condemned as an “Israeli project” – of its credibility. Hizbullah’s Loyalty to Resistance bloc leader Mohammad Raad said the Cabinet headed by then-Premier Fouad Siniora transferred 73 illegitimate law drafts to Parliament between 2005 and 2009, including that of the STL. In response to Raad, Future Movement MP Oqab Sakr said Hizbullah had approved the current Cabinet’s policy statement which voiced support for the STL. Saqr added that Hizbullah’s rejection of the policy statement opened the door for parties to reject another article of the statement which adopts the “army, people and resistance equation.”

Barak says peace with Lebanon, Syria is possible
By JPOST.COM STAFF
09/16/2010 13:54
Defense minister visits Northern border, expresses hope that one day volatile area will be peaceful: "IDF has every intention of making peace." During a visit to the Lebanon border on Thursday, Defense Minister Ehud Barak expressed hope that one day the volatile area would be peacful. Barak said "we are currently in the middle of talks with the Palestinians and hope that we can overcome all the obstacles before us." Barak says IDF will make every effort to bring about justice "I believe that peace with Lebanon and Syria is possible and we can not lose hope for a moment," the defense minister added. "In the past, who would have thought that there would be peace with Egypt and we would be able to go and visit the pyramids up close," Barak said. Barak highlighted that "we also achieved peace with Jordan. The IDF has every intention of making peace."

Abbas in Ramallah: There's no alternative to negotiations
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
09/16/2010 13:13
PA president offers a positive note during welcoming ceremony for US secretary of state in West Bank; Clinton says US committed to establishment of "sovereign and viable" Palestinian state.
RAMALLAH — Offering a positive note after two days of inconclusive Mideast peace negotiations, Palestinian President President Mahmoud Abbas said Thursday he sees no alternative to continuing the talks in search of a peace deal with Israel. "We all know there is no alternative other than negotiations, so we have no alternative other than to continue these efforts," Abbas said, speaking through an interpreter during a welcoming ceremony for visiting US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. It was not clear whether Abbas was suggesting that the Palestinians would remain committed to the talks even if Israel does not extend a curb on settlement construction in the West Bank beyond the end of this month. He had previously said the talks could not survive without continued restrictions on the construction in areas the Palestinians want for a future state. Clinton and Abbas met at the Palestinian Authority's headquarters in the West Bank. Abbas thanked the Obama administration for its commitment to finding a deal between Israel and the Palestinians, and Clinton reiterated her determination to find compromise solutions. The United States is "committed and determined to work for a peace agreement through negotiations that leads to an independent, sovereign and viable Palestinian state that realizes the aspirations of the Palestinian people," Clinton said. Afterward, Clinton was scheduled to be driven to Amman for a working lunch with Jordan's King Abdullah, whose country already has a peace treaty with Israel and is a strong supporter of efforts to work out a deal between Israel and the Palestinians. The Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations — which started Tuesday in Egypt and concluded Wednesday in Jerusalem — produced no apparent breakthrough. Both sides said they would continue striving toward their goal of a final settlement within one year. Dates for the next round of negotiations at the leaders' level are supposed to be determined during consultations next week.

Barak: Hizbullah Won't Surprise Us Again
Naharnet/Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Thursday that Hizbullah won't surprise Israel again, in reference to the 2006 war between the Jewish state and the Shiite group. Barak made his comment to reporters during a tour of an Israeli army base on the border with southern Lebanon. The Israeli defense minister also expressed reassurance at the capability of Israel to overcome obstacles to achieve peace with Syria and Lebanon. He said he backs the "political process" with Palestinians. Beirut, 16 Sep 10, 13:59

Report: House Foreign Affairs Committee Lifts Ban on Sending Military Aid to Lebanon
Naharnet/The chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee has agreed to lift a ban to supply the Lebanese army with weapons and equipment estimated at $100 million, the Kuwaiti al-Rai newspaper reported Thursday. Al-Rai said Howard Berman okayed for the U.S. administration to continue to support the flow of military aid to Lebanon a month after the U.S. Congress temporarily blocked $100 million in assistance, claiming it was unsure of the country's ties with Hizbullah.  The deadly clash between Israeli and Lebanese troops in the border town of Adeisseh prompted the suspension. "Until we know more about this incident and the nature of Hizbullah influence on the (Lebanese military) -- and can assure that the Lebanese military is a responsible actor -- I cannot in good conscience allow the United States to continue sending weapons to Lebanon," Berman was quoted as saying at the time. "The incident on the Israel-Lebanon border only … reinforces the critical need for the United States to conduct an in-depth policy review of its relationship with the Lebanese military," he warned.
Beirut, 16 Sep 10, 10:32

Sfeir: What's the Point of Having Unity Cabinet if Escalation Continues
Naharnet/Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir on Thursday wondered what meaning a national unity cabinet would have if escalation among politicians continued at this rate. "What's the point of having a unity government if escalation continues?" former Minister Wadih al-Khazen quoted Sfeir as saying after holding talks with him. Al-Khazen said he discussed with the patriarch the danger behind the bickering of politicians and stressed the need to support efforts made by President Michel Suleiman, Speaker Nabih Berri and Marada movement leader Suleiman Franjieh to cool the tension. During the meeting "we wondered who is benefiting from deepening these differences and bringing in the ghosts of internal strife," al-Khazen told reporters.
He said Sfeir expressed relief over the latest remarks of Franjieh and his efforts to turn the page of the past to keep Christians away from tensions. Beirut, 16 Sep 10, 12:48

Assad Asked Hariri to Resolve False Witnesses Case but Was Disappointed at Lack of Official Stance
Naharnet/Syrian President Bashar Assad was reportedly disappointed at Premier Saad Hariri for not seeking to adopt a government decision to refer the issue of false witnesses to the Lebanese judiciary. Al-Akhbar daily said Thursday that Bashar Assad asked Premier Saad Hariri during their last meeting in Damascus on August 30 for "an official and honest stance from false witnesses." However, Hariri only admitted to pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat newspaper that false witnesses had misled the investigation into his father's assassination.
While Assad welcomed the Lebanese premier's acknowledgment that it was a mistake to accuse Syria of killing ex-Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, Assad was frustrated at a lack of an official stance from false witnesses, al-Akhbar said. According to the newspaper, Assad warned Hariri during their meeting that the Syrian judiciary would issue arrest warrants in absentia against several Lebanese personalities who have been summoned to Damascus to stand trial unless the premier resolves the issue. "Maybe there has been political pressure, but I can't prevent the Syrian judiciary from issuing the arrest warrants," al-Akhbar quoted Assad as telling Hariri. Beirut, 16 Sep 10, 09:20

