LCCC
ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِOctober
24/2011
Bible Quotation
for today/Coming Persecutions)
Matthew 10: "16-24: "Listen! I am sending you out just like sheep to a pack of
wolves. You must be as cautious as snakes and as gentle as doves. Watch out, for
there will be those who will arrest you and take you to court, and they will
whip you in the synagogues. For my sake you will be brought to trial before
rulers and kings, to tell the Good News to them and to the Gentiles.19 When they
bring you to trial, do not worry about what you are going to say or how you will
say it; when the time comes, you will be given what you will say. For the words
you will speak will not be yours; they will come from the Spirit of your Father
speaking through you. People will hand over their own brothers to be put
to death, and fathers will do the same to their children; children will turn
against their parents and have them put to death.22 Everyone will hate you
because of me. But whoever holds out to the end will be saved. When they
persecute you in one town, run away to another one. I assure you that you will
not finish your work in all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
No pupil is greater than his teacher; no slave is greater than his master. So a
pupil should be satisfied to become like his teacher, and a slave like his
master. If the head of the family is called Beelzebul, the members of the family
will be called even worse names!
Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from
miscellaneous sources
What the al-Assad regime does not
understand/By: Tariq Alhomayed/October
23/11
As’ad Abukhalil: America’s
Hezbollah Propagandist/By: Attorney John Hajjar/posted on October 17/11
Charbel’s law/By:
Matt Nash/October
23/11
Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for October
23/11
Tarshish Violation to Land on
Information Committee Agenda as Residents Warn to Hold Sit-in
Geagea asks Sleiman about Tarchich
developments
Tarchich mayor: Hezbollah
threatening another May 7
Future bloc MP Hadi Hobeich: Arab
Spring does not threaten Christians
Kataeb bloc MP Fadi al-Haber:
Non-state weapons weaken confidence in economy
Canadian activist charged with
exporting weapons to Lebanon
Russian envoy: we support Hariri
tribunal
Report: Zasypkin-Saniora Meeting
Came upon Orders from Russian Authorities
Iranian envoy meet Lebanese army
commander
Air show wows Beirut
Lebanon's Arabic press digest -
Oct. 23, 2011
Lebanese delegation heads
to Libya to follow up on Sadr case
No Progress in Attempts to Find
Solution to Promotion of al-Hassan
New Security Council members likely
to vote against Palestinian UN membership, diplomats say
Scores Injured as Strong 7.3 Quake
Hits Turkey
Riyadh advises citizens to stay
away from Downtown Beirut: report
US pullback to leave 30,000 Iranian
Al Qods fighters sitting in Iraq
Gadhafi unburied,
Libyans manoeuvre for new era
After Gadhafi, What's Next For The
Arab World?
UN nuclear inspectors to visit
Syria
Abdul-Jalil upset over manner of
Gaddafi's death - NTC official
Saudi Crown Prince
Sultan dies, focus on Prince Nayef
Former STL President
Antonio Cassese dies
Manila asks citizens
to respect deployment ban to Lebanon
Syrian leader names new governors as
protests mount
Tarshish Violation to Land on
Information Committee Agenda as Residents Warn to Hold Sit-in
Naharnet /MPs will seek to put the issue of Hizbullah’s attempt to expand its
telecommunications network in Tarshish near the eastern town of Zahle on the
agenda of the information committee on Wednesday as the town’s residents have
warned they would resort to a sit-in if the authorities do not take any
action.An Nahar daily said Sunday that the lawmakers would try to discuss the
controversial issue at the parliamentary information committee meeting that is
set to study the media law. Hizbullah official Hussein Janbey has stressed that
the expansion of the network was only aimed at guaranteeing a “safe contact with
our families and friends in nearby Majdel Tarshish” town, Tarshish Municipal
chief Gaby Semaan told An Nahar and al-Mustaqbal newspapers. Majdel Tarshish is
a mixed Christian-Shiite town. Semaan stressed, however, that Tarshish residents
and party representatives have decided to reject “at any cost” Hizbullah’s
operations. He warned they would resort to holding a sit-in “for the use of
force against them” after Janbey allegedly told them “no matter what you do, we
will expand the network as we have done in other Lebanese regions.”Semaan
thanked Phalange party chief Amin Gemayel and his son MP Sami for supporting
Tarshish residents. The Phalange officials have slammed the government for
standing idle towards Hizbullah’s telecom network that is intertwined with the
network of state institutions
Geagea asks Sleiman about
Tarchich developments
October 23, 2011 /Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea on Sunday contacted
President Michel Sleiman to follow up on the latest developments in the Baabda
town of Tarchich following Hezbollah’s reported attempt to install its own
telecommunications network in the town. “Sleiman told Geagea that he is
following up on the issue and reassured him that there will be no
complications,” according to a statement issued by Geagea’s office. MTV reported
on Friday that Hezbollah threatened residents of Tarchich after they prevented
party members from installing a telecommunications network in the town. -NOW
Lebanon
Tarchich mayor: Hezbollah threatening another May 7
October 23, 2011 /Tarchich mayor Gaby Semaan said on Sunday that “Hezbollah
threatened another May 7 if the [Baada] town’s residents insist on preventing
the [party from] installing its telecommunications network.”“No competent
ministry was called to follow up on Hezbollah’s attempt to install its
telecommunications network in the town,” he told MTV.On May 7, 2008 gunmen led
by Hezbollah began a military operation and took over West Beirut following a
government decision to shut down the party’s telecommunications network and
replace the security chief at Rafik Hariri International Airport because of his
alleged ties to Hezbollah. MTV reported on Friday that Hezbollah threatened
residents of Tarchich after they prevented party members from installing a
telecommunications network in the town. -NOW Lebanon
Future bloc MP Hadi Hobeich: Arab Spring does not threaten Christians
October 23, 2011/Future bloc MP Hadi Hobeich said on Sunday that “no one has the
right to say that the Arab Spring poses a danger the Christians’ presence in the
Middle East.”
“Christians have always stood by the principles on which the Arab Spring is
based,” Hobeich told Future News. He also said that the Christians’ “Our Lady of
the Mountain” gathering “aims at fortifying the position and role of Christians
[in the Middle East].” The Arab Spring, also known as the “Jasmine Revolution,”
is a revolutionary wave of protests that has stormed the Arab world since
December 18, 2010. So far, the Egyptian, Tunisian and Libyan regimes have
fallen, while Bahrain, Yemen and Syria have experienced massive civil unrest
-NOW Lebanon
Kataeb bloc MP Fadi al-Haber: Non-state weapons weaken confidence in economy
October 23, 2011 /Kataeb bloc MP Fadi al-Haber said on Sunday that “non-state
weapons weaken confidence in the [Lebanese] economy,” in reference to
Hezbollah’s arsenal.
“The government does not represent all the Lebanese people,” he told the Voice
of Lebanon (100.5) radio, adding that “it is difficult for it to persist.”
Haber also commented on the reported installation of Hezbollah
telecommunications lines in the Baabda town of Tarchich. “Hezbollah is placing
Lebanon under house arrest and conquering all the services of the state.”MTV
reported on Friday that Hezbollah threatened residents of Tarchich after they
prevented party members from installing a telecommunications network in the
town. -NOW Lebanon
US pullback to
leave 30,000 Iranian Al Qods fighters sitting in Iraq
DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis
http://www.debka.com/article/21412/
October 23, 2011/ Ten days have gone by since President Barack Obama accused
Iran of instigating a foiled plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to
Washington last April. Yet neither the US nor Saudi Arabia has done anything
about it – even at the UN.
Friday, Oct. 21, Obama reaffirmed that all US soldiers will be brought home from
Iraq by the end of the year. Two days later, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
pledged in Tajikistan: "To countries in the region, especially Iraq's neighbors,
we want to emphasize that American will stand with our allies and friends,
including Iraq, in defense of our common security and interests."
