LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِSeptember 18/2010

Bible Of The Day
Paul's Letter to the Galatians 5/16-26: "But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you won’t fulfill the lust of the flesh. 5:17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, that you may not do the things that you desire.  But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious, which are: adultery, sexual immorality, uncleanness, lustfulness,idolatry, sorcery, hatred, strife, jealousies, outbursts of anger, rivalries, divisions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these; of which I forewarn you, even as I also forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith,  gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.  Those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and lusts.  If we live by the Spirit, let’s also walk by the Spirit. Let’s not become conceited, provoking one another, and envying one another.

Free Opinions, Releases, letters, Interviews & Special Reports
 Who Lost Lebanon?/By: Rick Moran/September 17/10
Our broken general/By:Michael Young/September 17/10
Turkey’s Islamization: One Step Closer/By: Ryan Mauro/September 17/10
Diplomacy versus public diplomacy, or pragmatism versus sincerity/By: Eli Khoury/September 17/10

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for September 17/10

French Source: Bellemare to Accuse Hizbullah Members Relying on Phone Calls as Evidence/Naharnet
Diplomat: Not Even Obama Can Stop the Tribunal's Decisions/Naharnet
 March 14 MPs Withdraw from Budget Meeting after Hizbullah Refused to Approve Funding for Hariri Tribunal/Naharnet
Sfeir Reportedly 'Changed' … Strong Criticism against Hizbullah Dwindled/Naharnet
 Barak sends conciliatory signal as Mitchell meets Assad/J.Post
 Tehran: Ahmadinejad to visit Syria/Ynetnews
 Ahmadinejad to make surprise visit to Syria on Yom Kippur/Ynetnews
 Officials:Resuming aid to Lebanese military in U.S. interest/CNN
 Russia to supply missiles to Syria, despite Israel protest/J.Post
 Mirza: Sayyed will be dealt with according to the law/Now Lebanon
Jarrah criticizes Hezbollah’s reaction to summoning of Sayyed/Now Lebanon
Mirza: It Was Najjar's Decision to Summon Sayyed/Naharnet
 Hezbollah labels summoning of Sayyed as “political par excellence”/Now Lebanon
 Sayyed seems to have lost his nerves, says Araji/Now Lebanon
Police Prevented from Entering Sayyed's House, Report/Now Lebanon
 PSP accuses Jouzou of “randomly provoking” parties/Now Lebanon
Iran MP says defecting diplomats have mental problems/September 17/10
Retired army general found dead in Akkar town/Now Lebanon
As-Seyassah: Aoun must have known about Karam’s spy activity before his arrest/Now Lebanon
Aoun: We Must Resist Government Weapons if They Are Turned against Citizens' Rights/Naharnet
Russia: No Reason for U.S., Israel to Fear Possible Transfer of Cruise Missiles to Hizbullah/Naharnet

Clinton: Peace talks are 'complicated,' will 'take time'
By HERB KEINON/J.Post
09/17/2010
Gov’t rejects extended freeze, despite US, EU and Egyptian pressure; PA official tells ‘Post’ he has ‘no explanation’ for US optimism.
Despite considerable pressure from both the US and Egypt to continue the settlement construction moratorium for another three months, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s senior ministers, a forum known as the septet, decided this week not to extend the freeze.
Since a cabinet decision was needed to put the freeze into effect last November, another cabinet decision would be needed to extend it, and the septet decided, before Netanyahu’s meeting in Jerusalem with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday, not to ask for an extension.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak reportedly was in favor of an American compromise to extend the moratorium for three months in order to come to an agreement with the Palestinian Authority on final borders, so that it would then be clear where Israel would, and would not, be able to build.
Clinton, however, reiterated in a Channel 10 interview that the US still wanted to see the moratorium extended, although she said she understood Netanyahu’s argument that the PA did not take advantage of the moratorium in place for the last 9-1/2 months to enter into talks.
“The United States believes that we need to establish an environment that is conducive to negotiations,” Clinton said when asked about the moratorium.
She reiterated that both she and US President Barack Obama felt that “doing something about the moratorium” would be “an important decision by Israel,” and that this would be “in the interest of the negotiations.”
Clinton said that “if we are going to have an agreement about territory, and we are going to have a democratic, secure Jewish state in Israel and viable state for the Palestinians, everyone knows that settlements are going to have to be discussed. There are differences in their location and their numbers, but it is something that can’t be put under the rug, it has to be confronted.”
Regarding whether she supported Netanyahu’s demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, she said that at her meeting on Wednesday with President Shimon Peres, “he reminded me that Yasser Arafat had said, ‘Of course it will be a Jewish state.’ These are the kinds of discussion that have to be done only at the leader level.”
The Prime Minister’s Office, meanwhile, responded to reports in the Arab press that Netanyahu was considering a three-month extension by saying “the prime minister’s position in relation to the time allocated for a moratorium on new construction in Judea and Samaria is known, and there has been no change.”
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, meanwhile, said in a Channel 1 interview that he had urged Netanyahu to extend the moratorium by a few months so as to give the peace talks a chance.
“I told him [Netanyahu] to extend the freeze for at least three or four months during the talks. I told him that this would help achieve satisfactory results,” the Egyptian leader said.
Mubarak quoted Netanyahu as saying that he wasn’t able to extend the freeze because of opposition from his coalition partners.
“I told Netanyahu to forget about all those who are hesitant and skeptical and to continue with the settlement freeze for a few more months at least,” Mubarak said.
Mubarak said that he also made it clear during his meeting with Netanyahu earlier this week in Sharm e-Sheikh that extending the freeze was a small price compared with the potentially bloody repercussions of failing to do so.
The Egyptian president expressed hope that the extension would allow Israel and the Palestinians to reach agreement within a few months.
PA President Mahmoud Abbas on Thursday reiterated his opposition to the resumption of construction in the settlements and expressed his desire to continue with the peace talks with Israel, a spokesman for Abbas said.
Abbas, who met with Clinton in Ramallah, said that failing to extend the moratorium would jeopardize the peace process, the spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudaineh, said.
“They had a serious and thorough discussion,” Abu Rudaineh said of the Abbas- Clinton meeting. “They agreed to increase their efforts during the upcoming phase to boost the peace process.”
He said that the two also agreed to hold another meeting in the coming week in New York.
Upon greeting Clinton in Ramallah, Abbas said he welcomed all efforts to achieve peace in the region, especially those made by Obama’s administration.
“We all know that there’s no alternative to reaching peace through negotiations,” Abbas declared. “Therefore, we have no choice but to continue with these matters.”
Another PA official told The Jerusalem Post that he had “no explanation” for why some US government officials were sounding optimistic about the direct talks.
The Palestinians were “very worried” because of Netanyahu’s refusal to extend the freeze of settlement construction, the official said.
“There can be no progress in the peace process while Israel is building in the settlements and creating new facts on the ground,” he said. “A partial freeze is also unacceptable.”
The European Union also weighed in on the matter on Thursday, with its foreign ministers releasing a statement after a meeting saying that the settlements are “illegal under international law” and calling for an “extension of the moratorium decided by Israel.”
An end to rocket and terrorist attacks against Israel was also demanded in the declaration.
The EU “continues to call for a complete stop to all violence, in particular rocket fire and terrorist attacks,” the statement read.