Report: Sayyed Visited Suleiman Away from Media Spotlight
Naharnet/Former General Security Department chief Brig. Gen. Jamil Sayyed visited President Michel Suleiman several days ago away from the media spotlight, a ministerial source told An Nahar newspaper. No other elaboration was made by the report ran under the daily's 'Secrets of the Gods' tidbit on Thursday. Beirut, 16 Sep 10, 08:30

Sayyed's Son: We Ask for Compensation and Accountability
Naharnet/The son of former General Security Department chief Maj. Gen. Jamil Sayyed said he wanted to hold accountable those who had a role in jailing the four security generals in Roumieh for four years without any evidence of their involvement in ex-Premier Rafik Hariri's assassination. "We ask for compensation and accountability. We don't mean financial compensation as some have said," Malek Sayyed, who is a lawyer, told the Syrian al-Watan newspaper in an interview published Thursday. "We call for eliminating those who were behind the arrest of the generals from Lebanese political life after sacking them because it is unacceptable for the four generals to be out (of jail) and for those who harmed them to remain in their posts," he said. Justice won't be achieved unless the judges and security officials such as State Prosecutor Said Mirza and Head of the Intelligence Bureau Col. Wissam al-Hassan "who have created false witnesses and caused the arrest of the four generals" were prosecuted, Sayyed told the daily. The lawyer also backed Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun's call for the establishment of a parliamentary investigative committee to follow up those who were behind the false witnesses and take them to court. Beirut, 16 Sep 10, 10:07

Suleiman Receives Letter from Ahmadinejad, Lauds French Support for Lebanon
Naharnet/Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday lauded his Lebanese counterpart Michel Suleiman for condemning a plan to burn the Koran. In a letter delivered to Suleiman by Iranian Ambassador Ghazanfar Roknabadi, Ahmadinejad called for the consolidation of bilateral ties.The letter also dealt with regional and international developments and preparations for the Iranian president's visit to Beirut next October. Meanwhile, Suleiman lauded the role of French President Nicolas Sarkozy to find peaceful solutions to the region's crises. He made his comment during a meeting with a delegation from the Lebanese-French Parliamentary Committee at the French Senate. Suleiman also thanked France for its continued support for Lebanon in all fields. Beirut, 16 Sep 10, 14:41

Attorney General Judge Said Mirza summons Sayyed for questioning
September 16, 2010 /An-Nahar newspaper reported on Thursday that Attorney General Judge Said Mirza summoned former head of General Security Jamil as-Sayyed “for questioning over the latter’s threats against the Lebanese state, judiciary, and Prime Minister Saad Hariri.” According to the daily, Mirza called on the Criminal Investigations Bureau to question Sayyed and brief the former on the results of the inquiry. Justice Minister Ibrahim Najjar appointed Mirza to summon Sayyed for questioning following the latter’s Sunday press conference, the daily said, adding that Mirza issued the warrant after reviewing the tape of the former General Security chief’s press conference. Sayyed said on Sunday that “[PM Saad Hariri] should take a lie detector test to prove he did not support or fund false witnesses in the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL),” investigating the 2005 assassination of ex-Premier Rafik Hariri. The former General Security chief also vowed to take his right “with his own hands.” Sayyed—who was placed in temporary detention in Lebanon in 2005 for his alleged involvement in the Rafik Hariri murder and released in 2009 due to lack of evidence—filed a request in March to the president of the STL, Antonio Cassese, to gain access to certain court files.
Sayyed travelled to Paris following his Sunday press conference to wait for STL Pre-Trial Judge Daniel Fransen’s decision regarding the former’s request.-NOW Lebanon

LF: Geagea did not say party will confront objectors to Sayyed’s summons
September 16, 2010 /As-Safir newspaper’s report that Lebanese Forces (LF) leader Samir Geagea said his party will confront those who object to the judicial summons of former General Security head Jamil as-Sayyed is “nothing but a story from its writers’ imagination and is totally untrue,” the LF said in a statement issued on Thursday.
As-Safir reported earlier Thursday that Geagea told LF officials that Sayyed will be summoned for questioning over his recent statement, adding that “Geagea said that his party will confront those who object to the judiciary’s decision.”Sayyed said on Sunday that “[Prime Minister Saad Hariri] should take a lie detector test to prove he did not support or fund false witnesses” in the investigation of ex-Premier Rafik Hariri’s 2005 assassination. The former General Security chief also vowed to take his right “with his own hands.”
An-Nahar newspaper reported on Thursday that Attorney General Judge Said Mirza has summoned Sayyed “for questioning over the latter’s threats against the Lebanese state, judiciary, and Prime Minister Saad Hariri.”The LF is committed to relying on the state to protect its citizens, the statement said, adding that “peaceful behavior is the best answer to the fabrications of March 8 coalition forces.” “March 8 forces always drag the country toward violent language in the street when they fail to change any balance via democratic means,” the statement also said.-NOW Lebanon

Hezbollah is behind Sayyed’s acts, Jouzou says
September 16, 2010
Mufti of Mount Lebanon Sheikh Mohammed Ali al-Jouzou said on Thursday that Hezbollah pushed former General Security Chief Jamil as-Sayyed to voice his statements on Sunday in an attempt to obstruct the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), the National News Agency (NNA) reported.Sayyed said on Sunday that “[Prime Minister Saad Hariri] should take a lie detector test to prove he did not support or fund false witnesses in the STL,” investigating the 2005 assassination of ex-Premier Rafik Hariri. He also vowed to take his right “with his own hands.” Sayyed was detained from 2005 to 2009 on suspicion of involvement in Rafik Hariri’s murder. In April 2009, the tribunal ordered his release without charges due to lack of evidence. “Hezbollah is supporting [Free Patriotic Movement leader MP] Michel Aoun in attacking the government and the judiciary,” Jouzou said.
“Why is Hezbollah so afraid of the STL if it was confident of its innocence?” he asked. On Tuesday, Aoun called on Lebanese citizens to not abide by requests from the Internal Security Forces (ISF)—Information Branch or Attorney General Judge Said Mirza, adding that the state is falling and that “the judiciary is burning.” Jouzou also said that Aoun is verbally attacking the ISF—Information Branch before the FPM leader is defending Israeli spies in Lebanon. In a fiery speech on September 5, Aoun criticized the government over media leaks stemming from the ISF—Information Branch’s investigation of Brigadier General Fayez Karam, an FPM official arrested August 5 on charges of spying for Israel. “Aoun is issuing threats instead of being ashamed [of Karam’s arrest],” said Jouzou.-NOW Lebanon