She spoke as the Obama administration was preparing to pull out of Iraq, leaving
in Baghdad a government and national army incapable of defending the country
against widening cycles of terror, headed by a prime minister under Tehran's
thumb and more than 30,000 armed members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards'
terrorist arm, al Qods Brigades, deployed there.
Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki is so completely in thrall to Iran that he was
afraid to accede to Washington's insistent demand for immunity to be extended to
at least 5,000 US soldiers remaining in Iraq, although left on his own he would
have been inclined to do so.
The eight-year US military presence in Iraq ends therefore leaving Iran sitting
pretty on its two key strategic goals:
1. The exit of American soldiers, whose presence in Iraq since the 2003 invasion
was deemed in Tehran a continuous threat to its borders. US military involvement
in Afghanistan is seen in the same light.
2. A weak Shiite-led government in place in Baghdad, heavily dependent on
Tehran's will. Torn by strife among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, Iraq is in no
state to obstruct Iran's hegemonic plans for the Persian Gulf and Syria.
The Iranian regime's right hand for achieving those goals was – and is - Al Qods
commander Lt. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the man also accused by Washington of
masterminding the assassination plot.
Washington is well aware of Soleimani's capacity for interfering with American
interests. Indeed he crows about it.
Last July, US sources leaked a message he posted in 2008 to Gen. David Petraeus,
then head of US Central Command and now CIA Director: "General Petraeus, you
should know that I, Qassem Suleimani, control the policy for Iran with respect
to Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza and Afghanistan. And indeed, the ambassador in Baghdad is
a Quds Force member. The individual who's going to replace him is a Quds Force
member."
He was flaunting his control of Baghdad at American expense.
Since then, he has expanded this control, debkafile's military sources report,
by injecting 30,000 al Qods fighting personnel into Iraq, all trained in
guerrilla tactics to the standards of Western and Middle East elite units.
At least half are deployed in Baghdad in the guise of bodyguard units Iraqi
government members and political figures have hired from local firms. Most of
the Shiite figures in government and parliament are now using al Qods details
for protection. This makes the easily vulnerably to manipulation from Tehran.
Today, Al Qods has the run of Baghdad's Green Zone, the top-security enclave
built a cost of billions of American dollars to keep the US embassy and high
commands in Iraq and its seat of government safe from terrorist bombs.
After the US military drawdown in just over two months, the 16,000 US embassy
staffers remain in the Green Zone, including 5,000 security officers from
civilian contractors.
They will stand eyeball to eyeball with a like number of al Qods operatives
defending the pro-Iranian Iraqi government. It is on this jarring note that
America is about to end its war in Iraq.
Riyadh advises citizens to stay away
from Downtown Beirut: report
October 23, 2011/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: The Embassy of Saudi Arabia in Lebanon has advised its citizens to avoid
the area of Downtown Beirut, Al-Hayat reported Sunday.
Sources at the embassy told the Pan-Arab newspaper that the advisory was also
sent to Saudi tourists and students in the country.
The advisory, sources told the newspaper, was prompted after a series of
harassment cases against Saudi nationals which followed the an assault of a
Saudi prince in August.
UN nuclear inspectors to visit
Syria
The Guardian/Against
the backdrop of the Syrian revolt, the IAEA will seek answers on a 'likely'
nuclear reactor
In the next few days, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency are
due to arrive in Damascus for the first time in more than three years to talk
about the Dair Alzour site, bombed by Israel in 2007. In May, the IAEA declared
that the site was 'very likely' a covert nuclear reactor under construction, and
has referred the issue to the Security Council.
Since an agency visit in 2008, Syria stonewalled on further cooperation. The
regime however is now fighting for its life and seeking to prevent the formation
the kind of international consensus on its fate that proves so fatal for Muammar
Gaddafi. So the inspectors are on their way back to Damascus, which should make
for an interesting mix of nuclear politics and pro-democracy revolt.
Olli Heinonen, the IAEA's former chief inspector, sent these thoughts on the
imminent visit.
First, the IAEA's findings on Syria is an important attestation of an
information-driven safeguards approach that underpins strengthened safeguards
within the IAEA. The traditional core of IAEA verification continues to be
physical access to nuclear material, facilities, sites, and people. But in
situations where international inspectors are hampered or denied cooperation in
some or all of the above, varied approaches that include examining and
corroborating information available from: satellite imagery, procurement
activities, on-site inspection observations, and open source data, have been key
in supplementing the IAEA's findings. In the case of Syria, these additional
tools in the kit have led the IAEA to draw conclusions on the nature of the Dair
Alzour facility.
Second, even as Syria's dossier has been referred to the UN Security Council, it
remains a case of on-going investigation at the IAEA. Syria's statements
regarding the non-nuclear nature of the destroyed building have lacked details.
It has also failed to provide a satisfactory explanation to the uranium
contamination found at Dair Alzour. Syria has also not lived up to its
safeguards' commitments when it failed to report activities conducted at the
Miniature Research Reactor (MNSR) in Damascus involving nuclear material.
To move forward on the nuclear dossier, the IAEA together with Syria reached an
agreement in September last year that established a plan of action to resolve
issues related to MNSR. The plan included, inter alia, actions related to the
amounts and use of nuclear material concerning uranium conversion experiments.
The IAEA's subsequent investigations showed that its findings were not
inconsistent with Syria's statements concerning the origin of uranium used
during experiments undertaken, and on the origin of uranium particles found at
the MNSR. However, this does not mean that all nuclear material related issues
in Syria have been resolved. Questions concerning the source of uranium
particles found at Dair Alzour remain open. Uncertainties also continue to
surround nuclear material related activities that have a bearing on the
destroyed site, in particular, at one of the three locations which the IAEA has
unsuccessfully sought access since 2008.
We also know that the kind of reactor which was being constructed at Dair Alzour
was neither suitable for isotope production nor for nuclear R&D purposes. And it
was also too small to be meaningful for electricity generation. Rather, it
resembled a plutonium production reactor similar to one that North Korea
operated in Yongbyong.
So while the work plan is important to progress matters when meaningfully
applied, the IAEA has the opportunity as well as onus to seek, in its meetings
this week with Syria, a broader and more comprehensive scope beyond what is
reflected in Syria's current offer. Dair Alzour is the focus of the problem, but
it is not the only problem, hence the need to address all nuclear material and
activities in Syria – such as foreign involvement in Syria's nuclear program and
related offers made including on uranium enrichment.
Ensuring safeguards is kept to a high and comprehensive standard is not an easy
business. Neither is it a job that necessarily endears itself to states. That is
because safeguards, at the end of the day, is about walking the walk.
Report: Zasypkin-Saniora
Meeting Came upon Orders from Russian Authorities
Naharnet /A meeting between Russian Ambassador Alexander Zasypkin and al-Mustaqbal
parliamentary bloc leader Fouad Saniora came upon orders from authorities in
Moscow, An Nahar daily reported Sunday. The meeting held between the two sides
on Saturday was attended by former Minister Mohammed Shatah. Zasypkin told
reporters following his talks with Saniora that Russia has always supported the
implementation of all U.N. Security Council resolutions on Lebanon, including a
resolution on the Special Tribunal for Lebanon that is set to try ex-Premier
Rafik Hariri’s suspected assassins. He also stressed Moscow’s commitment to
Lebanon’s sovereignty, stability, unity and justice. His remarks come after a
Hizbullah delegation led by Loyalty to the Resistance bloc leader MP Mohammed
Raad returned from its trip to Moscow where it held conversations on the
regional developments and the situation in Lebanon.
After Gadhafi, What's Next
For The Arab World?
October 22, 2011
As images of Moammar Gadhafi's body spread across the Arab world, protesters in
Syria and Yemen are issuing renewed calls for their own leaders to step down.