Russia to supply Syria with P-800 missiles
Moscow's Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov says arms sale of Yakhont cruise missiles to Damascus to go on as planed; adds Washington, Jerusalem's concerns over deal 'unjustified'
AFP Published: 09.17.10, 10:14 / Israel News
Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov confirmed in Washington that Russia would supply Syria with P-800 Yakhont cruise missiles, Russian news agencies reported Friday. "We will supply Yakhont to Syria, we will fulfill the contract," Serdyukov was quoted as saying by ITAR-TASS news agency Friday. A contract to that effect, he added, was signed in 2007. Serdyukov was speaking in during a Pentagon visit aimed at expanding military ties as part of the countries' much-vaunted "reset" in relations. Russia's arms sales and possible nuclear cooperation with Syria, which has close ties to Iran, is unnerving for the United States and Israel, which fears them being transferred to the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah.  Serdyukov described such fears as unjustified: "The US and Israel ask us not to supply Syria with Yakhont. But we do not see the concerns expressed by them that these arms will fall into the hands of terrorists," he said. The Russian defense minister also called for an end to a deadlock over a key Cold War arms treaty limiting conventional military forces of Europe. Russia abandoned it in 2007 over US plans to install a missile shield in Eastern Europe. The Conventional Forces in Europe treaty (CFE) limits the deployment of troops and military hardware across Europe.
"Even our American partners understand that it cannot work any more in the form in which it is now," Serdyukov said, adding that the treaty "needs to be more up-to-date and match the realities of today." NATO countries have said they will only ratify an adapted CFE treaty once Moscow lives up to a pledge made in 1999 to pull its troops out of former Soviet republics Georgia and Moldova. "We stand by our position on the treaty and have firmly stated that we will not lift our moratorium until our conditions are accepted and we are offered options that suit us," Serdyukov said. The issue is expected to be discussed when Russia attends talks during a NATO summit in Lisbon in November

Who Lost Lebanon?
By: Rick Moran on Sep 17th, 2010
FrontPage Magazine
The picture that flashed around the world of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri embracing Syrian President Bashar Assad during his visit to Damascus last week was proof positive that a new wind was blowing through the Levant – an ill wind that smelled of a new strategic arrangement falling into place, much to the detriment of Israel and the United States.
To imagine the two leaders hugging was impossible just a year ago. Hariri, son of the assassinated former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, placed the blame for his father’s 2005 Valentines Day massacre squarely on the shoulders of Bashar Assad. In an interview following the release of the Mehlis report by UN Special Prosecutor Detlev Mehlis, the younger Hariri related a conversation with his father who had just returned from a meeting with President Assad in Syria over the extension of President Emile LaHoud’s term in office. Saad said:
I discussed with my father, the late Rafik Hariri, the extension of President Lahoud’s term. He told me that President Bashar Assad threatened him saying: “This is what I want. If you think that President Chirac and you are going to run Lebanon, you are mistaken. It is not going to happen. President Lahoud is me. Whatever I tell him, he follows suit. This extension is to happen or else I will break Lebanon over your head and Walid Jumblat’s. So, you either do as you are told or we will get you and your family wherever you are.”
Just days later, the former prime minister was killed, along with 21 others, in a massive car bomb explosion.
What does Hariri the Younger say now? According to the Mehlis report:
Hariri, who for years blamed Syria for his father’s death, dropped a bombshell on Monday when he told the Saudi-owned Asharq al-Awsat newspaper that it was a mistake to accuse Syria in the giant truck bomb that killed ex-Lebanese premier Rafik Hariri along with 21 others near the St George Hotel on the Beirut waterfront on Feb. 14, 2005, claiming that the charge was politically motivated.
“This was a political accusation, and this political accusation has finished,” Hariri said in the interview while emphasizing that the determination of his father’s killers lies in the hands of the Netherlands-based Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) set up to probe the crime.
The Mehlis report was the first official word issued by the STL on what happened that fateful day in 2005 and it was a bombshell. Several high level Syrian government officials were implicated – including President Assad’s brother-in-law Assef Shawkat, who at the time was chief of the Syrian intelligence service – as well as 4 Lebanese army generals who were suspected of complicity in the attack and imprisoned for several years. They have since been released but not exonerated.
But something funny happened on the way to indicting the Syrian government for murder; the UN got cold feet. Later reports moved blame for the assassination away from Syria and toward Hezbollah (virtually the same thing as blaming Syria given the terrorist group’s close ties to Damascus). Indicting a government for murder presents many problems with which the UN was loathe to deal. This may be why Hezbollah, Syria’s agent in Lebanon, appears to be about to take the fall.
An indictment of prominent members of the terrorist group carries its own dangers due to Hezbollah’s position in the government of Lebanon as de-facto leader of the opposition. With Hezbollah’s spiritual and military chief Hassan Nasrallah already making noises that any indictments directed against the group would precipitate a political crisis, Hariri’s disavowel of his earlier accusations may be designed to try and keep the peace in a country where tensions have been mounting for months.
But, it is actually worse than a simple political ploy as Caroline Glick points out:
Since he formed his government, Hariri has travelled three times to Damascus to kiss Assad’s ring. And in so doing, he gave up his call for justice for his father’s killers.
This became clear when last month Hariri embraced Nasrallah’s allegation that Israel murdered his father. Then last week, following his latest trip to Damascus, Hariri announced that his past claims that the Syrian regime assassinated his father were unfounded.
It gets worse, according to Glick:
On Monday, Yediot Aharonot reported that Iranian and Syrian intelligence agencies are applying massive pressure on Hariri to openly join the Iranian axis. Today that axis includes the Syrian regime, Hezbollah and Hamas. If and when Hariri openly joins, Lebanon will become its first non-voluntary member.
Chances are good that Hariri will succumb to their pressure. Yediot reported that the Iranians and Syrians made him an offer he can’t refuse: “If you don’t join us, you will share your father’s fate.”