Syrian pretension and reality in Iraq
Tony Badran, September 16, 2010
Now Lebanon
Recent news reports about the arduous process of government formation in Iraq suggest that a deal may be in the works that would see incumbent Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki keep his post. If true, it would be a telling indicator of the balance of power, not only in Iraq, but also in the region, reflecting who the actual influential actors are, and highlighting the severe limitations of Arab influence, specifically Syrian pretensions, in Iraq.
About three weeks ago, reports surfaced in the Syrian and Saudi-owned media about an imminent meeting to be held in Damascus that is “strongly backed” by Riyadh and would bring together Iraq’s major political figures in order to hold a “Syrian Taif Accord” with an “Iraqi flavor,” in reference to the Saudi-sponsored meetings that brokered an agreement to end the Lebanese civil war in 1989.
The Syrian media dubbed the proposal a joint Saudi-Syrian-Turkish initiative, allegedly also backed by Russia. Syria’s publicists quickly began hailing its “pivotal” role as “the ultimate broker” in Iraqi affairs, as befits Damascus’ supposed status as a regional “heavyweight.” Syria’s mouthpieces were joined by Iraqi Baathist elements in Damascus as well as by some spokespeople of Iyad Allawi’s al-Iraqiya parliamentary coalition, one of whom expressed hope that an Iraqi government would emerge similar to the Lebanese one after the Doha Accord in 2008.
Quite explicitly, one Syrian publicist who regularly reflects official talking points described the purpose of this “Syrian Taif” as being “to find a replacement to Maliki” – a constant Syrian refrain, and a meeting point with Saudi Arabia, which afforded the Syrians cover as they pursued a year-long campaign of violence against Maliki.
But as is usually the case, the gap between Syrian pretension and reality is quite significant. Even as Syrian media highlighted a story claiming that Maliki secretly led a delegation to Damascus to meet with Assad in order to discuss the impending Damascus meeting, a member of Maliki’s State of Law coalition denied the prime minister made such a trip and stated that only he himself had gone to Damascus, in his own capacity, in order to convey that “Iraqis were against an Iraqi Taif.”
The prospects for the Damascus meeting were already doubtful, as Kurdish officials had also rejected the idea, especially since Syria has had a “negative, destructive role” in Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein, as one Kurdish politician put it. Moreover, the Kurds had other grounds for rejecting the initiative, as it was actually conceived by Turkey all along. Syria merely, if typically, tried to claim center stage at someone else’s show.
And now, the whole “Syrian Taif” charade seems to be over. Instead, we learn from an official Iraqi statement (and not from the Syrians) that Syrian Prime Minister Naji Otri called Maliki last week – the first such communication since relations soured last August. While Damascus’s flacks tried to sell this development as somehow indicating a critical Syrian blessing for solving the Iraqi government-formation process, which would now see Maliki attending the fabled “Syrian Taif” conference (one Qatari report claimed Otri invited the Iraqi premier to do so), in fact, this is all hollow bluster. State of Law officials stated on Tuesday that Maliki would visit Syria “at a later time” – meaning after he officially returns as prime minister, probably as part of an official regional tour.
In reality, the Syrian call is an admission of its marginality in Iraq. This comes as reports have surfaced that the US was pushing for a deal that would see Maliki return as the head of a coalition government with the Kurds and Allawi’s al-Iraqiya.
Despite the carnage unleashed by the Syrians in order to destroy him, Maliki has managed to make himself uncircumventable in the domestic power game, even to the Iranians, whose Shia allies are simply too weak to credibly unseat the incumbent premier. In this context, Allawi’s admission that he sought intervention with Iran in his favor was rather telling. The Syrians were never first-tier players. This was also evident in the fact that even the idea to hold a broad conference on Syrian soil was actually a Turkish initiative to begin with.
Similarly, the Saudi calculation has also proved naïve. If their idea was to counterbalance Iranian influence by teaming up with Syria, then it was a fool’s errand from the get-go. This is so not only because of Syria’s enduring strategic alliance with Iran, but also because Syria simply does not possess assets in Iraq to counter Iran even if it wanted to. And so, if Iran should conclude that Maliki is the only game in town, the Syrians have no choice in the matter.
This regional picture highlights the absurdity of the logic distilled in the 2006 Iraq Study Group report, which called for giving regional states a “stake” in Iraqi affairs as the US withdrew.
Perhaps now the US can form a more accurate and realistic reading of the regional balance of power, and can be more assertive in securing its advantage and maintaining primary influence in Iraq, despite its military withdrawal.
**Tony Badran is a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies

Much ado about nothing?
Ana Maria Luca, September 15, 2010
Now Lebanon
Former head of General Security Major General Jamil as-Sayyed travelled to Damascus last week, met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, came back to Lebanon and held a press conference that caused a war of words on the Lebanese political scene.
Sayyed accused Prime Minister Saad Hariri of protecting the alleged false witnesses in the investigation into former PM Rafik Hariri’s assassination, and said that the premier and his "political, media, judicial and security team" joined forces with former head of the UN investigation committee Detlev Mehlis in order to chase away the Syrian occupiers and take power.
Sayyed spent four years in detention in Lebanon after being arrested in 2005 for his alleged involvement in Rafik Hariri's assassination. He was set free in 2009 due to lack of evidence and has asked the Special Tribunal to release his file to learn why he was jailed for years without charge.
"I vow upon my honor that if you do not give me my right, I will take it with my own hands some day," Sayyed said in the press conference he held last Sunday upon his return from Damascus. He then left to Paris in order to put together a lawsuit against the Lebanese government and the STL at an international human rights court.
Since Sayyed’s press conference, Lebanese analysts and politicians have been trying to explain the timing of his attack campaign. While some say his verbal rampage against the Lebanese government, PM Saad Hariri and the Special Tribunal was ordered by Syrian President Assad, others believe that the ex-head of General Security is just making noise on his own.
“I think that it is unlikely that it reflects President Assad’s position,” said March 14 MP Okab Sakr, who has engaged in a war of words with Sayyed and has accused the latter of blackmailing PM Hariri. “I believe, however, that the source of the statements is personal. We are at a stage of settlements in the region and in the country, and I believe that Sayyed is trying hopelessly to reinforce himself in a position before it’s too late,” he told NOW Lebanon.
Another Lebanese analyst who wished to remain anonymous believes that Sayyed’s accusations are nothing but hot air. “If I commented on his accusations, I would be giving him too much of my time. He’s already got too much coverage, and has been creating a fuss for the past three days for no substantial reason. I think that with all this coverage, Sayyed is getting exactly what he wants, and therefore I think that this is not the way to deal with him,” he said.
Though Sayyed said in his press conference that the “Syrians have nothing to do with the statements I made,” Damascus allies besides Sayyed have been bringing up the issue of the so-called false witnesses, the people who allegedly gave false testimony to the UN investigation team. Several Hezbollah officials and their ally, Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun, have been requesting a special parliament commission to interrogate the false witnesses as well as Sayyed himself.
Moreover, some Hezbollah officials have said that Lebanon’s stability might be threatened by the false-witnesses issue. "The stability of the country relies on… the file of false witnesses," Hezbollah official Mahmoud Qomati told pan-Arab daily As-Sharq al-Awsat. "Everything else depends on that. We [will] begin a new and pure stage… after we close the file and turn the black page of false witnesses,” he said.
According to Syrian paper Al-Watan Hezbollah and the FPM are actually planning a real campaign to investigate the false witnesses, not just spouting off rhetoric.
An-Nahar columnist Ali Hamadeh – whose brother Marwan Hamadeh is part of the Special Tribunal’s case, as he was the target of an assassination attempt in 2005 – agrees. Sayyed’s press conference, he said, is part of a bigger war waged by a group of Lebanese and regional forces against the STL, as they don’t want the perpetrators in Hariri’s assassination to be tried.
The scandal that arose since Sayyed’s press conference “is also part of a wider process aimed at shooting down the achievements of the Cedar Revolution and returning Lebanon to the time of hegemony, but this time replacing the old hegemony with two new ones: an old one which has been renewed and another by internal factions that are armed and whose latest manifestations are the clashes in Bourj Abi Haidar,” he added.
“I believe that the Syrian position needs clarification,” Hamadeh said. “What is Sayyed’s position, and why has he been greeted [in Syria]? Why else other than to interfere in Lebanon’s internal affairs? It is demanded that the Syrians clarify their position and highlight the limits of interference in Lebanon’s internal affairs.”
**Nadine Elali contributed to this article