Weekends on All Things Considered host Guy Raz talks with Georgetown professor
Samer Shehata about Gadhafi's death and the ongoing Arab Spring protests are
reshaping the Middle East and North Africa.
Copyright © 2011 National Public Radio®. For personal, noncommercial use only.
See Terms of Use. For other uses, prior permission required.
GUY RAZ, host: There's a cartoon making the rounds on Facebook throughout the
Arab world. It shows five familiar faces, three of them have large red Xs
painted over them: Ben Ali of Tunisia, Mubarak of Egypt and, of course, Gadhafi
of Libya. And in the cartoon, a man with a can of red paint, a brush, approaches
two other photos: Bashar Assad of Syria and Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen. The
message is clear: These two are next.
Samer Shehata teaches Arab politics at Georgetown University, and he says Assad
and Saleh are paying very close attention to events in Libya.
SAMER SHEHATA: The death of Gadhafi and the fall of the regime is clearly
worrying to them, and there are thousands, if not millions of people who want a
similar fate for Bashar al-Assad in Syria and Ali Abdullah Saleh. There had been
protests with millions of people demonstrating for months now. And, of course,
what's happened to Gadhafi has certainly energized the protesters. Another Arab
despot has met his fate, someone who was in power tyrannizing Libyans since
1969. So incredibly, incredibly important.
RAZ: Samer Shehata, it occurred to me when I saw all those brutal, gruesome
images of Gadhafi dead that those images are also being seen in Syria, right?
SHEHATA: I think they've seen those images on television. They've certainly seen
those images on the Internet, and we have seen references in the protest that
occurred afterwards to Mr. Gadhafi and his fate asking, is Bashar al-Assad and
is Ali Abdullah Saleh next, or really when will their times come?
And if one were to put themselves in Assad's shoes in Syria, he's got really two
options. He can either flee or crackdown even harder. Or, of course, he has
another option, which is to either give up power, or to flee to Saudi Arabia or
some other country, or really to withdraw the Syrian armed forces and engage in
some kind of serious reform that'll produce a fundamentally different Syria with
human rights and democracy and elections and so on.
I think that's unlikely, but certainly that option is there. And I think if Mr.
Assad wants a fate that is not that of either Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Mr.
Mubarak in a cage on trial in Egypt or Mr. Gadhafi brutally killed, then that
would be the best option for him.
RAZ: It's been a remarkable year in the Arab world and North Africa, Tunisia,
Egypt, Libya. Syria and Yemen now await their fate. What happens from here? I
mean, are Arab societies fundamentally changed?
SHEHATA: Well, I think it is the case that there has been a fundamental
political change. But I think what it shows really is it dispels the old claim
that somehow the Arab world was exceptional, that somehow the Arab world was
inimical to democracy or ideas of freedom and justice and so on. No. I think the
whole world have seen that people from Tunisia, to Syria, to Yemen and elsewhere
want to live in dignity, want freedom, do not want dictators ruling their lives
for decades. I think that's what it shows, and I think there's no going back.
RAZ: Samer, the Arab Spring - the so-called Arab Spring uprisings throughout the
Arab world have really captured the imagination of the American public, a lot of
optimism about what can be in the Arab Middle East. Are you optimistic?
SHEHATA: I am optimistic in the medium and long-term. Where I'm a little bit
less optimistic is in the short-term because there's no guarantee that the
process of getting to fully consolidate a stable democracy is going to be an
easy one.
RAZ: It's going to be messy.
SHEHATA: It's going to be very messy. And we're seeing that already in places
like Egypt with the violence recently against Egyptian cops, or the somewhat
confusing and large number of political parties that have emerged in Tunisia -
they're holding elections now. So, certainly, it's not going to be a smooth road
to democracy. But I think the era of individual tyrants being in power for
decades - Moammar Gadhafi since 1969, Mr. Mubarak since 1981, Ali Abdullah Saleh
since 1978 - I think that era is over, and I think that that type of politics is
no longer acceptable, no longer even tenable in the Arab world in the future.
RAZ: That's Samer Shehata. He is a professor of Arab politics at Georgetown
University, talking about the Arab Spring and the future of the region. Samer,
thanks.
SHEHATA: You're very welcome.
Lady of the Mountain" gathering kicks off in Adma
October 23, 2011/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: A major gathering of Lebanese Christians, known as “the Lady of the
Mountain” gathering, met in Adma Sunday with the aim of mapping out the role
that Middle East Christians should play in the “Arab Spring.”
Meeting at Regency Palace Hotel in Adma, north of Beirut, the participants will
discuss the situation and role of Christian communities in the Middle East in
light of the “Arab Spring.”
The gathering, the eighth of its kind, is expected to issue a statement at 2
p.m.
The attendees, mainly of politicians and activists allied with the March 14
coalition, will also likely reject tying the presence of Christians in the
Middle East with the fate of Arab regimes, viewed as a response to controversial
statements by Maronite Patriarch Beshara Rai over the presence of Christians in
the Middle East.
While on an official visit to France in early September, Rai said President
Bashar Assad should have been given a chance at internal reform in Syria,
voicing concerns over the fate of Christians in the region should civil war
break out between Alawites and Sunnis.
The Maronite patriarch, who later said his remarks were taken out of context and
dismissed any concerns over the future of Lebanon’s Maronite community, also
tied the disarmament of Hezbollah to Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon, saying
that Hezbollah’s justification for carrying arms would collapse when Israel
withdraws from Lebanese territory.
Media reports said the gathering was also likely to call for regaining the
historical role of Christians in the Middle East and Lebanon, supporting the
right of the state to hold sole authority on defense of the country and the end
to what the gathering describes as the “dark period” of relations between Syria
and Lebanon.
Lebanon's Arabic press digest - Oct.
23, 2011
October 23, 2011/The Daily Star
Following are summaries of some of the main stories in a selection of Lebanese
and Pan-Arab newspapers Sunday. The Daily Star cannot vouch for the accuracy of
these reports.
Ad-Diyar
The gathering of “The Lady of the Mountain” is to encircle Patriarch Rai
It seems that the gathering of the “Lady of the Mountain” is a means by which
Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea and March 14 Christians can encircle
Patriarch Beshara Rai because of the latter’s ideas that are close to that of
the March 8 coalition.
Rai’s remarks were a warning about the Sunni Salafist movements. Consequently
the gathering of The Lady of the Mountain was a way of countering this view by
affirming that the danger is not from the Sunnis or from the Arab movements.
Meanwhile, the ambassador of the Vatican to Lebanon has sent home a report
regarding the division among Christians. The Catholic Church has responded and
Rai will be notified of that response Monday.
On another note, the affection that existed between Syria and MP Walid Jumblatt
has gone sour ... and it seems that at a recent meeting between Jumbllat and
Hezbollah chief Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah the two did not agree on many topics: in
fact, there were many disagreements and apparent differences in points of view.
The only exception to this concerned Jumblatt’s promise that he would never
withdraw from the Cabinet as part of a bid to force the government’s collapse
The deterioration in ties between Syria and Jumblatt started after the latter
offered the Syrian regime advice on how to solve the crisis in Syria.
Al-Mustaqbal
The Lady of the Mountain gathering today: An understanding, recommendations for
Christians and Arab Spring
The gathering of the Lady of the Mountain will meet today to discuss “the role
of Christians in the Arab Spring” while the security issues in Tarshish remain
present in the lives of Lebanese as well as issues that are related to living
conditions and the financing of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.
The case of the town of Tarshish remained in the spotlight after members of
Hezbollah attempted to extend their communications network into the town using
the Telecomunication Ministry’s network.
The mayor of Tarshish Ghabi Semaan said that the residents of Trashish were in a
state of altertness and would not allow the extension of the network, hoping
that the government would do something about the issue to prevent such a
violation.