Turkey’s Islamization: One Step Closer
By; Ryan Mauro/FrontPage
Sep 17th, 2010
The referendum proposed by Turkey’s government has been passed with 58 percent of the population approving it in a vote with 77.5 percent turnout. The Obama Administration is praising the 26 amendments that bring Turkey in a more democratic direction but undermine the military and judiciary that protect the country’s secularism. The State Department may not realize it, but it has congratulated Prime Minister Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party (AKP) on paving the way for the further Islamization of Turkey.
After the results came in, the State Department spoke in favor of the referendum. “We hope that through these reforms, it will further enhance Turkey’s democratic processes and human rights protection…. This was a choice for the Turkish people, and there was a very strong, decisive vote to move towards greater civilian oversight of these democratic institutions,” a State Department spokesman said. Iran also hailed the referendum.
Erdogan framed the reforms as necessary for Turkey to become a member of the European Union and establish itself as a democracy. Unfortunately, democratization also benefits the AKP and its Islamist agenda. Civilian courts will now have power over the High Military Council and military courts cannot be used to try civilians, but civilian courts can try military officers. This is a way of reducing the political power of the military that has safeguarded Turkey’s secularism.
The referendum also permits the parliament to select who sits on the Supreme Board of Prosecutors and Judges. Previously, the judiciary was independent, choosing its own leadership free of political influence. This is particularly concerning because the AKP holds a majority in the parliament, allowing the party to oversee the judiciary without any significant checks and balances. The second most powerful party, the secularist Republican People’s Party (CHP), controls less than one-third of the parliament.
A new constitution can now be written because of the referendum. The AKP has not discussed any link between Shariah law and the new constitution they are preparing, but with a huge majority in parliament, the AKP can fully actualize its agenda. Luckily, the AKP says the new constitution will not be proposed until after the next general elections in July 2011.
Erdogan and the AKP have been hard at work at Islamizing Turkey and promoting anti-American and especially anti-Israeli sentiment. One of their biggest adversaries is the military. The referendum takes away the immunity granted to the military officers involved in the coup of 1980, although some say the statute of limitations prohibits their prosecution. The prosecutor’s office is working on a report on its conclusions about whether prosecution is permissible
**Ryan Mauro is the founder of WorldThreats.com, National Security Advisor to the Christian Action Network, and an intelligence analyst with the Asymmetric Warfare and Intelligence Center.

French Source: Bellemare to Accuse Hizbullah Members Relying on Phone Calls as Evidence
Naharnet/Special Tribunal for Lebanon Prosecutor Daniel Bellemare has reportedly told France's permanent representative to the U.N., Gerard Araud, that he would issue his indictment before the end of 2010 against Hizbullah members. As Safir daily quoted a French source as saying that Bellemare informed Araud about his decision during a meeting they held last July.
The prosecutor would accuse Hizbullah members of "having a hand in ex-Premier Rafik Hariri's assassination," the source said. The accusation would be based on phone calls made between the killers as evidence. Slain counter-terrorism police officer, Capt. Wissam Eid, was overseeing the investigation into the calls before his assassination two years ago.
Beirut, 17 Sep 10,

Diplomat: Not Even Obama Can Stop the Tribunal's Decisions
Naharnet/A western diplomat has said that Special Tribunal for Lebanon Prosecutor Daniel Bellemare will issue his indictment before year's end warning that no state and not even U.S. President Barack Obama have the power to postpone such a decision. "There is no postponement of the indictment and no one could stop the international tribunal," the diplomat based in New York told As Safir newspaper in remarks published Friday. "There will be indictments before year's end," he said. The diplomat stressed that the STL is independent and ultimately "it was impossible to postpone the court's work or obstruct it." "No one, not even Obama himself can stop it," he added. Beirut, 17 Sep 10,