Canada’s continuous commitment
By ILAN EVYATAR
J.Post/09/15/2010 22:37
Canada’s minister of state for foreign affairs of the Americas says his country stands by Israel’s right to defend itself.
It may be mere protocol, but Peter Kent sports a badge with Israeli and Canadian flags on the lapel of his jacket with a pride surely far greater than that required by diplomatic custom. Canada’s minister of state for foreign affairs of the Americas is as staunch an ally as Israel could possibly hope for.
“Prime Minister [Stephen] Harper has adopted, I think, what is a very principled stand with regards to Canada and Israel,” says Kent when asked why Canada has been unflinching in its support. “From virtually the first months of his administration in 2006 he articulated very clearly that his position on issues with regard to the Mideast and Israel’s neighbors would be based on principle, and he demonstrated that during the Lebanon war and since at the United Nations in the annual votes that attempt to single out Israel over countries with far less solid reputations for democratic principles and practices and the rule of law, and try to victimize Israel on an annual basis in selective resolutions.
“Prime Minister Harper made very clear... that there is no moral equivalence between terrorism and oppression and democracy. There are some in the Canadian political spectrum who talk about a more balanced approach to the Middle East, but in fact there is no balance when it comes to rockets from Gaza on Sderot; there is no balance in attacks like the south Lebanon border incident [the August 3 killing of an IDF officer by a Lebanese army sniper]; there is no balance between those who would seek to destroy Israel and those who are willing and have demonstrated any number of times over recent years to come to a negotiated resolution.”
Kent, 67, is no stranger to Israel. He first came here in 1973 as a war correspondent in his previous incarnation as a journalist – a profession he left just over two years ago to make the transition into what he calls “the responsible side of public policy.” The current visit, which ended last week, is his first in his present capacity.
Kent recalls the Yom Kippur War when he followed Ariel Sharon’s tank column across the Suez Canal – “albeit in a taxi.” Since then he has been here many times. “I’ve had an opportunity as a former journalist to spend a lot of time here, admittedly more often in bad times than good,” he says. “But I’ve made a point of also trying to celebrate with my colleagues in Parliament and also with Canadians at large that Israel is not only a country often besieged by its undemocratic neighbors, but is also a country of great scientific, intellectual and cultural accomplishment.”
ELOQUENT AS A journalist, Kent has quickly mastered the language of diplomacy.
Following his statement on Canada’s “principled stand” for Israel, he adds that its support for the latest round of peace talks is “solid and unwavering” and that it “supports the Palestinian Authority and President Mahmoud Abbas in terms of our investment of financial and human resources in trying to institution build in the PA to prepare for that eventual day of an independent Palestinian state.”
Canada, says Kent, has made a $300 million investment in that institution building effort with most of the money going into Operation Proteus, the Canadian contingent to the US-led mission to train and build the PA security forces. Canada is also putting funds into development assistance in the area of justice, specifically codification of a justice system appropriate to an independent state, renovation and construction of courthouses and knowledge in forensics and crime scene investigation for the prosecution of civil and criminal cases.
Kent adds that, as he told his counterparts in Ramallah and Jerusalem, “Canada stands ready to assist in whatever capacity as the peace talks go forward and preparations go forward, hopefully, toward a two-state solution.”
From your talks with Palestinian leaders, how willing are they to proceed, especially on the difficult core issues?
I don’t think anyone glosses over the core issues, the final status issues, but certainly in meetings with [PA Foreign Affairs] Minister [Riad] Malki and officials in the Foreign Ministry they are speaking from the same script that President Abbas laid out in Washington, and there is a commitment to make an effort to go the extra mile to achieve what has been so difficult to achieve.”
On the other hand, the other script coming from President Abbas has been “push me one bit and I’m going home.”
Well both leaders have the domestic environment to deal with in their respective communities. President Abbas also has to deal with Hamas and the very destructive obstructionism that Hamas is attempting to derail the talks.
Washington was an important start and I think that [in] the fact that both leaders have agreed to meet every two weeks there is at least a momentum and a commitment at least at this point to move forward.
We make clear at every opportunity that we are prepared to offer to both sides whatever we might, whether it’s refugees, Jerusalem, security. In any of these areas we stand ready to provide assistance in any way we might be able to.
What about Israel? Is Israel in your impression ready to make the necessary concessions?
Being in Israel and reading a cross section of the Israeli media, there is a spectrum of opinion of approval, criticism, skepticism, endorsement, and again it’s for Israeli and the Palestinians through their leaders to move toward that ultimate goal, however difficult.
It’s too important not to try, and I think the coming months are going to be interesting, they are going to be challenging... it’s a time of hope.
Would Canada be willing to put troops on the ground to back up a peace agreement?
Canada stands ready to assist in any way in the achievement of a negotiated two-state solution. It’s hypothetical to address at this point, but our commitment over the years has been continuous.
Canadian forces have served in the region in peace observation and various UN capacities and continue today. We have the largest number of military personnel taking part in Operation Proteus; it is our second largest deployment after Afghanistan.
Canada has been very vocal on Iran. What is Canada's position on Teheran’s nuclear weapon’s program?
We embraced and enacted the provisions of Security Council Resolution 1929 in June and in fact enacted sanctions which go further in specific areas with regard to oil and gas and relations with financial institutions and provision of listed personnel, including the Revolutionary Guards. We hope the international community will remain unified in its positions on the sanctions, and if broader, deeper sanctions are required, Canada will again consider those as they may be necessary.
And if sanctions fail?
Again we are into the hypothetical here, but Canada is as concerned as the other democracies who support Israel, who support the Security Council resolution in terms of ending [Iranian president Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad’s nuclear weaponry adventurism.
Time will tell. We hope that the sanctions will do the trick.
And if Israel were to decide to go it on its own?
I think I would leave that as a hypothetical question with a hypothetical answer which I can’t answer. But again Canada has made it very clear over the years that we defend Israel’s right to defend itself.
You have been quoted as saying that an attack on Israel is an attack on Canada.
What I was saying was not as much literal, what I was talking about was an attack on the values that we share: freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. In that area Canada is proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel.
WHILE MUCH of Kent’s visit focused on the peace process, the reason for his visit was in fact to discuss areas of interest and concern in Latin America and the Caribbean, which fall under his umbrella as minister of state for foreign affairs of the Americas.
Canada has represented Israel’s interests in Cuba since 1973, when diplomatic relations were severed after the Yom Kippur War, and in Venezuela since Israel’s ambassador was expelled during Operation Cast Lead.
On the Venezuelan front, Kent expresses concern about an upsurge of state-promoted anti-Semitism. “This is an election month in Venezuela and the official media has again fired up some of the anti-Semitic slurs against the Jewish community as happened during the Gaza incursion,” he says.
“There has been, I understand, an agreement by [President Hugo] Chavez to meet with members of the Jewish community in Caracas, and Canada would hope that he encourage the media to lower the tone. We don’t like to initiate criticisms, but Canada has on a number of occasions expressed its concerns over the shrinkage of democratic space, not only in general society with regard to the media, opposition political parties and individuals, but with regard to the community which we are proud to represent in Israel’s absence from the country.”
On the Cuban front, he is more optimistic.
“The story from Cuba is a good story,” he says. “Since the years of religious repression and official atheism there has been a relaxation with regards to all religions in Cuba. The Jewish community is approximately 1,500 these days, down from its previous much larger congregation [some 15,000 before the 1959 revolution].
The community that is there, although without rabbis and cantors, is a vibrant community. When I was there last I had a chance to see that the community was unhindered. Two families made aliya while I was there, and it was done without harassment and without interference.”
In an almost unveiled criticism of American policy toward Cuba, Kent cites US sanctions as a major obstacle to the establishment of diplomatic relations with Israel.
“The principal problem is the Helms- Burton Act, the American legislation which isolates Cuba, and which is used by the Cuban government on the one hand as a defense from more open domestic politics, and on the other hand by some in Congress to maintain what Canada believes is an outdated [policy]."
Another area where Israel and Canada are cooperating in Latin America is Iran’s involvement. “One of the areas where Canada has worked with Israel,” says Kent, “is in encouraging more active prosecution of justice with regards to the AMIA terrorist bombing in 1994 [the car bombing on the Jewish Mutual Association building in Buenos Aires that left 85 people dead and hundreds wounded] and the destruction of the Israeli embassy in 1992, and of course one of the principal parties of interest is today the minister of defense in Iran [Ahmad Vahidi].
Canada would hope that the International Court of Justice might see itself free in prosecuting more quickly what is almost a two-decades-old pair of terrorist actions.”