He also said that a town meeting was held yesterday which gathered residents of
the town along with the head of public relations in Hezbollah Hussein Janbeih
and resulted in verbal altercations between the two sides because Janbieh said:
“Whatever you do, we will extend the network just like we did in the rest of
Lebanese areas.”
The mayor said: “Hezbollah is trying to extend their network through our area.
We have tried to stop them and succeeded because they did not have permission to
do so.”
He added that the residents vowed to handle this issue from now on because the
municipality could not do anything else.
He also said: “The residents reached a decision to prevent the network from
expanding and that is what happened,” adding that there was an army check point
“400 meters away from where [Hezbollah attempted to extend the network] but they
did not interfere.”
Ash-Sharq Al-Awsat
Saudi Arabia and the world bid farewell to the Sultan of good
The kingdom of Saudi Arabia bid farewell yesterday to Crown Prince Sultan bin
Abdel-Aziz who passed away due to an illness.
The custodian of the two mosques, King Abdullah bin Abdel-Aziz, said in a
statement that the crown prince died while receiving medical treatment in a
hospital in the U.S. and he expected the body of the deceased to arrive in the
kingdom Monday night.
World leaders offered their condolences to the kingdom. President Barack Obama
offered his condolences and described him as a dear friend to the United States,
while U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said he was a strong leader and a
hero for his country.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy praised the late crown prince who, Sarkozy
said, played an important role in developing the kingdom, adding that he had
been a loyal friend to France.
An Nahar:
The death of [Saudi Prince] Sultan delays Cabinet [meeting]
This appears to be the week that the candidates of political movements are
dominated by statements.
The Cabinet meeting has been postponed because of travel by Prime Minister Najib
Mikati to Saudi Arabia for the funeral of Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdel-Aziz.
Statements of condolences were made by leaders Kataeb Party leader Amin Gemayel,
former prime ministers Fouad Siniora and Saad Hariri and Mikati called the king
of Saudi Arabia.
Meanwhile, the Commission for Human Rights at the Parliament will look into the
kidnapping of the Jassim brothers and former Baathist official Shibli Aisamy.
As for the issue of Hezbollah trying to extend its network through Tarshish, the
mayor of the town said that the lines were there to “ensure secure access to kin
and comrades in Majdal Tarshish neighbors,” a mixed Maronite and Shiite village.
Abdul-Jalil upset over manner of Gaddafi's death - NTC official
By Abdul Sattar Hatita and Khaled Mahmoud and Amro Ahmed
Cairo, Asharq Al-Awsat – Controversy continues to surround Colonel Muammar
Gaddafi, even after death. However the controversy today is no longer regarding
his outlandish behavior or wardrobe, but rather the circumstances surrounding
his death, and where he will be buried. At the time of publication, the precise
circumstances surrounding the death of the former Libyan leader Colonel Muammar
Gaddafi remains unclear, whilst his body – alongside that of his son Mutassim –
is being held in an old meat store in Misrata.
A copy of Muammar Gaddafi’s death certificate, obtained by Asharq Al-Awsat,
reveals that he was shot in the head and chest. The death certificate also
claims that Gaddafi’s body exhibited signs that he underwent 3 surgical
procedures prior to his death.
The death certificate listed the former Libyan leader’s full name as: Muammar
Muhammad Abu Minyar Gaddafi, and was dated 20/10/2011. As for cause of death,
the death certificate recorded that Gaddafi’s death had occurred outside of the
Misrata hospital, as a result of “gun-shot wounds to the central chest region
and left-side of the head.” The death certificate was signed by Dr. Majdi
Hassan.
Video clips purporting to show the last moments of Gaddafi’s life have also been
unearthed and widely broadcast in the Arab and international media. In one video
clip, Gaddafi appears to tell the Libyan rebels in Arabic “what you are doing is
haram [religiously impermissible]” to which one Libyan rebel responds by
pointing his gun at Gaddafi’s head and telling him “you don’t know the
difference between right and wrong!”
The video clips – taken on the camera phones of Libyan rebels – show a bloodied
but alive Colonel Gaddafi remonstrating with the Libyan rebels who captured him,
before he is – still alive – dragged onto the hood of a pickup truck. Another
video clip appears to show Gaddafi being removed from the hood of the same
pickup truck, and it is clear that he was alive at this time. However in the
next images of Gaddafi, he is dead.
Libyan rebels interviewed by the international media following Gaddafi’s death
claim that Gaddafi was found injured and hiding in a sewage tunnel after a
convoy of cars fleeing Sirte was targeted by NATO air strikes. The Libyan rebels
claim that Gaddafi – armed with a gold-plated pistol and another platinum
revolver – did not try to resist capture at this point. Confronted by the baying
mob, Gaddafi is reported to have said “what is happening? What is happening? My
children, will you kill me? My sons, I am Gaddafi…the leader…what are you
doing?”
It is not known, at this time, whether he died of his wounds – he was bleeding
profusely from the left side of his head when captured – or whether he was
executed by the Libyan rebels, or indeed whether he was killed in crossfire
between Libyan rebels and pro-Gaddafi fighters after capture, as the Libyan
National Transitional Council [NTC] has claimed.
To make matters even more unclear, one Libyan rebel present during Gaddafi’s
capture – interviewed by the international media – claimed that the former
Libyan leader was killed by one of his men, seeking to spare him further
humiliation.
In one video clip, the Libyan fighters surrounding Gaddafi chant “God is
great…God is great” and fire into the air in triumph, whilst other Libyan rebels
can be heard shouting “don’t kill him, we need him alive.”
At one point, the former Libyan leader keels over and a Libyan rebel fighter
kicks him and scuffs dirt over his already blood-stained clothing. The Libyan
rebels can also be heard mocking the former Libyan leader, calling him a “rat”
in reference to his famous speech in which he called the Libyan protesters
“cats”, “rats”, and “cockroaches.” Gaddafi is also seen putting his left hand up
to his head wound and then looking at his bloody fingers with a confused
expression.
The last images and video clips show Gaddafi’s corpse being rolled around on the
ground as rebels pull off his shirt.
An NTC official, speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat on the condition of anonymity,
revealed that NTC chairman Mustafa Abdul-Jalil was dissatisfied with the manner
in which the former Libyan leader died. Jalil reportedly said that the Libyan
people had missed a historic opportunity to capture Gaddafi alive and try him
for his crimes.
The NTC official told Asharq Al-Awsat “it was possible to avoid all that
happened [regarding Gaddafi’s death]” adding “imagine if we had captured Gaddafi
alive and presented him to the world in the dock, this would have been a
historic image that would have aroused the interest of everybody around the
word…without controversy.”
He also revealed that NTC Chairman Mustafa Abdul-Jalil was angry that some
Libyan rebel leaders sought to exploit Gaddafi’s death, confirming and
commenting on this without waiting for the official NTC response.
The NTC source said “Abdul Jalil and the NTC members were upset by the
deliberate appearance of Abdelhakim Belhadj, commander of the Tripoli Military
Council, to announce the death of Gaddafi.” He added “the manner in which
Gaddafi was killed harmed the NTC, and this is something that most NTC members
have said.”
Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat on the condition of anonymity, the NTC official also
stressed that “it is clear that the NTC members have been placed in an awkward
position” adding that “as you can see, they are now appearing on [Arab]
satellite television news channels defending and trying to justify how Gaddafi
was killed.”
As for the apparent divisions within the ranks of the Libyan rebels,
particularly between the Tripoli-based NTC and other Libyan rebel factions,
Asharq Al-Awsat has learnt that NTC Chairman Mustafa Abdul-Jalil may seek to
address this issue, and will ask the Libyan rebel factions to obey the
instructions of the NTC and begin to surrender their arms, in conjunction with
the establishment of a modern Libyan army.
What the al-Assad regime does not understand!