March 14 MPs Withdraw from Budget Meeting after Hizbullah Refused to Approve Funding for Hariri Tribunal
Naharnet/March 14 MPs on Thursday walked out of a budget meeting after Hizbullah MPs and their allies refused to approve funding for the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.
MP Jamal Jarrah, whose Mustaqbal Movement holds the majority in Parliament, said Hizbullah-backed March 8 lawmakers refused a financial provision for the STL in the national budget.
"We were on the point of discussing a clause on the financing of the court, when Hizbullah deputies said that from now on they would not deal with or finance the court," Jarrah said.
Head of the Finance and Budget Committee Ibrahim Kanaan said the clause was not approved. The STL is reportedly set to implicate Hizbullah in the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and 22 others in Beirut. Hizbullah has repeatedly warned against any such implication. Future News TV reported that March 8 MPs were pursuing the session "despite its loss of quorum" following the withdrawal of March 14 MPs. Kanaan said, however, that the withdrawal of the majority deputies did not strip the session of its quorum. He said the Committee had three choices: postponing discussions over the issue until the committee's upcoming session on September 27, voting on the article or leaving it to the Parliament's general assembly to vote on the article. Kanaan was praised for his stance, particularly because he refrained from voting after the withdrawal of March 14 MPs even though quorum was not affected by the lawmakers' exit. The STL funding and budget of the Council for Development and Reconstruction were on the meeting's agenda. Mustaqbal Movement and Hizbullah MPs traded accusations following the session over failure to reach an agreement over the clause.Jarrah said March 14 MPs walked out of the meeting to protest against Hizbullah's condemnation which described the STL as an Israeli and U.S. scheme. Hizbullah MP Hasan Fadlallah was quoted by Mustaqbal Movement MP Ammar Houri as saying that the STL "is an Israeli and American tribunal; and we reject it." "After September, we cannot wait or be patient," Fadlallah was quoted as saying. "We have entered a dangerous phase." But An-Nahar newspaper on Friday said Fadlallah was quick to deny the remarks. Beirut, 17 Sep 10,

Sfeir Reportedly 'Changed' … Strong Criticism against Hizbullah Dwindled
Naharnet/Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir has reportedly "changed" and his strong criticism against Hizbullah appeared to have dwindled. "The man changed completely," one Sfeir visitor told Al-Akhbar newspaper in remarks published Friday. "His sharp criticism against Hizbullah began to fade. He is more moderate and is looking for dialogue rather than confrontation," he added. "It may be due to old age or disappointment of Prime Minister Saad Hariri," the source said. Beirut, 17 Sep 10,

Jumblat: We Can Do without New May 7, Remarks of Sayyed, Aoun Rejected
Naharnet/Lebanon can do without armed clashes similar to those of May 7, 2008 and the recent remarks of former head of General Security, Maj. Gen. Jamil Sayyed, and Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun "are rejected," Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblat said Thursday. In an interview with LBC TV, Jumblat said that "the presumptions presented" by Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon were "very important," noting that "the tribunal's issue can be solved between (Premier Saad)Hariri and Nasrallah, so there's no need to topple it (STL) through street" riots. "It seems that some in the March 8 camp don't favor Hariri's rapprochement with Syria," Jumblat said.
Answering a question Jumblat noted that "the Special Tribunal for Lebanon has been a part of the game of nations from the onset."
"I won't change the previous testimony I gave to (former head of the U.N. commission investigating ex-PM Rafik Hariri's murder Detlev) Mehlis, because it contains doubt and not accusation," Jumblat told his interviewer. He noted that "speaking of sparing Syria and attacking Hizbullah is stupidity, and Hariri acknowledges the relation between the two sides which has been solid since 1983 up till now." Jumblat quoted Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as telling him: "We keep the STL, but the indictment's content must be revised."
"To postpone the indictment is to postpone the problem, and here lies the importance of the necessary meeting between Hariri and Nasrallah," Jumblat stressed.
"I repeat what I had previously said: If the price of justice was civil strife and the jeopardizing of civil peace, then it would be better to recoil." Jumblat called for dropping the Lebanon First motto, saying "we can't go neither to the sea nor to Israel, we have to go to Syria." Beirut, 16 Sep 10,

Sayyed Hits Back at Jumblat: You Threatened our Families
Naharnet/Former Head of Lebanon's General Security Department Maj. Gen. Jamil Sayyed was upset by comments made by Druze leader Walid Jumblat in which he complained about Sayyed's high pitch voice during a recent press conference. "I wish he were not unjustly imprisoned for 4 years, and not complain for 37 years of his career by false witnesses of a crime the size of the assassination of former Premier Rafik Hariri to know what it feels like for him and his family," Sayyed told Jumblat in a statement published on Friday.
Sayyed said Jumblat should recall very well how he "threatened them (Sayyed's family) and vowed revenge." Sayyed said he was still waiting for a "clear" apology from Jumblat over his threats. He also demanded to hold close aides to Jumblat, including Marwan Hamadeh, accountable. Beirut, 17 Sep 10,

Police Prevented from Entering Sayyed's House, Report
Naharnet/Former head of Lebanon's General Security Department Maj. Gen. Jamil Sayyed said he will return to Beirut as planned on Saturday. Al-Akhbar newspaper said Sayyed is likely to hold a press conference on Sunday.It said police detectives on Thursday were prevented for the second time in as many days from entering Sayyed's house to notify him about a summoning request. State Prosecutor Saeed Mirza on Thursday demanded to summon Sayyed for threatening state security and Prime Minister Saad Hariri.
Beirut, 17 Sep 10,