Is Islam the problem?
Op-ed: Asking tough questions about problematic aspects of Islam isn’t ‘Islamophobic’
Moshe Dann Published: 09.16.10, 11:15 / Israel Opinion
Supporters of building a mosque and huge Islamic center near ground zero have focused the issue on religious freedom. Since thousands of mosques have already been built throughout America, however, this can't be the issue. Its location is sensitive because of the 9/11 attack by Muslim terrorists. But no one is accusing all Muslims of being guilty of this crime. This project, however, has become a rallying cry of pain, a howl of grief that every Muslim should hear
Opposition to this project echoes 3,000 silent screams. That outrage needs to focus not only on the memory of lost loved ones, but on why so many Muslims are terrorists, and support terrorism. We need to ask some hard questions; and, it is not "Islamophobic" to ask.
Is Islam a "religion of peace," as President Obama and others say?According to experts, suicide bombing ("martyrdom") and Jihad ("holy war") are not radical ideas in Islam; they are intrinsic parts of that belief.
Conventional wisdom says that there are radical Muslims and moderate Muslims, and that we must distinguish between the two groups and encourage those who don't want to destroy non-Muslims and their cultures.
No doubt, most Muslims don't want to fly airplanes into buildings, or blow up supermarkets and buses. But what does Islam say, and who is the authority? The problem seems to be that Islam contains both radical and moderate traditions, and both are authentic. Fanatic Jihadists and soft-spoken moderates consider themselves good Muslims; Muslim religious leaders are divided.
The leader of the proposed mosque/Islamic center in downtown Manhattan claims he is tolerant, and has suggested that the project may even include space for other religions, as if Christians and Jews would want to pray there. But this seems to be just another PR trick, since it violates strict separation mandated in the Koran, and also denies Muslim superiority. It is impossible, therefore, to know what kind of Islam will be taught there, or for how long.
Controversy over the building must move to a critical examination of Islam's theology, beliefs and practices.
Not very peaceful; not so tolerant
Why are Islamic leaders silent about stoning a woman to death because she was accused of adultery – then lashed 99 times when the charge was proved false? Why are Islamic leaders silent about the suppression of women, condoning slavery, the murder of homosexuals, and suicide bombings throughout the world? Where were they when violent Muslim riots engulfed Europe because of a cartoon?
Perhaps a few brave Muslims protested such barbarity, but whom do they represent and what is their authority? The fundamental problem in Islam is its principle of duality; it holds contradictory positions on many issues, both of which are valid.
Muslim leaders refuse to condemn the murder of Jews by Muslims – anywhere – especially not in Israel. Four Israelis (and one unborn child) were slaughtered on the road in Israel two weeks ago and no Muslim leader – not even moderates – protested. Even the secular PA did not condemn the attack as murder; only that it was against "Palestinian interests." The "timing" was wrong!
Islam preaches war against "infidels" and violence against those who don't follow the rules of Islam. That's not very peaceful. And Muslim leaders around the world encourage anti-Americanism – as well as hostility to Christians and Jews. Not so tolerant.
Despite extensive business dealings between Muslims and non-Muslims, many Muslim religious leaders foment a culture of hatred and violence. The problem is that they quote scripture and verse. And they are supported by a legal system.
Sharia (Islamic) Law mandates violent Jihad as a religious obligation, and extreme punishments for those who insult Islam, or violate its precepts. Moreover, since there is no central authority in Islam and there are conflicting factions, it is difficult to determine who makes these laws, and how they should be applied.
Where does Islam stand on terrorism, for example? Well, it depends on your definition – if you have one. As they say: "One man's terrorist …"
We need to know what Islam is. The failure to answer these fundamental questions lies behind the distrust of Muslims and suspicions about what Islam teaches. The crucial distinctions, therefore, may not be between "moderates" and "radicals," but those who are more radical than others – since they all use the same source, the Koran. With so many people in positions of authority, no one is, and it's chaos.
These questions need to be clarified.
We should be tolerant, open and respectful, but not stupid. That's why we keep asking!
**The author is a writer and journalist living in Jerusalem

Millions of Virgins; Millions of Martyrs. These Guys Have Followers and They Really Mean It
By Barry Rubin
September 15, 2010
Yes, it's true; a fringe minister with just fifty followers in America wanted to burn a Koran. But he didn't. Meanwhile another nut wants to kill all Jews, wipe Israel off the map, destroy the United States, eliminate all Christians, indoctrinate children into being suicide bombers, and carry out a revolutionary war of terrorism for decades no matter how many die and how much destruction occurs. Oh, and by the way, he and his colleagues have several hundred thousand followers and are ruling what amounts to an independent state bordering on the Mediterranean.
When you study the Middle East seriously you get used to this kind of rhetoric, yet somehow the seriousness and importance of such talk doesn't seem to register with many Western government officials, journalists, and academics who explain away these movements and regimes as somehow rational and moderate.
Maybe that's because when you look at the situation honestly it's really rather scary. Another word for finding something scary is to have a "phobia" toward it. So it wasn't some silly, obscure guy who said this but...well, please wait just one more paragraph to find out.
In the speech, this fellow said that it was really great to be a martyr for Islamic revolution because there are 2.5 million black-eyed virgins waiting at the gates of a palace--just one, so presumably there are more--in the Garden of Eden just waiting for them. You do the math: 500 gates, 5,000 virgins per gate.
Who said this? Ahmad Bahr, a Hamas leader and speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council. In other words, he's the Palestinian equivalent of Nancy Pelosi. Bahr and his colleagues aren't just joking; they aren't just telling tall tales to titillate the yokels. Nor are they making this stuff up, since Bahr is quoting one of Muhammad's chief lieutenants and a caliph in his own right. This speech was broadcast on al-Aqsa television on September 5, 2010. It was intended to mobilize the masses to go out and die for Hamas and the Islamic revolution. So presumably a good number of Palestinians take this seriously, too.
Now how is this plan going to be implemented? Basically, Bahr said that every Muslim should have a lot of sons and train them to be terrorists and hence martyrs. He concluded:
"If this is the culture of the nation today, who will be able to stop it?...As long as we continue on this path, nobody on Earth will be able to confront the resistance, or to confront the mujahideen, those who worship Allah and seek martyrdom."
So it doesn't matter how hopeless the odds seem, how many will die, how much suffering will take place. Peace is not more attractive than war; having a nice future for your children is not the top priority. Goals are not set by a cost/benefit analysis but on the basis that the creator of the universe is calling the shots, insists on this path, and will ensure its victory.
OK, you say, but maybe Bahr just hates Israel and would be satisfied if it is wiped out and then the struggle would end? Nope. Maybe he just wants an independent Palestinian state and then will leave everyone else alone? Again, nope.
Here's what he said in 2007 in a speech broadcast on Sudan television:
"'You will be victorious' on the face of this planet. You are the masters of the world on the face of this planet. Yes, [the Koran says that] 'you will be victorious,' but only 'if you are believers.' Allah willing, 'you will be victorious,' while America and Israel will be annihilated, Allah willing. I guarantee you that the power of belief and faith is greater than the power of America and Israel. They are cowards, as is said in the Book of Allah: 'You shall find them the people most eager to protect their lives.' They are cowards, who are eager for life, while we are eager for death for the sake of Allah. That is why America's nose was rubbed in the mud in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Somalia, and everywhere....
"America will be annihilated, while Islam will remain. The Muslims 'will be victorious, if you are believers.' Oh Muslims, I guarantee you that the power of Allah is greater than America, by whom many are blinded today. Some people are blinded by the power of America. We say to them that with the might of Allah, with the might of His Messenger, and with the power of Allah, we are stronger than America and Israel."
Again, this is one of Hamas's top leaders, and others in the leadership--not to mention their Iranian, Hizballah, and Syrian allies--have said similar things. This is not a joke. Middle East: This is your life!
Do you mind if I'm perfectly frank with you? I suspect that deep down most Westerners think people like Bahr are as corrupt and hypocritical as an Upper-West-Side-of-Manhattan progressive thinks is true for a Southern televangelist. They probably expect Bahr steps out of the pulpit then goes to a bar for a scotch and a ham sandwich.
If they would only apply to Bahr--whose extremism they tend to ignore, feel overrated, or can easily be turned into moderation--the same standards as they do to Christian Pentecostals--who they despise without tolerance--that would be one step in the right direction. Then keep going, adding on that, unlike Christian "fundamentalists" in America, revolutionary Islamists have murdered tens of thousands of people and want to kill many more; unlike those Christians they command thousands of armed soldiers; unlike those Christians they will kill anyone who changes to another religion or who doesn't behave as they want; and, too, their program is to seize state power, establish totalitarian states, and attack other countries.
No, Bahr isn't just speaking for effect. He's dead serious, and that expression isn't chosen by accident, betting his life on his cause while much of the Western elite trembles at merely being unfashionable. And what Bahr says and believes word-for-word also applies to Hizballah; the Egyptian and Jordanian Muslim Brothers; Iran's regime; the Taliban; Islamists in areas of Russia; Islamists in Indonesia and Pakistan; clerics in Syria and many other countries; and is heard in certain meetings and mosques throughout Europe and North America.
By no means all Muslims, or even most, but a heck of a lot do talk like Bahr. Not a very small minority of believers; a very big minority of believers. And if they are not stopped they will be the majority of believers and the rulers of multiple countries.
Given the number of martyrs that have been and are going to be generated, there's going to be a need for all 2.5 million of those virgins Bahr mentions. Actually, that won't be enough because at 99 per (male) martyr that's only enough for about 25,000.
Very few Muslims are publicly making fun of such statements or battling against them, though many are fighting the Islamists on political grounds.
Doesn't all of this matter a bit? Shouldn't this be something people in the West know about, the mass media cover fully? Mightn't this kind of talk and thinking convey something of why nobody should try to bring Hamas or similar groups into the diplomatic process, give it aid, or help it in any way? Isn't this a bigger threat than some marginal haters of everything Muslim who just aren't going to become martyrs? In the face of this threat should people be demonized and intimidated if they dare talk about it?
I can't imagine why there should be any doubt about the answers to these questions.
Note: the 2007 quote is translated from MEMRI but available only by subscription.