By Tariq Alhomayed
Asharq Al-Awsat
In the midst of the [international] engrossment with the killing of Muammar
Gaddafi, the al-Assad regime timidly announced that it might accept the Arab
League initiative, but that it rejects Qatar chairing the committee [to monitor
Syria’s adherence to this]. Important news, but not because of the al-Assad
regime’s agreement, but because this new position reveals that the Syrian regime
is fearful and horrified with regards to the changes taking place in the region
around it.
The al-Assad regime’s acceptance of the Arab League initiative now, albeit with
conditions, is no longer as influential or valuable, even if it previously
announced that it completely and comprehensively rejected this initiative. This
is because the death of Gaddafi at the hands of the Libyan rebels, 9 months
after the outbreak of the Libyan revolution, has changed the [political] balance
in the region, and may alter the international community’s view regarding the
proposed solutions to the Syrian crisis.
Gaddafi’s end, which was similar to his approach [to dealing with his own
enemies], tells us that international alliances are capable of eliminating any
tyrant on the condition that such a move has the backing of the people, and this
is precisely what happened in Libya, with the participation of NATO forces under
the leadership of France and Britain, with American support. The same is not out
of the question with regards to the situation in Syria. All that is required is
for a restricted area within Syria to be granted protection status, and the
Syrian army defectors to take refuge there and organize their ranks, with this
territory, of course, being provided with NATO air cover, along the lines of
what happened in Libya. Following this, we will find that the al-Assad regime
will be unable to do anything but issue audio recordings, and at this point it
will, of course, not be able to find any advantage from Hezbollah or Iraq or
Nouri al-Maliki. Indeed this is the same Nouri al-Maliki who congratulated the
Libyan people on the “fall of the tyrant” according to his statement, and that
is the very definition of irony, for look who is talking!
At this point, with the movement of international alliances [against Syria],
everybody will look to their own strategic interests, and forget sentimentality
or sectarianism. At this time, the Lebanese government will be focused on
maintaining its own cohesion, whilst Hezbollah will be focused on watching its
own back. As for the al-Maliki government in Iraq, it will be preoccupied with
maintaining its own cohesion in order to ensure that it does not collapse,
particularly as there have been protests against the Baghdad government, whilst
it has been conspicuously absent in the media. The same applies to Iran which
has been rocked by the repercussions following the uncovering of the
assassination plot targeting the Saudi ambassador in Washington, so how can
there be any military confrontation with the international community [over
Syria]?
What I mean to say is that the region has changed, as has the manner in which
the international community deals with it, not to mention Arab public opinion
that now sees nothing wrong with toppling tyrants, even if this comes at the
hand of the West. This clearly differs from the response following the toppling
of the Saddam Hussein regime; therefore the post-Gaddafi era will certainly be
different, and this is something that is also revealed by the western leaders’
responses to Gaddafi’s death. The al-Assad regime has failed to understand this
[change], and this can be seen in it trying to resurrect the Arab League
initiative that it previously comprehensively rejected.
What the al-Assad regime must understand is that it is too late; it wasted one
opportunity after another, exhausting its [political] tricks and ploys, and
today it finds itself in a situation where its only option is to offer genuine
and severe concessions, otherwise it will face a tragic ending. We have seen 4
different scenarios regarding the end of Arab rulers, each one worse than the
last. We have seen one Arab ruler’s end [hiding] in a hole, whilst another fled
his country, and a third has found his end on a sickbed in hospital, whilst the
last hid in a sewage tunnel [before being killed].
Question: "What does the Bible say about the end of the world?"
Answer: The event usually referred to by the phrase “end of the world” is
described in 2 Peter 3:10: “The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements
will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid
bare.” This is the culmination of the events referred to in the beginning of
that verse as “the day of the Lord,” the time when God will intervene in human
history for the purpose of judgment. At that time, all that God has created,
“the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1), He will destroy.
The timing of this event, according to most Bible scholars, is at the end of the
1000-year period called the millennium. During these thousand years, Christ will
reign on earth as King in Jerusalem, sitting on the throne of David (Luke
1:32-33) and ruling in peace but with a “rod of iron” (Revelation 19:15). At the
end of the 1000 years, Satan will be released, defeated again, and then cast
into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:7-10). At this point, the end of the world
described in 2 Peter 3:10 occurs. The Bible tells us several things about this
event.
First, it will be cataclysmic in scope. The “heavens” refers to the physical
universe – the stars, planets, and galaxies—which will be consumed by some kind
of tremendous explosion, possibly a nuclear or atomic reaction that will consume
and obliterate all matter as we know it. All the elements that make up the
universe will be melted in the “fervent heat” (2 Peter 3:12). This will also be
a noisy event, described in different Bible versions as a “roar” (NIV), a “great
noise” (KJV), a “loud noise” (CEV), and a “thunderous crash” (AMP). There will
be no doubt as to what is happening. Everyone will see and hear it because we
are also told that “the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.”
Then God will create a “new heaven and a new earth” (Revelation 21:1), which
will include the “New Jerusalem” (v. 2), the capital city of heaven, a place of
perfect holiness, which will come down from heaven and descend to the new earth.
This is the city where the saints—those whose names were written in the “Lamb’s
book of life” (Revelation 13:8)—will live forever. Peter refers to it as “the
home of righteousness” (2 Peter 3:13).
Perhaps the most important part of Peter’s description of that day is his
question in verses 11-12: “Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what
kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you
look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.” For Christians, this means
we should live our lives in such a way that we reflect our understanding of what
is going to happen. This life is passing away quickly, and our focus should be
on the new heavens and earth to come. Our “holy and godly” lives should be a
testimony to those who do not know the Savior, and we should be telling others
about Him so they can escape the terrible fate that awaits those who reject Him.
We wait in eager anticipation for God’s “Son from heaven, whom He raised from
the dead, even Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come” (1 Thessalonians
1:10).
As’ad Abukhalil: America’s Hezbollah Propagandist
October 17, 2011 ⋅ 4:10 pm ⋅ Post a comment
By: Attorney John Hajjar
There is much more to As’ad AbuKhalil than his faculty position at the
California State University (CSU) Center for Public Policy Studies. The
self-described “Marxist-Leninist”-turned-anarchist,” “feminist,” and “atheist
secularist” is also an America-bashing, jihad-promoting, anti-Semite.
As’ad Abukhalil is not your regular left wing, anti-American, pro-Jihadist,
anti-Israel instructor who misinform students in the classrooms in which he
lectures at a California college. Far worse than that, he is the top unofficial
US-based propagandist for Hezbollah and its terrorist acolytes. The Lebanon-born
militant is known in the Lebanese and Middle Eastern American communities as the
mouthpiece of Hassan Nasrallah in the world of petrodollar-funded Middle East
Studies of America. Abukhalil owns a blog called “The Angry Arab,” dedicated to
bashing the political enemies of Hezbollah in Lebanon, from US leaders such as
George Bush and Joe Lieberman to Arab governments including the Saudi,
Jordanian, Bahraini and Moroccan monarchies as well as Iraqi and Lebanese
politicians opposed to Iran and Hezbollah, such as Sunni PM Saad Hariri.
But one favorite person Abukhalil targets systematically is American-Lebanese
Professor Dr. Walid Phares. Abukhalil’s Phares derangement syndrome is deeply
rooted. Sheikh Hasan Nasrallah, the Secretary General of the terror group
Hezbollah, named Phares during the Cedars Revolution of 2005 as one of the
instigators of a 2004 UN resolution to end Syria’s occupation of Lebanon and to
disarm Hezbollah. Since then, the California-based blogger harasses Phares
online and levels unfounded and untrue attacks against him.