Aoun: We Must Resist Government Weapons if They Are Turned against Citizens' Rights
Naharnet/Free Patriotic Movement leader Gen. Michel Aoun on Friday denied a call for civil disobedience, but said Lebanese should "resist" if government weapons were turned against the rights of the citizens. He said calls for civil disobedience would be considered a move against government weapons. Aoun was apparently responding to ministerial sources who told pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat that the former army general is "in one way or another calling for civil disobedience against the government." "How will he respond in the event that some (people) asked not to cooperate with the ministries of energy and telecommunications?" one source wondered after Aoun urged citizens not to obey police's Intelligence Bureau.
"Won't this cause the destruction of State institutions?" the source asked. "This disobedience would be against legitimate weapons which defend the (citizens) rights and help implement the law," he told reporters in Rabiyeh. "But when these weapons are turned against citizens' rights, we must resist; and this is the duty of citizens and this is what we are calling for," Aoun stressed. Beirut, 17 Sep 10,

Hezbollah labels summoning of Sayyed as “political par excellence”
September 17, 2010
Hezbollah issued a statement on Friday saying that Attorney General Judge Said Mirza’s request to summon former General Security chief Jamil as-Sayyed on Thursday was “political par excellence.”“We were surprised by the judiciary’s decision… which is political and oppressive to those who declare the truth,” the statement said.
This comes after 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 Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL),” investigating the 2005 assassination of ex-Premier Rafik Hariri, and vowed to take his right “with his own hands.”
Sayyed was detained from 2005 to 2009 on suspicion of involvement in the Rafik Hariri murder. In April 2009, the STL ordered his release without charges due to lack of evidence.
Hezbollah called for revoking the judiciary's decision to summon Sayyed for questioning, adding that it should have summoned “those who were bragging that they collaborated with Israel [at a certain period of time].”During a September 8 press conference, Kataeb bloc MP Sami Gemayel said “the Lebanese resistance [during the civil war]… had no choice but to use the devil, [that is Israel] in order to defend itself, [because] it was confronting the Syrian and Palestinian armies.”-NOW Lebanon

Sayyed seems to have lost his nerves, says Araji
September 17, 2010 /Lebanon First bloc MP Assem Araji told the Voice of Lebanon (VOL) radio station on Friday that former General Security chief Jamil as-Sayyed should "keep quiet" after his Sunday press conference, adding that the latter “seems to have lost his nerves, which indicates that he is afraid.”“Sayyed is upset by the [improved] relations between Prime Minister Saad Hariri and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad,” Araji said. The former General Security chief 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, and vowed to take his right “with his own hands.”
Sayyed was detained from 2005 to 2009 on suspicion of involvement in the Rafik Hariri murder, but in April 2009, the STL ordered his release due to lack of evidence.
-NOW Lebanon

Jarrah criticizes Hezbollah’s reaction to summoning of Sayyed
September 17, 2010 /Lebanon First bloc MP Jamal al-Jarrah told LBCI television on Friday that Hezbollah’s reaction to Attorney General Judge Said Mirza’s request to summon former General Security chief Jamil as-Sayyed over the latter’s Sunday press conference reflects the atmosphere that prevailed during the May 7 events.Gunmen supporting a Hezbollah-led alliance clashed with Druze and Sunni supporters of a rival alliance, killing 100 people in the week-long battle in 2008, also known as the May 7 events. “[Hezbollah] seems to be threatening and making it look like the Lebanese judiciary is not allowed to take any measure against figures who attack it,” Jarrah said. Hezbollah issued a statement on Friday saying that Mirza’s request to summon Sayyed was “political par excellence,” calling for revoking 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 Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL),” investigating the 2005 assassination of ex-Premier Rafik Hariri, and vowed to take his right “with his own hands.” Sayyed was detained from 2005 to 2009 on suspicion of involvement in the Rafik Hariri murder. In April 2009, the STL ordered his release due to lack of evidence.
-NOW Lebanon

VOL: Ahmadinejad to make unexpected appearance in Damascus
September 17, 2010 /The Voice of Lebanon (VOL) radio station reported that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is to make an unexpected appearance in Damascus on Friday to meet with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The report did not elaborate further.