Italian FM Condemns Anti Christian Attacks in India Following Qur'an Burning
http://www.persecution.org/2010/09/15/italian-fm-condemns-anti-christian-attacks-in-india-following-quran-burning/
Washington, D.C. (September 15, 2010)–International Christian Concern (ICC) has learned that on September 13 Italy’s foreign minister denounced the anti-Christian attacks in Punjab and Kashmir, India where rioters burned a Christian school and church. The attacks were in response to a burned Qura'n being left at an Islamic center in East Lansing, Michigan last Saturday.
On Sunday, Muslim attackers set fire to the furniture of the church in Malerkotla town, Punjab. The following day, another mob set a Christian school ablaze in Tangmarg village of Kashmir.
“News is coming in from India of dramatic episodes of violence against the Christian community. News that stirs feelings of profound indignation and the utmost censure,” said Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini.
The Minister also called upon the international community to “to speak with one voice and to take on the obligation of defending, in each and every context, the principle of religious freedom. A freedom which is a fundamental human right.”
ICC’s president, Jeff King, said “We commend the Italian government for taking the lead in condemning attacks on Christians by Muslim mobs in India. Unfortunately, most political leaders and media personalities are focused on protecting Muslims from any perceived offense. We believe that people should be free to burn the Bible or the Qur'an without fear of attack that is their misguided wish. We are shocked that the heart of the cultural debate is not focused on those who resort to violence when offended, especially when the victims have nothing to do with the original offense. More leaders need to follow Italy’s foreign minister’s example.”

State in mind: Civil society group seeks 'sane' country
By Cynthia O’Hayon
Special to The Daily Star/Thursday, September 16, 2010
BEIRUT: Civil society movements are often committed to empowering social groups in the face of an overbearing state, but for one such group in Lebanon, the mantra is: the state, the state, the state. Moultazimoun, a pro-March 14 initiative, was established in February 2009 out of a “mere coincidence,” according to its coordinator, Najib S. Zwein.
A former supporter of General Michel Aoun during the 1975-1990 Civil War, Zwein wrote a letter to An-Nahar newspaper criticizing the general’s visit to Syria in February 2009. Gloria El-Khazen, one of the group’s co-founders, contacted him, and Moultazimoun was born. Moultazimoun, which means “committed” in Arabic, was launched by a dozen Lebanese who felt “a danger for the future of their country” given developments since the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in February 2005.
The private initiative stemmed from the reaction of ordinary Lebanese citizens to their country’s politics. “We just want a sane and normal country for our children to grow up in so that they will not leave it like a lot of Lebanese did,” explains Zwein. Members are volunteers and pay a small monthly membership fee to cover the cost of organizing events. “We are neither an NGO nor a political party,” says Zwein. “Anyone who agrees with our ideas is ‘moultazim,’ committed,” he adds. Moultazimoun members define their movement as a “national lobby” with no political ambitions. “We are simply committed in favor of Lebanon, in favor of the Cedar Revolution movement,” says Zwein.
Moultazimoun members believe that as citizens, it’s their duty to promote a strong unified Lebanese state to struggle against what they call “the state of Hizbullah.”
“We strongly reject this duality,” explains Zwein. “The only future for Lebanon is under one regime: one state, one army. The state’s role is to defend its citizens, the citizens’ role is to support their state in doing so,” he adds. “State” and “nation” are recurrent in Zwein’s discourse, clearly underlining the philosophy of the movement. During the June 2009 election campaign, Moultazimoun members realized they “should make their voices heard, our voices for the state,” as Zwein says. They launched their first call in March 2009, urging all Lebanese to support a “sovereign, unified, diverse, independent and democratic Lebanon” by voting for March 14 parties.
The overlap between the objectives and rhetoric of Moultazimoun with that of March 14 is obvious, yet Zwein insists that the group is politically independent.
“We are not affiliated to any party, we do not belong to the March 14 structure. We only support them because they are in favor of the state and so are we,” he asserts. But the Moultazimoun are neither centrists nor neutral, “because there is no neutrality or centrism between state and non-state, rules and chaos” as they claimed in their March 2009 call.
Since it was established, Moultazimoun has regularly organized conferences, gatherings and sit-ins to broaden their audience and carry its message into the political sphere.
“We aim to reach everyone, but in particular the politicians in power,” says Zwein. In July, the group organized a gathering at Samir Qassir Square in support of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, “because we are in favor of the truth,” explains Zwein. In February, they organized an anti-war sit-in to denounce what they called the hawkish rhetoric of Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and his allies, Syrian President Bashar Assad and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who had gathered in Damascus.
Zwein readily admits that he faces a difficult job promoting Moultazimoun among the public. The lack of financial means is a crippling problem. The group can’t afford to create a website, rent an office, or hire a secretary to handle PR tasks. Nonetheless, Zwein affirms that “we are already a player in the Lebanese arena.”
“A small player,” he adds, “but we made ourselves some room, through our ideas, our work and our efforts.” Moultazimoun’s activities vary, according to the current political circumstances.
“Lately, given the political context, we have had to organize a lot of events, to express our support for democracy, freedom and justice,” says Zwein. “But if someday Lebanese politics becomes simple, then we will stop working,” he laughs. In the meantime, he is convinced that “the country needs us; as long as there is no strong unified Lebanese state, we will work for that.”