Abukhalil’s latest demonization of Phares was triggered as soon as Republican
frontrunner Governor Mitt Romney released his elaborate foreign policy platform
and the names of 25 prominent advisors on national security, including Professor
Phares. Abukhalil, an “expert” in demonization over the years, published a long
diatribe against Phares, filled with lies and fabrications and, most
importantly, omissions. Both Middle Eastern communities in America and Middle
East studies experts were shocked by the extent of Abukhalil’s rampage.
The propagandist wrote that “Phares’ first career began early in the Lebanese
civil war of the [sic] 1975-1990 when he allied himself with the right-wing
militias, armed and financed by Israel.” In fact, Dr. Phares, a lawyer and
writer since the early 1980s, was a law student when the civil war started in
1975. His first public action was when he published his well known book in
Lebanon in 1979, titled “Pluralism in Lebanon”. It was in Arabic, and it in he
called for the recognition of the country’s multi-ethnic society and called for
a federal solution.
Abukhalil ignored Phares’ book – and all other books he published between 1980
and 1987 including “Democratic Dialogue,” “Thirteen Centuries of Struggle,” “The
Lebanese Christian Democratic Thought” as well as “The Iranian Islamic
Revolution.” Abukhalil also ignored the hundreds of articles Phares published in
al Nahar, al Liwa, al Amal, al Ahrar and, in Phares’ own publication Mashreq
International, focusing on the identity of Lebanon, the minorities in the Middle
East, Islamic Fundamentalism and other hot issues of the time. Abukhalil seems
to dislike the fact that Phares “in his official curriculum vitae, describes
himself as a writer and lawyer in Lebanon at this time.” Is it because
Abukhalil’s record didn’t even exist in Lebanon’s debate in the 1980s?
Dr. Phares’ literature and research were recognized in Lebanon throughout the
1980s, like it or not. Moreover, Dr. Phares headed a number of NGOs such as the
“Gathering of the Christian intellectuals” and the “National Committee of
writers” and helped launch a Labor Union in 1988. All that evaporates in “The
Angry Arab” trash piece. What the Hezbollah propagandist is interested in doing
is to insist that Dr. Phares “assumed a political position in the hierarchy of
the militias and founded a small Christian party in the late 1970s and early
1980s.” Again, Abukhalil is not well informed.
For Phares was a leading member of a small political movement promoting
Christian-Democracy, headed by his brother in the early 1980s, before it was
revamped as a “Christian Social Democratic Party” in 1987, a party which, by
European political norms, would have been positioned in the center, politically.
The micro-politics of Lebanon’s Christian community escapes Abukhalil who never
researched it or published anything about it, according to archives.
Distorting history at will, Abukhalil writes that “after General Michel Aoun
assumed the presidency of Lebanon in 1988, Phares joined the right-wing
coalition known as the Lebanese Front, which consisted of various sectarian
groupings and militia. The Front backed Gen. Auon in his struggles against the
Syrian regime of Hafez al-Assad and the Muslims of Lebanon.”
Again, Abukhalil – who claims he is a Middle East scholar – blunders.
Aoun didn’t assume the Presidency but was appointed as a Prime Minister in 1988.
The Lebanese Front headed by Danny Chamoun wasn’t formed when Aoun became a
Prime Minister in 1988, but in 1990 when the Christian areas of Lebanon split
between Aoun and the Lebanese Forces of Samir Geagea. The Lebanese Front of
Danny Chamoun, which invited Phares’ social democratic party, later called the
“Labor Party”, to join the coalition, was precisely the one that called for
disbanding the militias, and obviously didn’t include militias. The Lebanese
Front which had Dr. Phares serving as Foreign Affairs director included the
National Liberal Party and a number of independent political personalities such
as MP and publisher Gebran Tueni (later assassinated by the Syrians), at the
exclusion of the Phalanges and of the Lebanese Forces. The latter, towards the
end of the Lebanese conflict, were in disagreement with the Lebanese Front. Dr.
Phares left Lebanon the year the Syrian army invaded the last free enclave and
as the Lebanese Front was disbanded. Abukhalil has no clue of this world of
Lebanese politics that ended in 1990. He definitely is no expert in Lebanon’s
political history, let alone the Middle East. He simply doesn’t read, but
proceeds only with hearsay.
He continues by referring to what he called Beirut newspaper accounts, two
clippings he photographed and claimed as research, to state that Dr. Phares
“served as vice chair of another front’s political leadership committee, headed
by a man named Etienne Saqr.” Again, the so-called instructor of Middle East
studies in California is confused.
Phares’ statements and lectures in the Lebanese press and his appearances on TV
and his radio interviews are in the hundreds and available in archives. The
“propagandist” is no researcher at all. For the Lebanese Front seized from
existence in 1990 with the assassination of his president Danny Chamoun, head of
the Liberal Party. Abukhalil was fooled by a clipping from the daily al Nahar
stating that former members of that political coalition, then in exile, were
planning to re-launch the coalition overseas in 1991, one year after the end of
the Lebanese conflict. It never materialized. But the “propagandist” instead
goes on to claim that there was a slogan that appeared on Beirut’s walls a
decade and a half earlier, during the real civil war of 1975 and quoted it
wrongly. There was no slogan by the the Guardians of Cedar militia stating “Kill
a Palestinian and you shall enter Heaven,” but rather graffiti appeared on
Beirut’s walls in 1976, among thousands of other similar ones, that every
“Lebanese (fighter) should kill a Palestinian (fighter)” – a slogan rejected
anyway by the first Lebanese Front launched in 1977. Abukhalil then enters the
chaos by claiming that “the Front was also backed by Iraqi president Saddam
Hussein, a bitter foe of the Syrians.” He meant the Lebanese Forces and General
Aoun as well during 1988, which was true, but this has nothing to do with Dr.
Phares who blasted the Iraqi Baathist regime in his writings of the 1980s, for
massacring the Kurds and Assyrians of Iraq.
Commenting on the departure of Phares from Lebanon and his emigration to the
United States, Abukhalil describes it as “resurfacing in Florida where he began
a second career as an academic ‘expert on terrorism.’ He obtained a PhD at the
University of Miami and seemed to model himself after conservative writer Fouad
Ajami, but without Ajami’s claims to scholarship.” This bashing of an eminent
scholar who projected the rise of urban Jihadism in the West in three books and
of the coming revolts in the Arab world, unmatched by any other book, is
indicative of Abukhalil’s obsession with Phares’ successful career.
He goes on to say, “I remember attending the founding meeting for the Lebanese
Studies Association in the 1990s, Phares entered the room hoping to become a
member. Once people knew who he was, the hostile glances were sufficient to
drive him out.” This episode as described never happened, for Dr. Phares was a
member of the Middle East Studies Association for years and attended and spoke
at many of its panels and had received an invitation to join the Lebanese
Studies Association. This could be Abukhalil’s angry imagination, easily
detectable from his blog’s name “The Angry Arab.”
Abukhalil rages against Phares’ career and successes showing significant
personal jealousy, perhaps. Abukhalil’s problem – he may not realize yet – is
that he is anti-American to the core, while the scholar he criticizes is
unashamedly a proud American. Most Americans would prefer the latter to the
rabid anti-Americanism of the Hebollah apologist. He fumigates at Walid Phares’
“Arabic name” that gave him “an indigenous aspect”, as if As’ad had eaten more
Hummos or Tabbuli in his life, or looks more Middle Eastern than Walid Phares.
Abukhalil hates it when Phares uses Arabic words, because perhaps the San
Francisco-based expert feels he owns the exclusive use of that language and only
anti-Americans can enjoy the use of Arabic.
But ridiculous statements aside, Abukhalil leaps into an obvious lie by claiming
that Dr. Phares “articulated Israeli definitions of ‘terrorism,’ in which
indiscriminate violence against civilians, even the killing of children, when
perpetrated by Israel, do not qualify.” On this charge, a good lawyer (even a
bad one) can take this reprobate to court for libel. Not only nowhere does Dr.