Our broken general
Michael Young, September 17, 2010
Now Lebanon/
Michel Aoun’s critiques of the ISF Information Branch were not wrong, but were also made without irony.
Michel Aoun is not wrong to complain that the Information Branch of the Internal Security Forces has taken on duties and powers that transgress the institution’s original mandate. But the general is also irony-free, undermining his own case.
Since his return from exile five years ago, Aoun’s primary preoccupation has been to encrust himself in the political class he once pretended to despise. The general has played the inside-outside game well enough, portraying himself to his devotees as a principled dissenter while fighting with his political rivals over control of instruments of patronage and power. His latest tirade against the Information Branch, but also, unexplainably, President Michel Sleiman, was a fine example of his contradictions.
If Aoun can make a good case that intelligence institutions are mushrooming in Lebanon, and that this goes against the spirit of the constitution, he really needs to take it a bit further. Will we hear Aoun soon complaining, for example, that the General Security Directorate has also morphed into an intelligence body far beyond its original, largely administrative, terms of reference, including the signing of our passports? Probably not, because the general’s Hezbollah allies are in control there, and the metastasis of General Security took place under another de facto ally of Aoun’s, General Jamil as-Sayyed.
As Aoun defends the constitution, has he bothered to read the very first sentence in its Article 1, namely that “Lebanon is an independent, indivisible, and sovereign state.” And might he wish to apply that to Hezbollah, which has undermined all three propositions? Lebanon is not independent, if, for example, the party carries the country into a war against Israel on behalf of Iran, as it may well do. And Lebanon is certainly not indivisible for as long as there continue to be parts of its territory off limits to the state, where Hezbollah gunmen can detain people for questioning and fire on Lebanese army helicopters.
And Lebanon is positively not sovereign when Hezbollah is able to maintain an armed force more powerful than the Lebanese army, and a security and intelligence apparatus parallel to Lebanon’s official security and intelligence agencies. If Aoun is to convince anybody of the justice of his perorations on the Information Branch, he must also mention these other, even more alarming, realities.
But then Aoun’s savaging of everyone, all the way up to the top of the political ladder, must mean something else. How naïve you are, some might direct my way: Aoun’s anger is all about Fayez Karam, the general’s aide arrested several weeks ago by the Information Branch for allegedly being an Israeli spy. Perhaps, although we here were the first to suggest that Karam’s arrest might be part of a larger scheme to break Aoun away from Hezbollah and bring him more fully into Syria’s fold, while also representing a knife over the general’s head to prevent him from exiting the Hariri government.
By and large Aoun and his parliamentarians have ended up confirming that or a similar interpretation. Salim Salhab, a pro-Aoun deputy from the Metn, repeated that the Karam arrest was an effort to split the Aounists and Hezbollah. After initially distancing himself from Karam, on the grounds that the spying accusations might be true, Aoun changed track and began attacking the Information Branch and the judiciary. The general’s daughters are said to be visiting Karam’s wife regularly, while Karam himself is being well treated. There is much ambiguity surrounding his guilt, and Aoun’s tirade underlines that what is at stake is more political than legal.
If so, we shouldn’t take too seriously Aoun’s protests against the Information Branch on ethical or constitutional grounds. The fuss is a consequence of Aoun’s personal calculations, his efforts to maneuver between Hezbollah, Syria and his political foes, all the while ensuring that he can one day leave behind what passes for a political dynasty, one ruled over by his sons in law and daughters.
It’s a shame, because like a broken clock that tells good time twice a day, Aoun can sometimes be correct. The unjustified and uncontrolled proliferation or expansion of intelligence and security agencies in Lebanon is worrisome. Pluralism can be valuable, but the propagation of mini-states and partisan state institutions is not. This means fragmentation, and Lebanon’s elusive democracy is the worse for it.
**Michael Young is opinion editor of the Daily Star newspaper in Beirut. His book, The Ghosts of Martyrs Square: An Eyewitness Account of Lebanon’s Life Struggle (Simon & Schuster), was recently published.

PSP accuses Jouzou of “randomly provoking” parties
September 17, 2010
The Progressive Socialist Party issued a statement on Friday responding to Mufti of Mount Lebanon Sheikh Mohammed Ali al-Jouzou’s Thursday statement, saying that the mufti is randomly provoking parties and has disregarded calls to foster calm in the country. “[Jouzou’s] attempts to provoke others are doomed to failure,” the PSP said.
Jouzou said on Thursday that Hezbollah pushed former General Security chief Jamil as-Sayyed to voice his Sunday statement in an attempt to obstruct the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL). Jouzou also slammed Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun. Sayyed had said 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.”
The former General Security chief 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.-NOW Lebanon

Mirza: Sayyed will be dealt with according to the law
September 17, 2010 /In an interview with Al-Akhbar newspaper published on Friday, Attorney General Judge Said Mirza said that the Lebanese judiciary will deal with former General Security chief Jamil as-Sayyed according to the law. On Thursday, Mirza requested to summon Sayyed for “threatening Prime Minister Saad Hariri, the Lebanese state and its judiciary.”
“Justice Minister Ibrahim Najjar is who the one who requested to summon Sayyed… In all cases, [Sayyed] will be interrogated, based on which the case will transferred to the relevant offices of the Attorney General. They will decides if [Sayyed] will be prosecuted or not,” Mirza said. Sayyed said on Sunday that “[PM 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, and vowed to take his right “with his own hands.” The ex-General Security chief was detained from 2005 to 2009 on suspicion of involvement in the Rafik Hariri murder. In April 2009, the STL ordered his release due to lack of evidence.-NOW Lebanon

Iran MP says defecting diplomats have mental problems
September 17, 2010 /An Iranian MP accused three diplomats, who have defected in Europe to join the anti-government opposition, of having "mental" problems, ILNA news agency reported on Friday. "Some of these people have mental problems and seek asylum in order to have an excuse to stay in their desired countries at the end of their mission," Mohammad Karami-Rad, who is a member of the parliament's national security commission, told the agency. The Iranian foreign ministry has reacted vaguely to the defection of the three Europe-based diplomats. Farzad Farhangian, a press attaché at Iran's embassy in Brussels, called Tuesday for an uprising against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government and announced he was seeking asylum in Norway. Earlier this month, a senior official at Iran's embassy in Helsinki, Hossein Alizadeh, said he was seeking asylum in Finland. Norway granted asylum in February to Mohamed Reza Heydari, the former consul general of the Islamic Republic's mission in Oslo, after he resigned the previous month. Ahmadinejad's June 2009 re-election has bitterly divided the political elite in Iran, as the opposition charged the poll was massively rigged to keep the hardliner in power.-AFP/ NOW Lebanon

Retired army general found dead in Akkar town
September 17, 2010 /The National News Agency (NNA) reported on Friday that retired Lebanese army Brigadier General Sleiman al-Omar was found dead near the Akkar town of Bazbina in North Lebanon. Police arrived at the scene to investigate the incident, and the coroner revealed that the cause of death was a heart attack, the NNA added.
-NOW Lebanon