Bashir, or the nearness of the precipice
By Michael Young
Daily Star/Thursday, September 16, 2010
Once a year, on September 14, members of the Gemayel family and supporters gather in Achrafieh to commemorate the assassination in 1982 of President-elect Bashir Gemayel. Somehow, that event is soaked with pathos, having become a confirmation of Maronite decline through the inevitable contrasts it provides between Bashir’s soaring ambitions and the community’s dismal reality today.
But even for those not taken up by the cult of Bashir, who do not believe the Gemayels (or anyone else) are authorized to forever grace us with their presence in inherited political office, the yearly ceremony yet retains bracing defiance. This year it was Nadim Gemayel accusing the Syrian regime of having murdered virtually all Lebanese politicians from Kamal Jumblatt on, including Bashir, down to Rafik Hariri and subsequent victims from the March 14 coalition.
After all this time since his killing, Bashir’s legacy has gone through multiple transformations, along with the customary deletions and elisions, thanks to a tendency to rewrite his story as a hagiography. That the keepers of the flame should be, primarily, Bashir’s wife and children, and to a much lesser extent a brother who happened to be a bitter political rival, hardly renders the narrative more precise.
Here’s one interpretation, as contestable as any other. Bashir Gemayel was many things, above all a populist Maronite recalcitrant, who combined impatience with Lebanon’s traditional political rules, a sensitivity to growing Maronite weakness, and a confident perception that this could be reversed through his conquest of a Christian society that would curb dissent, which Bashir saw as the main source of communal divisions. The son of a political family, he sought to smash its hierarchy by surpassing his father and brother, both initially more influential than he. The product of a pluralistic order, he defended that order against armed Palestinian groups in the 1970s, before his self-righteousness pushed him to seek to replace it with a form of enforced uniformity under his own self-assured leadership.
There was much hubris in Bashir, best embodied in his statement at the start of his election campaign that the National Pact of 1943 was no longer valid. What he couldn’t stomach in Lebanon’s founding social contract was the weighty compromises, the corruption and sluggishness of a system favoring perennial stalemate, even as Lebanon, Christians in particular, was threatened on all sides. Not surprisingly, Bashir described his project of change as revolutionary.
Here is what he told his closest partisans shortly before his assassination: “We can no longer govern with the men who were in power before 1975, or with the 1943 mentality … A strong state for me is a state that is capable of protecting the Christian identity and guaranteeing the equality of all Lebanese. I am the president of the state and the leader of the nation. That is the real revolution. Without this revolution the war in Lebanon will have been in vain.”
But there was an uneasy tension in Bashir’s wanting to protect Christian identity while also guaranteeing the equality of all Lebanese. What would happen if those two intentions entered into conflict with one another? Which would Bashir favor? Nor was it ever realistic that Muslims would rally to his undebated vision. And since when was Lebanon a place of revolution? If anything, before 1982 and long afterward, the country has suffered at the hands of those seeking to destroy the foundations of the political system while offering no substitute around which a national consensus might coalesce.
Perhaps that is why Bashir continues to be associated in my mind with Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. Both are men who have regarded themselves as above the system, also as superior to the system, who have sought to reshape Lebanon to better conform with the impositions of their egos. Bashir, like Nasrallah later on, anointed himself the final interpreter of Lebanon’s truths, a stern judge of the legitimacy of its political regulations and traditions. And both men have done more to discredit gradual political reform, while visiting violence on Lebanon, than most other major political figures.
But there is a difference between the two. Nasrallah’s ultimate reference point remains Iran and the organic relationship his party entertains with its regime and supreme religious authority. Bashir’s extensions into the region offered him no strategic depth or political succor. If anything, his alliance with Israel, even if he intended to abandon it once he had installed himself in the presidential palace, was a stain he would not have easily rinsed away both in Lebanon and the Arab world. Just as Elias Hrawi and Emile Lahoud never managed to win significant standing and respect for having been brought into power effectively on a Syrian tank, so too would Bashir have remained a pariah for taking over the presidency on an Israeli one.
The irony is that Bashir played an instrumental role in precipitating the Israeli invasion of 1982, which represented a seminal moment for Hizbullah, Lebanon’s Shiites in general, and Hassan Nasrallah in particular. Here was Bashir Gemayel convinced that he had achieved his historical purpose of being the Christians’ redeemer, unaware that his success and death were only a bridge toward Shiite ascendancy.
But all this tells us is that Lebanon has a propensity to grind down those who think they are better than it. Nasrallah would do well to learn from his Maronite predecessor. As Bashir’s followers discovered to their dismay, the point of highest achievement can lie next to a precipice.
*Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR and author of “The Ghosts of Martyrs Square: An Eyewitness Account of Lebanon’s Life Struggle” (Simon & Schuster).