Phares ever use such sentences, but he devoted 30 years to expose genocide and
mass abuses from Sudan to Kurdistan to Iran. Abukhalil lost it right there and
will probably feel the heat of public questioning about this fabrication.
Next, Abukhalil reveals more of his personal antipathy for Dr. Phares when the
darling of al Jazeera and Iran-funded al Manar is frustrated that Dr. Phares
“became a regular on Arabic news channels, mostly on Lebanese right-wing news
channels, but also on channels controlled by the Saudis.” The man doesn’t have
his math right. For Professor Phares didn’t appear on Lebanese TV, (let alone on
right wing ones if they exist at all in Lebanon) for 19 years. But he certainly
was sought by Arab TV across the region including al Arabiya, the national
channels in Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Emirates, Algeria, Tunisia,
Iraq and more, in addition to the Arabic services of BBC, France 24, Russia al
Yom and, of course, al Hurra TV out of the US. In the Arab media sphere,
Abukhalil is known as the anti-American clown ranting against everything the US
does, and slamming any enemy of Iran’s regime, including the Saudis and the
Lebanese, Iraqi and other Sunni leaders; while Phares is sought constantly as a
calm analyst explaining, with precision, US policies even though Arab anchors
and producers know very well where Dr. Phares stands on issues. Abukhalil is a
rabid talker, not very much liked in the Arab media, precisely because he
doesn’t explain the issue well while Dr. Phares explains it articulately, in
context, and when needed, provides his opinion.
Abukhalil moves to his next frustration as he conceded that Dr. Phares “has even
made appearances on Aljazeera” and claims that “there is a curious difference in
Phares’ commentary for the Arab media. On Arab TV, he speaks cautiously and does
not make outlandish claims about Islamic terrorism. For all his pro-Israeli
statements in English, he never articulates them in Arabic.”
Abukhalil makes at least one factual blunder in each one of his statements.
For by visiting al Jazeera’s web site, one can easily view Phares’ many
appearances on cross fire shows where he strikes back with strength against
propagandists who are both Salafists and Khomeinists. On al Jazeera, Phares
predicted an Iranian uprising and an Arab spring years before his book The
Coming Revolution was published. Abukhalil and his acolytes in the anti-American
propaganda machine know that all too well, as do the anti-Jihadist liberals who
speak the language. Dr. Phares has received mail from as far away as Iran’s
Ahwaz Arabs, Sudan, the Berbers and women’s groups in support to his calls for a
rise against authoritarianism and Jihadism. Abukhalil serves the interests of
the Iranian regime; therefore, he isn’t popular with the democracy forces in the
region.
But it seems that deep below the surface of frustration with Phares’
achievements, Abukhalil has a personal beef. For Phares has refused to be on the
same panel with him, several times over the years, despite the fact that he
faced off with other authentic radical commentators. As early as a few weeks
ago, al Jazeera invited Phares to a panel with Islamist leaders who oppose his
views. He agreed to being on the panel but not with Abukhalil, precisely because
of the latter’s unprofessional behavior and his disrespectful blogging style.
Abukhalil – and some in the Blogosphere – are light analysts. They don’t see the
nuances in an academic analysis. He claims for example that Phares’ writings
“switched to a new argument: that Islam was the real threat to Western
civilization.” He adds “that toward that end, Phares can find—or concoct—links
between very different Islamic groups. In his analysis, Hezbollah, Hamas, and
Al-Qaeda amount to one global organization.” This last blunder on substance is
inexcusable.
If Abukhalil is indeed a professor of Political Science as he claims, he can
surely grasp what Professor Phares is stating, that precisely, it is a Jihadi
Islamist movement that is confronting the West, not Islam as a religion. In his
book The War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracy. Phares masterfully introduced
the notion that the Islamists and the non-Islamist Muslims are in a
confrontation inside the Muslim world. Abukhalil and his brand avoid this
debate, which would turn immediately to their disadvantage.
Last, consider Abukhalil’s cheap shot against his target. He writes that Dr.
Phares is not a “scholar” because he “has not been seen in Middle East Studies
conferences for many years.” As if the petrodollars-funded Middle East Studies
Association are the measurement of scholarship. Professor Phares is absolutely
right not to waste his time in the company of those compliant scholars who
thrive from Gulf or Iranian money gifted to their programs. Luckily a new
petrodollars-free association is now up and running, The Association for the
Study of the Middle East and Africa, headed by Professor Bernard Lewis, where
Professor Phares delivers his addresses.
In the end we must disclose why we qualify Abukhalil, and his ilk, as “Hezbollah
propagandists.” He appears constantly on Hezbollah-manned, Iranian-funded al
Manar TV, banned by the US Government for incitement to violence and
anti-Semitism. He also appears on Press TV, owned by the Pasdaran Iranian
revolutionary Guards – but not to defend the US, rather to bash it. In addition
he writes columns for the daily al Akhbar, funded by the Iranians in Beirut. And
to top it off, by his own words and broadcast on US radio, he meets with the
leader of a terrorist organization that killed hundreds of Americans in the
Middle East, the man he calls “Sheikh Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah.” It is ironic
that, when Hezbollah guides terrorists in Iraq to kill US military, let alone
been involved per the UN tribunal in the assassination of Rafiq Hariri, As’ad
Abukhalil is in the business of meeting with the head of a terrorist
organization and bragging about it in public.
And speaking of the Arab Spring, ask Syrian protesters about their frustration
with the Hezbollah propagandist who, out of the US, blasts the Syrian opposition
in the media, while Hezbollah kills innocent Syrians on the streets of Syrian
cities. While Congress and the Obama Administration have committed to bring down
Assad the dictator, US citizen As’ad Abukhalil blames the demonstrators rising
against Iran’s ally Bashar Assad.
As’ad Abukhalil, we know him, and the youth of the Arab spring know his advocacy
of Hezbollah. What puzzled us was the fact that Salon.com would open its pages
to a propagandist of this objectionable sort without even verifying the facts of
his story. As Abukhalil sinks in credibility, he takes the ship of Salon.com and
its parent company with him, down.
familysecuritymatters
Wikileaks and the Assyrian Church Patriarch in Syria
10-23-2011
Assyrian International News Agency
(AINA) -- A cable written by Maura Connelly, the Chargé d'affaires of the U.S.
Embassy in Damascus from 2008 to 2009, and published by Wikileaks, criticizes
the Patriarch of the Assyrian Orthodox Church, H.H. Zakka Ewas, for making
anti-American remarks.
The remarks were made at the opening session of a two-day international
conference, sponsored by the British embassy, entitled "The Message of Peace in
Islam," held on June 1 and 2, 2009. The Syrian Ministry of Religious Endowments
hosted the conference in cooperation with the British Embassy.
The Assyrian Patriarch was not present at the conference but was represented by
a priest (unnamed in the cable), who read the Patriarch's prepared speech.
According the to cable:
¶2. (SBU) A priest in the Assyrian Orthodox Church delivered the prepared speech
of the Assyrian Orthodox Patriarch Mar Zakka Ewas, who was unable to attend,
before a packed auditorium of more than 300 people. The Patriarch's speech
lambasted the U.S. for having manipulated the events of 9/11 for political gain.
The U.S., he said, preferred the "language of force" over the "language of
diplomacy" in its effort to "force its hegemony on the world and plunder the
world's resources."
¶3. (SBU) The speech blamed the U.S. for having failed both to develop a cogent
definition of "terrorism" and to delineate between "terrorism" and "resistance,"
as the rest of the international community had done. In fact, he argued, the
U.S. had used "Islamic terrorism" as a "Trojan horse to attack any part of the
world it wanted." Hoping to distance the Christian church in Syria from its
western counterparts, the Patriarch called on Syrian Muslims to continue living
in harmony with their Christian brethren and to remember that just as Islam did
not equal terrorism, the West was not exclusively representative of
Christianity.