As-Seyassah: Aoun must have known about Karam’s spy activity before his arrest
September 17, 2010 An anonymous source told Kuwaiti newspaper As-Seyassah in an interview published on Friday that Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun must have known that retired Brigadier General Fayez Karam— who is also an FPM official—was collaborating with Israel even before his arrest last month. “Karam was only a channel of communication with Israel, and he could not have contacted [Tel Aviv] without being instructed by a higher authority in the FPM,” the source said. In a fiery speech on September 5, Aoun criticized the government over media leaks stemming from the Internal Security Forces (ISF) – Information Branch’s investigation of Karam. -NOW Lebanon

Russia: No Reason for U.S., Israel to Fear Possible Transfer of Cruise Missiles to Hizbullah
Naharnet/Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov said there was no reason for the U.S. and Israel to be concerned about the possible transfer of P-800 Yakhont cruise missiles from Syria to Hizbullah. "We will supply Yakhont to Syria, we will fulfill the contract," Serdyukov was quoted as saying by ITAR-TASS news agency in comments to Russian journalists on Friday. Serdyukov was speaking in Washington during a visit to the Pentagon aimed at expanding military ties as part of the countries' much-vaunted "reset" in relations.
Russia's arms sales and possible nuclear cooperation with Syria is unnerving for the U.S. and Israel, which have expressed fears that the missiles could be transferred to Hizbullah.
Serdyukov described such fears as unjustified. "The U.S. and Israel ask us not to supply Syria with Yakhont. But we do not see the concerns expressed by them that these arms will fall into the hands of terrorists," he said.(AFP-Naharnet) Beirut, 17 Sep 10,

Diplomacy versus public diplomacy, or pragmatism versus sincerity
Eli Khoury, September 17, 2010
Almost 20 years ago to this day, the Berlin Wall fell and with it, half a century of Cold War came to an end. Soon, the leaders of the two poles of the Cold War, George Bush senior and Mikhail Gorbachev, were to meet aboard a ship, off the shores of the island of Malta, to state that 45 years of a brutal, global and ideological confrontation was over. And so nearly five decades of a global rift ended with a new horizon full of optimism, to a point where sociologists like Fukuyama, drawing on Hegel’s philosophy, announced “the end of history,” meaning the end of centuries of ideological wars and the convergence of all countries around representative democracy and the market economy.
Ten years later, and to last week as well, the sad events of September 11 erected a new wall of separation. This wall divided the same West, but with a different kind of East this time; an East classified as Islam. Another brutal global and ideological confrontation took shape, and one that we are still witnessing today.
Regardless of the geopolitical circumstances surrounding the period, it was widely acknowledged that the Berlin Wall fell, primarily, because the people of the Communist East wanted an “American Dream” of their own – or at least wanted some of its basic forms; I mean Hollywood, Levi’s and Coca Cola. Another agent of change was also at work, and that was Public Diplomacy.
Communication proved mightier than war.
Can the same be achieved with the new wall created on September 11, 2001?
The American dream, though it may be exhausted by recessions of its own making, is still there, and so is Public Diplomacy. Some important questions, however, seem to persist: Are these enough tools to end yet another major global rift? Do they work with the Islamic version of the East? And if they do, do we have to wait half a century to reach a happy ending?
Is the US a “sellable” brand to Islam, especially in the Middle East?
Ladies and gentlemen, let me start with the easy stuff, and don’t worry; I won’t get technical – or worry if you’re here only to get figures.
Does television have the required penetration to reach the people in question here? Where do radio, print and outdoor fit in? Most importantly, what about the internet and social media? Which one works best, advertising or content? Is professionally-produced content more important than that generated by the audience? Can Western global media play a role, or do we leave it to territorial or even local media?
The answer is yes, and all of the above.
Because the fundamental principle of new media, or media as a whole today, is that all can reach one, and one can reach all. What you write on a blog, or download on YouTube, in the privacy – or lack thereof - of your room can go anywhere, and come back to you, sometimes in multiples. The same way that anything you produce in some mega global media network can reach you in that very room.
But how do we deal with censorship, which might prevent the message from reaching its destination? The trick is somewhat easy. I am not saying it is simple; it does require hard work, but it is not rocket science. The quality or relevance of your message is capable of surpassing the reach of censorship more often than we would like to believe. What people should read or see will eventually get to them – one way or the other.
But with a complex media environment, audience variances, potential weaknesses of reach, as well as censorship, how widely can one reach and how effectively?
The picture of reach is not as bleak as you might think. Let us take the internet for instance: Close to 20 percent of the nearly 330 million people in the Middle East and North Africa alone is now on the net. That’s around 65 million. The internet-penetration level of around 28 percent is slightly better than the world average of 25 percent or so, and it is growing. Youth constitutes around 60 percent of these internet users.
And if you want to get fancy, over 6 million internet users, or about 10 percent of the total online population in the region, have access to broadband networks. Over eight percent of active Facebook users come from the Middle East and North Africa. While almost four in five young people in the region own a mobile phone, and one in four own a web-enabled one. Etc. etc.
In my opinion, 65 million reachable people is not bad.
Research also indicates that the single most important priority for young people in the region is living in a democracy, followed by infrastructure and access to the best universities. The idea of global citizenship is as important to almost seven in 10 young people too.
All this while, contrary to perceptions, most bloggers in the region are producing country- not nation- (i.e. Islamic Umma) related content, and are mostly secular reformists. Islam-focused blogs constitute a minority; I would estimate 20 percent.
But the most important catch is that only one percent of all online content is in Arabic. Thus, the medium is available, but content is not.
I am still talking reach here and relevance, but how about efficiency?
On the nature and aspirations of the target audience, one would expect me to start by saying that one must be aware of the complexity and diversity of the Islamic region and/or the Middle East, where one should pay careful attention to the nuances that lie between them. In essence, agreed. But is the audience split merely by region, creed or gender, or are there cross-territorial and gender-common denominators?
To make the point, let me go back to where I started, or to the difference between the Berlin Wall that fell and the September 11 wall that is still out there. The nature of the global divide, I would like to argue, is one and the same.
To make an analogy, imagine that the Cold War was labeled Protestant or Catholic versus Orthodox, or believers versus atheists. Just like it shouldn’t be today about crusaders versus jihadists, it wasn’t. It was about one way of life versus another. It was about the rule of law versus despotism; it was about liberty versus oppression; it was about personal prosperity versus state monopoly.
Is the Islamic world an exception? Some in Washington would like to argue that what matters most in the West might not matter at all in the East; that the foundations of Western society, i.e. the rule of law, prosperity, democracy – excuse me for I had to mention the “D word” – and the likes are not necessarily what Muslims want.
A few months ago, President Obama, in his famous and much appreciated Cairo address stated: “I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.” Please underline “mutual.”
I tend to agree with President Obama.
You see, for many of us who actually live the situation rather than read or inquire about it, there exists a great divide, and it is not between Christians and Muslims. The divide, believe or not, is still the same as the one symbolized by the Berlin Wall. It is about a majority of moderates, Muslims or Christians, who are naturally pro liberty, equality and prosperity, versus a few who are attempting to use the Quran or Arabism as a substitute for the Communist Manifesto.
They are merely power mongers who are either in power and want to remain there, or those who are trying their luck. Some will use Communism, others will use Arabism, and now Islamism.
Don’t be fooled, or let anyone fool you with “wars of civilizations” or, as much with the “Islamic exception.” Every human being, Christian or otherwise, wants what we all here want. The difference is merely in terminology. If I cannot get what is rightfully mine through Adam Smith, I will try, for lack of better options, to get it through Nasser a few decades ago, or through Islamism nowadays.
It is not about the rule of law versus Sharia; it is not about tolerance; it is about mutuality. It is about “am I entitled to an ‘American dream’ of my own or not;” it is about “am I a world citizen on par with another, or am I the underdog”?
Sincerity, ladies and gentlemen, is the key issue, because, while in Diplomacy pragmatism is the main factor, in Public Diplomacy it is sincerity that matters most. The former may serve a short-term purpose, but the latter will advance the long-term objective.
Were we, as the free world, sincere in our message to beyond the Iron Curtain? If we were, let us then repeat the same sincerity with the new metaphysical curtain.
Here is a view from a place and a society where the two cultures – or civilizations if you wish – are next-door neighbors; where the “dialogue of cultures,” or their “war” for that matter, are conducted not from afar, not through experienced or experimental study and examination, and not through regular visits or in-depth exploration. They are conducted on a daily basis, and even hourly; they are your business meeting or lunch break, they are your night out with friends or the love affair with your high-school sweetheart.
In Beirut - and don’t mind some analysts’ cynicism or the media’s sensational interpretations – this is how life is conducted every day. This is where the two cultures, and more, exist in parity in size or status - and in ambitions - and where people have to learn to live together rather than simply coexist side-by-side. This is where a term like “respect” or “tolerance” is the least expected, and where “mutual” becomes the objective of the day and one of the essential means of progress.
As respected scholar and ex-public servant from Lebanon Ghassan Salamé once said, “With respect, you recognize the other’s otherness, but you keep him at a distance, you exclude him from your sphere, his otherness being a shield separating him from you and protecting you against him. With tolerance you not only recognize the other’s otherness, you also recognize your duty to maintain diversity in the midst of your sphere of life. But tolerance is also a source of frustration because, implicit in it, is a balance of power in which the stronger side tolerates the existence of the other as long as the other recognizes that he is only tolerated; that he basically is in an inferior position.”
While in mutuality, you and the other become more like one, sharing the same – or similar - worries and aspirations, albeit with the diversities of individuals or societies - as is the case between America and Japan, or as is the closeness between Europe and America. Can we level with that remaining other, i.e. the Islamic East, and communicate with sincerity? If we can, then all the previously-asked questions are achievable, and would not take five decades - there’s internet nowadays.
Mr. Salamé goes on to say: “Arab politics has never divided Arabs as much as it does today, but Arab culture, propelled and popularized by the new media, has never integrated them so deeply.”
Many Middle Easts are concurrently being built, and though it is hard to say which of those is going to ultimately have the upper hand, two conclusions can hardly be disputed. The first is that you cannot build a new Middle East if you have no idea of the old one; and the second is that in order to reshape that part of the world, you need to do it with and for Middle Easterners, neither against them nor in their lieu and place. Though quite banal, these two basic rules have been largely ignored by the West in the recent past, opening the way for non-Western powers to get a rapidly-growing foothold in the region and, more importantly, giving regional players in the Middle East the chance to try and reshape it by and for themselves.
Ladies and gentlemen, let us use all the available tools to the extent possible, and let us do it as soon as possible, but let us do it with sincerity. Let us tell the true American story, and let us tell them that we are on a par as human beings, and that what we have is also rightfully theirs, and that we as Americans are here to help, not because we are a greater nation, but because “We the people of the United States Of America” can as well be “We the people of the Middle East.”
Let us stand firmly by the side of those who share our values – and not necessarily our opinion, in that we establish credibility, i.e. respect. Let us also promote what we believe in to those who have not had the chance to see it the way we do, but let us do it with humility, in that we establish sincerity, i.e. affinity. Let us make the bulk of them see the bright side of possibilities for the future that lie in the same values we aspire to, in that there is mutuality, and in that there’s the ultimate bonding, and that is trust.
Establish trust and you establish hope, and by that all walls and curtains will fall. Just like the Berlin Wall did.
Thank you.
The above speech was given at the Aspen Institute in Washington on September 15, 2010