The cable further says "UK Ambassador Collis, however, told Charge [Maura
Connelly] that the Assyrian Patriarch's remarks had been unacceptable and that
he (Collis) would raise the matter with the Ministry."
Reactions from the Assyrian community have been generally critical of the
Patriarch's statements while also dismissing them as not a genuine reflection of
his views. According to Assyrian community leaders, the Patriarch's statements
are calculated to keep the Syrian government from persecuting the church, whose
See is officially in Damascus and has been so for nearly 1500 years.
Freelance journalist Dikran Ego contributed to this report.
Copyright (C) 2011, Assyrian International News Agency. All Rights Reserved.
Terms of Use.
Canadian activist charged with exporting weapons to Lebanon
TORONTO AND MONTREAL— From Friday's Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Oct. 20, 2011
A Montreal activist of Lebanese origin who has been an outspoken critic of
Ottawa’s Middle East policies was charged Thursday with illegal export of
weapons to Lebanon.
The case appears to be of limited scale, with police saying that it involves
rifle parts found in airline luggage and that there will be no further arrests.
The accused, Mouna Diab, was released after promising to return to court.
More related to this story
•N.B. farmer jailed in Lebanon seeks extension of creditor protection in court
•U.S. blacklists Lebanese Canadian Bank
Ms. Diab, a 26-year-old Canadian citizen, is known for her involvement with
Muslim associations in Montreal and for pointed criticism of the Harper
government’s policy in the Middle East.
After the 2006 war between Israel and the Hezbollah forces that control the
southern part of the country and large parts of Beirut, Ms. Diab told local
newspapers she could sympathize with Lebanese who turned toward Hezbollah. She
said her relatives mostly live in the south, where the heaviest fighting and
bombardment took place.
“When you are being attacked and the only ones defending you are members of
Hezbollah, you will identify with Hezbollah. It’s normal,” Ms. Diab told Le
Devoir.
More than 1,000 Lebanese civilians were killed in the fighting, and Ottawa
conducted an emergency evacuation of thousands of Canadian citizens from the
country. Ms. Diab said the Canadian government reacted slowly to the crisis, and
she described its support of Israel in the matter as “shameful.”
Just this summer, she spoke out against the intervention of the West in the
Libyan civil war. Canadian warplanes took part in supporting rebel forces.
Ms. Diab’s legal troubles actually stem from the conflict between Israel and
Hezbollah forces in southern Lebanon. In August, 2006, the United Nations
Security Council passed Resolution 1701, which called for an end to hostilities
and asked all nations to prevent their citizens from supplying weapons to
factions in Lebanon.
Since then, federal regulations prohibit Canadians from supplying “directly or
indirectly, arms and related material … to any person in Lebanon.”
The RCMP’s Integrated National Security Enforcement Team began investigating Ms.
Diab last February, spokesman Corporal Luc Thibault said.
On May 19, Ms. Diab was arrested at Montreal’s Pierre Elliott Trudeau
International Airport as she was about to fly to Lebanon. “Weapons parts” were
found in her luggage, Cpl. Thibault said. “We are talking about AR-15 assault
rifles,” he said, referring to a firearm most commonly known by its U.S.
military version, the M-16.
Ms. Diab was charged on indictment. If found guilty, people who contravene the
regulation can face a prison term of not more than 10 years. Ms. Diab and her
lawyer, Richard Prihoda, declined to comment when contacted Thursday.
Charbel’s
law
Matt Nash, October 23, 2011
Now Lebanon/Interior Minister Marwan Charbel proposed a new electoral law that
will change the way Lebanese vote in the next election, if passed. (AFP
photo/Anwar Amro)
A draft electoral law for the 2013 parliamentary elections written by Interior
Minister Marwan Charbel introduces several reforms, but still drew the ire of
civil society groups and is unlikely to pass because of opposition from the
country’s political class.
The centerpiece of the draft legislation is proportional representation—a change
to the winner-take-all system used in previous elections and something reformers
have been demanding for years. Charbel’s proposal also calls for preferential
voting, meaning voters choose their two top candidates when casting ballots for
an entire list (also known as an open-list proportional-representation system).
Proportional representation means that districts can no longer be won by a
single list of candidates as easily. In past elections, if a list’s candidates
received 50 percent or more of the vote, all of the candidates got elected to
parliament, regardless of the fact that another list also received a significant
number of votes. Under Charbel’s law, if a district with 10 seats had two lists
that split the vote 60:40, one list would send six candidates to parliament
while the other would send four.
Which candidates are elected from a given list would be determined based on
preferential voting if Charbel’s draft becomes law. The minister proposed
letting voters choose two candidates from the list for which they vote. Once
vote counters identify how many seats each list won in a district, the list’s
candidates are chosen based on how many preferential votes they received, a
system the Lebanese Association for Democratic Elections (LADE), the country’s
largest electoral reform body, is against.
“We’re convinced that the mentality should be voting for a list, a strategy, not
for individual candidates,” Rony Assasd, a coordinator at LADE, told NOW
Lebanon. He said that, ideally, a list of candidates should present a specific,
detailed platform complete with plans outlining what candidates will
accomplish—or try to accomplish—if elected. An entire list should work together
to woo voters instead of individual candidates trying to rack up loyalty points,
he argued.
In announcing his draft law at a press conference earlier this month, Charbel
said that preferential voting is more democratic, giving voters more of a voice
in picking their representatives. Indeed, under a draft law LADE proposed—which
also calls for proportional representation—a list’s candidates would enter
parliament based on the order in which their names appear on pre-printed
ballots, meaning political parties who write the lists have more influence over
who gets elected than in a preferential-voting system. Lebanon has never used a
pre-printed ballot in elections, though the minister’s proposal mandates their
use.
Charbel also included other reforms civil society groups have long advocated
for, including a 30 percent quota on lists for female candidates and allowing
expatriates to vote from their countries of residence. That said, many in civil
society circles were put off because Charbel did not include them in the process
of writing his proposed law.
“A lot of work has been done [by civil society groups] to draft new [electoral]
laws,” Sylvana Lakkis, general manager of the Lebanese Physical Handicapped
Union—which has worked on electoral law reform—told NOW Lebanon. “That work
shouldn’t be forgotten. We should build on it, not ignore it.”
What riled reformers most, however, is Charbel’s law’s lack of an independent
electoral observation committee. The minister’s draft law does call for a
committee to oversee voting, but it will be part of, and subordinate to, the
Ministry of Interior. LADE held a demonstration last month to protest against
the fact that the committee is not fully independent.
LADE’s Assaad told NOW Lebanon that the organization is also upset with the
draft law’s suggestions on electoral districts. The law gives several options
for how to carve the country into voting districts (offering 10, 12, 13 or 14,
down from the 26 districts used in the 2009 election), and leaves it to
parliament to choose the option it prefers, should the law be approved. Assaad
said LADE would prefer larger districts, bringing the total number to between
six and nine.
There has been much debate as to which political parties would pick up the most
seats in a proportional-representation system, given that reaching 50 percent of
the vote would no longer give an entire district to one party or alliance of
parties. However, advocates of proportional representation hope that the real
advantage will be allowing independent candidates a chance to break into the
halls of parliament.
“Proportional representation should open the field for small groups and
independents,” Lakkis said.
That, in fact, seems the most likely reason why most major political parties
have either directly come out against the law or demurred, suggesting they need
more time to “study” it. While they may indeed fear losing a few seats to rival
parties or coalitions, the country’s political elite seem most concerned about
opening up the “old boy’s club” that is Lebanese politics to uncontrolled
upstarts running as independents, who in 2009 stood no chance of winning but who
could pull off a victory in 2013 with a proportional-representation system.